saw talking heads when I was much younger with their tom tom club. it was a great show. still remember some of it very well.
The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2015/07/22/coldest_summer_since_1992/
Red color mine.
"The first thirteen weeks of summer this year have been the coldest in Reykjavik in over twenty years, reveals Icelandic meteorologist Trausti Jónsson."
Red color mine.
"The first thirteen weeks of summer this year have been the coldest in Reykjavik in over twenty years, reveals Icelandic meteorologist Trausti Jónsson."
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science
"A tour de force list of scientific papers..."
- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist
"Wow, the list is pretty impressive ...It's Oreskes done right."
- Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist
"I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list."
- Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist
"An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW."
- Emil A.Røyrvik, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, SINTEF
"...it's a very useful resource. Thanks to the pop tech team."
- Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook
"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."
- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science
"A tour de force list of scientific papers..."
- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist
"Wow, the list is pretty impressive ...It's Oreskes done right."
- Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist
"I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list."
- Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist
"An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW."
- Emil A.Røyrvik, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, SINTEF
"...it's a very useful resource. Thanks to the pop tech team."
- Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook
1350 skeptic peer reviewed papers.
Why can't nitro and fraudcurrents produce 100 or 10 or even 2 that don't rely on now failed models.
Why can't nitro and fraudcurrents produce 100 or 10 or even 2 that don't rely on now failed models.
Don't confuse the models issue with the consensus issue. We do not know how, if there are any, the models produced by the authors of the 1,350 papers have performed.
But back on "show me the science!"
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Have fun drilling down, you have thousands, probably tens of thousands of authors and papers supporting AGW to dig through!
I am sure quite a few of the papers used models.
But their models were not taking data which shows co2 lagging temps but finding some reason to say they were the leader... but then of course failing when applied to real time data.
where are the authors and papers at your link. I have read IPCC papers when you dig down into the footnotes... you see things like our models do not predict the future and disclaimers which match up with what real scientists say... then the IPCC distorts it.
So give us a real link to real papers.
But their models were not taking data which shows co2 lagging temps but finding some reason to say they were the leader... but then of course failing when applied to real time data.
where are the authors and papers at your link. I have read IPCC papers when you dig down into the footnotes... you see things like our models do not predict the future and disclaimers which match up with what real scientists say... then the IPCC distorts it.
So give us a real link to real papers.
They have a tremendous amount of publications to organize. If you want to see just one paper, you will have to drill down from the methodology link at the top, through the various specialties and countries, etc., to get to the individual paper and authors levels.
Again, don't sidetrack to the models business. I am responding to your "show me the science" demand. That monumental pyramid of documentation IS the science, and it's complex.
And yet not a single respected climatologist denies AGW. None. Zero. Every science org in the world. Exxon. The Weather Channel.
Do you know what a greenhouse gas is? Seriously. Any idea?
The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere.[1][2] If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere radiates energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.
On Earth, solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface. The surface itself emits energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases also radiate energy, some of which is directed to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]
If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is critical to supporting life. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]
On Earth, solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface. The surface itself emits energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases also radiate energy, some of which is directed to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]
If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is critical to supporting life. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]