Topic: Is Global Warming Real? - page 3. (Read 2783 times)

I should've linked the source, sorry about that.

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

(edited post to include the link)

Wonder how many of these entities run on grant money.  Grant money which wouldn't be their unless they play ball on the climate change scam.  I'll bet every last one of them.

This reminds me of the 'big list' of formed a 'consensus' of U.S. 'intelligence agencies' who found that Russia hacked the election (or one similar idiotic assertion from that time.)  It included entities who obviously had no reason or ability to look into the matter.  e.g., the Coast Guard.  It was obvious that they just signed some piece of paper which was thrust in front of the director's face.  Totally meaningless and a joke.

^^^ Wow! You typed all that in this short of a period of time?     

The mathematical factor "climate sensitivity" is the technical way of describing effect of humans.

This replaces vague words like "primary" "likely" blah blah with simple estimated constant.

Yes, there are other factors besides Humans.  The consensus is that Humans are the primary factor, not that it is the sole factor.

And yes, politicians are definitely exploiting the situation.  Some are motivated by the money that is coming in from the fossil fuel industry or simply 'beating the left' , some are motivated by the renewable energy industry or the desire to 'beat the right'.

All we can do is look at the research objectively, which shows that it's extremely likely humans are the primary cause of global warming.

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

It depends on semantics....

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

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.

Sun spots are releases of energy into space, that when it hits the earth, it turns into heat. ...

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

Valentina Zharkova, a professor at Northumbria University's department of mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering, told the Sun that the period will be an expanded version of the solar minimums that naturally occur every 11 years. However, rather than lasting only a few years, the "Grand Solar Minimum" could last for up to 33 years.

The professor, who has published multiple scientific papers on the subject, said:

"The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.