Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[futurecurrents]

The Weather Channel Position Statement
on Global Warming


More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/

 

[Trader666]

Lying with Statistics: The National Climate Assessment Falsely Hypes Ice Loss in Greenland and Antarctica
by E. Calvin Beisner and J.C. Keister

How fast are Greenland and Antarctica losing ice?

If you trust the National Climate Assessment (NCA), you’ll think, “Very fast!” And that’s intentional. The aim is to provoke fear so the American public will support the Obama administration’s aim to spend $Trillions fighting global warming.

Here’s how the NCA (in Appendix 4, FAQ-L) depicts the rate of loss from the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica:

Pretty steep declines, right? Downright scary.

But if there’s any way to depict trends guaranteed to be misleading, it’s depicting them in raw numbers without the context of proportion. The NCA should either have depicted the ice loss as percent—with graphs showing the whole span from 0 to 100—or as gigatons but spanning from 0 to the highest totals for the two locations.

What would the resulting graphs look like? To know that, you have to know the total mass of ice in both Greenland and Antarctica and the annual rate of loss. Neither is known very precisely, but working from widely accepted figures we ran the calculations. The results?

Greenland is losing about 0.1% of its ice per decade—that is, about 0.01% per year. At that rate, it will take a century for it to lose 1%.

Antarctica is losing about 0.0045% of its ice per decade—about 4.5/10,000ths of a percent per year. At that rate, it will take about 2,200 years for it to lose 1%.

Oh—and what would the graphs look like if drawn proportionally? Here you go:

No, the trend lines aren’t missing. They’re the red lines up at the 100% level of the graphs. Their slopes are so shallow that Greenland’s is barely perceptible—and Antarctica’s, not at all.

And the effect on sea level? Combined, about 1 millimeter per year—or about 3.3 inches by the end of this century.

Not quite so scared now?

But that’s not what the Obama administration intended. Now you know why it used the deceptive graphs.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...y-hypes-ice-loss-in-greenland-and-antarctica/

 

[jem]

n.... ice... ly done.

Lying with Statistics: The National Climate Assessment Falsely Hypes Ice Loss in Greenland and Antarctica
by E. Calvin Beisner and J.C. Keister

How fast are Greenland and Antarctica losing ice?

If you trust the National Climate Assessment (NCA), you’ll think, “Very fast!” And that’s intentional. The aim is to provoke fear so the American public will support the Obama administration’s aim to spend $Trillions fighting global warming.

Here’s how the NCA (in Appendix 4, FAQ-L) depicts the rate of loss from the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica:

Pretty steep declines, right? Downright scary.

But if there’s any way to depict trends guaranteed to be misleading, it’s depicting them in raw numbers without the context of proportion. The NCA should either have depicted the ice loss as percent—with graphs showing the whole span from 0 to 100—or as gigatons but spanning from 0 to the highest totals for the two locations.

What would the resulting graphs look like? To know that, you have to know the total mass of ice in both Greenland and Antarctica and the annual rate of loss. Neither is known very precisely, but working from widely accepted figures we ran the calculations. The results?

Greenland is losing about 0.1% of its ice per decade—that is, about 0.01% per year. At that rate, it will take a century for it to lose 1%.

Antarctica is losing about 0.0045% of its ice per decade—about 4.5/10,000ths of a percent per year. At that rate, it will take about 2,200 years for it to lose 1%.

Oh—and what would the graphs look like if drawn proportionally? Here you go:

No, the trend lines aren’t missing. They’re the red lines up at the 100% level of the graphs. Their slopes are so shallow that Greenland’s is barely perceptible—and Antarctica’s, not at all.

And the effect on sea level? Combined, about 1 millimeter per year—or about 3.3 inches by the end of this century.

Not quite so scared now?

But that’s not what the Obama administration intended. Now you know why it used the deceptive graphs.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...y-hypes-ice-loss-in-greenland-and-antarctica/

 

[futurecurrents]

 

[futurecurrents]

 

[jem]

the properly scaled images... per the post on last page.

 

[futurecurrents]

n.... ice... ly done.

No, it's bullshit and you know it.

You lying sack of shit.

 

[jem]

the bullshit comes from you.
the earth cycles up and down... we have been warming out of an ice age.
the fact is that we have no proof man made co2 causes warming... and even if we did no proof a little warming hurts us.

Especially in a world with a growing population we have to feed everyone and co2 makes us greener.

No, it's bullshit and you know it.

You lying sack of shit.

 

[futurecurrents]

the bullshit comes from you.
the earth cycles up and down... we have been warming out of an ice age.
the fact is that we have no proof man made co2 causes warming... and even if we did no proof a little warming hurts us.

Especially in a world with a growing population we have to feed everyone and co2 makes us greener.

If there is a hell you deserve to go there, you lying sack of shit.

 

[jem]

talk about you cognitive dissonance... if you had some science I would be on your team. I am an conservationist at heart which is the natural state for a conservative.
look at 21 minutes in on this video. Yields are going up. the earth is greening.

if you wish for me to change my position all you have to do is produce some science that shows that man made co2 causes warming.
even some observations that shows co2 leading temps instead of trailing would be a start.


the truth is, and you know it, that science has no idea of man made co2 is causing warming.

<iframe width="480" height="308" src="http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/49789102?v=3&amp;wmode=direct" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: 0px none transparent;"> </iframe>
<br /><a href="http://www.ustream.tv" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px; font-weight: normal; text-align: left;" target="_blank">Broadcast live streaming video on Ustream</a>

If there is a hell you deserve to go there, you lying sack of shit.