Yes, 97%

[SSDD]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.

Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.

Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Thermal energy results in kinetic energy in the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. All matter with a temperature by definition is composed of particles which have kinetic energy, and which interact with each other. These atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles, i.e., protons and electrons, and kinetic interactions among matter particles result in charge-acceleration and dipole-oscillation. This results in the electrodynamic generation of coupled electric and magnetic fields, resulting in the emission of photons, radiating energy away from the body through its surface boundary. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, does not require the presence of matter to propagate and travels in the vacuum of space infinitely far if unobstructed.

The total amount of radiation of all frequencies increases steeply as the temperature rises; it grows as T4, where T is the absolute temperature of the body. An object at the temperature of a kitchen oven, about twice the room temperature on the absolute temperature scale (600 K vs. 300 K) radiates 16 times as much power per unit area. An object at the temperature of the filament in an incandescent light bulb—roughly 3000 K, or 10 times room temperature—radiates 10,000 times as much energy per unit area. The total radiative intensity of a black body rises as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, as expressed by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. In the plot, the area under each curve grows rapidly as the temperature increases.

 

[Crick]

Thank you Todd.

I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body. The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.

 

[Crick]

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.

You wouldn't know science if it slapped you in the face. That's been demonstrated here repeatedly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank you Todd.

I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body. The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.

....and that has what to do exactly with Mann and his fake tree rings????????

 

[Crick]

What do Mann and his entirely valid tree rings have to do with the topic of this, MY thread: the 97% consensus of active climate scientists with the central IPCC contention re AGW?

 

[skookerasbil]

97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.

 

[skookerasbil]

LAUGH.......MY.......BALLS.......OFF


Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes



Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Frank.....victory lap time bro............I turn the honors over to you!!!!

 

[Crick]

97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.

Just how widespread is this practice we seem to be finding among deniers of baldfaced lying? You have REPEATEDLY been shown listings of surveys, polls and studies involving tens of thousands. Yet over and over and over again we get this accusation that the only survey ever done; ever shown to you, was Doran.

How do you justify lying like that Skooks?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.

Just how widespread is this practice we seem to be finding among deniers of baldfaced lying? You have REPEATEDLY been shown listings of surveys, polls and studies involving tens of thousands. Yet over and over and over again we get this accusation that the only survey ever done; ever shown to you, was Doran.

How do you justify lying like that Skooks?

You have REPEATEDLY been shown listings of surveys, polls and studies involving tens of thousands.

And what were the results?
I'll bet a lot less than 97%.

 

[Crick]

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.[121]

24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.828% acceptance

A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]

1/2,258 = 0.0004429 or 0.0429% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.9557% acceptance (re papers)
or
1/9,136 = 0.00010946 or 0.01095% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.989% acceptance. (re authors)

Is that better?

 

[Rikurzhen]

97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.

Just how widespread is this practice we seem to be finding among deniers of baldfaced lying? You have REPEATEDLY been shown listings of surveys, polls and studies involving tens of thousands. Yet over and over and over again we get this accusation that the only survey ever done; ever shown to you, was Doran.

How do you justify lying like that Skooks?

Deniers? What's with the name calling? You're invoking a comparison to Holocaust deniers. People trying to deny Nazi crimes. So if you're calling skeptics deniers doesn't that imply that you're the counterpart, the Nazi criminal? Yes, yes, I think that this analysis is sound. You can't invoke one half of a comparison without also invoking the other half. For them to be deniers you have to be the Nazi committing a crime.

 

[SSDD]

narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!

Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.

Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.

Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Thermal energy results in kinetic energy in the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. All matter with a temperature by definition is composed of particles which have kinetic energy, and which interact with each other. These atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles, i.e., protons and electrons, and kinetic interactions among matter particles result in charge-acceleration and dipole-oscillation. This results in the electrodynamic generation of coupled electric and magnetic fields, resulting in the emission of photons, radiating energy away from the body through its surface boundary. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, does not require the presence of matter to propagate and travels in the vacuum of space infinitely far if unobstructed.

The total amount of radiation of all frequencies increases steeply as the temperature rises; it grows as T4, where T is the absolute temperature of the body. An object at the temperature of a kitchen oven, about twice the room temperature on the absolute temperature scale (600 K vs. 300 K) radiates 16 times as much power per unit area. An object at the temperature of the filament in an incandescent light bulb—roughly 3000 K, or 10 times room temperature—radiates 10,000 times as much energy per unit area. The total radiative intensity of a black body rises as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, as expressed by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. In the plot, the area under each curve grows rapidly as the temperature increases.

You are starting behave very strangely....stalking around, making comments not pertinent to the conversation...got any "THE END IS NEAR" sandwich signs in your closet?....Energy does not move spontaneously from warm to cool...if you believe it does, then present your measured, observed evidence and have the second law of thermodynamics rewritten and collect your Nobel and your million dollars.

 

[SSDD]

Thank you Todd.

I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body. The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.

The simplest SB expression only looks at a radiator...not at any other objects or any surroundings...it describes a fictional object, alone in a vacuum. The SB expression that puts the radiator in the company of other objects describes a one way energy flow whose magnitude is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and the other object or its surroundings.

 

[SSDD]

What do Mann and his entirely valid tree rings have to do with the topic of this, MY thread: the 97% consensus of active climate scientists with the central IPCC contention re AGW?

Why are some tree rings valid, and those that don't support his predetermined results are not valid?

 

[Crick]

The quality of Mann's results do not seem to have caused any (not "any significant number", but "ANY") climate scientists to reject anthropogenic global warming. Those numbers have increased and the number of climate scientists who believe the world has been warming have always been even higher than those who accept AGW. And Mann's data only show warming, not sources. So when you attack Mann, can I assume that it is because you reject the idea that the world has gotten warmer over the last 150 years and that this warming has happened at a rate far greater than at any time in, say, the last 2,000 years? Do you reject that? Cause you've got be getting pretty damn lonely there.

 

[SSDD]

The quality of Mann's results do not seem to have caused any (not "any significant number", but "ANY") climate scientists to reject anthropogenic global warming. Those numbers have increased and the number of climate scientists who believe the world has been warming have always been even higher than those who accept AGW. And Mann's data only show warming, not sources. So when you attack Mann, can I assume that it is because you reject the idea that the world has gotten warmer over the last 150 years and that this warming has happened at a rate far greater than at any time in, say, the last 2,000 years? Do you reject that? Cause you've got be getting pretty damn lonely there.

True, they resulted in increased funding and got the hoax well and truly on its way...more money any area has... the more prostitutes it attracts...well known fact.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.[121]

24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.828% acceptance

A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]

1/2,258 = 0.0004429 or 0.0429% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.9557% acceptance (re papers)
or
1/9,136 = 0.00010946 or 0.01095% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.989% acceptance. (re authors)

Is that better?

24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.828% acceptance

LOL! No, that is a bigger lie than the 97%.