SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...
&
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...
&
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE
The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus on Climate Change
A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
[END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...
The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...
Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...
European Science Foundation:
American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...
World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...
American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...
American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...
NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...
4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:
[QUOTE]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
(more)The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."
1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]
Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:
[QUOTE]
Scientific consensus on Climate Change
A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]
US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]
American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
[END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...
The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...
American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...
American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...
Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...
American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...
European Science Foundation:
American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...
World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...
American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...
American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...
American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...
NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...
4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:
[QUOTE]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
[END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
Don't believe everything that so called self-appointed scientists and vigilante special interest left-wing groups report as truth. It's all propaganda.
+
The energy efficient light bulbs that we now have to buy contain Mercury? You can't just throw them away in your refuse, they need to be discarded in a contamination receptical. If you happen to break one at home....you should vacate the area for 15 mins. so that no one breaths in the mercury dust....sweep up with a broom and dustpan...can't vaccuum as every time you use it afterwards, you will contaminate the area.
The wind turbines...kill birds and can not be used if too windy or not enough wind...basically not a reliable source of energy production.
As for pro-oil...Better go to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and get them to listen to your Global Warming theories. Tell them they have to clean up their Oil manufacturing sites! They have the highest Carbon output than anyone else.
That is the biggest bunch of bull I ever heard! Let me guess, you got that info from a right-wing talker?
You have a lot of complaints about and animosity against safe, renewable energy. Too bad you prefer to continue to go with the same energy sources that will cause our waters to be so contaminated that we could never safely drink it, and our air to become so bad that we will probably be extinct by the 22nd century. Congratulations!!!
BTW: when the oil no longer is wanted, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela will probably be the only people still using oil. Also..., don't think that the cost of oil won't keep going up. All corporations do all they can to see an increase in profit, and if there is nowhere else to cut they make it up in price hikes. So, renewable energy might be expensive now, but in the long run it will be much less expensive than oil.
BTW....why do you think oil will no longer be wanted? Who's going to say no to oil when there is an abundance of it? Ever heard of supply and demand? Who controls the price of oil right now? Any clue? Ever heard of OPEC? Stop funding Saudi Arabia for her oil ( which goes to fund terrorism) and the Price of oil comes down.
Solar panels and windmills will always be expensive!
+
(If anything, satellite radiometer measurements show the sun has been very very slightly cooling since 1975)
(Click twice to enlarge graph.)
New Data Show Solar Irradiance Continuing to Slowly Fall
By Roger Coppock 03/11
ABSTRACT:
An analysis of newly available satellite Solar irradiance
measurements from 1976 to 2011 shows a small but statistically
significant decrease of -0.0124 - 0.0004 Watts per square
meter per year, or about -0.0009% of mean solar irradiance
per year, over the 36-year period.
PROCEDURE AND RESULTS:
The location of the data's end points within the Solar cycle
biases a simple linear regression and produces an incorrect
result. (1.3 times the correct magnitude, or
-0.0162 - 0.0005 W/m^2 per year.) Therefore, the analysis
required a non-linear curve fit to a 'line plus sine'
expression:
B1 B2*Year B3*SIN(B4 (Year*2Pi)/B5)
where the determined coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5
are known as the intercept, slope, amplitude, phase, and
period respectively.
After correcting for the appropriate cycle of the SIN()
function, (B3>0.0 and 2*Pi>B4>=0.0), and removing 32
outlier observations 3.5 sigma outside the model, the
results of the 11811-point curve fit are as follows:
Irad ~ beta1 beta2 * Year
beta3 * sin(beta4 (Year * 2*Pi)/be...
>
<
<
<
<
(If anything, satellite radiometer measurements show the sun has been very very slightly cooling since 1975)
(Click twice to enlarge graph.)
New Data Show Solar Irradiance Continuing to Slowly Fall
By Roger Coppock 03/11
ABSTRACT:
An analysis of newly available satellite Solar irradiance
measurements from 1976 to 2011 shows a small but statistically
significant decrease of -0.0124 - 0.0004 Watts per square
meter per year, or about -0.0009% of mean solar irradiance
per year, over the 36-year period.
PROCEDURE AND RESULTS:
The location of the data's end points within the Solar cycle
biases a simple linear regression and produces an incorrect
result. (1.3 times the correct magnitude, or
-0.0162 - 0.0005 W/m^2 per year.) Therefore, the analysis
required a non-linear curve fit to a 'line plus sine'
expression:
B1 B2*Year B3*SIN(B4 (Year*2Pi)/B5)
where the determined coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5
are known as the intercept, slope, amplitude, phase, and
period respectively.
After correcting for the appropriate cycle of the SIN()
function, (B3>0.0 and 2*Pi>B4>=0.0), and removing 32
outlier observations 3.5 sigma outside the model, the
results of the 11811-point curve fit are as follows:
Irad ~ beta1 beta2 * Year
beta3 * sin(beta4 (Year * 2*Pi)/beta5)
Parameters:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
beta1 1.391e 03 8.362e-01 1662.987 <2e-16
beta2 -1.241e-02 4.193e-04 -29.592 <2e-16
beta3 4.589e-01 5.631e-03 81.498 <2e-16
beta4 -1.400e 00 2.433e 00 -0.575 0.565
beta5 1.062e 01 2.190e-02 485.026 <2e-16
Residual standard error: 0.422 on 11806 degrees of freedom
Please note the large standard error on beta4, the phase
of the sine function. Only three cycles of high variance
data produce this. As an exercise, try to locate the
peeks and valleys of these data in this graph. Please see:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppo...
The data are black. The linear component, both intercept
and slope, is green. The total 'line plus sine' function
is red.
The curve fit was performed by the "R" statistical package
for Intel Mac OSX, Version 2.10.0.
The dual cavity radiometer Solar irradiance data come from
PMODWRC. They cover the period from 01/12/1976 to 02/02/2011.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.ph...
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data...
A preprocessing program converted month and day information
into fractional years and removed data marked by PMODWRC as
invalid.
DISCUSSION:
Global warming 'skeptics' often claim that increases in Solar
radiation reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere, not rising CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere, are responsible for the observed
climb of the global mean near surface temperatures in the last
thirty years. This argument was not supported by the facts.
Now it is even less so. When the solar cycle was statistically
removed, prior data showed no significant long term change in
Solar irradiance large enough to explain the warming, (about an
3 W/m^2 increase over the last two centuries is needed.) Present
data actually show a very small but statistically significant
decrease in solar output over the last three solar cycles. It is
very hard to support any claim of a solar cause for global warming
when measurements clearly show decreasing solar output.
For more information, please see:
http://www.terradaily.com/rep...
http://environment.newscienti...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sc...
A LIST OF 32 OUTLIER POINTS REMOVED
The number in the data set (after the data marked by PMODWRC as invalid was removed), the year with fraction, and irradiance values in Watts per meter squared are shown.
Num Date Irradiance
1536 1981.5591397 1364.0619
1537 1981.5618279 1363.9227
1538 1981.5645161 1363.7736
1539 1981.5698924 1364.0631
2257 1984.0698924 1363.4285
2258 1984.0725806 1363.1992
2259 1984.0752688 1363.0893
2260 1984.0779569 1363.4477
2261 1984.0806451 1364.0151
2344 1984.3194444 1363.4623
2345 1984.3222222 1363.2828
2346 1984.325 1363.2427
2347 1984.3305555 1363.7501
3783 1988.4972222 1363.8896
3784 1988.5 1363.7648
3785 1988.5053763 1363.8917
4063 1989.2777777 1367.8666
4064 1989.2805555 1367.9654
4065 1989.2833333 1367.8665
4094 1989.3629032 1368.2434
4641 1990.8861111 1364.0097
4982 1991.8198924 1363.8723
9198 2003.8118279 1363.7460
9199 2003.8145161 1363.5187
9200 2003.8172043 1363.4123
9201 2003.8198924 1363.0110
9202 2003.8225806 1362.2442
9203 2003.8252688 1361.8726
9204 2003.8279569 1362.1225
9205 2003.8306451 1363.0755
9639 2005.0376344 1363.5927
9640 2005.0403225 1363.6945
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Debating the reality of Climate change is akin to people debating a heliocentric solar system. There really are people who believe that the universe revolves around the Earth, but do we give them any credence? Those who deny the reality of climate change and humanity's involvement should be regarded with the same credence of heliocentricity deniers.