Do you really believe the crap you post? From the Senator from Exxon? He ain't honest; he's an Okie.
If the denial argument was strong,they would stand on truthiness.
Didn't happen to catch the proceedings of the just concluded AGU, did you? Oh, well; doubt you could understand; takes more than 10th grade Advanced General Science.
Oh, hell...more debunking...
This one doesn't count; just some advice for you...
"Prelude: It's the physics, stupid"
realclimate.org
cuz...
Are you proud we are a tad better than Slovakia? Cousin Bo Rat sez we are better than the Kazachs, too, but we are catching up... I'm glad you are doing your part to drag us into de basement of science.
American students rank 17th in OECD scientific literacy survey
The Chronicle of Higher Education (sub req) reports on "an international assessment of scientific literacy among 15-year-olds" conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment, sponsored by the OECD.
future.iftf.org
===
"Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary"
The Peer Review Process
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors. For example, see [2].
To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather than waiting until the document is sent out for review.
The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert reviewers—more than 2,500 for the entire AR4—who include scientists, industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and incorporate those with scientific merit—a process overseen by review editors (two per chapter) who have expertise in the specific topic covered by a given chapter. All review comments are archived together with the authors’ responses and/or resulting actions, and are available upon request.
ucsusa.org
===
How many of these experts do you recognize? Exxon folks
Message 23761110
“The earth will not die.” Of course not; who s worried about the mudball? It's life on da mud ball which is threatened.
===
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots(2).
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”(3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has in fact declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic(5).
So FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9). Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).
Message 24152929
===
"USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Since the satellites now clearly show that the ATMOSPHERE is WARMING at around the rate predicted by the models, we will report on his no-doubt imminent proclamation of a new found faith in models as soon as we hear of it…
realclimate.org
Whoops.
Cut the crap.
Another study on solar influence
Filed under: Sun-earth connections Climate Science— rasmus @ 9:27 AM
In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output. They used some crude estimates of 'climate sensitivity' and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies). They also argue that their estimate, which is based on statistical models only, has a major advantage over physically based considerations (theoretical models), because the latter would require a perfect knowledge about the underlying physical and chemical mechanisms.
We have alread discussed the connection between solar activity (here , here, here, and here), and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.
realclimate.org
etc,etc. |
