Man-made climate change is real

[Guest]

The poll doesn't state that the scientists had any knowledge of climate or meteorology, they are just scientists. Therefore they could have specialized in anything. The article also falls flat on it's face when it attempts to insult the 3% who were unsure. I love how they try to brand then deniers and we all know what connurtations that word carries.

Maybe you should read the abstract before making wrong comments.

Br Cornelius

[DooDahMan]

Maybe you should read the abstract before making wrong comments.

Br Cornelius

Beyond the abstract. Some investigative journalism has turned up some interesting issues about the "97%" figure being thrown around as if it meant something. Please read the attached which also contains a link to the original MS thesis.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

Sorry if the link is not active, I am just an old geologist who views computers as a necessary evil.

[danielost]

Beyond the abstract. Some investigative journalism has turned up some interesting issues about the "97%" figure being thrown around as if it meant something. Please read the attached which also contains a link to the original MS thesis.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

Sorry if the link is not active, I am just an old geologist who views computers as a necessary evil.

he wont buy number farming.

[DooDahMan]

he wont buy number farming.

Matters not to me. The article and link to the thesis are there for anyone to see. Out of 10,000+ polled, she chose a subset of merely 77 scientists! This passes for a Masters degree?!? Regardless, even if the number was close to accurate, it would not be the first time the majority was wrong.

[Guest]

Beyond the abstract. Some investigative journalism has turned up some interesting issues about the "97%" figure being thrown around as if it meant something. Please read the attached which also contains a link to the original MS thesis.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

Sorry if the link is not active, I am just an old geologist who views computers as a necessary evil.

That is not referring to the same paper - and I have pointed this out twice already.

Br Cornelius

[Sharkyy]

What different papers are they from?

[Guest]

What different papers are they from?

This is the paper that Soloman is referencing;

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

This is the paper the article is referencing;

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

As you see - not the same.

Br Cornelius

[Ignus Fatuus]

[Guest]

Care to clarify.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Around the country Iceland the ocean floor is slitting apart. north Atlantic ridge and a new ocean floor is forming what effect is all this underwater volcanic activity having on the climate. answers on a postcard.

[danielost]

Around the country Iceland the ocean floor is slitting apart. north Atlantic ridge and a new ocean floor is forming what effect is all this underwater volcanic activity having on the climate. answers on a postcard.

ice land is part of the north atlantic ridge.

[Guest]

Around the country Iceland the ocean floor is slitting apart. north Atlantic ridge and a new ocean floor is forming what effect is all this underwater volcanic activity having on the climate. answers on a postcard.

But steve the North atlantic ridge has been diverging in a line from Iceland down to South America for ever - what's so special about it now ?

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

But steve the North atlantic ridge has been diverging in a line from Iceland down to South America for ever - what's so special about it now ?

Br Cornelius

never said it was special just asking the question if anyone knows the answer as to what sort of impact it has on the climate. a scientist or possibly a volcanologist was on the discovery channel saying how there is increased activity in the formation and spreading of new ocean floor. he was in mid sentence explaining the effects on the climate when i had to go out so missed what he had to say, done a google and found nothing so thought i'd ask the question in here, seeing how people like yourself take an interest in these sort of matters.

Edited January 8, 2011 by stevewinn

[danielost]

never said it was special just asking the question if anyone knows the answer as to what sort of impact it has on the climate. a scientist or possibly a volcanologist was on the discovery channel saying how there is increased activity in the formation and spreading of new ocean floor. he was in mid sentence explaining the effects on the climate when i had to go out so missed what he had to say, done a google and found nothing so thought i'd ask the question in here, seeing how people like yourself take an interest in these sort of matters.

i dont think it has, but if the north atlantic has spread enough to allow the gulf stream into the arctic that should also lead to the ice melting and an ice age, just as rising sea lvls will. but i think ice land is the plug in the problem there.

[stevewinn]

i dont think it has, but if the north atlantic has spread enough to allow the gulf stream into the arctic that should also lead to the ice melting and an ice age, just as rising sea lvls will. but i think ice land is the plug in the problem there.

interesting thanks mate.

[Sthenno]

While I do believe that man is contributing to global warming, this is a terrible piece of research. In any reasonable study the scientist's relative expertise and ability should have been assessed *before* the survey. If some were significantly less capable than the others, why include them in the study?

You can use statistics to prove anything you want.

[Guest]

While I do believe that man is contributing to global warming, this is a terrible piece of research. In any reasonable study the scientist's relative expertise and ability should have been assessed *before* the survey. If some were significantly less capable than the others, why include them in the study?

You can use statistics to prove anything you want.

This study did weight the responses and came to the conclusion that those with relevant expertise accepted AGW much more generally than those without relevant expertise. Are you commenting on the correct study - or the one that Solomon critiqued.

Most people have commented on a different study rather than the one which was linked to at the start.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

i have study this subject for a very long time. If you only look at the facts and not politics, you cant in any way say that climate changes is man made. Of course the human species helps speeding ud the proces. But why does 97% of the scientist say it is man made. I CANT UNDERSTAND THIS!!

We all know the planets in our solar system are going though an increase in heat, but we dont give the human speices the blame.

[Guest]

i have study this subject for a very long time. If you only look at the facts and not politics, you cant in any way say that climate changes is man made. Of course the human species helps speeding ud the proces. But why does 97% of the scientist say it is man made. I CANT UNDERSTAND THIS!!

We all know the planets in our solar system are going though an increase in heat, but we dont give the human speices the blame.

There is absolutely no demonstrable proof that any of the other planets are warming beyond possible seasonal variability. Remember that most of the other planets have very long seasons and the patterns of variability are not comparable to earths in any meaningful way. Also the datasets for other planets are so small that it is impossible to draw the conclusions that you have reached from what is available.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Politics seems to be the main driving force behind the Right Wing Think tank funded skeptical machine, so if we take that out of the equation - where are the skeptics ??

Br Cornelius

Edited January 9, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

There is absolutely no demonstrable proof that any of the other planets are warming beyond possible seasonal variability. Remember that most of the other planets have very long seasons and the patterns of variability are not comparable to earths in any meaningful way. Also the datasets for other planets are so small that it is impossible to draw the conclusions that you have reached from what is available.

Br Cornelius

What?? Are you saying there are no, facts and studies, that shows the plantes in our solar system are going thorugh a heating process? I would like to know this before, i will make a comment

[Guest]

What?? Are you saying there are no, facts and studies, that shows the plantes in our solar system are going thorugh a heating process? I would like to know this before, i will make a comment

I am saying that there are no studies which show that other planets are undergoing anything other than seasonal warming patterns, and that even this statement is almost impossible to support since there are no datasets available on other planets which extend to full decades of their own orbits. You cannot draw a trend without at least one complete cycle of data, and prefereably at least 30 cycles. Show me such a data set of multi-orbital cycles with significant recent warming trends. I really think you will find that an impossible ask.

This is a long standing bogus claim which I encountered for the first time at least 7yrs ago. What is of most interest is not what skeptical sites say about this, but rather what do the NASA scientists say about this, are they drawing the conclusion that there is general warming across the solar system. It is always better to ask the scientist who compiled the data to comment on what it means than taking the word of someone with a very strong denialist agenda in misrepresenting that data.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 9, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

I am saying that there are no studies which show that other planets are undergoing anything other than seasonal warming patterns, and that even this statement is almost impossible to support since there are no datasets available on other planets which extend to full decades of their own orbits. You cannot draw a trend without at least one complete cycle of data, and prefereably at least 30 cycles. Show me such a data set of multi-orbital cycles with significant recent warming trends. I really think you will find that an impossible ask.

This is a long standing bogus claim which I encountered for the first time at least 7yrs ago. What is of most interest is not what skeptical sites say about this, but rather what do the NASA scientists say about this, are they drawing the conclusion that there is general warming across the solar system. It is always better to ask the scientist who compiled the data to comment on what it means than taking the word of someone with a very strong denialist agenda in misrepresenting that data.

Br Cornelius

Okay!!!

I will stop this, because you make no sense. We use the data we are given at the moment to make conclusions. We cannot make any conclusions about data we maybe will get in 20-30 years.

Are you some super-sceptic, there is sceptic about science or what is wrong?

[danielost]

This study did weight the responses and came to the conclusion that those with relevant expertise accepted AGW much more generally than those without relevant expertise. Are you commenting on the correct study - or the one that Solomon critiqued.

Most people have commented on a different study rather than the one which was linked to at the start.

Br Cornelius

here let me fix this for you.

this study did weight the responses and came to the conclusion that those accepted AGW had more relevant expertise than those who did not accept it.

there properly fixed.

[Guest]

Okay!!!

I will stop this, because you make no sense. We use the data we are given at the moment to make conclusions. We cannot make any conclusions about data we maybe will get in 20-30 years.

Are you some super-sceptic, there is sceptic about science or what is wrong?

Who is not making sense here.

If you cannot understand that one data point or a short series data set allows no conclusions to be drawn then we are wasting out time here. For the earth if I take a single year in any century and say that that is a typical year for that century then I would be misleading you if it happened to be the hottest year of that century. Even worse if I draw the same conclusions from one exceptionally hot June. Get it.

Trends can only be drawn from large datasets of long temporal duration. This is why climate science is all about collecting large datasets and looking for trends - it is never about exceptional one off events.

If you cannot understand this fundamental issue you are in no position to comment on the science of climate as it is the very essence of what is being studied.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 9, 2011 by Guest

[danielost]

Who is not making sense here.

If you cannot understand that one data point or a short series data set allows no conclusions to be drawn then we are wasting out time here. For the earth if I take a single year in any century and say that that is a typical year for that century then I would be misleading you if it happened to be the hottest year of that century. Even worse if I draw the same conclusions from one exceptionally hot June. Get it.

Trends can only be drawn from large datasets of long temporal duration. This is why climate science is all about collecting large datasets and looking for trends - it is never about exceptional one off events.

If you cannot understand this fundamental issue you are in no position to comment on the science of climate as it is the very essence of what is being studied.

Br Cornelius

and if you disagree with him on the issue then you cannot understand the issue.