It's probably a skewed result because half of the testimonies will have been selected by republicans because they are reject the mainstream science. This makes the finding even more surprising. For a more balanced view you can look to the statements made by scientific organizations.
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Several evangelical groups have praised Pope Francis' major encyclical on the environment released on Thursday, which warns that climate change is real and is impacting all of God's creation, including impoverished people in different corners of the world. Francis said that it's wrong to treat nature and other living creatures as "mere objects" for "human domination."
"We are grateful that the pope has joined with over 300 Evangelicals like Rick Warren, Rich Stearns, and Bill Hybels, and other Christian leaders who understand climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time and the greatest opportunity for hope. It's time to make hope happen by fueling the unstoppable clean energy transition, stopping the ideological battles, and working together," said in a statement Rev. Mitch Hescox, president & CEO, Evangelical Environmental Network.
"Creating a new energy economy that benefits all and addresses climate change is not about a political party but living as a disciple of Jesus Christ. We urge all people of good will, especially fellow Christian conservatives, to read and study these timely words from Pope Francis."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/n...
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/n...
If you are worried about the radiation then you have another good reason to switch from coal to nuclear. "the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." - http://www.scientificamerican....
And then you need to consider the turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries, not years. - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
Yes, what is interesting about this is who wrote it-- this is one of the first detailed analyses of the methods and costs of dealing with global warming that I've seen that is not from an advocacy group, and is written by people who actually have a clue about real world economics.
Here is a survey of economists who also generally do not have a stake in a transition to the new energy economy: There is a strong consensus among the top
economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real
danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies.
Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing
greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action. - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
Compare deaths from nukes vs deaths from coal. There is no comparison. For each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. Nuclear is by far the safer option - http://www.the9billion.com/201...
According to the satellite data, the trend of the last 18 years is greater than the trend prior to the last 18 years:: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
so your entire problem is that you don't think they're comparing the proxies to the actual recorded temperatures in the best manner.
His original claim was that: "it very clearly shows temperatures as measured by proxy records matched or exceeded todays temperatures on multiple occasions in the last 2k years." even though it shows that historic temps only really matched the '50s, and it is now much warmer than the '50s. He then claimed (but never showed) that you can't compare proxies to actual temperatures. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, that doesn't support his original claim at all.
Incidentally, if you are not a fan of the MBH study, there are hundreds of others you can look at. They all paint a similar picture. NOAA has compiled a list of 370 here for your perusal. Original data and metadata are included: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/...
It is possible that reconstructions lack the fidelity to capture some point during the MWP that was warmer than today. Things weren't so great in California during the MWP due to extreme and persistent drought. Possibly we have committed ourselves to a return to those conditions but possibly we have a chance to divert that fate.
The only way to declare the temperature since 1990 is warmer than any temperature in the proxy reconstructions, is to go out and take data from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT dataset!
According to your paper, the MWP was about as warm as the '50s, and possibly as warm as the '90s. It is now much warmer than the '90s. It will continue to warm as long as we continue to release CO2. None of this is controversial.
here's the subseta of that data that they chose to analyze, 1993-2012:
That is very curious. Why start at 1993 which is a local minimum and compare to data starting at 1998 which is a local maximum? The effect would be to exaggerate the trend in the first and minimize the trend in the second. Here are all three of your graphs combined: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... Curiously, the trend starting at 1998 is very close to the actual long term trend - even though it starts at a (then) extraordinarily warm year due to an unprecedented El Nino event.
Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well defined peak in the period 950–1050 AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 C.
The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions
does not in any way contradict this:
Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”
In fact, the second sentence is from the very paper that you seem to want to use as proof that temperatures 1000 years ago exceed those today. it is curious that the blogger you follow omitted the second sentence... possibly not a trustworthy source.
Skeptical science says exactly would you did, and most of what they say is sourced against another blog(RealClimate.org) which was at least started by a pair of actual scientists, but is still itself not subject to peer review either... That's why I think the actual science must trump blogging by scientists.
You will be happy to note that the skeptical science articles in question reference Murphy 2009 Domingues et al 2008. Nuccitelli et al. (2012), Cowtan & Way (2013), Moberg et al. 2005, Mann et al. 2008, and Ljungqvist 2010 as well as NOAA and the AGU, but do not reference realclimate. Not bad if you think the actual science is important.
Also of note, the author of the very paper that you give as proof that temps 1000 years ago were warmer than today says their paper shows: "Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period." Do you think that the analysis of your blogger is more accurate than the authors own?
That is pretty idealistic. Most of the time people just go with whatever satisfies their belief system. If general relativity is considered inconvenient then they will find "evidence" that it is bullocks. It is not at all peculiar that Slashdot would go with the science rather than the fringe views. There are certainly sites you can go to if you want evidence of whatever fringe idea suits your fancy, but Slashdot generally is not it.
The lapse rate feedback is not unknown to scientists. While science cannot ever be considered 'settled', the range of possible values is bounded. It's about -0.8 Wm-2K-1 (Soden and Held, 2006). Uncertainty is estimated at about 0.1 Wm-2K-1 for both lapse rate and water-vapour feedback combined. (Randall et al., 2007).
If you try to censor people, they just get louder and less thoughtful and less articulate.
That is probably not possible. Thoughtless and inarticulate comments generally derail any substantive discussion. Youtube comments are a great place to go if you are looking for thoughtless and inarticulate. If you are looking for a more interesting conversation you probably need some method to filter out the nonsense.
That said, I think the slashdot moderation system does as good a job as anything else I've seen. I'm not suggesting that Slashdot should ban commenting. I'm only responding to the GPs despair that Slashdot generally promotes science based stories rather than sensational nonsense. To me that is a good thing. We don't need vaccine conspiracy stories hitting the front page.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not, but the consensus is driven by the science. That makes it a useful heuristic.
http://davidappell.blogspot.ca... "Johnson's remarks arose from a 1965 report to his Administration, “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment,” by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which had a chapter on CO2’s potential to cause warming.
How can you consider these to have already failed if they were not predicted to happen until 25-50 years from now?
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
Several evangelical groups have praised Pope Francis' major encyclical on the environment released on Thursday, which warns that climate change is real and is impacting all of God's creation, including impoverished people in different corners of the world. Francis said that it's wrong to treat nature and other living creatures as "mere objects" for "human domination."
"We are grateful that the pope has joined with over 300 Evangelicals like Rick Warren, Rich Stearns, and Bill Hybels, and other Christian leaders who understand climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time and the greatest opportunity for hope. It's time to make hope happen by fueling the unstoppable clean energy transition, stopping the ideological battles, and working together," said in a statement Rev. Mitch Hescox, president & CEO, Evangelical Environmental Network.
"Creating a new energy economy that benefits all and addresses climate change is not about a political party but living as a disciple of Jesus Christ. We urge all people of good will, especially fellow Christian conservatives, to read and study these timely words from Pope Francis." Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/n... Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/n...
- http://www.christianpost.com/n...
I guess all that's left for you to trust is Alex Jones, Breitbart, Fox News and Jesus. Good luck with that.
You've placed Jesus on the wrong list. He's on side with the economists/scientists/etc (so sayeth the pope): http://www.christianpost.com/n...
If you are worried about the radiation then you have another good reason to switch from coal to nuclear. "the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." - http://www.scientificamerican....
And then you need to consider the turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries, not years. - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
Yes, what is interesting about this is who wrote it-- this is one of the first detailed analyses of the methods and costs of dealing with global warming that I've seen that is not from an advocacy group, and is written by people who actually have a clue about real world economics.
Here is a survey of economists who also generally do not have a stake in a transition to the new energy economy: There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action. - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
Compare deaths from nukes vs deaths from coal. There is no comparison. For each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. Nuclear is by far the safer option - http://www.the9billion.com/201...
I love it when non-scientists try to tell us what science 'is'.
Good point. I think they are working on adding channels so you can filter the content. They're not quite there yet.
According to the satellite data, the trend of the last 18 years is greater than the trend prior to the last 18 years:: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
Ask, and receive! https://chrome.google.com/webs...
so your entire problem is that you don't think they're comparing the proxies to the actual recorded temperatures in the best manner.
His original claim was that: "it very clearly shows temperatures as measured by proxy records matched or exceeded todays temperatures on multiple occasions in the last 2k years." even though it shows that historic temps only really matched the '50s, and it is now much warmer than the '50s. He then claimed (but never showed) that you can't compare proxies to actual temperatures. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, that doesn't support his original claim at all.
Incidentally, if you are not a fan of the MBH study, there are hundreds of others you can look at. They all paint a similar picture. NOAA has compiled a list of 370 here for your perusal. Original data and metadata are included: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo/...
It is possible that reconstructions lack the fidelity to capture some point during the MWP that was warmer than today. Things weren't so great in California during the MWP due to extreme and persistent drought. Possibly we have committed ourselves to a return to those conditions but possibly we have a chance to divert that fate.
The only way to declare the temperature since 1990 is warmer than any temperature in the proxy reconstructions, is to go out and take data from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT dataset!
According to your paper, the MWP was about as warm as the '50s, and possibly as warm as the '90s. It is now much warmer than the '90s. It will continue to warm as long as we continue to release CO2. None of this is controversial.
Not if the gain is less than 1
here's the subseta of that data that they chose to analyze, 1993-2012:
That is very curious. Why start at 1993 which is a local minimum and compare to data starting at 1998 which is a local maximum? The effect would be to exaggerate the trend in the first and minimize the trend in the second. Here are all three of your graphs combined: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... Curiously, the trend starting at 1998 is very close to the actual long term trend - even though it starts at a (then) extraordinarily warm year due to an unprecedented El Nino event.
I hope you realize that this:
Our two-millennia long reconstruction has a well defined peak in the period 950–1050 AD with a maximum temperature anomaly of 0.6 C. The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions
does not in any way contradict this:
Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”
In fact, the second sentence is from the very paper that you seem to want to use as proof that temperatures 1000 years ago exceed those today. it is curious that the blogger you follow omitted the second sentence... possibly not a trustworthy source.
Skeptical science says exactly would you did, and most of what they say is sourced against another blog(RealClimate.org) which was at least started by a pair of actual scientists, but is still itself not subject to peer review either ... That's why I think the actual science must trump blogging by scientists.
You will be happy to note that the skeptical science articles in question reference Murphy 2009 Domingues et al 2008. Nuccitelli et al. (2012), Cowtan & Way (2013), Moberg et al. 2005, Mann et al. 2008, and Ljungqvist 2010 as well as NOAA and the AGU, but do not reference realclimate. Not bad if you think the actual science is important.
Also of note, the author of the very paper that you give as proof that temps 1000 years ago were warmer than today says their paper shows: "Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period." Do you think that the analysis of your blogger is more accurate than the authors own?
That is pretty idealistic. Most of the time people just go with whatever satisfies their belief system. If general relativity is considered inconvenient then they will find "evidence" that it is bullocks. It is not at all peculiar that Slashdot would go with the science rather than the fringe views. There are certainly sites you can go to if you want evidence of whatever fringe idea suits your fancy, but Slashdot generally is not it.
The lapse rate feedback is not unknown to scientists. While science cannot ever be considered 'settled', the range of possible values is bounded. It's about -0.8 Wm-2K-1 (Soden and Held, 2006). Uncertainty is estimated at about 0.1 Wm-2K-1 for both lapse rate and water-vapour feedback combined. (Randall et al., 2007).
You've removed the noise... but there's not much information left, either.
Fair enough. You are right. This one goes back to 1750 and removes the noise. Best of both worlds: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/s...
If you try to censor people, they just get louder and less thoughtful and less articulate.
That is probably not possible. Thoughtless and inarticulate comments generally derail any substantive discussion. Youtube comments are a great place to go if you are looking for thoughtless and inarticulate. If you are looking for a more interesting conversation you probably need some method to filter out the nonsense.
That said, I think the slashdot moderation system does as good a job as anything else I've seen. I'm not suggesting that Slashdot should ban commenting. I'm only responding to the GPs despair that Slashdot generally promotes science based stories rather than sensational nonsense. To me that is a good thing. We don't need vaccine conspiracy stories hitting the front page.