Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

Since when does 3910 of 11994 = 97%?

Do you ever try reading?

It would be misleading to say that only 0.7% of 11994 rejected AGW (however true it is), so they removed those who did not express an opinion. (And included those who were uncertain about the cause of global warming to the reject category)

32.6%/33.6% = 97% of those who express a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.


Instead of failing to understand statistics, why not try to find an explanation to the 'disappearing' energy in denier assumptions?

[gwb72tii]

we're going to freeze to death due to global warming

http://www.today.com/id/51929453/ns/local_news-anchorage_ak/t/anchorage-sets-record-longest-snow-season/#.UZmjKZU_4qY

[nando]

the part that George always seems to fail to recognize is the "Record weather extreme" in all these headlines. that we keep breaking.. over and over and over again.

[Fusion]

Do you ever try reading?

It would be misleading to say that only 0.7% of 11994 rejected AGW (however true it is), so they removed those who did not express an opinion. (And included those who were uncertain about the cause of global warming to the reject category)

32.6%/33.6% = 97% of those who express a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.


Instead of failing to understand statistics, why not try to find an explanation to the 'disappearing' energy in denier assumptions?

You're wrong on this one, Robert.

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming

(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact

(3) Implicit endorsement
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

(4a) No position
Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain
Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined

(5) Implicit rejection
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming

(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming

(7) Explicit rejection with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming

Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4: 8261
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
Total: 12271

The 97% claim is way too shady even for you to try to defend.
The problem is not in the results, rather in the way they are presented. For example the way nando presented the numbers 97% and 12,000 (as it is often presented) makes it seem as though 11640 endorse AGW. People don't care where the numbers come from. People read Obama's tweet that makes it seem that 97% of the whole scientific community agrees. This is of course not true.

[rwh11385]

You're wrong on this one, Robert.

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming

(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact

(3) Implicit endorsement
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

(4a) No position
Does not address or mention the cause of global warming
(4b) Uncertain
Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined

(5) Implicit rejection
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming

(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming

(7) Explicit rejection with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming

Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4: 8261
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
Total: 12271

The 97% claim is way too shady even for you to try to defend.
The problem is not in the results, rather in the way they are presented. For example the way nando presented the numbers 97% and 12,000 (as it is often presented) makes it seem as though 11640 endorse AGW. People don't care where the numbers come from. People read Obama's tweet that makes it seem that 97% of the whole scientific community agrees. This is of course not true.

How would you summarize the data then Pavel?

[gwb72tii]

well all you faithful, if you dismiss the science, dismiss the scientists, dismiss the data, and truly "believe" no matter if AGW cannot be proven or not, THIS should really convince you because its from the BBC, the bastion of liberal groupthink

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

and for those who won't read it because it would challenge their undying faith, i'll summarize

"no global warming since 1998"

[cale]

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

Next link taken out of context please, nowhere in that one does it state "no warming since 98".

who say the slowdown over the past 14 years

=/= no warming since 98, learn to read

[gwb72tii]

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

[cale]

It's a standstill? Last I checked the majority of the top ten warmest years on record have occurred since this apparent stand still begun.

Now tell me, how do you explain those warmest years occurring if warming has not occurred? I realize you're no rocket surgeon, but this isn't either. Or do you put standstill in quotations because even you see the irony and stupidity in your own arguments?

[rwh11385]

well all you faithful, if you dismiss the science, dismiss the scientists, dismiss the data, and truly "believe" no matter if AGW cannot be proven or not, THIS should really convince you because its from the BBC, the bastion of liberal groupthink

Um, last I checked you were the one who dismissed science and faithfully followed a college drop-out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

and for those who won't read it because it would challenge their undying faith, i'll summarize

"no global warming since 1998"

Summarize, mislead, or outright lie?

Same quote that cale pulled out:

Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?

"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.

So you didn't even read the link you posted?

This does prove that you will interpret anything into agreement with your views instead of actually understanding the meaning of something.

[rwh11385]

Cool - another opportunity to refine models and improve accuracy of history: http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...are-misleading

http://www.gizmag.com/low-grade-silicon-solar-cell-efficiency/27426/

A team from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia has found a way to improve the quality of low-grade silicon, enabling higher efficiency solar cells to be produced from cheaper, low-grade silicon.

http://www.gizmag.com/moth-eye-thin-film-interference/27561/

Reducing light reflected by solar panels.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130516-706559.html

Goldman Sachs Backs $500 Million SolarCity Fund for Financing Rooftop-Solar Systems

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-21/solar-will-be-second-biggest-source-of-u-s-power-added-in-2013.html

Solar Will Be Second-Biggest Source of U.S. Power Added in 2013

Panel prices have fallen almost 69 percent in the past two years

The U.S. in 2013 may add about 4.2 gigawatts of solar generating capacity using photovoltaic technology, according to data from the Solar Energy Industries Association, for which Harris serves as board chairman.
Photovoltaic systems totaling about 3.3 gigawatts were added in 2012, which was 76 percent more than in 2011. The amount of wind generating capacity added last year exceeded that of all other sources, including gas-fired power.
“Solar has moved alongside wind now as one of the three technologies -- solar, wind and gas -- that are going to be part of our nation’s energy build-out no matter what,” Harris said.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/12/report-solar-scores-big-gains-in-electricity-generation

For the first time, solar accounted for all the new electricity generation capacity added to the U.S. grid in March.

Let's hope this continues with better refinement not only of the models but also the technology of solar panels and other renewables, but also the commercial financing of them.

[Kershaw]

[Q5Quint]

Thanks Kershaw for reminding us what the arguments are. I actually printed that since I argue with my uber-libertarian co-worker often and this happens a lot, and it should serve to keep us on track.

So where is the theory of world cooling? Or the theory of world temperature staying the same? Does it not exist because it isn't happening?

Or is the theory that every climate scientist, weather scientist, and geological researcher, and NASA, being involved in a liberal socialist conspiracy to tax fossil fuels and enslave the masses an easier theory to believe? Thanks obama?

My personal theory is that our 'conservatives' are trying to push our country back 200 years where women have no rights, blacks are again our slaves, believing in evolution/witchcraft is punishable by burning/crucifixion and only land owning christian white men can vote for anything.

Of course land owning white male christians hate global warming; they hated the anti-tobacco smoking push and even 50 years later we have yet to fully get rid of it. There is too much money there for them to ignore. Just like our current energy sector 'smoking' industry. Get them hooked- jack the prices- and hold on for 50 years until people finally stop allowing that dirty **** because it costs everyone else too much.

I still give oil another solid 50 years.

Cale- If the weather gets 'extreme' you could have the same 'average' temperature.... just with more extremes on both the hot and cold side.... hence the record highs and lows and rainfall amounts. I am still baffled that people dont understand this when about 60% of our country is experiencing uber-drought conditions.

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

So what if it never rains again, it hasn't warmed since 1998! Global warming isnt real!

[rwh11385]

Hey Q5, how about that yummy Guangzhou rice?

http://qz.com/86416/how-half-of-all-rice-in-a-chinese-province-was-poisoned-by-pollution/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578494583962413470.html

Not being responsible for negative externalities is BS.



And George, you really like ICEsat right?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/may/HQ_13-141_Glaciers_Sea_Level.html

NASA Satellite Data Help Pinpoint Glaciers' Role in Sea Level Rise


WASHINGTON -- A new study of glaciers worldwide using observations from two NASA satellites has helped resolve differences in estimates of how fast glaciers are disappearing and contributing to sea level rise.

The new research found glaciers outside of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, repositories of 1 percent of all land ice, lost an average of 571 trillion pounds (259 trillion kilograms) of mass every year during the six-year study period, making the oceans rise 0.03 inches (0.7 mm) per year. This is equal to about 30 percent of the total observed global sea level rise during the same period and matches the combined contribution to sea level from the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets.

The study compares traditional ground measurements to satellite data from NASA's Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) and Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) missions to estimate ice loss for glaciers in all regions of the planet. The study period spans 2003 to 2009, the years when the two missions overlapped.

"For the first time, we have been able to very precisely constrain how much these glaciers as a whole are contributing to sea level rise," said Alex Gardner, Earth scientist at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., and lead author of the study. "These smaller ice bodies are currently losing about as much mass as the ice sheets."

[herbivor]

"no global warming since 1998"

what about since 1997? Have we had global warming since then?