What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Lets take a look at this info that keeps being provided by Muller
In an unconventional move aimed at appeasing climate sceptics by allowing "full transparency", the results have been publicly released before being peer reviewed by the Journal of Geophysical Research. All the data and analysis is now available to be freely scrutinised at the Bestwebsite. This follows the pattern of previous Best results, none of which have yet been published in peer-reviewed journals
Who actually talks about science theory without an actual peer review
Ok, now it is peer reviewed, but by what peers?
Brand new journal The journal in which the BEST results are published does appear to be a brand new one - the current edition being volume one, issue one. This had led some to speculate over the quality of the journal. But Muller has justified his choice of journal, telling Guardian environmental analyst Leo Hickman: "SciTechnol has a good reputation and we liked GIGS's focus on statistics, their quick turn around time, and their providing free access to articles".http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind
Brand new journal
The journal in which the BEST results are published does appear to be a brand new one - the current edition being volume one, issue one. This had led some to speculate over the quality of the journal.
But Muller has justified his choice of journal, telling Guardian environmental analyst Leo Hickman:
"SciTechnol has a good reputation and we liked GIGS's focus on statistics, their quick turn around time, and their providing free access to articles".http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind
So, who are these guys. Lets look at their address
SciTechnol2360 Corporate Circle, Suite 400 Henderson, NV 89074-7722, USA Ph: +1-888-843-8169Fax: +1-650-618-1414
And look who else shares that address
OMICS Group
2360 Corporate CircleSuite 400 HendersonNV 89074-7722, USAPh: +1-888-843-8169 Fax: +1-650-618-1417 contact@omicsgroup.com
How about a little info on who shares that office
OMICS Publishing Group Criticism of publishing practices Numerous complaints have been made about the publishing and other practices of the OMICS Publishing Group and its affiliates. The company director has asserted that its activities are legitimate and ethical.[4] An investigative report by The Chronicle of Higher Education stated that journal articles published by OMICS may undergo little or no peer review.[5] It was also suggested that OMICS provides lists of scientists as journal editors to create the impression of familiarity or scientific legitimacy, even though these are editors in name only and are not involved in the review or editing process.[5] An editor-in-chief who was contacted by Science stated that he had never handled any papers;[8] in an interview with The Hindu, another said he had not been informed of his purported editorship.[9] The company has been slow to remove the names of editorial board members who requested to terminate their relationship with OMICS activities.[4] Some observers have described the publisher as "predatory", insofar as authors who have submitted papers have been sent invoices after their manuscripts were accepted for publication despite the lack of a robust peer-review process. Charges may be as high as US$3600.[5] One author received an invoice for US$2700 after her paper was accepted; this fee was not mentioned in the email message OMICS sent her to solicit a submission.[7] These observations have led critics to assert that the main purpose of the publisher is commercial rather than academic.[5][6] Other criticisms of OMICS include the publication of pseudoscientific articles,[5] deceptive marketing practices,[3][8] targeting of young investigators or those in lower income regions,[8][9] and the advertising of academic or government scientists as speakers or organizers for OMICS conferences without their agreement.[4][8] The director and founder of OMICS, Srinubabu Gedela, responded to these criticisms by stating that his organization wishes to expand access to scientific knowledge and has 20,000 editorial board members and 500 employees.[4][5] Action by U.S. government The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sent a cease-and-desist letter to OMICS in April, 2013, alleging trademark violations by OMICS.[8][10] In the letter, a senior attorney stated that OMICS had used "the name of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its Institutes, PubMed Central, or the names of NIH employees in an erroneous and/or misleading manner" and demanding an end to these activities.[8] The letter included additional allegations, including the example of a statement that was attributed to an employee of NIH. DHHS also referred the matter of OMICS trade practices to the Federal Trade Commission.[8] Interviewed by Science, OMICS responded by providing a scan of a handwritten note that was purportedly written by the NIH employee. The employee suggested that his name was being misused.[8] The NIH letter also referred to a 2012 decision by the National Library of Medicine not to list OMICS Publishing Group journals in PubMed Central. This decision was attributed to "serious concerns about the publishing practices" of the company.[8][11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SciTechnol
Numerous complaints have been made about the publishing and other practices of the OMICS Publishing Group and its affiliates. The company director has asserted that its activities are legitimate and ethical.[4]
An investigative report by The Chronicle of Higher Education stated that journal articles published by OMICS may undergo little or no peer review.[5] It was also suggested that OMICS provides lists of scientists as journal editors to create the impression of familiarity or scientific legitimacy, even though these are editors in name only and are not involved in the review or editing process.[5] An editor-in-chief who was contacted by Science stated that he had never handled any papers;[8] in an interview with The Hindu, another said he had not been informed of his purported editorship.[9] The company has been slow to remove the names of editorial board members who requested to terminate their relationship with OMICS activities.[4]
Some observers have described the publisher as "predatory", insofar as authors who have submitted papers have been sent invoices after their manuscripts were accepted for publication despite the lack of a robust peer-review process. Charges may be as high as US$3600.[5] One author received an invoice for US$2700 after her paper was accepted; this fee was not mentioned in the email message OMICS sent her to solicit a submission.[7] These observations have led critics to assert that the main purpose of the publisher is commercial rather than academic.[5][6]
Other criticisms of OMICS include the publication of pseudoscientific articles,[5] deceptive marketing practices,[3][8] targeting of young investigators or those in lower income regions,[8][9] and the advertising of academic or government scientists as speakers or organizers for OMICS conferences without their agreement.[4][8]
The director and founder of OMICS, Srinubabu Gedela, responded to these criticisms by stating that his organization wishes to expand access to scientific knowledge and has 20,000 editorial board members and 500 employees.[4][5]
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sent a cease-and-desist letter to OMICS in April, 2013, alleging trademark violations by OMICS.[8][10] In the letter, a senior attorney stated that OMICS had used "the name of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its Institutes, PubMed Central, or the names of NIH employees in an erroneous and/or misleading manner" and demanding an end to these activities.[8] The letter included additional allegations, including the example of a statement that was attributed to an employee of NIH. DHHS also referred the matter of OMICS trade practices to the Federal Trade Commission.[8] Interviewed by Science, OMICS responded by providing a scan of a handwritten note that was purportedly written by the NIH employee. The employee suggested that his name was being misused.[8]
The NIH letter also referred to a 2012 decision by the National Library of Medicine not to list OMICS Publishing Group journals in PubMed Central. This decision was attributed to "serious concerns about the publishing practices" of the company.[8][11]
'Predatory' Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publishhttp://www.jfdp.org/forum/forum_docs/1013jfdp1040_1_032912094346.pdf
Another good article herehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudo-academia.html?_r=0
Says the guy who wrote this:
"Then you must know something world's climate scientists do not know, and in that case, I urge you to rush forward and publish a paper about your findings."
I started out firmly in the AGW camp. In college we ran a student magazine that regularly warned about man made global warming. I have some cartoons we've made on e subject.
However, in the 20+ years since, I've come to the conclusion that e science isn't "settled" and that that ever contribution humans are making to the climate are probably not significant.
You're welcome to disagree. But spare me appeals to authority or, when that fails, snide patronization. I pointed out earlier in this discussion that the mean surface temperatures have not been going up since 1998 and in addition, no mainstream model anticipated that. I'm not going to rehash that because you just seem to ignore data that doesn't support your belief.
We should continue to research but we should remain skeptical.
And its worth saying again: regardless of what we believe, we should strive to reduce our individual impacts on the environment. I'm skeptical on AGW but I live my life as if its true.
Fortunately this 2007 "scientific" prediction didn't happen.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
Sorry to say, but your reactions are what I have been talking about as being anti-science.
In the first place, the Oregon petition is not what you think it is. It is NOT a refutation of AGW. It was never intended to be, nor has any of the signatories ever claimed otherwise. You might say it is the epitome of science. The signatories do not deny that there has been warming. But they also say that it is neither unprecedented nor proven to be caused by man. Which is the truth. So it can hardly be called anything but a statement of science. You are free to argue with that, but you do lack the data to even begin to form a valid rebuttal. It does not exist.
is the warming caused by man? As I stated in my previous post, we do not know. And until we get a testable hypothesis in place AND disprove the null hypothesis (neither of which has been done), we will never know. Science is not guess work. There is a rigid and widely accepted methodology to the process. Step 1 is to disprove the null hypothesis. Even Trenberth admits this has not been done.
And fortunately neither do "97% of Climate Scientists". As I also showed in my previous post, that figure is completely bogus (think of it as nothing more than a staged figure). The survey went out to 10,257 scientists. There were people who work with one or more parts of climate science, and hence why they were chosen. Of those 10,257, 3,146 responded (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf). Now for a scientific study, that would mean the results would reflect a 69.4% "no answer or no opinion" category. Instead those results were discarded. Indeed of the 3,146 respondents, all but 77 were then again thrown out. That is not science. That is forcing a conclusion. You develop the survey, then send it out to a random population. Since they excluded all but 77, the population was no longer random. The fix was in. You might as well put a poll on the internet asking if the earth is flat, and then cull only the responses that fit your predetermined agenda. That may make you feel better, but it is not science.
Climate change is indeed observable and to a degree measurable. But that is only part of the AGW meme. Climate has always changed, and will continue to change as long as the planet has a climate. So talking about "climate change" is like talking about where the sun rises. It is a red herring. However, we know for a fact that in the last 120 years, the earth has warmed (even by the most liberal of measurements - i.e. not adjusting for UHI) by a mere .8 degrees Celsius. Considering that the planet was in the throws of what is commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age 160 years, ago, that is not unprecedented. Emerging from an ice age one would expect the planet to warm, and it has not disappointed us.
Some want to claim that the current warming is unprecedented. But historical evidence does not support that conclusion. Indeed, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that occurred about 950AD to 1300AD was much warmer as evidenced by vikings farming Greenland in what is currently permafrost. They did not have the technology to farm it back then. Now some argue it was not global, but 637 independent, peer reviewed studies, show that it was indeed global. Even Ice cores from Antarctica (http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/was-southern-hemisphere-warmer-during-medieval-period-peruvian-ice-core-confirms-higher-temps-in-past.html) and other southern hemisphere glaciers support that. It was global.
What caused this idea to surface was Mann, Bradley, Hughes, et. al. 1998 (MBH1998). Yet that study, since debunked, was based on a statistically insignificant number of samples of tree rings (12) in one part of the globe. How can 12 trees refute 637 other peer review studies? We are still wondering about that. Indeed, when the Hockey Stick was resurrected in 2012, it was quickly debunked. Although peer reviewed, the paper - AFTER review - was shown to be critically flawed. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-hockey-stick-resurrected-by-marcott-et-al-2012/
Now has anyone proven that man is NOT responsible for any of the temperature increases? No, because that is not science. You cannot disprove idle conjecture. And since the null hypothesis has not been disproven, nor a testable hypothesis advanced, that is all it is at this point. Yes, man can be responsible for some, or all of it. The truth is that we just do not know.
And that is the scientific answer. You state belief a lot. And you magnanimously allow that not all have to "believe". Belief is not for science. Belief is for religion. Science is the questioning of established prejudices (like phlogiston). Is fire an element? At one time, "97%" of scientists swore it was. Now only fantasy game role players think that.
Which brings me to my final point. The magic of the 97%. It is a term that has popped up in many bogus studies (most recently in the Cook/Nuccitelli one). Why 97%? Human nature. No one is going to believe you if you say 100% (see the incredulity of the poll numbers reporting 100% of blacks back Obama). All you have to do is find a single person and that proves 100% is bogus. But 97%? Science cannot claim ownership of the magic number. Actually marketing came up with it first (97% satisfaction rate for GEICO insurance, or what ever brand you want to buy). They determined that 97% was believable since if you were not satisfied, or knew a couple of people that were not, then that was ok. There are always some sour apples. But they were only sour apples, not a reflection of any wrongdoing on the part of the company. So the meme of 97% was born. And as I indicated in my previous post, even Cook & Nuccitelli got the math wrong on their bogus study to force it to 97% (the math worked out to 98%). So when you see that magic number, you can be a willing dupe to the advertising industry, or it can set off alarm bells that the number was backed into in order to convince everyone that "4 legs good, 2 legs better".
Yes, Brand 'X' kills 99.9% of germs in your bathroom.....however they fail to mention the 0.1% it won't kill include botulism, leprosy, plague.....
I prefer the scientifically 'accurate' statement that....
9 out of 10 men that have tried Camels prefer women....
A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific "errors".
"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm
Yes, they actually pass this s^%# off as 'real' science in schools.
see also:http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/British_High_Court_Ruling_on_An_Inconvenient_Truth.html
One hump or 2?
Ya know I just watched this for the first time a couple of weeks ago. I won't go into whether he's full of crap or not. However, the whole camera thing, the following him around, etc. left me with the belief this was more about Al Gore ego-inflation than an attempt to share knowledge. It was like a big self-promotion video, a documentation of his "legacy" - what the history books will write about him. Bill Clinton's ego must have rubbed off on Al - I wonder if it was before or after Monica. DOH!
A very nice video!
Earth has always been a dynamic place, as has the solar system. Not sure why we'd be surprised because there is change.
Some of the most compelling arguments about human genetic bottlenecks in the fairly recent prehistoric (200K years roughly) argue that climatic fluctuations and extremes played the main role in reducing human population from perhaps half a million individuals down to potentially as few as 10,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)
Saw an interview of this bloke on 60 minutes the other day.....
He was asked a few questions.... one of which was human impact on Global Warming.... his reply was there is no doubt....only question was 'how much'.
He was also asked about the earth only being 6000 years old.... his reply was blunt....it was patently absurd.
One thing I DID get from the interview was.... this Cox bloke is clearly highly intelligent - and knowledgeable. He had no room for "um, I think yes/no/whatever", just straight answers to both.
Re Global Warming he did also mention all the 'debating' was purely politically motivated.
Indeed, since all creatures affect their environment to a degree, that is the real question.
He is definitely no politician! refreshing to see honest answers these days.
I agree
Global warming is a warning about things to come, not that we're in a terrible situation at the moment.
At the moment, carbon levels aren't at catastrophic levels. At the moment, oceans still absorb a lot of energy and reduce the amount of global warming. At the moment, vegetation can still expand and can still absorb large amounts of carbon. At the moment, global temperatures haven't risen by that much yes (less than a degree, right... so who cares)
But when we just keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere at ever increasing rate, and when these mitigating effects stop, then there's going to be a real problem. And considering the overall short-sightedness of most humans and the politicians they voted for, we will just keep going on this way, well into the future.
It will take a while... maybe 50 years ... maybe 100 years ... maybe even longer, so why do you need to worry about that? It's not you that's going to suffer, it's your children or even your grandchildren and who cares about those ...
A long time ago, carbon level were at several 1000 ppm (compared to 400 ppm currently). In those days, there were lush forests growing in polar regions. Water levels were 100 meter higher. Temperatures were 10 degrees higher. Is that much ... well yes. Take a hot day and add 10 degrees... it'll be unbearable. But well, it'll take a very long time to reach those levels, hopefully we'll never reach them.
How much, as a percent, of the carbon put into the atmosphere each year is generated by humans?
That, my friend, is the wrong question to ask!
What you should ask is: how much carbon can we put into the atmosphere?
Because if we can ... we will ... in our quest for fuel and energy.
We burn about 8 billion tons of carbon-based fuels each year. Who know, when we go on like this and keep accelerating our enegry output, that I can imagine we'll burn trough a total of a trillion tons of oil, gas and coals within the next 100 years.
And that, my friend, is a substantial amount.
No, it's not the wrong question to ask. It's exactly the question to ask.
If humans contribute 80% of the carbon causing problems then taking steps to curtail that amount could have some impact on the total carbon generation. If humans contribute 3% the impact of changing our behavior is much, much smaller.
Any serious changes to our carbon generation require significant economic pain on the national and global levels. If we can hope to have marginal (or zero measurable) impact on the total carbon generated, is it worth that economic pain (measured in poverty levels and human quality of life) to make changes?
This is the problem with this discussion. Pro-AGW folks never want to talk about the actual downsides of their proposed actions. Those actions may be worth it. But they may not be too. Those actions have legitimate cost that will mostly be born by the poor and the populations of the 3rd world. We can't know whether or not it's worth it until we understand the actual human contribution to the problem (Frogboy's question).
I find it somewhat sad in our quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that we end up doing more harm than good to the actual environment. I'm even more skeptical of wind farms than I am of AGW.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
I think what you have there is a perfect example of....
Oh...an even better example was one here in Victoria [Oz] where a proposed wind farm was 'likely to endanger a rare parrot'....
....it was "estimated" there was a potential for perhaps ONE parrot to be hit and killed by the rotating blades in any ONE HUNDRED YEAR period.....
....it's a safe bet the parrot wouldn't last 100 years in the first place....
You got parrots?
Destroying a Carbon Sink is quite a bit different from:
It's all about the motivation behind the study that finds a 'destruction of carbon sink'.
"Oh, shit...my stinking bog of a desolate wilderness is going to be ravaged by windmill attrocities....I MUST demonstrate a failing of the ecological system behind it....otherwise my shares in Exxon will fall...." ...
This forum topic has reached the:
level.
Global warming has been automated, humans were deemed too costly so it has been decided that it will now be done by robots..Please evacuate the planet immediately..
Yea, they are changing the name again. Carbon Pollution - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/15/lexicon-shift-alert-global-warming-gets-another-name-change
V-Ger will be by shortly to eliminate all Carbon Based Units that infest the creator.
One can only hope.
This topic is making me hot under the collar.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
