Глобальное потепление?

[Экспортёр]

Какое потепление? Угомонитесь, люди! КТО ПЛАТИТ ЗА ЭТУ КАМПАНИЮ потепления?! Ну камон!

[Hallucinogen]

Какое потепление? Угомонитесь, люди! КТО ПЛАТИТ ЗА ЭТУ КАМПАНИЮ потепления?! Ну камон!

кто? кому? сколько? доколе?!

[Экспортёр]

У товарища Гора спроси! Только он конечно же не ответит, кто проплачивал его кампанию предвыборную. Которую он проссал... Бабок не хватило! Ничего, что у Солнца активность повысилась? Не? Астрономию отменили как науку? Почему мне никто ничего не сказал?

[Hallucinogen]

У товарища Гора спроси! Только он конечно же не ответит, кто проплачивал его кампанию предвыборную. Которую он проссал... Бабок не хватило! Ничего, что у Солнца активность повысилась? Не? Астрономию отменили как науку? Почему мне никто ничего не сказал?

думаешь он смог таки купить весь мир ?

я слышал, что одной солнечной активностью происходящего потепления не обьяснить, нет

и еще я не понял твою позицию.. с одной стороны ты вроде как отвергаешь сам феномен потепления как таковой:

Какое потепление? Угомонитесь, люди! КТО ПЛАТИТ ЗА ЭТУ КАМПАНИЮ потепления?! Ну камон!

а следом обьясняешь несуществующее явление солнечной активностью:

Ничего, что у Солнца активность повысилась? Не? Астрономию отменили как науку? Почему мне никто ничего не сказал?

так потепления таки нет, или же оно вызвано солнечной активностью ?

кларифай пожалуста

а тем временем - вот пища для размышлений

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.



One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

[Hallucinogen]

Картинка сама за себя говорит, комментарии излишни



Percent contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), sulfur dioxide (SO2), the sun, volcanoes, and El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green).


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ed-ipcc-report


как видим, солнечная и вулканическая активность играет около-нулевую роль в нынешнем глобальном потеплении

[Экспортёр]

Не трави! Ты легко можешь прогуглить правильную точку зрения партии! Солнце, вулканы и тд...

[Alex_3112]

Солнце, вулканы и тд...

Эта математика не дает правильного ответа. Точнее может дать, но только с допущением, что мы не понимаем климатических механизмов. Правда, тогда получается, что всякая математика тут вообще бессмысленна.

[In2HiDef]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

---

This article is available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

[Alex_3112]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

How do we define the crisis?

Если мы пойдем по одной из ссылок, то увидим, что проводился опрос "бродкастеров", т.е. тех, кто рассказывает нам про погоду на экране телевизора. По другой, мы увидим следующую статистику:

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

То есть сам факт глобального потепления почти не подвергается сомнению.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ming-skeptics/

[Izold]

сам факт тоже подвергается сомнению, поскольку нет достаточно длительной статистики. из 70-х , кажется, если покопаться, можно найти тревожные высказывания о глобальном похолодании...
дело не в потеплении-похолодании, а в политизации возможного изменения температуры планеты и настойчивых попытках убедить публику в том или ином для своей политицкой выгоды (или получения нобелевской премии). ну и в попытках убедить народонаселение, что мы - основной источник вредного воздействия и в состоянии природные процессы повернуть вспять