Climate Change

[windwalker]

 

 

 

for those who can, whats wrong with the main assumptions presented by the clip

[windwalker]

its about control 

 

 

 

 

[ralis]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

 

 

for those who can, whats wrong with the main assumptions presented by the clip

 

First of all Prager U (University) is not a university due to the simple fact that it doesn't hold classes or grant academic degrees. Misrepresentation of this nature is fraudulent.  Prager is a right wing propaganda site which is anti-science, denies human caused AGW and produces videos that support authoritarian fascist points of view. 

 

Funding by fossil fuel billionaires, the Wilks bros. What a surprise!

 

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

Edited February 25, 2019 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

10 hours ago, windwalker said:

its about control 

 

 

 

 

 

Luckily Mother Nature is taking over.

 

 

Quote

 

Carbon Emissions Are Now 10x Higher Than When The Arctic Had Crocodiles And Palm Trees

CARLY CASSELLA

24 FEB 2019

By about the time our great-grandchildren have children of their own, we humans will likely have broken a climate record that has stood unchallenged for 56 million years.

New research has found that humans are pumping nearly 10 times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than what was emitted during Earth's last major warming event, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/carbon-emissions-today-are-vastly-worse-than-earth-s-last-warming-event

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018PA003379

Temporal Scaling of Carbon

Emission

and Accumulation Rates: Modern

Anthropogenic

Emissions

Compared to

Estimates of

PETM

-

Onset Accumulation

Philip D. Gingerich

1

1

Department of

Earth and Environmental Sciences and Museum of Paleontology, University

of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

.

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Luckily Mother Nature is taking over.

 

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/carbon-emissions-today-are-vastly-worse-than-earth-s-last-warming-event

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018PA003379

Temporal Scaling of Carbon

Emission

and Accumulation Rates: Modern

Anthropogenic

Emissions

Compared to

Estimates of

PETM

-

Onset Accumulation

Philip D. Gingerich

1

1

Department of

Earth and Environmental Sciences and Museum of Paleontology, University

of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

.

 

 

An interesting paper 

 

"Quantum Mechanics: Uncertainty, Complementarity, Discontinuity and Interconnectedness"

https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2.html

 

"Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.

It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...gif

 

In mathematical terms, Derrida's observation relates to the invariance of the Einstein field equation  tex2html_wrap_inline1393 under nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the space-time manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic).

 

The key point is that this invariance group ``acts transitively'': this means that any space-time point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the  tex2html_wrap_inline1395 of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone."

Edited February 25, 2019 by windwalker

[ralis]

24 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

An interesting paper 

 

"Quantum Mechanics: Uncertainty, Complementarity, Discontinuity and Interconnectedness"

https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2.html

 

"Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.

It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...gif

 

In mathematical terms, Derrida's observation relates to the invariance of the Einstein field equation  tex2html_wrap_inline1393 under nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the space-time manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic).

 

The key point is that this invariance group ``acts transitively'': this means that any space-time point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the  tex2html_wrap_inline1395 of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone."

 

Interesting? Do you understand what this paper is stating? If so, in what way does this tie into the discussion at hand?

 

The term uncertainty which is defined as the margin of error seems to be what you posted this short summation for? Uncertainty does not mean impossible or (0).

 

It is really easy to cut/paste these days while trolling.

Edited February 25, 2019 by ralis

[ralis]

@windwalker,

 

I just edited my post so read it again. Judging by your "hahaha" you are only interested in trolling!

[windwalker]

16 minutes ago, ralis said:

@windwalker,

 

I just edited my post so read it again. Judging by your "hahaha" you are only interested in trolling!

 

 

In the words of "ralis"   educate yourself and you will understand why it was posted, and what relevance it has to this thread.

[ralis]

1 minute ago, windwalker said:

 

 

In the words of "ralis"   educate yourself and you will understand why it was posted, and what relevance it has to this thread.

 

You posted it without any comment or analysis. Therefor, is it on you to defend the paper. Do you understand Quantum Mechanics? If so, then you are in an elite group which I seriously doubt.

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

 

An interesting paper 

 

"Quantum Mechanics: Uncertainty, Complementarity, Discontinuity and Interconnectedness"

https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2.html

 

"Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center.

It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game ...gif

 

In mathematical terms, Derrida's observation relates to the invariance of the Einstein field equation  tex2html_wrap_inline1393 under nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the space-time manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic).

 

The key point is that this invariance group ``acts transitively'': this means that any space-time point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the  tex2html_wrap_inline1395 of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone."

 

yes the Sokal fake paper actually was co-written with Jean Bricmont.

Jean Bricmont promotes the de Broglie model of quantum physics - the same model I have studied for qigong training.

So let's see what Jean Bricmont says about global warming?

 

So Bricmont says the West should not "rule the world" - and Bricmont is against Drumpf. oops.

So much for the Sokal-Bricmont affair debunking global warming.

 

Quote

He [Macron] claims he thinks science and reason are very important but I think it's the very opposite....contempt for law, reason, for evidence, but of course he claims he's on the side of science and reason....Of course it depends on the line of the media.... Trump has been shown as vulgar, nationalist, narrow... This is an immense regression of the West. ...The West should admit that it does not control the world....

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[thelerner]

We are blessed with a breathable atmosphere that goes up about 5 miles and runs around the whole globe.  Plus there's wind that blows concentrated pollution away.   Except when it doesn't and industrial sites and cities fill with smog and it very slowly kills people, youngest and weakest first.

 

Nature tries to keep things in balance, there are self cleaning mechanisms out there but have no illusions, put a dome over our cities and we'd choke to death on our industrial waste and poisons.  There's no doubt of it.  It's the massive amount of atmosphere that keeps us from choking on our wastes. 

 

There was a naive time when we though we couldn't pollute the oceans, that they were too big.  We're learning differently now.  We are changing and have been changing and slowly poisoning the oceans.  Thankfully industrial countries have been treating sewage for a few generations otherwise we could kill off an ocean.  Human industrial output is incredible. 

 

Because we don't live in a dome(yet), it behooves us to be intelligent and listen to cliimate scientists and do what is logical and reasonable to keep the environment clean.   Even if its inconvenient, but the good news is it doesn't have to be too bad.  Not if we start early.  There are clear pollutants that we can limit. 

 

If we humans act like we our actions don't affect the planet, its air and water.  We'll be fine, our kids will be fine, but our grand kids and there descendants face catastrophe.  This would be self evident if we put a dome up but right now, the sky is our ocean, and we have to be aware that we could pollute it to the point we choke ourselves.

 

Thirty years ago we saw a hole open up in the Ozone.  We put scientists on it, we measured it, found out what was causing it, banned some aerosols and chemicals and miraculously we've seen it shrink.  A victory for the mankind since, losing the ozone layer means skin cancer goes wild, not good for other living things either.  We need to take politics out of the equation and be smart, listen to experts.  

 

Double or triple check the most expensive solutions, but the stakes are high and we are all in this together.  Good stewardship had its own rewards.   

[voidisyinyang]

7 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Thirty years ago we saw a hole open up in the Ozone.  .. A victory for the mankind since, losing the ozone layer means skin cancer goes wild, not good for other living things either. 

It's not a victory yet...
 

Quote

The 2015 hole was the fourth largest since 1991, peaking at an area larger than the continent of North America. It was also deeper than other recent holes and lasted longer. 2016 was also worse than average and 2017 is expected to be severe, too.

Quote

 

These new ozone-busters include dichloromethane (DCM), a common and cheap paint stripper, also used in foam-blowing agents and, ironically, in the manufacture of "ozone-friendly" alternatives to CFCs. With emissions exceeding 1 million tons a year, the concentration of DCM in the lower atmosphere has more than doubled since 2004. Even so, it has not been regarded as a threat to the ozone layer, because its typical lifetime in the atmosphere before it is broken down in photochemical reactions is only about five months. It should, atmospheric chemists concluded, remain safely in the lower atmosphere.

 

But that view collapsed in 2015, when Emma Leedham Elvidge at the University of East Anglia in England examined air samples taken on board commercial aircraft cruising at the lower edge of the stratosphere. She found high levels of DCM (PDF), especially over the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, and particularly during the Asian monsoon season, when strong updrafts fast-track air from the ground to the stratosphere. It seems they were taking DCM along for the ride.

 

How much should we worry? Ryan Hossaini, an atmospheric chemist at Lancaster University, recently did the math. He calculated that DCM currently contributes less than 10 percent of the chlorine in the ozone layer. But on current emission trends, that could delay the ozone hole’s recovery by 30 years, until at least 2095, he suggested.

 

Others share that concern. "Growing quantities of DCM are leaking into the stratosphere, where it is exceptionally effective in destroying the ozone," said David Rowley, an atmospheric chemist at the University College London, who was not involved in the research. "The potential for DCM to affect the global ozone budget is profound."

 

Alarm bells are ringing about dozens of other short-lived, potentially ozone-destroying chlorine compounds accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of fast-rising global manufacturing. They include 1,2-dichloroethane, a chemical widely used in the manufacture of PVC pipes. There are few atmospheric measurements of this compound yet, "but sporadic data suggest it is a significant source of chlorine in the atmosphere," said Hossaini.

 

The risks of such chemicals reaching the ozone layer are greatest in the tropics, where manufacturing is booming in fast-industrializing countries such as China and India, and where, as luck would have it, atmospheric circulation patterns are favorable. The Asian monsoon can propel the gases to the stratosphere in as little as 10 days, according to yet-unpublished research.

 

oops. Legal Loopholes and new chemicals concocted!!

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ozone-problem-back-vengeance
 

Quote

 

three CFCs supposedly banned under the protocol were turning up in increasing amounts in the clean air blowing round the Southern Ocean and captured at Cape Grim in Tasmania. Johannes Laube, an atmospheric chemist at the University of East Anglia, calculated that global emissions of CFC-113a, once an important feedstock in manufacturing both refrigerants and pyrethroid pesticides, doubled in two years.How come? It turns out that the Montreal Protocol never completely banned CFCs. "CFC-113a is covered by a loophole that allows industries to apply for exemptions," Laube said.

 

Quote

increased levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap more solar heat radiating from the Earth’s surface, less warmth reaches the stratosphere, which cools as a result. This trend has been evident for almost 40 years. A colder stratosphere improves conditions for ozone loss.

[ralis]

13 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

It's not a victory yet...
 

oops. Legal Loopholes and new chemicals concocted!!

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ozone-problem-back-vengeance
 

 

Your mention of photosynthesis shutting down with temps over 105 deg. inspired a bit of research on my part. The abstract I have linked here demonstrates that doubling atmospheric CO2 caused stomatal closure which reduced transpiration rates by 25%. The full pdf is behind a damn pay wall so the abstract is all I have to read.

 

Google search for atmospheric interaction of CO2. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=CO2+inteaction+atmosphere&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016819239405079L

 

Quote

Simulations were performed with the fully interactive vegetation-climate model for an Amazon location with the present-day value of C_a (1 × CO₂), and twice this value (2 × CO₂). In addition, two other types of simulation were performed at both CO₂ concentrations: one in which the vegetation component was forced only with 1 × CO₂, and one using a fixed surface resistance. The latter case is equivalent to simulations using most current general circulation models. In all the simulations, increased atmospheric CO₂ caused an increase in surface temperature owing to increased radiative forcing. With a fixed resistance, mean E_T was increased by 5.6% and sensible heat flux was reduced by 3.8%. The fully interactive model had significant effects on the response of both climate and productivity to C_a. Increased C_a caused stomatal closure, which resulted in a reduction in mean E_T of 25%. The effect of C_a on E_T was amplified by the positive feedback resulting from the effect of increased air humidity deficit on stomatal resistance.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by ralis

[windwalker]

Interesting he talks about how the earth should be heading into another ice age but due to human influences

this is being mitigated.   This influence started before the industrial age.

 

 

"Climate change has become a major political issue, but few understand how climate has changed in the past and the forces that drive climate.

 

Most people don't know that fifty million years ago there were breadfruit trees and crocodiles on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, or that 18,000 years ago there was a mile-thick glacier on Manhattan and a continuous belt of winter sea ice extending south to Cape Hatteras.

 

The History of Climate provides context of our current climate debate and fundamental insight how the climate works."

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by windwalker

[thelerner]

The study of the past, the floods, the ice ages is very important.  We have deserts that were once inland oceans.  There have been several ice ages including snowball earth that almost destroyed all life on the planet.  Mankind has suffered through disasters that only left a few hundred alive and came very close to ending our story permanently.  

 

But being an intelligent species means, we shouldn't do it to ourselves.  We have the tech and the time to forestall disaster.   That tech can also be used to create our own manmade disaster. 

 

We need to study solar cycles and various earth and ocean cycles, understand the systems and they're very complex and interactive.  It may be that if we're moving into a cold solar period that heating up environment is actually a good thing, but we'd better know that.  Otherwise there are things that are causing unneeded pollution.  We will pay a price for using the cheapest most polluting materials.  We're seeing that now.  Life spans in some areas are shrinking and its pollution to blame. 

 

Islands and coastal areas are feeling global warming and rising ocean water.   Glaciers are melting, long term snow fall patterns are being disrupted.  Tundras are unfreezing and turning to mud.  We are at the cusp of seeing some places become unliveable.  We can't ignore it, we need to study and find workable solutions, and keep politics out of the way. 

[windwalker]

25 minutes ago, thelerner said:

We can't ignore it, we need to study and find workable solutions, and keep politics out of the way. 

 

 

I think you missed the point.  The change is natural, its unpreventable,   human activity does play a role its not clear as of yet whether its a positive or negative,

 kinda depends on ones view point and need.   

 

Climate change means climate  for all,  those unable to adapt wont, those that do will...a natural process 

 

The data used is not always accurate depending on source  and   narrative making it so it fits with with the models supporting one or the other conclusion as needed.   

 

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by windwalker

[windwalker]

Quote

Islands and coastal areas are feeling global warming and rising ocean water.

 

 

 

 

 

https://canadafreepress.com/article/ocean-islands-are-not-sinking

New research shows the islands are growing, not receding

Using historic aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite imagery, Auckland University scientists Murray Ford and Paul Kench recently analyzed shoreline changes on six atolls and two mid-ocean reef islands in the Marshall Islands. Their peer-reviewed study revealed that since the middle of the 20th century the total land area of the islands has actually grown."

 

"One of the foremost sea level experts in the world, Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Morner says this, “As someone with some expertise in the field, I can assure the low-lying countries that this is a false alarm. The sea is not rising precipitously. I have studied many of the low-lying regions in my 45 year career recording and interpreting sea level data. I have conducted six field trips to the Maldives. I have been to Bangladesh, whose environment minister was claiming that flooding due to climate change threatened to create 20 million ‘ecological refugees’ in her country.

 

I have carefully examined the data of ‘drowning’ Tuvalu and I can report that, while such regions do have problems, they need not fear rising sea levels. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an ‘inconvenient truth,’ it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors. They rose in the order of 10 to 11 cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained flat every since.” ⁷

Edited February 26, 2019 by windwalker

[windwalker]

 

 

Petition Signers in California

3,766 Signers out of 31,487 Total in US

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

 

"The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

 

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

 

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested."

 

 

what happened to the 97% of scientist claiming that global warming is the causative agent.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

3 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Your mention of photosynthesis shutting down with temps over 105 deg. inspired a bit of research on my part. The abstract I have linked here demonstrates that doubling atmospheric CO2 caused stomatal closure which reduced transpiration rates by 25%. The full pdf is behind a damn pay wall so the abstract is all I have to read.

 

Google search for atmospheric interaction of CO2. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=CO2+inteaction+atmosphere&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016819239405079L

 

 

 

you can get beyond academic paywall with this link  https://sci-hub.tw/

So you can just paste the doi url into that page or try the link you posted also.

I'll read it - thanks. Also we can read the articles that cite this article.

 

[voidisyinyang]

39 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

Petition Signers in California

3,766 Signers out of 31,487 Total in US

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php

 

"The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

 

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

 

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested."

 

 

what happened to the 97% of scientist claiming that global warming is the causative agent.

 

 

Quote

U.S. institutions awarded 54,904 research doctorate degrees in 2016, only five fewer than the previous year's record high, according to the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), a federally sponsored annual census of research degree recipients.

 

So 9,000 Ph.D. signatures is not that impressive.

 

Quote

So when Oreskes was asked to give a talk for AAAS in 2004 on just that, she initially decided to focus on what had been her forte: the history of the theory of plate tectonics, a subject that as a geologist she has returned to several times, including in her book The Rejection of Continental Drift.

 

I read her book on Continental Drift - around 2005 - and I thought it was excellent. I was promoting Professor Oreskes work while also I was posting on global warming - around that same time. I am glad she switched to focus on global warming research.

 

https://www.aaas.org/naomi-oreskes-scientific-consensus-climate-change-and-merchants-doubt

 

Quote

That story evolved into a book, Merchants of Doubt. Published in 2010 and since made into a documentary, Oreskes and Conway’s book outlines various attempts to discredit scientific research by fueling controversies where there are none. Oreskes and Conway documented attempts to discredit scientists linking cigarette smoking to cancer, CFCs to ozone depletion, and climate change to the burning of fossil fuels.

 

yep - same PR firms, same scientists even!!

 

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

 

"One of the foremost sea level experts in the world, Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Morner says

Quote

commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president),

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

Quote

Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his [Mörner] view do not represent 99% of its members, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."

oops.

Quote

 

So how does Mörner explain the global sea level rise record, in which both satellite altimeters and tide gauges show average global sea level rise on the order of 3 mm per year (Figure 1)?  It's all a conspiracy, of course:

"In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year...This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong"

Obviously this conspiracy theory is utterly absurd, and is easily disproven by simply examining the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001, two years before Mörner's accusation of falsified sea level data, which shows an approximately 10 to 15 mm rise in average global sea level from 1993 to 1998 (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Global mean sea level variations (light line) computed from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter data compared with the global averaged sea surface temperature variations (dark line) for 1993 to 1998. The seasonal components have been removed from both time-series. (IPCC TAR)

In short, Mörner's conspiracy theory and accusation of falsified data is complete nonsense.  It's also ironic that Mörner accuses others of falsifying data, since he has previously doctored photographs in his own presentations (i.e. see multiple photos of the Maldives 'marker tree' spliced together here and here).

 

dang!!!

https://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner

just another Corporate Junk scientist

Edited February 26, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

 

 

 out of 31,487

 

 

Quote

 

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology.

 

https://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda

oops

 

Quote

Robinson last made the news in 1998, when he organized a widely discredited anti-climate science petition of 2,100 “scientists” in the United States. That petition contained such names as John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of “Dr. Red Wine,” and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls.

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[voidisyinyang]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

Signers out of 31,487 Total in US

 

 

Quote

lso attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

Quote

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.

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

MOre here -

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naomi_Oreskes/publication/8150290_Beyond_the_Ivory_Tower_The_Scientific_Consensus_on_Climate_Change/links/55354de80cf218056e92950a/Beyond-the-Ivory-Tower-The-Scientific-Consensus-on-Climate-Change.pdf?origin=publication_detail

 

Edited February 26, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

explains what climate sensitivity is 

 

 

[thelerner]

14 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

 

I think you missed the point.  The change is natural, its unpreventable,   human activity does play a role its not clear as of yet whether its a positive or negative,

 

I get that.. it's just I'd rather have a couple hundred more years of civilization then do nothing and lose that extra time because people played politics instead of listening to the science.  I see it like a patient in critical condition at the hospital.  Yes one day they will die, but there are drugs and therapies that can extend not only there life and quality of life.  Just getting into shape, exercise and quitting some well known poisons will improve it.  The fact that we are at the mercy of larger forces doesn't give us the right to do nothing. 

 

It does obligate us to do the smart thing though.  The good science and while it should consider the outliers and the cutting edge, policy should move towards where there is wide consensus and at least pick the low hanging fruit, where there's maximum benefit and less cost. 

 

Here I'm thinking coal, is very polluting at every level from scooping it out of the ground to the mountains of sledge left behind.  Putting particulates, mercury and heavy metals into the environment is the middle is also very bad.  We can do better and while natural gas has its problems, its a cheap smart replacement until cleaner, hopefully renewable energy comes along.  Similarly there is common sense conservation pushes, better bulbs, better gas mileage, better insulation.. that have upfront costs but huge savings.  We can do better with these.

 

Even if wrong, even if wrong, these measures cut down on pollution and are simply smart in the medium and long run. 

 

Addon> if you want to know what NASA thinks about global warming its causes and effects, its easy to find.  Here- https://climate.nasa.gov/

Because its politicized there is much  propaganda at the extremes.  By listening to scientists on both sides who've studied it for decades with special attention to those in the middle, we can arrive at the latest understanding.  Which will evolve as more data comes in. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by thelerner