Global Cooling on the Rise?

So, we'll all coke to death from breathing polluted air, while wearing sweaters!

That's choice!

Well our ancestors did it for about 350,000 years and look how we turned out.

Wood fire toxins

And that's just from wood of which you know any decent humanoid has to try burning everything else he can find once the camp fire is going so who knows what other toxins were being breathed in 'just to see what happens next' for all those years as well.

What a load!

Up until 1850 the average person lived to be 40 years old.

Put another tire on the fire.

Antiseptic surgery was the primary cause for lifetimes to begin to grow longer in the late 1800s. Lister, inspired by Pasteur, wrote a book advocating the practice of sterilizing instruments before performing surgery.

Typically the instruments were sterilized by heating/boiling. I don't think they were using photovoltaics back then to boil water.

Back in the dark ages they used human feces as a poultice on wounds, brought to you by the medical wisdom of the Catholic Church.

Why do you have to pay for their education? I don't get it.

When I got out of high school I was made pretty clear that if I want any further education I had better get some loans.

Nobody in my family ever got a free ride for additional education from mom and dad.

Education doesn't have to be paid for (by you or themselves), though ultimate savings is less that certain. If education is not paid for, payment for lack of education will likely be excised.

For example, uneducated persons are unable to take on more complex (and higher paying) jobs,

Answer: Education

Even without government subsidies, uneducated people reduce the available tax money held by the government.

Answer: Education

Reducing income can be though of as a reoccurring cost.)

Answer: Education

Education should be looked at as an investment in one self. With that investment, the society as a whole wins. But this investment should also not be treated lightly, it has to come from within each and every individual that is willing to sacrifice to gain this investment and to take it seriously.

If education, college education is supplied to everyone, education,.... or I should say degrees will become less valued, because their was no value or self sacrifice put in to gain this degree.

And education is already available to all, they're is no such thing as its beyond the reach of anyone. One can get a student grant/loan to go to school. And with the responsibility of this commitment, your education will be more value to each individual who seeks it.

With that being said, the problem we have today, is that the student loans were structured as a profit center for schools, where the student had easy access to unsustainable degree.

Can you imagine what will happen if these degrees are passed out to everyone, This country will become oversaturated than it is now with social workers, Ancient arts and languages, ect.... and yet there will be still unemployed, but educated people.

Again, it has to come from within, chose wisely, if you can't do that, there will always a place for the skilled and unskilled.

I would separate things a bit further.

There is educated as in gained practical working knowledge that will aid in their life and related pursuits to better jobs and there is having paid a pile of money to get a piece of paper that says they spent X number of years in a school setting.

One is not the same as the other and anyone who is in the working world today should be able to see that is very obvious in today workforce.

Condensed down, Education is only a tool, it's no silver bullet. Still up to the individual to make it work.

There may be confusion. My main point was 'advanced' education (such as undergraduate, graduate and beyond degrees) has to come from each individual effort to earn. And by earning I mean not only by study, but by Individual personal financial also.

education is a personal investment in ones self.

To add---I still have a test book, from 1934, administered to carpenters in order to advance to Journeyman.. Geometry, algebra, some trig, 40 pages , areas of spaces with obtuse angles, volumes of cylinders, trapezoids , on and on--Remember--No calculators, maybe a slide rule allowed , not sure.. Even calculating allowed loads for various sizes and lengths of joists, rafters, beams, girders etc... But none the less, stuff that a Lawyer or Doctor would not have known, after forgetting it following graduation...

• Oh, great. So my 41 years as an engineer, now enjoying my EARNED retirement STILL makes me a drain on society because I learned it by doing it INSTEAD of taking out a loan and paying for it for the next twenty years? I was doing it all wrong and NOW you tell me?

Those who do are a terrifying and bewildering threat to those who are afraid to even try and must be stopped at all costs.

That is what you did wrong in life. You actually put an effort into taking responsibility for your life and it's direction.

Hey, you're never to old to learn, aren't cha.

While the sarcasm is delightful, smooth and easy with just a hint of bite in the aftertaste⁽¹⁾, you are missing the point.

I was referring to the costs that Society has to bear to deal with the Uneducated, those who CANNOT hold down a job because they weren't taught the basic 'life skills' needed to learn and develop useful craft and/or trade skills.

I pointed out in a later post the difference between Education and an Advanced Degree. The Degree is just a fancy sheet of paper, claiming that the wielder has special skills, but the proliferation of for-profit colleges have 'cheapened' the degree by their lax standards for awarding them.

In my senior year at DeVry, I remember working with my lab partner du juor⁽²⁾ on a lab project, and after reading through the materials, I went back to the schematic and started assembling the circuit. My lab partner was amazed that I could just look at the schematic and know right away what was needed and what went where⁽³⁾ without having to use any reference charts, and he said, "How can you be so passionate about this?" and my immediate reply was "How can you not?" My respect for that guy as an Engineer dropped several points that day, as he had shown that he was getting a Degree without getting the Education the Degree was going to claim he had.

You are not like that former lab partner, you have the Education, but not the Degree. But the Degree is the meaningless part, it's the Education that matters, and the Education that I respect.

Micah, you, sir, have my respect.

Notes:

1. We use and are exposed to so much sarcasm on this site that I believe we can at least claim to be 'connoisseurs' of it.
2. I tried working with lab partners early on, but it seemed like the ones who wanted to work with me only did it so they could ride my coattails, since they didn't understand the project and didn't really want to put in the legwork on it, So I quickly shifted to doing my lab work alone whenever there was enough space and supplies in the lab to allow it.
3. Or to put it another way, he was amazed at my ability to read a schematic, read resistor color codes and capacitor values, confirm part numbers on transistors, and know which end of a diode was which. Those are all skills I would have thought to be commonplace by the second semester, third semester if the student is a 'slow learner⁽⁴⁾' or if they're relying too much on crutches like color code charts⁽⁵⁾.
4. To use the old, 'politically incorrect' yet 'functionally accurate' description. The student isn't 'retarded,' isn't 'disabled,' isn't 'challenged,' the student just takes a little longer to understand the material. Some people lean fastest from books, some learn fastest from lectures, some learn fastest from hands-on experimenting, that's just how life is.
5. Is it really that hard to remember your ROY G BIV? For Resisters: Black, Brown Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet, Grey?, White? Okay, I may not be as confident as I used to be, but it's been a while since I've had to work with discrete resistors, and it's only the end of the scale, where it goes past the mnemonic.

It's been my experience that most education is acquired outside of the classroom....and it's also been my experience that having family connections leads to unearned opportunities and greater tolerance for performance, or lack of it, than either education or ability...

Let's not confuse intelligence with education, and social position with ability and ambition...It's the acquisition of knowledge with the ambition and drive to succeed that drives one forward...and a bit of luck I would say...

That education outside the classroom I felt is called practical experience. But then, rose by any other name is still a rose.

You are right, costs not necessarily payments.

.

'.these should be the responsibility of the individual...'

.

'Should' is a fun idea. In reality, the costs are never isolated to the individual alone. I also suspect you don't actually believe this to be an absolute universal unalterable 'should'. I bet you can think of numerous common examples of education costs for which someone other than the individual might reasonably be expected to responsible.

As far as the word should, if someone is educated, and a phukup, I intervene when it affects me,

otherwise,

I don't have time to dwell on semantics...

Actually if you're a generic white kid just out of highschool and you parents exceed the base median income level for educational assistance you're SOL on getting any grants or scholarship that's going to do you you much good.

That's where I was and student loans were the only way I was getting into college. Both times.

That's where I don't follow the concept of parents worrying about paying for their kids education. no one paid for mine but me and to be honest since I know was paying my bill I kept my ass out of trouble and in the classroom seats where it belonged.

I wasn't out partying on someone else dime like the kids from well off homes with mommy and daddy paying my bills whether I did damn thing in class or not or with big sports scholarships doing the same .

I was there on my drained savings account and a pile of loan debt and nothing else but a free tank of gas to come home on once a month. EVerything else came out of my pocket or out of my loans.

Twice, when I was down, no money my first path t get out was through education. Student loans.

my second time, I was recovering from a stroke, lost everything and fighting off personal bankruptcy, and what I did have left, once people found out, I needed money, they want to take off my hands for 5-10 cents on the dollar. There goes my IRA's

when I felt I was strong enough, I went back to college, taking out a student loan with a very high risk credit score, was the surprising easy part.

my motivation was, DO NOT MAKE A POOR LIFES CHOICE, but to get a education that was sustainable after college.

4 years after graduation, my credit score is excellent and a 6 figure job, IRS squared away from cashing in my IRA's and my retirement fund is where it was at prior to stroke and climbing.

The reason was a good Education and a sustainable life's choice.

That mathematical rebiasing has a lot to do with the 'average global mean temperature' having gone up by the numbers.

Warmer fall and spring but primary warmer winter temperatures have reduced the low end bias thus letting the average go up even though the reality is the normal range of daily temperatures have never changed.

Locally our statistical average temperature has went up over the last 20 years yet in reality we have less peak high days in the summer months, where high heat can cause problems, but we have been having steadily improving fall, winter and spring seasons where the peak lows are not anywhere near as far down or as often as they once were.

Statistics say things went up but reality shows that's only because the low end bias shifted upward. Day to day growing season values that we base our life on have never went outside of normal.

I think you'll find that is due more to medical advancements than what we breathed. I know if I'd have lived in the early 19th century, I'd have been dead by 45. Only modern surgical practices kept me here. My cousin would have been gone before he barely got started. As late as the 1930's, there were many deaths before age 1. My Father-in-law is one of 6 children, the other 5 died before the age of 1. Start adding 5 or 6 of the age 0 for every 2 people to your life expectancy average and see how fast life expectancy comes down.

No, its burning tires I tell you...

That number is an average that includes infant mortality rate.

Straying from the topic here... We make liquid smoke, worlds largest manufacturer. In this smoke, that are an unbelievable number of carcinogens in it.

So many in fact that when we run it through a Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to analyzes certain characteristics, it best or easier to let the techinician known what we're searching for.

but one thing fire did do, is make the meat more easily digestible. And the energy savings went to brain development.

True.

Also, most (not quite all) examples of highly intelligence animals eat (nutrient dense) meat. Smart herbivores/vegans are rare exceptions.

.

If someone were to introduce elephants to the wonders of a great steak cooked to perfection...and we gave it some time, maybe we wouldn't have to contact life on other planets to experience the challenge of an intellect on par or perhaps greater than our own .

'...coke to death...'?

Like this?

Lol, you ever see Eddie Izzard, he had a line about 'Cake or Death'. It starts at the 5:21 mark.

That's pretty funny. It got even better once I noticed the erroneous closed captions.

According to science we would be ill advised to send more C)2 into the atmosphere because apparently it is cooling the planet. I am planning a post for this but I thought I will see what the reactions are here first . . .

Lets get the whole thing over the finishing line.

See here!

I take your silence here as consensus to my conclusion!

All I know is that there's money to be made here. And people are doing it.

Another interesting article.

After WWII, the claim was "Global warming due to all the atmoshheric impact of aircraft."

Then in the '70's and 80's the claim was "Global cooling due to (especially) diesel engine sooty exhausts." leading to polution control devices on vehicles.

Then in the '90's and beyond "Global warming due to our carbon based activity" but some refrigerants, chlorinated compounds and aerosols got banned due to their specific impact on Ozone.

Now, it's "Global cooling due to a 3W/sqm reduction in solar output."

I suppose that most of us will get to see which of these is actually "signal" (significant) and which are "noise" (interesting reearch) ONLY if it is possible to separate the component impacts.

So NASA and others,if we canget people onto the Moon, or Mars before this cooling period, we would be able to compare the impact there in the absence of the carbon and aircraft issues. For a 0.005% commission, I'll assist in developing the program!

There is no doubt that the Sun is the primary driver of the Earth's weather and climate. Take away the Sun, and the Earth would be just a frozen chunk of ice-covered rock, with no atmosphere. All of the energy sources we might use had (or have) the Sun as the original source for their energy, with the exception of nuclear. Fossil fuels, hydroelectric, wind, wave, photovoltaics, all derive their energy from the Sun. The carbon released by burning fossil fuels is carbon that was captured by plants and animals earlier in the Earth's history. The movement of wind and water is driven by the weather, which in turn derives its energy from the Sun (aided somewhat by the tides).

I wouldn't hang my hat on something one Russian scientist had to say....

But yet, you're betting your life on something one American psychopath has to say..........................

I'm not a Trump supporter....but I am aware he is capitalizing on the fact that people abhor change, and change is rampant at this time....Hillary represents continuation of change....Trump represents a step back in time, stopping time if you will, this always results in social upheaval and fractionalization of society into hate groups and violence...although change is painful and disruptive, it's a much better alternative than festering putrescence...Human change is the life force that defies entropy and decline into ruin...Life is painful, but death is worse....

Interesting, we are on the somewhat same opinion, It's all a matter of perception, where mine is the opposite, with Hillary protecting the career political, and trump who wants to drain the swamp known as Washington DC.

Non-politicians tend to not do well in a political environment...People do not suddenly become something different, they become an extension of who they have always been....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

Non-politicians tend to not do well in a political environment

In my opinion, 'hogwash'

That is because the environment is composed of career politicians intent on keeping it that way.

The only difference is learning the procedural environment. And by that I don't mean business as usual as in lobbyists, favors and gratuities. And that's what they (the career politicians) want to protect.

.

You seem to think that you can change careers instantly and remain at the same level that took you years to achieve....Try it and see what happens....In a position like POTUS you have to be up to speed on day one....

You seem to think that you can change careers instantly and remain at the same level that took you years to achieve

I never said that, but let me digress further...

No, the government that are set up is for the common man to run. Sure there's going to be a learning curve, like I stated earlier to follow procedures. But to say this is a highly skilled trade or craft is ridicules.

This government was set up for the common man that comes from all industries and walks of life. (Bakers, machinist's, farmers, businessmen, manufacturing) to run for office and even become president.

They may start at the county level, to state level, but to think the office is reserved for the professional politician elitist, that is the reason we revolted and left British rule.

With the attitude your displaying, that is the problem why an outsider has running for a higher office. A career politican is no better than the common man running for the same office.

And there are recent fine examples of career politician, politicians with 40 + years of experience doing foolish and dangerous mistakes. All do to complaceny and stupidity.

And there are examples of this in our office that shows that your wrong, first to come to my mind is from our state of Wisconsin, Senator Ron Johnson. He was/is a business owner.

Haven't you ever hear anyone can grow up to become president,

And if they don't have the potential, voters recognize it, and it stops at the voting booth.

As far as your comment of;

In a position like POTUS you have to be up to speed on day one....

You're just throwing BS spin on it.. during elections, the candidates in the running are briefed beginning months ago on the ongoing crisis, and status of the job..

Why day one? It's been obvious for a couple of decades now that whoever's there doesn't have to get up to speed in the full 4 - 8 years they are in office.

Hell, the last one could have done nothing but sat in the oval office chair and spun in circles for the last 8 years and did more good for the country than he has done.

As our state government has proven otherwise non politicians make for very good government servants. How else do you explain how a average sized state with an average economy and work culture with a small population came to have one of the largest bank accounts in the US?

The majority of our key government people are not life long politicians but common small town folk and business owners who step up to the job for a while then back out and let others take a go at it.

The type who actually know and have worked with real normal average people all their lives. It's one of the biggest reasons why you never hear about North Dakota government official on the national news being in trouble for doing stupid stuff day in and day out or ever for that matter.

The majority of our key government people are not life long politicians but common small town folk and business owners who step up to the job for a while then back out and let others take a go at it.

That was how the founding fathers structured it. In the attempt to stop the development of bureaucratic of elitists.

You have to be joking. Have you ever checked out what the founding fathers were? They were the wealthy aristocrats of the colonies. They were the elite and never really intended for the common man to really have a chance at the Presidency. Check out why the Electoral College was written into the election process. It wasn't to add a second level of suspense to the process.

Have you ever checked out what the founding fathers were?

To be honest, they were actually drunkards, like the rest of the aristocrats. none the less, as much as the elitist dislike it, and try and still try to not let it happen, it can happen and does. That's what the established political system is against term limits.

Unfortunately with the money involved now-a-days, at least for the highest office in the land, only a very few can challenge them. In this case, like it or not, its Donald Trump.

The founding documents have been shredded.

The Congress is the only body of representatives who are to be elected by the people, and they are there to represent the people (locals, who were known by locals).

The Senate is elected by the States (2 each) to represent the States...not the people.

The President is elected by an Electoral College of informed people (not rubber stamped by populer vote).

The foolish US population is not qualified to elect a President.

The founding fathers clearly saw this. Something became skewed.

"...It's one of the biggest reasons why you never hear about North Dakota government official on the national news being in trouble for doing stupid stuff day in and day out or ever for that matter...."

.

Ah...thank you. I needed a good laugh. Politicians immune to scandal, that'll be the day. I'm glad you are so enamored with your state, but don't let that cloud your vision.

.

Kent Conran

William Langtry

Texas G Hall

Drew Wrigley

...to name a few less than exemplary North Dakota politicians caught in scandal.

Kent Conrad (D) Career politician, he received favors on mortgages...

William Langtry ???

Texas G Hall What am I missing?

Drew Wrigley (R) Appointed public servant and Lt. Governor, He had an affair.

Some of the what happens whether in office or out, such as the affairs. Some took advantage of their positions, I don't know what the scandal with Langtry or Hall. That should have been your responsibility to reference and not just throw out names an innuendo.

My bad. You are right.

'Langtry' was a typo...a bad one. Langer was a famous ND governor removed from office for scandal resulting in him becoming a felon. He adapted by working in DC as a politician.

.

Here is some info on the Tex Hall scandal.

Okay, 4, that's all and how long did you have to dig to even find them anyways being I am pretty sure none or them are household names in any other state because of theri actions.

So how do their scandals compare to the average village idiots ow any other state that gets in trouble?

Have any of our ever made national news to the degree of even being memorable let alone a nation wide recognized name?

I never claimed we were perfect but rather that the majority of those who work in our government are common people.

I would venture to say that the Majority of those working in Government are called "Bureaucrats", the engine, if you may, of whomever is fueling that engine. I believe numbers will bear this statistic out..

You and I at least, are in definite agreement.

I thought he was talking about Al Gore.

A 3 watt/ sq meter reduction in the solar constant is only a reduction of .22 percent. This is a very small variation in solar input when considering the exponential relationship of input energy to equilibrium temperature.

Given Stefan-Boltzmann Law a .22 percent change in solar output would have negligible effect on Equilibrium Temperature, with all other variables, including atmospheric composition, remaining the same.

A more likely candidate for the cooling referenced is volcanic activity?

My grandfather used to say that if you used a big enough stick and hit it hard enough even a dead horse will move.

The only problem I have with the referenced article, is that Putin is even more anti-global warming than you or tmc tech. If you want to get your research published in Russia, you better be anti-global warming as well. Kind of puts a bit of question in my mind on the validity of the theory.

Well when your country is made up of a vast area tundra that's frozen 8+ months out of the year and barely habitable let alone of any real farming or industrial value you'd probably be all for warming things up a bit too!

Just look at who is complaining where. It typically ain't those who live in the upper northern regions of the planet that are froze half the year or more!

Although there have been reports that the Siberian permafrost has been thawing⁽¹⁾ and releasing pockets of fossil⁽²⁾ methane into the atmosphere.

If true⁽³⁾, then that would be a case for those 'tipping points,' or 'point of no return' events that the 'alarmists' are always shouting about.

"Well when your country is made up of a vast area tundra that's frozen 8+ months out of the year and barely habitable let alone of any real farming or industrial value you'd probably be all for warming things up a bit too!"

It could also be phrased as "When your country's wealth is created and maintained by extracting oil from the ground and selling it to other nations, you'd be against any global initiatives that include 'stop or severely reduce extracting oil from the ground.'"

Notes:

1. Which it shouldn't be doing, it says right there on the label, "PERMAnent FROST."
2. Not sure if that's the right term, but it seems to convey the right connotation, like fossil fuels and fossil aquafirs.
3. Which it looks to be.

This thread was a bad joke from the opening post.

Only if it doesn't turn out to be true.

I (a mere Brit and soon to be ex European) was replying to point out that there is more CO² in the city than in the country but the same amount of sunlight, solar wind, sun spots, falls on both. I was going to have fun slating Fredski for burying his head in the warming/cooling sand. Then I read the replies to find that the post is actually about paying for education and the upcoming US elections. Not knowing Fredski's views on either I can't have a go at him so I'm out of here. Bye Folks

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216301453

this backs up the posted paper

If you go daily instead of direct you might want to agree to this one.

Sunshine matters a lot to mental health; temperature, pollution, rain not so much

A 3 watt/ sq meter reduction in the solar constant is only a reduction of .22 percent. This is a very small variation in solar input when considering the exponential relationship of input energy to equilibrium temperature.

Given Stefan-Boltzmann Law a .22 percent change in solar output would have negligible effect on Equilibrium Temperature, with all other variables, including atmospheric composition, remaining the same.

A more likely candidate for the cooling referenced is volcanic activity?

• 31,487 scientists have signed a petition against the Kyoto agreement (Link)
• 1100 climate realists sign the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change (Link)
• 1000+ International Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims (Link)
• 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Against ACC/AGW Alarmism (Link)
• U.S. Senate report says global warming has stopped (Link)
• Critique of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient truth (Link)

ADMIN: Deleted Post

Vulgar/Rude/Improper Behavior: This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the Rules of Conduct.

Your links are too old.

Friends of Science (Link) has brought us the truth about the global warming

scam that has been put upon us by nefarious political forces.

The scam consists of many parts, some of which I mention below:

1. Myths are presented as facts
2. Faked scientific documents and charts
3. Urban heat island effect on temperature data
4. The lie of the consensus of scientists
5. The carbon tax scam

Section 1: Myths and Facts

Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley

Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University

of East Anglia, shows the following: Warming to 1878, cooling to 1911,

warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011.

The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming

from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show

cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century

is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.

Myth 2: Human produced carbon dioxide (CO₂) has increased over the last 100

years, adding to the greenhouse effect, causing most of the earth's warming.

FACT: Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO₂ content of the

atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which

is likely due to human-caused CO₂ emissions. However, there is no proof that

CO₂ is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over

Many thousands of years, CO₂ levels move up and down AFTER the temperature

has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE OF warming.

Myth 3: CO₂ is the major greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. About

97% of the 3% is water vapor and clouds, with the rest being gases like CO₂,

CH₄, Ozone and N₂O, of which CO₂ is the largest amount. CO₂ constitutes

about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as

"greenhouse agents" than water vapor and clouds, the latter are overwhelming

the effect by their sheer volume and are thought to be responsible for 75% of

the "Greenhouse effect". At current concentrations, a 3% change of water

vapor in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO₂.

Myth 4: Global warming is causing more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports

such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. The graph below

shows that recent cyclone energy is less than in 1993 and 1998. A similar graph

shows the frequency of the storms is also declining.

Myth 5: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.

FACT: The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events

in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been

no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The

small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic

continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thickness in both Greenland and Antarctica

are increasing. The graph here shows the decline in the North Pole temperature.

Here is a similar graph showing the South Pole is also cooling.

trust me on this, you're wasting your time. people in the public as well as this forum cherry pick the "facts" that suit their position. if they want to pay higher taxes while killing off jobs and entire industries in order to fight off an invisible Boogieman why fight them?you wont change anyones mind when they've already chosen to slam it shut.

The 5 most recent posts before this one have proved your point. GA

Published 13 April 2016

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."...

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

So 4,014 out of 11,944 took a position. That is certainly not a consensus even if they took the same position.

Hmm.

In my old school math 4014 out of 11944 was ~ 33.6% which is way off from, "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper." as claimed in post 79.

I'm thinking SE is either cooking his AGW numbers or not doing his 'do the the numbers actually add up before publishing' research too.

So much for his credibility in my books.

Not all papers on the environment take a position on the causes, some just present data and how it was acquired....Of those papers that were searching for the cause and identified a cause, 97% were in agreement that anthropomorphic sources were to blame....These are actual climate scientists...not the opinions of non-climate scientists...Twisting the facts here will not change the truth...go ahead twist all you want....it changes nothing

SE, just how again do humans impact on climate?

Climate change happens like the sun goes up and down.

How, where and why.

If greenhouse gasses are cooling the atmosphere the research is just a mainstream.

One does not have to reject the consensus, one jut has to reject the consensus as a tool of science. It is not a tool of science.

"Friends of Science" or the Organization for the Application of Mob Ignorance?

Try the AAAS.

This is from your referenced research university.

Care to moment on this?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/2016-arctic-sea-ice-wintertime-extent-hits-another-record-low

So milder more favorable winter temperatures that are less damaging to most everything alive and of value are a bad thing?

But to be fair yea I have noticed that since we started getting more favorable winters here in the prairies that we do in fact have far less snow and bitter cold to deal with which has lead to us not burning near the fuel to deal with snow removal or home heating in return which in my personal experience has been a good 1/4 - 1/3 annual reduction in said related fuel expenses.

BTW it's November 5th and it was 66 degrees with sun and light wind today. In the past we would have been frozen solid here for a good 2 - 4 weeks with a foot plus of snow by now. The Canadian Geese have yet to fully migrate yet as well.

That's super climate change win in my books!

On a follow up to myself.

Warmer fall and winter seasons are what's pushing the average mean temperatures up the most. Not rises in the middle to upper end of the overall range where all primary crop growing seasons and general life activity occurs.

Warmer winters heavily influence annual average mean temperature values

The real issue.

Climate change. Gains Vs losses. It's not all bad everywhere. Infact much has been gained as well.

The real and largely overlooked reality of it all.

The climate did change, but not as we have been lead to believe.

And when annual temperatures have been warmest has everything to do with it.

September to November are where the greatest annual temperature increases have occurred over the last century.

Damn the details getting out. They always end up screwing up a perfectly good scaremongering based money and power grab scam every time.

Here is the missing graph from my post:

It clearly shows cyclone energy peaked in 1993 and 1998, with a smaller peak in 2006, then downhill.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/06/rapid-cooling-underway-big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-satellites/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/

thank you for citing Sat data, everything else is noise. although this source is only about 40years( trends at the least should be decades, centuries even better than that) old its far far better then mercury placed 6 feet off the ground.a sat sweep is a much better way of gathering a complete picture on a given region. good addition to the thread

More recent data is available, as is the more recent corresponding graph.

The previous articles deserve some chiding for attempting to predict a trend based solely on two data points.

The second link was the most important IMHO. The first is about what has happened in the past. The second is about what is expected in the future. It also brings up the fact that more than one scientist thinks this.

It would be very powerful for the solar scientist or the Royal Astronomical Society to release the emails exchanged (especially the first CC'd email) along with the names of the people allegedly attempting a conspiracy to obstruct science/defraud the public.

If those scientists receive public funding, they may have tied their own noises. Very public discrediting defending and shaming of anyone attempting such shenanigans might serve as an effective deterrent.