Climate Change Political Nonsense With No Consensus

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...-a-false-path/



From the WSJ, "The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

"In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus."

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...-a-false-path/



From the WSJ, "The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

"In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus." Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

After failing miserably at understanding statistics, the climate change assholes then lecture us on our stupidity for not believing them!! Then, they want the government to spend trillions in an abatement effort that will make them rich and morally superior to everyone else - what a fucking scam.

It's a scam. NOAA leaders are fighting a court order to have their emails released. Something tells me the emails with be "Lernered."

It's a scam. NOAA leaders are fighting a court order to have their emails released. Something tells me the emails with be "Lernered." Originally Posted by gnadfly

of course it's a scam. humans and animals exhale CO2. plants take that CO2 and produce oxygen. so .. CO2 is a vital part of the ecosystem. without it, there would be no oxygen to breathe. so a certain ratio of CO2 to Oxygen is required to maintain the balance of the atmosphere. is the rise in CO2 reducing the oxygen ratio? many people and some scientists say so. why is this? in large part it's due to the reduction of forest lands due to urbanization. and of course pollution. does that mean that CO2 emissions are causing a warming trend globally? No. it does mean that reducing CO2 emissions as a part of controlling pollution is necessary? Yes, but not due to the falsehood of global warming, only due to the effects of pollution in general and deforestation.

the only valid reason to control CO2 emissions is to reduce the effects on the oxygen content of the atmosphere, not the falsehood of global warming. this is a pollution issue, not a global warming issue.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...-a-false-path/



From the WSJ, "The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

"In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus." Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

Funny thing (and don't ask for a link, it was two weeks ago) I was watching the news and a US government official was making a statement about climate change and they used the number 90% and not 97 or 99 percent. Thought that was noteworthy. They are changing the narrative slowly but surely.

Found one source, March 2015 data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, but not a link gives the 90% number but still insists that they are right. So they have had to back away even though they still insist that they are right. A link to my source: http://www.voicenews.com/articles/20...e722599233.txt

The experts are speaking out about how the public is being manipulated about what is or is not climate change.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/20/no...limate-summit/

Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore, and Will Happer spoke before the press but of course most of the press has not reported the story.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...-a-false-path/



From the WSJ, "The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

"In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus." Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

Of course, its a scam or more likely a diversion from the real issues at hand from the Trojan Horse and his sheeple, so as to destroy this once great, now crippled country.

So why don't you just move your baggy ass to France, gramma?

So why don't you just move your baggy ass to France, gramma? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Go out in the front yard and pick yourself up a snack that Jake left you. You get grumpy when you are hungry! Shit Baller

So why don't you just move your baggy ass to France, gramma? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

why don't you move to Israel? surely you aren't concerned for its future existence given your gloyhole leader Obama has "ensured" Iran won't get Nuclear weapons anytime soon yeah?

So why don't you just move your baggy ass to France, gramma? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hateful asshole and hypocrite. Quit going to those Mexican slave hookers and showing your hatred for all of humanity.

The 0zombie scam is falling apart... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/2...s-noaa-claims/

CO2 residence time said to be 40 years, not 1000 per previous claims


Guest Blogger / 1 hour ago November 24, 2015

Readers may recall claims of 1000 year residence times for CO2. This essay suggests a much shorter interval. -Anthony


CO2-molecule

Guest essay by Ari Halperin

Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at a rate proportional to the surplus CO2 concentration. The half-life of the surplus CO2 concentration is approximately 40 years. This is the conclusion of my research paper, published on defyccc.com today.

I am grateful to Prof. Fred Singer and Prof. William Happer for their help in writing this paper.

The correct (although approximate) formula for CO2 concentration leads to a number of conclusions of public interest:

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will increase much slower than has been claimed by the IPCC.
A relatively small part of the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has been released by the US; a relatively large part of the anthropogenic CO2 has been released by China.
If stabilizing or decreasing atmospheric CO2 content becomes desirable at some point in the future, that can be achieved by decreasing anthropogenic CO2 release at that time; no premature action is needed.
The warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 is less than the warming effect of other gases and aerosols (according to IPCC calculations) in both the short and long term, so what are the motives behind this laser focus on CO2?


The topic of the CO2 removal rate has been discussed a number of times on WUWT (by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Docmartyn in comments on Dr. Lindzen’s article, Anthony Watts and others), and various opinions were expressed. Estimates of the half-life varied.

For some time, the subject was surrounded by confusion, created by sloppy definitions and evasive statements in IPCC assessment reports. There was a mix-up between the residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and the rate of change of the surplus CO2 concentration. The residence time (~5 years) is of little interest, except as an indication of quick carbon turnaround. The true subject of interest is the rate of change of the surplus carbon concentration in the atmosphere. Another issue was the link between CO2 concentration and temperature. On the geological timescale, the rise in CO2 concentration tends to follow the temperature rise, concurring with a hypothesis that the latter causes the former. Nevertheless, such an effect is not significant on the multi-decadal scale. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere grows mostly because of anthropogenic release of CO2 through fossil fuels combustion and land use changes.

The paper’s full title is Simple Equation of Multi-Decadal Atmospheric Carbon Concentration Change. It is article-length (~5,000 words, not counting references), citable, and discoverable by search engines, including the Climate Sanity and Freedom Search. In a slight departure from a widely-used academic format, the paper contains a Summary (for busy readers). The abstract is as follows.



Surplus CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at rate, proportional to the surplus CO2 concentration. In other words, it undergoes exponential decay with a single decay constant. This conclusion is rigorously proven, using first principles and relatively recent observations of oceans. Historical data for CO2 concentrations and emissions from 1958–2013 are then used to calculate the half-life of the surplus concentration. This theoretically derived formula is found to be an excellent match to the historical CO2 concentrations over the measurement period. Furthermore, the “initial” CO2 concentration in the formula came out to be very close to the likely “pre-industrial” CO2 concentration. Based on the used datasets, the half-life of the surplus concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be approximately 40 years.

"This is the earliest the ski resorts have been opened in many years. ... They rarely open before Thanksgiving,"

thanks to El Niño it looks like the Cali drought will get some relief, with a cost of likely severe flooding but the water supply needs the relief.

i wonder what the "Climate Change" fucktards will have to say about that?

http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...124-story.html