Global warming discussion III

[DC]

This certainly reinforces my perception that funding has been detoured from anti-AGW science towards political campaigns to elevate politicians of any ideology that still can believe the old memes.

And your definition of scientist may be extremely broad, as 32,000 are the 0.5% of 6.4 million, and I find difficult to believe that in the USA there might be 6.4 million people with actual scientific education and background -with a scientific varnish, there are endless millions, there and everywhere-. Your dentist is not a scientist. An expert in a trial may be sometimes a scientist, but it is not expected to be that.

not my definition.

the US has some 6.2 million Scientist and Engineers.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf

and as the Oregon petition contains 10 000 engineers, i think this gives a very nice comparison-

 

[aleCcowaN]

not my definition.

the US has some 6.2 million Scientist and Engineers.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf

That means 1 scientist and 6,199,999 engineers.

According to that paper a programmer is a scientist and a physician is not. That is, someone that has abilities for clinical semiology isn't a "scientist", but a problem solver is it. It's an arbitrary definition, with some hubris in it.

 

[DC]

That means 1 scientist and 6,199,999 engineers.

According to that paper a programmer is a scientist and a physician is not. That is, someone that has abilities for clinical semiology isn't a "scientist", but a problem solver is it. It's an arbitrary definition, with some hubris in it.

would we also include physicians that would be an additional 640 000 people. makes it look even worse for the deniers.

but the physicians fled the USA anyway because of Obamacare

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/primary/pcwork1/index.html

 

[aleCcowaN]

Two pieces of info:

HadSST3 for last June is out: the global temperature anomaly (0.562°C) broke the previous records for any month (last record: July 1998 with 0.526°C).

Total Solar Irradiance continued to drop. Last daily sequence, for July 4th, started at 1316.6761 W/m2 at 3 a.m GMT and dropped to 1316.5548 at 9 p.m. GMT. However, the planet's average temperature is expected to continue to raise for about two weeks more, or so. I'm not sure that is because of what I was told, that Total Solar Irradiance stopped dropping some moment last Sunday and it is expected to raise. What do you think, Haig?

How was it, that funny paragraph about an 11-year delay?

would we also include physicians that would be an additional 640 000 people. makes it look even worse for the deniers.

but the physicians fled the USA anyway because of Obamacare

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/primary/pcwork1/index.html

Well, so we have here like one million scientists if we include the almost 200,000 physicians (including dentists and kinesiologists) -per inhabitant, only second to Italy- and 90,000 psychologists and psychoanalysts -first per inhabitant, more than double than Austria's, the second-. Certainly, the currently only 8,886 people with grants from CONICET should now feel special.

But everything is good, as long as you acknowledge the plural of scientist is scientists. If you are not sure, look for the use of it by every poster in this thread. You would be surprised whom you are following in that.

 

[DC]

Well, so we have here like one million scientists if we include the almost 200,000 physicians (including dentists and kinesiologists) -per inhabitant, only second to Italy- and 90,000 psychologists and psychoanalysts -first per inhabitant, more than double than Austria's, the second-. Certainly, the currently only 8,886 people with grants from CONICET should now feel special.

But everything is good, as long as you acknowledge the plural of scientist is scientists. If you are not sure, look for the use of it by every poster in this thread. You would be surprised whom you are following in that.

what is your point?

 

[macdoc]

6.4 million people with actual scientific education and background

that's only 1.5% of the population Alec.

 

[aleCcowaN]

what is your point?

Only one? Well, that there is an plague of "scientific" worldwide, the kind that swarm around like locusts and sign petitions à l'Oregon. That should be why plumbers charge so much.

 

[aleCcowaN]

that's only 1.5% of the population Alec.

2% to be exact. If you're going to pratronize me, do it with accurate data.

 

[DC]

Only one? Well, that there is an plague of "scientific" worldwide, the kind that swarm around like locusts and sign petitions à l'Oregon. That should be why plumbers charge so much.

ah i see, no point it is then.

 

[aleCcowaN]

ah i seex no point, it is, then.

FTFY

If you are going to counterbalance such crap as the Oregon petition with papers like that about who qualifies as a scientist, you and those denialists deserve each other. It's like hoping that two wrongs will make a right. Mein Gott!

 

[DC]

FTFY

If you are going to counterbalance such crap as the Oregon petition with papers like that about who qualifies as a scientist, you and those denialists deserve each other. It's like hoping that two wrongs will make a right. Mein Gott!

oh daer... there is no properly defined group that counts as scientists.

and except for physicians, both the paper i linked to and the oregon petition use pretty much the same definition of who qualifies as scientist.
the paper i linked to a bit better as they atleast point out its scientists and engineers.

i don't care if you agree with the definition of scientists or not. and my point never was who qualifies as scientist and who not.
my point is , that those 32000 people the petition lists, is an extremely small number considering how many people there are in the USA that fall into the groups the petition listed.

but hey, when you have a better source for the number of scientists in the USA. pls present it. i might use it. but sofar you only bring up whining and no data.

 

[Haig]

This post belongs here in reply to corsair 115 about global warming

Show me a post of mine where it's said that there is no GW? Climate change/ global warming /global cooling has always been happening and continues to happen. It's just that AGW isn't statistically significant in these cycles.


Sure I can ... Water ... lots of it

Didn't you know that http://www.universetoday.com/65588/what-percent-of-earth-is-water/

You must have missed this post Solar Notch-Delay Model Released

Maybe you can answer a question now.

Why are AGW alarmists claiming the West Antarctic Glacier Melting is human caused when they haven't included volcanic activity?

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources June 10, 2014

It's not as if this wasn't known about before ...

Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica

BTW did you know that increased volcanic activity has been linked to the Sun?

 

[DC]

.....Climate change/ global warming /global cooling has always been happening and continues to happen. It's just that AGW isn't statistically significant in these cycles.
....?

Why? What caused it? and can those causes explain the late 20th century warming?

 

[BenBurch]

"Gentlemen! Please! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

 

[Haig]

Why? What caused it? and can those causes explain the late 20th century warming?

Solar Cycles but "why" they happen? ... well there are theories.

As I said "The Sun".

Yes, sure they can. It has happened before.

 

[DC]

Solar Cycles but "why" they happen? ... well there are theories.

As I said "The Sun".

Yes, sure they can. It has happened before.

no the sun is surely not a valid explenation for the later 20th century warming , solar cycles since the 1960's have become weaker.

 

[r-j]

"Gentlemen! Please! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

This clumsy fool tried to plant that ridiculous camera on me.

Back on topic. The answer to all the following questions is "yes".

1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Has Man contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Has there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Has Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?

 

[aleCcowaN]

i don't care if you agree with the definition of scientists or not. and my point never was who qualifies as scientist and who not.
my point is , that those 32000 people the petition lists, is an extremely small number considering how many people there are in the USA that fall into the groups the petition listed.

but hey, when you have a better source for the number of scientists in the USA. pls present it. i might use it. but sofar you only bring up whining and no data.

It's not a matter of that. Those signers of that kind of petition could perfectly be 100% of climate scientists, it doesn't matter they are if they didn't examine the subject. It's not a matter of who is the scientist or not of who is the supposed specialist. It's a matter of what they did to arrive to the conclusion their signed, if they really signed it. Those petitions fall just by the act of screening them and the Oregon Petition may be a piece of vintage denialism, but it is already history.

If you are in a rush to convince shallow people about the inconvenience of paying attention to such kind of petitions, just tell "90% of doctors smoke Camel". Your act of counterbalancing figures with equally bad definitions of science is just promoting the concept that scientists, which for you it doesn't matter what they are, are truth-holders both within their specific intellectual scopes and beyond those scopes. There's nothing more contrary to the truth and more alien to science that that.

If you didn't get it yet: you're promoting the very type of misconception those petitions exploit. We have a saying "God, protect me from my friends as I'll take care of my enemies by myself.". I'll make room for it in my signature as here it's permanently true.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Solar Cycles but "why" they happen? ... well there are theories.

As I said "The Sun".

Yes, sure they can. It has happened before.

You kept that meme of you and yours, however you can't explain how the total solar irradiance can drop 7% in a short period of time yet the global temperature climbs 7°F in the same period, what is common knowledge, by the way. The answer is not "water" nor "puppies" as you have a dyer problem justifying your assertions about the sun being the main responsible for the temperature trend.

You can't either comment on this

Total Solar Irradiance continued to drop. Last daily sequence, for July 4th, started at 1316.6761 W/m2 at 3 a.m GMT and dropped to 1316.5548 at 9 p.m. GMT. However, the planet's average temperature is expected to continue to raise for about two weeks more, or so. I'm not sure that is because of what I was told, that Total Solar Irradiance stopped dropping some moment last Sunday and it is expected to raise. What do you think, Haig?

How was it, that funny paragraph about an 11-year delay?

Other denialists swarming around here do know the answer, but they won't tell you because the don't do anything out of solidarity but they are out of solidarity.

 

[lomiller]

You must have missed this post

I’ve addressed it. Specifically I’ve pointed out how you keep ignoring the law of conservation of energy.
Net anthropogenic forcing is ~20 times greater than the average over the 5-6 years of the positive (or negative) part of the solar cycle.

they haven't included volcanic activity?

Volcanoes don’t produce enough heat to melt significant amounts of ice. Even the very largest could only melt a few cubic km which is a tiny fraction of what’s melting.