What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

Now you're reduced to claiming black is white and night is day. Sorry, but I'm just going to let this exchange speak for itself.

 

You have gotten a lot better at irrelevant BS.

 

“Little people need to belittle.”
― Wayne Gerard Trotman

 

By quoting you?

It's obvious at this point that you research this AFTER you had already made the false claim. So now you know that scientists DID NOT predict an increase in the number of hurricanes and typhoons, like you claimed before.

But, as my sig suggest, you need to do this research BEFORE you post the nonsense (which doesn't mean looking it up in your pseudoscience blogs). You could spare you much embarrassment if you heed the advice.

 

As I said, I'm happy to let readers draw their own conclusions. I now realize it is pointless to attempt debate with someone whose relationship to truth is . . . fluid.

 

Sometimes, it's just a symptom of the need to have folks interact with that poster, even if it is toxic. You know that you've carried the day once the ad homs start flowing...

 

What's the point of having a siggy if you feel it necessary to bring it up?

 

Why does the idea that so much water vapor was released into the stratosphere challenge the AGW folks so? It's like water isn't supposed to be their enemy and they cannot come up with an explanation of why they haven't ever considered the warming effect of water so they now have to simply ignore or otherwise argue against it's impacts...

 

I've posted my position on AGW numerous times here at PF. You've never read any of them?

 

So I can bring it up, of course.

 

Very likely I have. But I've read so many opinions by so many posters, that I don't recall the specifics. If my memory serves me well, you're not one of the posters who questions the AGW consensus.

 

Cheating is one way to defend the "consensus."

Research misconduct in fish ecology and what it means for those who dare to challenge experts
Posted on August 10, 2022 | Comments Offon Research misconduct in fish ecology and what it means for those who dare to challenge experts
This has nothing to do with polar bears but everything to do with the scientific shenanigans that blight virtually all the fields that purport to support the human-caused climate change rhetoric, including polar bear research. The parallels of this example (published in Science Magazine yesterday) with my experience challenging the polar bear cabal is obvious, as it is with Dr. Peter Ridd’s battles with colleagues over the state of Great Barrier Reef corals, recently shown to be in spectacularly good condition.


Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who’s had more than his fair share of trouble challenging climate change rhetoric, tweeted about this development yesterday but today he’s published a comprehensive essay explaining the whole sordid story, called ‘Fish and Foul: Three lessons from a massive research misconduct case in marine science‘. It’s well worth a read all the way through but I’ve provided a few excerpts below.

Continue reading →

 

The "consensus" takes a hit.
ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate
August 9th, 2022
SUMMARY: A simple time-dependent CO2 budget model shows that yearly anthropogenic emissions compared to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements gives a declining CO2 sink rate, which if continued would increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and presumably anthropogenic climate change. But accounting for ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) activity during 1959-2021 removes the decline. This is contrary to multiple previous studies that claimed to account for ENSO. A preprint of my paper (not yet peer reviewed) describing the details is at ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate | Earth and Space Science Open Archive (essoar.org).

UPDATE: The CO2 model, with inputs and outputs, is in an Excel spreadsheet here: CO2-budget-model-with-EIA-growth-cases.

I decided that the CO2 model I developed a few years ago, and recently reported on here, was worthy of publication, so I started going through the published literature on the subject. This is a necessary first step if you want to publish a paper and not be embarrassed by reinventing the wheel or claiming something others have already “disproved”.

The first thing I found was that my idea that Nature each year removes a set fraction of the difference between the observed CO2 concentration and some baseline value is not new. That idea was first published in 2013 (see my preprint link above for details), and it’s called the “CO2 sink rate”.

The second thing I found was that the sink rate has (reportedly) been declining, by as much as 0.54% (relative) per year, even after accounting for ENSO activity. But I only get -0.33% per year (1959-2021) before accounting for ENSO activity, and — importantly — 0.0% per year after accounting for ENSO.

This last finding will surely be controversial, because it could mean CO2 in the atmosphere will not rise as much as global carbon cycle modelers say it will. So, I am posting the model and the datasets used along with the paper preprint at ENSO Impact on the Declining CO2 Sink Rate | Earth and Space Science Open Archive (essoar.org). The analysis is quite simple and I believe defensible. The 2019 paper that got -0.54% per year decline in the sink rate uses complex statistical gymnastics, with a professional statistician as a primary author. My analysis is much simpler, easier to understand, and (I believe) at least as defensible.

The paper will be submitted to Geophysical Research Letters for peer review in the next couple days. In the meantime, I will be inviting the researchers who live and breathe this stuff to poke holes in my analysis.

 

Short version: The skeptic won the debate.
The Koonin-Dessler Debate
Andy May
The debate I announced here between Steve Koonin and Andy Dessler took place Monday August 15th, it was very educational and illuminating. I will try and write…

 

As popular as bug eating for the masses seems to suddenly be for the Gentry, I expect "Vegans" very shortly determine that vegans can proudly and loudly eat bugs.

SAVAGE UK RESTAURANT OWNER COMPLETELY FED UP WITH ‘HOLIER-THAN-THOU’ VEGANS, WILL NOW MAKE THEM GO HUNGRY:

"The owners also explained they had catered to vegans before, but they decided to stop doing so because of many vegans’ “‘holier-than-thou’ attitude.”'

“Please, vegans, It is not a given that we should adapt our menu to suit your preference,” the owners wrote. “If you want vegan food, go to a vegan restaurant…which incidentally if I went to one and asked for a steak I wouldn’t get one, nor would I expect to.'

That's my favorite line.

“You have chosen your lifestyle, it’s not a medical condition that you’ve been forced to endure through no fault of your own. Your choice does not fit with our style of cooking. We respect your choice, and expect that you respect ours.”

'The restaurant said it was “unfair to tar everyone with the same brush,” but it said the decision to stop offering vegan options “was sadly brought about by the militant minority which has subsequently [spoiled] it for the majority.”'

I expect the Carbon Cult "global consensus" to really push the bug eating this year.

 

No one is claiming he is stupid. But it is notable he's not a climate scientist.

 

And since he died in 2008 is hardly up to date with the latest research

 

Whenever I read polls with a “gotcha” question like that one had it always reminds me of the episode from “Yes Prime Minister”.


Now tell me is this obscure “debate” discussed on a marginal website is going to change the current political direction in relation to dealing with climate change

 

You really don’t get the concept of equilibrium, do you?

 

Like many notable climatology figures, his training was in another field.

 

And since Einstein died in 1955, we can throw out his work too I guess. Right?

 

You're too kind. "Try again" is poor advice in this case. "Quit" would be the more appropriate message.... We've got enough hot air now. Turn him off.

 

There is no post mortem update and Einstein would be the first to acknowledge that the understanding of physics has advanced since his day

 

You mean many pretend climatology figures eg those in the denialist camps

 

Gavin Schmidt -- Mathematics
Michael Mann -- Physics, Mathematics

To cite only two.