Anti climate change crowd ....
Off-topic rabbit trail:
Global Warming 97 Percent Consensus Actually 76 People.
The facts of the original survey, from which the famous 97 percent consensus was derived, are as follows:
The online survey was conducted in 2008 and contained "up to nine questions." The 97 percent figure was based upon the answers to two of those questions.
10,257 individuals were invited to participate in the survey. These individuals represented "broad range of Earth scientists." Of the 3146 people who actually completed the survey, just 79 of them by the standards of the survey were published experts in the field of climate science.
The first of the two questions focused on was "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" Hardly a very scientific question; the mere inclusion of the word "generally" immediately strips this particular question of any scientific credential. In answer to this question, 90 percent of respondents answered "risen". If one were to go into the street and ask ordinary Americans, who express a belief in global warming, how much the Earth's temperature has risen over the past 100 years, most of the answers will range wildly from six or seven degrees to thirty degrees or more. The actual increase is in dispute, depending on which source one chooses to believe, and ranges generally from 0.5 to 1.2 degrees.
The second question honed in on to produce the 97 percent "consensus", was "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Again, hardly a scientific question. "Do you think? and "significant contributing factor" are both completely unquantifiable terms. Of the few survey participants who could actually claim to be "climate scientists", 76 of 79 answered "risen" to the first question and 75 out of 77 answered "yes" to the second.
It turns out, therefore, that the famous 97 percent consensus on global warming is based upon nothing more than the opinions of 76 or 75 people and the answers that they gave to two unscientific and unspecific questions in an online survey.
Source:
Global Warming 97 Percent ‘Consensus’ Actually 76 People | Guardian Liberty Voice
Now lets sit back and consider in the following video what really is the the point of disagreement by the climate skeptics.
At the end of the day, the skeptics case rests with the actual data, whereas the human caused climate change case rests upon climate models and the assumption made that seek to predict future climate.
Meanwhile, over at NASA, lets consider the relationship of one of the finest climate models and its relationship to observed data.
The NASA CO2 model claims the following:
"Scientists had assumed that the CO2 increases in the atmosphere were emitted in the northern hemisphere largely due to industrialization and coal burning power plants. They created a
computer animation to show where they believed CO2 was emitted and how it traveled around the globe. They were hoping that their new satellite would bolster their theory but the data came back saying just the opposite that the primary sources of CO2 on the planet are coming from below the equator from the tropical rain forests."
But when actually measured the biggest CO2 producers are tropical forests. SNAP!
What the actual measured data clearly shows is that the multi-million dollar model developed on super computers by top their climate scientists is in point of fact completely wrong by actual measurement from space. The big idea here is that biomass from rain forests produce more CO2 than humans. The assumption on the model was that people are the big polluters, but that failed to play out by actual measurement. It's NASA, and so I suspect they will release more information as they get it.
NASA's Spaceborne Carbon Counter Maps New Details | NASA
Notice on the link it says Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
The top image is a screen grab from a video on
NASA Goddard's youtube channel, an official NASA youtube channel.
You will find the video
in the Earth Science section.
The video is narrated by Bill Putman. Bill works at the GMAO NASA location. Here is Bill's Bio.
http://sciences.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/i...umpBio&&iPhonebookId=5065&navTab=nav_about_us
Brief Bio
Dr. William Putman is a research meteorologist within the Global Modeling and Assimilation Office at NASA/GSFC. He is responsible for development and integration of advanced numerical methods for atmospheric dynamics and physics parameterizations within the NASA earth system models including the GEOS modeling and assimilation system. A key element of his work is algorithm optimization for existing and emerging high end computing platforms. He received his PhD in meteorology from the Florida State University in 2007 for the implementation of the finite-volume dynamical core on the cubed-sphere geometry. The extension of the finite-volume numerics to the cubed-sphere geometry poises the finite-volume dynamical core for application on emerging peta-scale systems by allowing efficient execution on tens to hundreds of thousands of computational processors. He is involved in numerous inter-agency efforts to implement advanced dynamical algorithms for global earth system modeling, and has collaborated with various institutions including the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory on the non-hydrostatic finite-volume cubed-sphere dynamical core, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences modelE general circulation model, and the Community Atmospheric Model (CAM) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Contact Info:
William M. Putman, Ph.D.
William.M.Putman (at) nasa.gov
Research Meteorologist
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office
NASA / GSFC Code 610.1
Greenbelt, MD 20771
301-286-2599
