Interesting. http://zeenews.india.com/news/space...le-for-global-warming-since-1950s_890435.html El Nino may be partially responsible for global warming since 1950s When they ran their ocean model without ENSO, they arrived at the same general conclusions as the more complex general circulation climate models. When they added data from past El Nino and La Nina events as only a change in ocean mixing, the model indicated a climate system that is slightly less sensitive to CO2-induced warming than has been believed. But the biggest change was when the model was allowed to change cloud cover with El Nino and La Nina in the same way as has been observed from satellites. The results suggest that these natural climate cycles change the total amount of energy received from the sun, providing a natural warming and cooling mechanism of the surface and the deep ocean on multi-decadal time scales. Spencer said that as a result, because as much as 50 percent of the warming since the 1970s could be attributed to stronger El Nino activity, it suggests that the climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed. The study has been published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.
More "scientists" taking measurements: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...07-years-old-scientists-KILLED-shellfish.html
"Humor." http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/1...ers-gather-in-calgary-to-decry-climate-change The protest was held as world leaders in Poland for the United Nations Climate Change Conference discuss plans for international co-operation on the issue. Protestors in Calgary said the Harper government is refusing to take meaningful action when it comes to climate change. Originally about 300 people were slated to participate in the Calgary protest, but due to a snow storm only about 50 showed up.
Global Warming models vastly overestimate actual Global Warming over the past 20 years. 37 different CMIP5 models were surveyed. They are way off for the period from 1998-2012, for which the models overstate observed temperatures by 400%. http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/over estimate.pdf
http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruce...ooks-is-there-98-percent-scientific-consensus Neal Hooks: is there a 98 percent scientific consensus on global warming? The 98 percent value comes from a report in 2009 by an American Geophysical Union survey sent out to 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey consisted of two questions: 1) "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" 2) "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The first question is clear and legitimate. After all, few would dispute the planet has been thawing-out since the end of the Little Ice Age a couple hundred years ago. But the second question is unclear and vague. For example, what constitutes "significant"? Or, how much more "significant" are other factors? Also, do "contributing factors" pertain to land-use changes such as agriculture? (By the way, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Association, the world's rapidly growing livestock population is the greatest threat to the climate, accounting for 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.) My point is that the results of this survey are not credible because both proponents and skeptics of AGW could answer yes to the second question. But that's not all. Of the thousands of surveys received, only 77 were considered in the final statistic. Thus, the "98 percent of all scientists" refers to the fact that 75 out of a miniscule 77 hand-picked participants answered yes to question No. 2. This is not scientific or honest.
In the name if intellectual honesty, here are links about the authors of the report: John C Fyfe: http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default...e&formid=E5CBD879-6362-443E-AF8C-BC799B9F5797 Nathan P Gillett: http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default...597-46B4-B01F-DE48031E2A9B&xsl=scitechprofile Francis W Zwiers: http://www.pacificclimate.org/about-pcic/people/francis-zwiers
From what I read, the overall global temp is up about 1 degree F in the last century. Doesn't seem all that much to me.
What's quoted here is neither scientific nor honest. In fact it is deliberately misleading. Note the precise numbers listed. 10,257 surveys sent out. Now notice that 'thousands' were received. Why didn't they report the exact number? Because they want you to think the number is 10,000. It's not, it's 3146. More seriously, the 77 were not 'hand-picked'. Those were climatologists actively publishing (as opposed to the general population in the survey, which is earth scientists - geophysicists, geochemists, oceanographers, paleontologists, etc). And if you include all the survey respondents, rather than just the publishing climatologists? The percentage drops from 97 to 82%. Which is still pretty large, especially as compared to the general public (around 50%). I think it is misleading to quote that survey as evidence that 97% of climate scientists believe in human-caused global warming. However that doesn't justify making misleading statements the opposite direction. barfo
Definitely a consensus among the 77 publishing climatologists who happened to return that survey. Not hand-picked. Those who claim that are outright liars. barfo