What is the AGW Scientific Consensus?

There was recently a public debate. The skeptic won.
Overview of the Koonin-Dessler Debate
Andy May
The SOHO Forum Debate began at 5:30PM (Central Time) on August 15, 2022 in the New York Sheen Center, as I announced here. Koonin won the Oxford…

 

Lucky him! He didn't have to debate me.

You, on the other hand... you're outta luck, buddy...

 

I already won.

 

Could it be?
https://www.tiktok.com/@mrainokea/video/7122541779165105454

 

So much for the "consensus."

Over 1000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration
https://legalinsurrection.com › 2022/08 › amp

2 days ago — Over 1000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration: “There is No Climate Emergency”. LESLIE EASTMAN AUG 20, 2022 4:00 PM.

 

Another research result to debunk the "consensus."
New Study: A Post-2000 Increase In Absorbed Solar Energy ‘By Far The Largest Contribution’ To Warming
By Kenneth Richard on 22. August 2022

Share this...
Scientists have once again affirmed the 2000-2020 total greenhouse effect (longwave) forcing has been declining in recent decades just as absorbed solar radiation has been increasing due to cloud albedo modulation. The latter explains the net positive Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) and consequent global warming during this period.
Recently we detailed the satellite-observed decline in total (“all sky”) greenhouse effect forcing since 1985 and the concomitant increase in surface solar radiation over the last 35 years.

Yet another scientific paper has been published affirming a -0.23 W/m² per decade−1 decline in total longwave forcing (the net impact due to changes in greenhouse gases and cloud cover) and a +0.66 W/m² per decade−1 (+1.3 W/m²) increase in absorbed solar radiation during the 21st century (March 2000 to March 2020).

The net absorption of solar energy that has occurred due to the reduction of solar radiation reflected to space by clouds and aerosols is “by far the largest contribution to the increasing rate of change of EEI.” In other words, the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gas forcing together with cloud has contributed a net cooling influence that has been soundly superseded by the increasing solar radiation trend.



Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022

 

I'll see your thousand, and raise you 10 thousand.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering

In any case, anybody who understands the AGW consensus (which this poster obviously doesn't).... or even anybody who READ the OP knows that "climate emergency" is NOT what the AGW consensus is about. That there is an "emergency" is a technical conclusion based on the science. And we can see it in real life if we just step out the door.... or we simply get our noses out of science denialist web pages for a few minutes. But not the scientific consensus we are referring to here.

 

Yawn. Running and hiding behind semantic obfuscations doesn't help your cause.

"The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. (A full list of the signatories is available here.) Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”"

 

Here we illustrate the peril of claiming "consensus" on the basis of insufficient understanding.

The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (IV). The climate shift of 1997
Posted on August 22, 2022 by curryja | 28 comments
by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s.” Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson & Sergey Kravtsov (2007)

4.1 Introduction

While the study of weather variability has a long tradition, the science of climate change is a very young scientific topic, as attested to by the 1984 discovery of the first multidecadal oscillation, the primary global climate internal variability phenomenon, by Folland et al. The impact of this fundamental feature of the global climate system was discovered ten years later by Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1994), after modern global warming had already been blamed on CO2 changes, illustrating the risk of reaching a consensus with insufficient understanding of the topic at hand. The Pacific (inter) Decadal Oscillation (PDO) was discovered three years later (Mantua et al. 1997; Minobe 1997). The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was not named until just two decades ago (Kerr 2000).

Prior to the 1980s, it was generally thought that climate changed so slowly as to be almost imperceptible during the span of a human lifetime. But then it became clear that abrupt climate changes took place during the past glacial period (Dansgaard et al. 1984), Dansgaard–Oeschger events demonstrated that regional, hemispheric, and even global climate could undergo drastic changes in a matter of decades. The problem was that modern climate-change theory was built around gradual changes in the greenhouse effect (GHE) and did not have much room for abrupt, drastic, global changes that could not be properly explained by changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) radiative forcing. . . .

Continue reading →

 

That's a relief. Because we only claim consensus on the basis of peer-reviewed studies.

Just so you know... it's against forum rules to post the same B.S. all over. It's considered "spam". One B.S. one thread. That's all you get.

 

Never seemed to slow you down.

 

I NEVER send the same post to multiple threads.

 

I've seen the "peer-reviewed studies" schtick on several threads.

 

Actually, I was told you get two, but I'm not playing mod. I admit I've gone as high as three, but that's because you've posted so much misinformation.

 

You have seen me mention peer-reviewed studies in every thread about science because peer-reviewed studies is what science is. I'm talking about copy-pasting the same post over and over. That is what forum rules don't allow.

And if you didn't read forum rules (which you SHOULD), understanding that that is what I'm talking about should not require too much brain-power.

You failed the test!

 

--

 

'HOW IT STARTED: Global warming is killing the Great Barrier Reef, study says.
—CNN.com, April 18th, 2018.'

'How it’s going: Parts of Great Barrier Reef record highest amount of coral in 36 years.
—CNN.com, August 4th, 2022.'

https://instapundit.com/539375/

CNN should retract their false 2018 claim.

 

You mention them but you never cite or link them.

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/

Take your pick...

 

Quite the cop-out.

 

If you're looking to educate yourself through peer-reviewed studies, that's where you'll find them (though I VERY much doubt you'll understand them). If you're looking for pseudoscience (much easier to grasp, by the gullible non-science educated audience), NTZ, WUWT, ... and similar... are the ones where you'll find it.

This is the reason why you prefer quoting from the latter, and not so much the former.

 

Hmmm. Do you understand that the IPCC reports are the writing teams' syntheses of research, and not the original research itself?
As noted previously, the NTZ and WUWT posts include links to original peer-reviewed research.

 

Yes! And in their synthesis they indicate WHICH research they used for this synthesis. So if you have any doubts that such research existed, or that it concluded what they claim it concluded, you can follow those links and tell us where they failed.

Links to research are great. But if you're not a climatologist, you won't understand it anyway. IPCC reports are written by scientists who are reviewed by other scientists to make sure that what they write is accurate. They are intended to be read by scientists and students. So if they make ANY mistake, it will be a huge deal that will appear on every newspaper in the world. Because it's so rare. So students and recently graduated scientists have a very special incentive to find an error. Because it would get their name in just about every science publication in existence. Landing them an easy job in the corporation of their choosing thanks to their thoroughness. Or they can even start an AGW denialist webpage that would make them a bundle as the "discoverers of a science blunder". The fact that this has NEVER happened should serve as a clue to the clueless.

Pseudoscience pages like NTZ and WUWT are intended for the gullible. So they'll just write whatever their readers want to see. They won't bother with scientists who debunk their nonsense.

 

That is laughably inaccurate. I conclude that whatever association you had/have with the world of academia and science is . . . aspirational, shall we say.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research