If it was a new study, it would have found that the proboscidea can tell certain human languages apart and even determine our gender, relative age, and whether we're a threat.
I'm not a biologist by a long shot.. but mitochondrial + nuclear DNA would make an actual mammoth, no matter where it gestates. Either that, or I've completely misunderstood everything I've ever read on the subject, which -admittedly- isn't very much.
But they don't have Mammoth DNA to use. They have a theoretical reconstruction of a Mammoth Genome.
So they're going to start with an elephant, and do a bit of splicing here and there (using Mage,) and
Do you notice that that's how much warmer it is than last year?
If not, then it will be other changes in the weather, biosphere and sea level that you will notice.
The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth.
The same can't be said of seabirds and turtles.
You are so wrong it's hilarious
Tee hee hee!
an incredible amount of curve fitting goes into this stuff.
In the 31 page paper entitled ".Design and implementation of the infrastructure of HadGEM3: the next-generation Met Office climate modelling system", that I linked to above, none of the words "curve","fit" or "fitting" occur.
Can you provide a link to a paper that described the curve fitting involved in climate modelling?
Because I'm not convinced you are speaking from knowledge.
Just take my word for it.
What is your background in climate modelling?
I can't take your word for it because you appear for all the world to be making shit up. Why don't you present some evidence rather than asking someone who clearly thinks nearly everything you've posted in this thread is mistaken to take your word?
Also, google "define: extrapolate" and you will find that it clearly encompasses this situation, i.e. more than just continuance of a single curve.
The word has an unscientific use yes. But in the context of computation and mathematics it means "the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable."
But there are things that we know from the science alone, not from policy bodies deciding what should be done in response to it.
The Globe is warming, It is due to anthropogenic activity. There are no sides on those facts. Unless there are sides on vaccinations not causing autism, or HIV causing AIDS.
Sea level rise?
Yes. Sea level rise.
Yes. Sea level also rose over the end of the last glaciation. That was because of the melting glaciers and ice sheets. Note that except for the meltwater pulse, current sea level rise is faster.
The sky is falling!
Ahh, the reference to chicken little that paid denialists use as an argument that people should ignore science, when scientific arguments are failing.
You get some of your information from counter-scientific blogs rather than reliable sources don't you?
The sea level is rising, and it is very fast geologically speaking. The rise several thousand years ago didn't affect coastal cites and infrastructure because they weren't build yet. The changing climate did affect species ranges. Including Homo Sap.
Exactly, and that is why the number of people defending a theory means nothing.
Well, it's how facts end up as facts, and so progress to school texts books.
When scientists start agreeing that the speed of light is constant, then we know it is true. This may change in the future, but truth's like that.
It is not that case that it means nothing.
The arguments and the data should stand on their own, and in this case they fall very short of doing that.
Well, if you're going to take the time to get yourself a PhD in atmospheric physics, and a few years of postgraduate research so that you personally understand the arguments, and don't have to rely on other experts, sure, then you should be looking at the data. And you and every other scientist in the field will be looking with the most skepticism that can be mustered, because overturning a paradigm is the way to make a name for yourself in science.
But if you think that the data doesn't stand on it's own with respect to the fact that most of the current warming is anthropogenic then you've noticed something that has been missed by the tens of thousands of researchers in the field.
Or you've made a mistake.
One of the two.
I don't want to steal your thunder in the case that you're about to publish, but if you want to go through your findings here, I'd be interested to read your arguments.
My claim is that no one was able to make a model that can quantitatively predict the actual results of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is very true.
Sure. Modelling the economy and technological changes is difficult. But you can put ballpark limits on it. We're not going to turn off new coal power generation, and we're not going to put new ones out much faster than they're being built now.
And because the climate's response to a change in CO2 takes 25-50 years for 60% of the effect to occur, much of the warming in the time scale of our lifetimes will be because of CO2 already in the atmosphere. And that can be measured.
And no 99% is not moderate unanimity
100% of scientific organizations. That's unanmity, right? And 99.8% of scholarly papers. Science attracts not just skeptics, but also contrarians. There's a much more dilute consensus for findings we consider fact such as smoking causes cancer, or that species arise by evolution.
and articles you cite do not say the same things, do not make the same predictions (many do not make predictions or try to take conclusions at all), and many are inconsistent with each other.
Obviously if there were consensus on the entire field there wouldn't be the thousands of papers on climate change each month that you see appearing in the journals. But there is consensus on this point: The current warming is mostly anthropogenic.
Most of the conclusions do not follow from the articles you cite and are mainly the result of intellectual dishonesty of people trying to use insufficient data to take conclusions that couldn`t be taken from this data.
Oh and the distinct scientists are VERY existent. This is just a small list of the most prominent:
That you can list them in a list that can be read shows that they're practically non-existent. There were 35,000 scholarly papers published in 2012 returned by the search term "global warming". There will be tens of thousands of scientists that contributed to them.
So your list of 22 scientists that claim that the current warming is mostly natural. (Including at least some who haven't published any science in many years), is a little bit laughable. But, no doubt, if you scour the world for current and previous scientists from any field, you could find 22 that know little enough about it to claim that any standard wisdom is false.
Their arguments are sound and consistent enough.
Really. Could you link me to this consistent argument of theirs?
Their models are based on fitting many curves, not a single curve.
No they're not.
They're based on calculating the changes in the atmosphere, oceans and earth's surface, and the effect of that on each other.
This is not curve fitting.
And due to the chaotic nature of the environment being modeled, the extrapolation they do is very, very far from being as useful as a model you could put together from measuring let's say F=ma in the real world and using your model to predict simple kinetics.
They are not extrapolating. Extrapolation is when you are fitting a curve and extend the curve fit beyond the limit of the data.
Modeling is one of the useful ways to investigate a chaotic system. It's poor at specific prediction due to sensitive dependence on initial conditions, but the shape of the attractors and the nature of the tipping points between them are very very usefully investigated by modeling.
F=ma, is certainly used in a climate model, as convection currents are calculated.
Sure, but anyone who claims something without outstanding evidence cannot be considered a skeptic...
It depends on prior plausibility.
If the claim is that throughout the global educational and research institutions there is a broad conspiracy to produce fraudulent research, on the basis that this is somehow connected to funding in all cases, you're going to need extraordinary evidence.
If, on the other hand, your claim is that releasing CO into the atmosphere is the cause of an observed increase in atmosphericCO, and that increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect, then the evidence doesn't need to be extraordinary.
And even those guys you mention, or at least a good part of them, decided to believe in the other equally distinct scientists that say that most of what we hear about climate changes is alarmist.
"Equally distinct" or "non-existent"?
With respect to the claim that most of the current warming is anthropogenic, there are no scientific organsiations (As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.), and only 0.2% of scholarly papers (Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart), that refute the consensus.
That some scientists are saying wrong stuff is clear as there is no unanimity in the matter.
Most people would say 100% of scientific organisations, and 99.8% of scholarly papers is moderate unanimity.
The most sophisticated models being trotted out by AGW alarmists are essentially little more than extrapolated curve fits to a chaotic data set.
No, A model is not a curve-fitting exercise.
Why don't you read up a bit on HadGEM3: Design and implementation of the infrastructure of HadGEM3: the next-generation Met Office climate modelling system, Hewitt et al, Geosci. Model Dev (2011).
As you can see, it is not an extrapolated curve fit, but an imitation of the global atmosphere, ocean and biosphere, based on physics.
And when something in the real world shifts and they are all wrong, they get fitted to the latest historical data and are suddenly right again.
Skeptics do not contend that there are climate changes, they defy the notion that human factors are as significant as the alarmists say, and the theory that what is happenign now is outside the bounds of what already happened to Earth many many times.
There are as many counterscientific positions on climate as there are climate conspiracy theorists.
Many claim there is no warming, and that it is manufactured by the manipulation of the temperature records
Many claim that there is warming, but that it is due to solar irradience
Many claim that the warming is due to the CO2 greenhouse effect, but that it is good
Many claim that the warming is due to the CO2 greenhouse effect, and it's bad, but not as bad as moving parts of the economy to renewables
The only consistent thing is that they claim that the scientists are lying about it.
Unfortunately, scientists have to present explanations that people without advanced degrees have to understand.
No they don't. The university press room might have a go, but it is not the job of researchers to do outreach communication. It is certainly encouraged by scientists who want to, these days, but most don't, and the job is to present explanations that people with advanced degrees can either understand or reproduce. Or disagree with and try to prove are wrong.