Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
That wasn't what I thought you meant, but yes I did answer that question to him. Which incidentally exposed you for the ignorant hypocrite you are.
At least you admit you're in P&R for the sole purpose of trolling and masturbating your inflated ego, mountain fuck.
Wut did you say? tilt.
It's not as though you had a chance. You're simply out of your depth.
if any big govt loving leftists have some science showing man made co2 causes warming you might want to produce it soon because ...
The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to the panel of six.
Here is the press release, which somehow escaped everyoneâs a number of climate skeptic bloggers notice until now.
APS to Review Statement on Climate Change
February 20, 2014
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...is-and-joe-romms-heads-exploding/#more-105692
The American Physical Society, which previously issued a highly alarmist statement regarding climate change, is to review it, and has appointed three climate realists to the panel of six.
Here is the press release, which somehow escaped everyoneâs a number of climate skeptic bloggers notice until now.
APS to Review Statement on Climate Change
February 20, 2014
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...is-and-joe-romms-heads-exploding/#more-105692
Polar Bear study walked back or invalidated.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...em-as-threatened-now-invalidated/#more-106176
As the PBSG said about the 2006 estimate:
ââ¦it is important to note that there is the potential for un-modeled spatial heterogeneity in mark-recapture sampling that could bias survival and abundance estimates.â [my emphasis]
âSpatial heterogeneityâ means that the sampled bears could have come from more than one population, a possibility which violates a critical requirement of the statistics used to generate the population and survival estimates. âUn-modeledâ means that the âmovement of bearsâ problem was not factored into the mathematical models that generated the 2006 population size and survival estimates as it should have been.
Ecologist Jim Steele pointed some of this out in his book and his guest post last year, so itâs not news that this was done.
Whatâs shocking is that the PBSG have now admitted that the âmovement of bearsâ issue essentially invalidates the 2006 population estimate and the much-touted âreduced survival of cubs.â The reduced survival of cubs data from that SB study was a critical component of the argument that US bears were already being negatively impacted by global warming and thus, should be listed as âthreatenedâ under the ESA (US Fish & Wildlife Service 2008).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...em-as-threatened-now-invalidated/#more-106176
As the PBSG said about the 2006 estimate:
ââ¦it is important to note that there is the potential for un-modeled spatial heterogeneity in mark-recapture sampling that could bias survival and abundance estimates.â [my emphasis]
âSpatial heterogeneityâ means that the sampled bears could have come from more than one population, a possibility which violates a critical requirement of the statistics used to generate the population and survival estimates. âUn-modeledâ means that the âmovement of bearsâ problem was not factored into the mathematical models that generated the 2006 population size and survival estimates as it should have been.
Ecologist Jim Steele pointed some of this out in his book and his guest post last year, so itâs not news that this was done.
Whatâs shocking is that the PBSG have now admitted that the âmovement of bearsâ issue essentially invalidates the 2006 population estimate and the much-touted âreduced survival of cubs.â The reduced survival of cubs data from that SB study was a critical component of the argument that US bears were already being negatively impacted by global warming and thus, should be listed as âthreatenedâ under the ESA (US Fish & Wildlife Service 2008).
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds, contrary to popular belief, that US âmonthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing â perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling [over the past century].
In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.â
In essence, this paper is saying the weather/climate has become less extreme, with little to no change in maximum temperatures âand even some coolingâ of maximum temperatures in some stations, and warming of minimum temperatures. Thus the temperature range between minimum and maximum temperatures has decreased, a less extreme, more benign climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...ooling-maximum-temperatures-flat/#more-106253
In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.â
In essence, this paper is saying the weather/climate has become less extreme, with little to no change in maximum temperatures âand even some coolingâ of maximum temperatures in some stations, and warming of minimum temperatures. Thus the temperature range between minimum and maximum temperatures has decreased, a less extreme, more benign climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/...ooling-maximum-temperatures-flat/#more-106253
... interesting article... here is a segment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/#more-106553
However, there is not compelling evidence that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earthâs temperatures prior to 1950, i.e. âClimate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750âomitting observed increases in greenhouse gasesâare able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.â NASA Earth Observatory âThe observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.â NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000 âInternal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.â Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: âThere exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950â³. EPA
So how to clear up this confusion? Letâs take a look at the dataâ¦
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/29/when-did-anthropogenic-global-warming-begin/#more-106553
However, there is not compelling evidence that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earthâs temperatures prior to 1950, i.e. âClimate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750âomitting observed increases in greenhouse gasesâare able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.â NASA Earth Observatory âThe observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.â NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000 âInternal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.â Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: âThere exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950â³. EPA
So how to clear up this confusion? Letâs take a look at the dataâ¦