Where is futurecurrents?

[jem]

why? how do we know we want to cool down. we have billions more people to feed. Don't fall for the scare tactics.

The reality of this situation is... man made co2 might contribute a tiny fraction to warming and mans activities might change the albedo of the earth a bit also.

However, since the agw nutter models failed we know co2 is not nearly as powerful as the small minority of agw nutters and the media have been screaming their heads off about.

Additionally, being we have people to feed we would rather be a bit warmer than cooler...
and finally we really do not know if anything man does will overwhelm the earths natural feedback mechanism.

Rather safe than sorry... should be the strongest argument... because that is all the science we have... as you have no doubt learned not finding any peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming.

And if that were the argument, I would agree.

 

[OddTrader]

Here is my guess.

Historically, professionally trained scientists have been truly independent and critical thinkers, who have made collectively so much contribution to the benefits and advancements of human lives. They should have no reason for All and each one of them to dishonestly cheat the whole world through producing untruthful results.

Different voices for challenging the mainstream directions should be welcome, in order to ensure correct actions will be made.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[jem]

yes... that was before they were trained at our now very politicized schools... because of money.

I have a relative who has a "climatology" degree from an ivy.
his department was not really like the physics dept.

Additionally, there is no real consensus... if you read the links to the study... they only considered 77 scientists out of the 20000 who were surveyed. And the survey question is do you think man contributes to the warming.

That is very different than the bullshit agw nutters pretend they said.
The other studies have also been debunked. some in peer reviewed papers.

Here is my guess.

Historically, professionally trained scientists have been truly independent and critical thinkers, who have made so much contribution to the benefits and advancements of human lives. They should have no reason for All and each one of them to dishonestly cheat the whole world through producing untruthful results.

Different voices for challenging the mainstream directions should be welcome, in order to ensure correct actions will be made.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[jem]

this is a review of the recent paper by Cook which was ripped apart in a peer reviewed journal...



http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.


The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

 

[futurecurrents]

Ok right, I am guessing that the thermal insulating properties of water is greater than non-liquid like dirt etc. So are you saying then that the reason is warming is mostly due to the fact that the oceans are the ones efficiently storing the heat build up, and even at night they don't radiate away anywhere near what they stored? Or equivalently, water transfers heat from hot to cold places. This is perhaps one reason why California is getting drouts. It is a bit confusing, since you would think the earth would concentrate on cooling places like California by raining on it almost continously. I am guessing winds are the culprit, driving cloud buildup away. But removing cloud cover helps with heat dissipation at night! My head is spinning. This is not so simple!

It turns out that dirt with water is more insulating than without it. It is called an R-value:

http://inspectapedia.com/insulation/R-Value_of_Soil.php

Edit: I see you found some of this out on your own but anyhow...

R-value or thermal insulating properties (same thing) rarely comes into play when discussing climate. What does is thermal mass, or the amount of heat in something. For instance, at a given temp the thermal mass, or heat content, of water is much higher than the same volume of air. So yes the oceans temper the temp swings and of course also move heat from the tropics to the poles. The oceans contain 90% of the earth's climatologically active heat. This is why that to accurately measure the heat gain of the earth from AGW is best done by measuring the ocean heat content.

And dry soil has a higher R value, or insulating property than wet soil. But wet soil has a higher thermal mass.

 

[OddTrader]

Perhaps climatology is just too new/young. (Means we should have already invested into this field for long long time.)

Perhaps investigating the issue would take very long time in order to have basic consensus, just like finding any potential cure for cancers.

yes... that was before they were trained at our now very politicized schools... because of money.

I have a relative who has a "climatology" degree from an ivy.
his department was not really like the physics dept.

Additionally, there is no real consensus... if you read the links to the study... they only considered 77 scientists out of the 20000 who were surveyed. And the survey question is do you think man contributes to the warming.

That is very different than the bullshit agw nutters pretend they said.
The other studies have also been debunked. some in peer reviewed papers.

 

[futurecurrents]

this is a review of the recent paper by Cook which was ripped apart in a peer reviewed journal...



http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.


The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Still waiting for you to show us one paper from one reputable climate scientist that refutes AGW.

The consensus is actually higher than 97% among the experts.

 

[gwb-trading]

Still waiting for you to show us one paper from one reputable climate scientist that refutes AGW.

The consensus is actually higher than 97%.

After you have listed may climate scientists and many papers, this is all futurecurrents can retort with.

At this point, the obvious conclusion is he is merely trolling.

 

[futurecurrents]

Perhaps climatology is just too new/young. (Means we should have already invested into this field for long long time.)

Perhaps investigating the issue would take very long time in order to have basic consensus, just like finding any potential cure for cancers.

But there is an essentially complete consensus among the experts. Really.

NO reputable climatologist denies it nor ANY major science org.

Yes are one or two paid for whores of the FF ind and a few just plain fools. But they are not reputable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[futurecurrents]

this is a review of the recent paper by Cook which was ripped apart in a peer reviewed journal...



http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.


The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Forbes is peer reviewed? lol Why don't you get it straight from the Cato Institute? lol



"...over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."