Wildfires -

Quote:


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1356

Bobby. wrote on Apr 30^th, 2018 at 9:54pm:

The proof please Bobby, some peer reviews would be nice 
When u say thorium I assume your talking about various gen4 nuclear stations being researched atm ?
Wouldnt it be better to refer to the reactor as in MSR (molten salt Reactor) ?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 7:40am:

yes not evidence, need peer reviews not youtube or opinions or biased charts, real peer review, the ONLY real truths because they can be scrutinized, opinions cant.
I just looked at your link and this was in it

The Mechanic
Gold Member

Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12049
Gender:

Re: New Ice Age..
Reply #3 - May 31st, 2016 at 7:45pm
 
gees.. haven't the Global Warming Nutters gone quiet..   

I dont think that can be considered proof its justs a lot of banter.

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 7:55am:

ok here r a few
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

this article seams to be the source of the new ice age thinking (i know not peer reviewed but hey)
https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-scienc
e-communication-45037

ok booby we r talking 50000 -60000 peer reviews, not 300 pages of fat guys behind computers insulting each other.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

I'm sure there are peer reviews against as well, just not many climate scientist have put them forward.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1^st, 2018 at 8:31am:


1. How many explicitly said it was AGW?

2. Is that abstracts again or scientists?

We could go to Cook et al 2013 -

"Abstract
Download video Download transcript

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Similar sized study. So 97.1% of 32.6% of abstracts, not scientists, supported the consensus position.

It subsequently gets reported as 97% of scientists. Don't you just love the way they report consensus?

Changes in the US.

We need to see then assess the changes we see and determine if AGW is responsible. if so, it could lead us to act. Real impact may overcome the collective denial of AGW. I live in hope.


The stark climatic border in the U.S. separating the sultry east from the dry west is rapidly shifting—a change that could have a significant future impact

To travel westward across the U.S. is to experience a striking landscape metamorphosis. Stately hardwood trees give way to squat shrubs, verdant cornfields to brown wheat and lush grasslands to cacti and creosote bush. The air dries out and the land is often parched. This rather abrupt shift from the humid east to arid west occurs along a border that slices neatly through the Canadian province of Manitoba, then the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and into eastern Mexico. The divide is so stark airline passengers can see it—a patchwork quilt of green farms on one side, a vast expanse of brown and gold on the other.

And now this boundary is on the move, creeping east as global temperatures rise, according to new research published last month in Earth Interactions. Given the line’s historical role in shaping U.S. westward expansion, its shift could alter the agriculture that plays a crucial role in the economy of the Great Plains states.

More here ==> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-nation-divided-arid-humid-climate-b...

Super Nova wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 4:04pm:



From the actual study -

"The 100th meridian bisects the Great Plains of the United States and effectively divides the continent into more arid western and less arid eastern halves and is well expressed in terms of vegetation, land hydrology, crops, and the farm economy. Here, it is considered how this arid–humid divide will change in intensity and location during the current century under rising greenhouse gases. [/highlightI]t is first shown that state-of-the-art[highlight] climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project generally underestimate the degree of aridity of the United States and simulate an arid–humid divide that is too diffuse. These biases are traced to excessive precipitation and evapotranspiration and inadequate blocking of eastward moisture flux by the Pacific coastal ranges and Rockies. Bias-corrected future projections are developed that modify observationally based measures of aridity by the model-projected fractional changes in aridity. Aridity increases across the United States, and the aridity gradient weakens. "

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/EI-D-17-0012.1

So it is a projection, based on models. There is no observational data at all.

Once again the "Scientific" American shows it is unscientific.

lee wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 4:32pm:


It is scientific to declare their ajustments in their findings and the projection models. So I don't see your point. if you declare it, not hide it, it is an assumption like any other. That doesn't mean it is to be dismissed because you want a degree of clarity on a chaotic system that is not possible.