Climate change is real says 97% of scientists

We'll all pretend that it didn't USED TO BE," Children will not know what snowfall is."..as recently as 2000-2001, ok?

From the East Anglia Lie Factory, no less....

- - - Updated - - -

Now that the thread title and entire premise of your thread has been shown to be a COMPLETE LIE, how do we deal with you?

Here's one: "97% of Warmist "Scientists" say just pretending a popularity contest = SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a really easy way to keep the grant money coming in."

 

We'll just have to wait and see if this Fall/Winter, New York has it's third "once in a Century" killer hurricane in a row. How long can their sea walls hold out?

When half the subways in New York are permanently under water and it's sewers backed up, then we'll get the loonies on the right to concede that there might be a little cause for concern.

 

have you ever figured out a practical way to power Phoenix Arizona with intermittent energy yet Sil ? Or are you still just complaining about carbon energy when there is no way to replace it. last time I asked you this you seemed to feel that it was practical to spend billions on solar and wind and still need to have a carbon energy/nuclear backups running 24 and 7 for when it gets dark and the wind stops blowing LOL

Now that is true lunacy or just pure stupidity

 

No sane person is suggesting we replace carbon energy

 

You mean solar thermal with saline heat storage tanks. Phoenix Arizona is ground zero for the perfection of the 24-hour solar thermal electrical plant.

And like I said, if you can't do 24-7 with solar thermal steam generators, then do them as much as the sun shines and don't burn carbon during that time. Imagine the savings of reducing carbon electricity by as much as half each year? In Phoenix, the sun shines most of the time, so the savings would be astronomical. Poor choice of location when you're trying to rebut...lol..

 

And a once in a century killer hurricane means what exactly in context of a 5 billion year-old planet?

 

A few problems The two highest temperature springs in the Arizona are Clifton and Gillard, both in the Clifton-Morenci area of southeastern Arizona. The water temperature at these springs ranges from 158–180° F. For a energy producing plant you need to be able to superheat your steam, which means getting it above 212 degrees. On your solar storage idea. The fundamental principle of the Andasol-1 and Andasol-2 projects is to convert the primary solar energy into electricity through a 510,120 m² solar field with 624 cylinder-parabolic collectors, a molten salt storage system with 7.5 hours of capacity and a power block of 49.9 MW.

7.5 hours of storage still leaves you without power for a good part of the night since solar power only works for part of the day. You really need to get beyond HS science project graphics if you want to seem credible on this, at the moment your grasp of thermodynamics us weak to say the least

 

That's a lucky thing, because solar thermal superheats the transitional heat exchance fluid for steam up to 300C. Which is leaps and bounds above 212 degrees fahrenheit...lol..

And when you use refrigerant boilers to run turbines, the heat requirement is much, much less. So at night, you can run refrigerant boilers to run turbines for the tiny fraction of energy used at night compared to daytime use.

Here's a very detalied explanation of working systems China is installing.

[video=youtube;hUtXsZrPf_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUtXsZrPf_Q[/video]

Here's a refrigerant boiling/generator system used in Alaska to harvest relatively low geothermal heat wells to create energy.



The systems are highly modular. Here's a video of a demonstration plant going up in Bakersfield, CA:

[video=youtube;7Gvwy8yDMzw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gvwy8yDMzw[/video]

 

When all the other nations have this up and running, we're going to slip into a "developing world" status. The cost savings in energy is that great. The people who are pitching that carbon or deadly nuclear are the only ways to boil water, have their heads up their butts...or a vested interest in stock...

We should be walking away from the carbon-electricity model as fast as Haliburton will abandon it's cracked and leaking fracking wells when they're done extracting in a given State.

 

yeah solar thermal superheats steam, but does not solve the ability to store energy for long periods of time. Like I posted Andasol is the largest at the momemt and only can store enough energy for 7.5 hours max

that's just a screw typeAC unit, either York or Carrier being ran backwards to power a generator, looks like a screw unit from the pic.I have worked with those since the early 70's, made my living in industrial and commercial climate control. My last job was as a consultant doing energy efficiency studies for manufacturers and commercial real estate companies. Typical efficiency of these units is about .5 to .55 KW per ton, in a cooling setup. For using it as a generator I would say a bit less. Largest ones I know of are about 8500 tons so that would be about 4 KW and would cost a couple of hundred thousand up front. Most are around 3000 tons. For a small scale off grid project you could go smaller and it might be cost effective, large scale no way.

I made a very good living working with thermodynamics Sil. Intermittent energy will only be effective when they invent a cheap and efficient way of storing that energy. Ground thermal is only cost effective in a very few areas, where you have very high temperatures close to the surface and that is just reality

 

This is what's wrong with people like you. You believe anything that is printed by your designated talking points provider.
Nothing else matters to you. It's a farce. Their model only took 18 years to go wildly off the timeline predicted. 18 years since the last tweak of the models they published and it's already going well below the predicted course. You will not address this issue. They have stated that they do not consider less than 25 years to be a statisticly signifigant period for trends. Yet they are already badly off. And this year will be well below the models. Instead of more Tornadic activity, it is at historical lows. Get real or shut up.

 

Your critique, based on a selective quote (which appears around the denier blogs), is hopelessly naive and irrelevant. You might even get a clue from the title "Expert Credibility in Climate Change".

The quote from the study indicates the list covers:

"We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods)."

Since deniers tend to be vocal and assertive about signing dissenting statements, that initial list, if anything, is likely to skew that way.

Next is the minimum publication filter:

Then comes your quoted text. So a scientist who has no published work in the field is not going to be considered an expert. So the study is only not "comprehensive or representative" in that sense.

Then you left out the conclusion, which immediately follows your quoted text:

"Therefore, we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE and UE groups."

 

Then I guess I am not sane, my dream is that someday soon someone will find a inexpensive catalyst for hydrogen fuel cells and carbon based energy can go the way of the dodo bird

 

Thanks for showing that the number of "climate scientists" is well below the claimed tens of thousands by most AGW alarmists. 908? That's all you've got supporting a thesis that is already coming dangerously close to falling off the charted model predictions?

Lets get this straight.

You want to change the entire world economy on the word of a bunch of vested "scientists" who are predicting doom ostensibly to keep their grant money flowing.

908 people in the whole scientific community. Almost the whole number of whom depend solely on academic grants.

You need to take a very long hard look at this .

 

goal of the IPCC has noting to do with saving anything other than their money tree and wealth redistribution during which they will be doing the redistribution , a large share of which will go into their own bank accounts

 

I'm certainly not going to argue that point!

 

The study covers the top experts in the field, which is inevitably going to be a subset of the broader climate science community.

Whenever we hear phrases like "changing the entire world economy" and "keep their grant money flowing", it illustrates where global warming denial originates from: extreme fear-based anti-government ideology and conspiracy theories.

 

Nothing you say will change the fact that neither study conducted a valid poll of scientists. They do not have proper samples of the population of interest. It's that simple.

 

If you have no substantive rebuttal, best to not respond. You were caught taking a line from the study out of context (perhaps parroted from a denier blog) and now are feigning ignorance to the study's actual methodology. Doesn't look good for you at the moment.

 

What isn't real is the foolish notion of anthropogenic global warming. That's a proven hoax, and it's always been bogus on the face of it.

People who BELIEVE in AGW aren't scientists, they're religious drama queens

Why do those people WANT AGW to be true, when it clearly isn't?

 

Your post is totally non-responsive. I say again, neither study is using a valid sample. Sifting through some academic papers is not how you poll scientists.

 

Already covered. You had no response. On the PNAS study, you're done.


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-22.html#post1062639827

The Cook et al. study does not claim to poll scientists. It's even apparent in the title.


Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article


http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html


Really - this is not that hard.


You're conflating the study with the OP. I previously corrected the OP in this comment, which you should be familiar so there's no excuse for the conflation at this point.


http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...eal-says-97-scientists-19.html#post1062637830

 

Neither of those studies use a valid sample of the population of interest. Nothing you say will change that.

 

Breaking news! 97% of witch doctors believe in exorcism!

 

That would be "peer" as in "peers of the con-men promoting the AGQ Hoax", wouldn't it?