Klimaatsverandering - twijfel #4

quote:

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]
• Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 16:14 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

IPCC is niet hetzelfde als wetenschap.

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 16:22 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Roy Spencer, Richard Linzen, John Christy, Svensmark, Nir Shaviv zijn voorbeelden van echte wetenschappers.

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 16:35 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

Blader maar eens terug in dit onderwerp, daar heb ik al tientallen bronnen aangegeven.

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 18:53 schreef de_tevreden_atheist het volgende:

[..]

De engelse wikipedia is geen objectieve bron met betrekking tot alle klimaatgerelateerde onderwerpen.

Wiliam Conolley is de censor.

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 17:04 schreef -jos- het volgende:

[..]

Hier heb je er 60 voor de eerste bewering op je wikipedia, veel plezier:

http://notrickszone.com/2(...)cale-modern-warming/

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 20:07 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Stukje klimaatgeschiedenis:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

David Keith, a well-known geoengineer from the University of Calgary, said recently in a San Diego Climate Seminar, "the U.S. and many NATO countries are spraying in order to save the planet from runaway global warming."

It is the opinion of this climatologist that these reckless climate scientists, their greedy corporate sponsors and money-hungry geoengineers are PLAYING GOD. They are spending precious taxpayer dollars on these risky schemes without our permission or congressional approval for the most part. Follow the money and you'll always find the culprits.

What they are doing is VERY DANGEROUS! Thus far, they haven't seen success. Our weather is worse than ever. Just look at all the tornadoes, the massive floods, the choking droughts, the 'rare' Hawaii hailstorm last month and this month's worst lightning storm in recorded history in San Francisco.

quote:

Op maandag 12 juni 2017 08:30 schreef -jos- het volgende:
Wetenschapper valt CNN live aan op CNN over climate change

CNN Destroyed By Weather Channel Founder Over Climate Change

[..]

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 21:53 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Toch komt het op mij als merkwaardig over wanneer je snel een chemtrail-specialist weet te googelen en gelijktijdig de IPCC serieus neemt.

quote:

Op zondag 11 juni 2017 21:53 schreef MrRatio het volgende:

[..]

Andere bron dan maar van de Medieval Warm period, er zijn er nog tientallen meer als je belangstelling hebt(?).
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[2][3][4][5][6] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]

The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Contributors include Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors.[7] In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy, and a driving force behind its coverage.[7]

In the early months of 2010, it was reported the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world,"[8] and in 2013 Michael E. Mann referred to it as the leading climate change denial blog.[3]

Reception[edit]
According to Alexa internet statistical analysis, What's Up With That? is ranked No. 14,882 in the U.S. and No. 40,090 world-wide.[28] It is reported to receive between half a million and 2 million visits per month between 2010 and 2014.[8][29][30] It was described by climatologist Michael E. Mann in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as "the leading climate change denial blog,"[3][4][5][6] having surpassed Climate Audit in popularity.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[31] Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[32]

quote:

Op maandag 12 juni 2017 11:14 schreef Zwoerd het volgende:

[..]

Heb je de studies ook waar deze plaatjes vandaan vandaan komen of van afgeleid zijn? Waarschijnlijk niet, waarschijnlijk heb je gewoon wat plaatjes gevonden die aan je wereldbeel voldoen en daarom kritiekloos aanneemt. Toch vreemd voor iemand die zo kritisch is op daadwerkelijk gepubliceerde reconstructies, bijvoorbeel van Mann of van Marcott.