What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

I don't even know how to make a thread disappear, so you can lose the innuendo.

 

Since that's not the claim of the paper that provoked your outburst, I don't think you're remembering correctly.

 

Here you go.
Research Confirming Solar Climate Influence

 

It's as settled as Evolution, QM, the Theory of Gravity. Of course... an epistemology purist would claim that it's POSSIBLE that tomorrow we might wake up and find ourselves floating in the air, and Newton will have been proven wrong. But that's so highly unlikely that, for al practical intents and purposes, saying that it's settled science is perfectly acceptable.

 

"Solar activity and not AGW is responsible for recent warming" (I paraphrase) was the title of that thread.

If you acknowledge that is not the claim of the paper, then we're all good.

 

Yes, it's odd. After my time so I don't know what happened.

 

No recollection. New thread started.

 

Debunked. https://sciencefeedback.co/claimrev...lectroverse-global-warming-policy-foundation/

 

Solar activity is mostly responsible for all global warming. Other factors influence how it affects the earth, but with the exception of trivial heating from other heavenly bodies, it all comes from the sun.

 

Well, no. Especially since they conflate solar activity which warms, and GCR volume which cools. Moreover, the assembled material was rendered obsolete by Svensmark's 2017 paper.
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
Svensmark, H., Enghoff, M. B., Shaviv, N. J. & Svensmark, J., 2017, In: Nature Communications. 8, 1, 9 p., 2199.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

 

What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

It doesn't matter. The issue is full of political and money interests so the "scientific" opinions aren't important. Yes the temperature has increased 1 degree C in the past 120 years. Perhaps we will see palm trees in Canada. Who knows? Most likely that won't happen.

 

I think I see it.

So you're no longer arguing that "Solar activity and not AGW is responsible for recent warming".

Good to know.

 

I don't recall that I ever claimed that although I also don't recall the claim of every paper I ever linked.

 

So.....a climate change denier's debunked work was confirmed by another climate change denier. Imagine my surprise.

 

You don't recall the title of the largest thread in the environment section of the forum that you started? Ok, I'll take you at your word.

 

Neither Shaviv nor Svensmark denies climate change, or a role therein for AGW, but their work points to the absence of any climate emergency. And their work has certainly not been debunked.

 

The blogs aggregate peer-reviewed research results which are linked in the blog posts for anyone to check out.
Climatology as a distinct field is relatively new, so many climate researchers had their training in other disciplines.
Your claim about something you say I said is simply made up by you. That is unfortunately not a surprise.

 

Another failed AGW assumption.
Pacific Typhoons Defy Climate Experts’ Dire Forecasts…Trending Downward 70 Years!
By P Gosselin on 6. August 2022

Share this...
Charts by Kirye

Pacific typhoons have been trending downward for 70 years

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) presents the latest data for Pacific typhoons — going back to 1951.

This summer climate alarmists in Europe have been chasing “heat waves”, likely because hurricanes and typhoons have been on the quiet side.

Today we look at the data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) for the number of typhoons formed in the Pacific in the month of July, now that the July data are available:



Clearly the world has warmed somewhat since 1951, but contrary to what the climate bedwetters claim, the trend in typhoons has been downward – suggesting that a warmer climate leads to less Pacific storms in terms of typhoons formed. This is the opposite of what climate “experts” said would happen.

Next we look at the number of typhoons formed in the Pacific from January to July, going back to 1951:





Though the data for 2022 are not yet complete, we look as a reminder at the number of typhoons formed each year up through 2020:



Data source: JMA.

The climate experts have been wrong, and the media have been misleading us. Typhoons are not intensifying and becoming more frequent.

 

Yes, I get that you are indifferent to how the few scientists you keep referencing get paid. Some of the funding for some of the "studies" you seem to like best comes from the oil companies still making massive profits from our use of polluting fossil fuels. They want you to not care about your sources and their bias. They want your indifference, so good job.

 

You're the one who brought up funding. Regardless, your conspiracy theory is without merit.
Here Nir Shaviv makes an argument for the climate paradigm that threatens to supplant the current consensus.

The End of the Current Climate Consensus?

First and foremost, I claim that the sun has a large effect on climate and that the IPCC is ignoring this effect. This I showed when I studied the heat going into the oceans using 3 independent datasets - ocean heat content, sea surface temperature, and most impressively, tide gauge records (see reference #1 below), and found the same thing in a subsequent study based on another data set, that of satellite altimetry (see reference #2 below). Note that both are refereed publications in the journal of geophysical research, which is the bread and butter journal of geophysics. So no one can claim it was published in obscure journals, yet, even though the first paper has been published already in 2008, it has been totally ignored by the climate community. In fact, there is no paper (right or wrong) that tried to invalidate it. Clearly then, the community has to take it into consideration. Moreover, when one considers that the sun has a large effect on climate, the 20th century warming is much better explained (with a much smaller residual). See reference #3 below, again refereed). . . .

As I said above, we now know from significant empirical data where the solar climate link comes from. It is through solar wind modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux which governs the amount of atmospheric ionization, and which in turn affects the formation of cloud condensation nuclei and therefore cloud properties (e.g., lifetime and reflectivity). How do we know that? . .

One should be aware that we are still missing the last piece of the puzzle, which is to take the various mechanisms, plug them into a global aerosol model and see that there is a sufficiently large variation in the cloud condensation nuclei. This takes time, but compared with the aforementioned examples of genetics, neutrinos or dark matter, it will definitely take us much less to provide this last piece, but in any case, the evidence should have forced the community to seriously consider it already.

Nonetheless, even with the above large body of empirical evidence, the link has been attacked left and right. A really small number has been valid and interesting, but not to the extent to invalidate the existence of a cosmic ray climate link, just to modify our understanding of it. The rest has been mostly bad science, as I exemplify below. . . .

 

They aggregate cherry-picked portions of peer-reviewed research, which they take out of context, manipulate, alter ... This is called pseudoscience. And it's the authors of the studies THEMSELVES who say this. Even the guy who publishes admits he made NO effort to verify what he posts.

If they had any value, why even mention them? If you actually understood what the studies meant, you'd be quoting them directly. NOT isolated charts and raw data that the study uses, but is NOT, in and of itself, science. And you wouldn't be ignoring the actual conclusions.

 

Right. Because the word "Global" means "The Pacific"

Notice how there is NO quote of what it is they are wrong ABOUT. No quotes from any peer-reviewed study... And, even though "opinions" and "assumptions" are not science, in this case the science denialists didn't even bother to quote what "assumption" they are talking about.

This is yet another perfect example of how pseudoscience works: lots of sciency-looking charts... but ZERO actual science.

 

Neil - are you familiar with this article?

Aliens Cause Global Warming


as a child I believed that science
represented the best and greatest hope for mankind. Even to a child, the contrast was clear
between the world of politics—a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass
manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history. In contrast, science held different values—
international in scope, forging friendships and working relationships across national boundaries
and political systems, encouraging a dispassionate habit of thought, and ultimately leading to
fresh knowledge and technology that would benefit all mankind. The world might not be a very
good place, but science would make it better. And it did. In my lifetime, science has largely
fulfilled its promise. Science has been the great intellectual adventure of our age, and a great
hope for our troubled and restless world. But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan,
feed the hungry, cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also expected
science to banish the evils of human thought—prejudice and superstition, irrational beliefs and
false fears. I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan’s memorable phrase, “a candle in a demon
haunted world.” And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as
a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of
politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by
scientists. The world has not benefited from permitting these demons to escape free.

So....let's talk about it

 

I agree scientists should do more to keep corrupt politicians at bay. The attacks to facts and reality, especially from the right, have been brutal. But science is just... science...

 

I would like to discuss this article with you, either in public or in a PM, if you'd be willing to read it first....