Climate Change: the scientific consensus.

[longview]

I wouldn't even NEED "all that education" to know that demanding proof of a negative is irrational.

Or that this thread is NOT about CO2.

A Falsification criteria is part of most theories!
You should know this!

 

[Slavister]

I don't remember if @Lord of Planar has participated in this thread. But @longview believes that Eugenics was a scientific consensus. So I don't think that proving anything to him/her would have much effect.

Both of them are denialists that practically live on this environmental subforum. And yes, s/he participated - many times on page 1, as expected.

Both will pretend to know the science... which for some reason they choose to discuss here instead of with actual scientists.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Broad terms.

Wow....

Correct! If you are looking for something more derailed, as my SIG suggests, you will need to do your own research. For the purposes of this thread, the explanation in the OP suffices. Because the only purpose is to point out that a scientific consensus about what is describe in the OP DOES exist.

 

[VanceMack]

6.5K reactions · 5.4K shares | | The Main Gram | themaingram · Original audio

. themaingram · Original audio

www.facebook.com

There is nothing settled about the science, and 'consensus' was always bought and paid for.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I wrote a post stating that you had expanded the definition of what was agreed upon with the scientific consensus.

The consensus position I am referring to is on the OP

Following your train of thought, implies that the scientific consensus includes a CO2 climate sensitivity,

No. That's not part of the specific scientific consensus that I'm referring to. Just human activity is.

If it makes you feel better, that DOES sound pretty reasonable . Just not the scientific consensus I'm referring to.

 

[longview]

The consensus position I am referring to is on the OP


No. That's not part of the scientific consensus that I'm referring to. Just human activity.

If it makes you feel better, that DOES sound pretty reasonable . Just not the scientific consensus I'm referring to.

Not really you only cited the IPCC which is not a consensus document but a political report.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Not really you only cited the IPCC

I haven't cited IPCC... not even ONCE. I only gave the IPCC link to anybody who asked where the evidence of AGW was. The site has the links to the peer reviewed studies.

 

[longview]

I haven't cited IPCC... not even ONCE. I only gave the IPCC link to anybody who asked where the evidence of AGW was. The site has the links to the peer reviewed studies.

RIGHT! So in post #1 in THIS thread the statement,

ALL the science we need is either compiled or referenced on the IPCC website: https://www.ipcc.ch/ There you can find access to over 125 years of climate science.

was not by you?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

RIGHT! So in post #1 in THIS thread the statement,

was not by you?

Sure was.... You can DEFINITELY find links there to access over 125 years of science there. Why do you ask?

The IPCC only makes it easier. But if you want to do it the hard way, you can also use isindexing.com But then you would have to wade through hundreds of peer-reviewed publications that publish studies about thousands of topics.. The IPCC focuses a bit more on articles related to AGW. But you can go the ISI route too. Your choice.

Anyway... do you have anything to comment about my POINT? This kinda looks like a waste of time....

 

[longview]

Sure was.... You can DEFINITELY find links there to access over 125 years of science there. Why do you ask?

The IPCC only makes it easier. But if you want to do it the hard way, you can also use isindexing.com But then you would have to wade through hundreds of peer-reviewed publications that publish studies about thousands of topics.. The IPCC focuses a bit more on articles related to AGW. But you can go the ISI route too. Your choice.

Anyway... do you have anything to comment about my POINT? This kinda looks like a waste of time....

So did you lie when you said
“I haven't cited IPCC... not even ONCE.“
Or was that just a misstatement?

 

[longview]

Sure was.... You can DEFINITELY find links there to access over 125 years of science there. Why do you ask?

The IPCC only makes it easier. But if you want to do it the hard way, you can also use isindexing.com But then you would have to wade through hundreds of peer-reviewed publications that publish studies about thousands of topics.. The IPCC focuses a bit more on articles related to AGW. But you can go the ISI route too. Your choice.

Anyway... do you have anything to comment about my POINT? This kinda looks like a waste of time....

By the way the IPCC carefully screens out anything that looks like it disagrees with their agenda, and what it cannot keep out, it downplays!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So did you lie when you said
“I haven't cited IPCC... not even ONCE.“

No!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

By the way the IPCC carefully screens out anything that looks like it disagrees with their....

Show ONE peer-reviewed study published in the last 25 years that contradicts the AGW consensus.

Just show ONE. And if that study is NOT referenced in the IPCC, you will have scored a twofer.

I'll help you, the ISI database, where ALL studies in every single area of science, are indexed is isiindexing.com

Now... I assume that by making an accusation about this Conspiracy Theory, you ALREADY have a reference to that study. If you have it... .SHOW IT! But don't come back without it!

 

[longview]

Show ONE peer-reviewed study published in the last 25 years that contradicts the AGW consensus.

Just show ONE. And if that study is NOT referenced in the IPCC, you will have scored a twofer.

I'll help you, the ISI database, where ALL studies in every single area of science, are indexed is isiindexing.com

Now... I assume that by making an accusation about this Conspiracy Theory, you ALREADY have a reference to that study. If you have it... .SHOW IT! But don't come back without it!

The word consensus is not what the IPCC does.
There are plenty of studies that find different results than the IPCC finds, like the 2XCO2 climate sensitivity! The IPCC says it’s 3C, but the peer reviewed studies go down to 1C.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The word consensus is not what the IPCC does.

It's what I do. Now... show this study that supports your claim that the IPCC "ignores" because it disagrees with them. EASY: Because ANY peer-reviewed study published in the last 25 years that contradicts the AGW consensus will probably not BE referenced on the IPCC website.

OR... Admit you were just talking CRAP!

You should do the latter. We all already know that you were anyway.....

 

[longview]

It's what I do. Now... show this study that supports your claim that the IPCC "ignores" because it disagrees with them. EASY: Because ANY peer-reviewed study published in the last 25 years that contradicts the AGW consensus will probably not BE referenced on the IPCC website.

OR... Admit you were just talking CRAP!

You should do the latter. We all already know that you were anyway.....

[/QUOTE]
The IPCC has a position and the main reports do not contain the word consensus, only the press releases.
There were two studies in 2014 that were so downplayed in AR6 that they no longer show up in the report, yet contained vital data.
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission and
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
The important results are displayed in the graph.

The red line is the 100GtC pulse, which in these studies is a 47 ppm increase from 389 ppm.
If you are capable of simple math, you can do your own work and find the 2XCO2 warming found by the same
computer models used to find high ECS.
Keep in mind they ran the simulation out to 1000 years, and the maximum warming for steps less than 47 ppm would be shorter than
the 10.1 years found.
One would think that such a finding by not one, but two peer reviewed studies by strong AGW proponents would draw the IPCC's focus,
but it hardly rated a footnote and only made it to the consequence sections of the draft reports.
If they appear in the full report I have not found them yet.

 

[Slavister]

... ANY peer-reviewed study published in the last 25 years that contradicts the AGW consensus will probably not BE referenced on the IPCC website.

OR... Admit you were just talking CRAP!

There were two studies in 2014 that were so downplayed in AR6 that they no longer show up in the report, yet contained vital data.
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission and
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission

Quote from the abstract of the first study:

"Our results indicate that benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission. While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations."

Quote from the abstract of the second study:

"Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts."

In other words, neither of them contradicts AGW consensus...

You should have gone with option #2.

 

[longview]

Quote from the abstract of the first study:

"Our results indicate that benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission. While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations."

Quote from the abstract of the second study:

"Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts."

In other words, neither of them contradicts AGW consensus...

You should have gone with option #2.

Read what it really says!
There is very little warming in the pipeline.
Almost all future warming will come from future emissions, and that from the same computer models that generated an ECS of 3C.
The implications of these two studies alone raises questions about the need to have an IPCC.
The published sensitivity for small step emissions like in both studies, and like humans emit, taken out to 1000 years, is 1.21C per doubling.
That alone means the warming from added CO2 is of almost no consequence.
Add to that, the CERES satellite data showing CO2 added since 2002 could not have caused any warming( and perhaps a bit of cooling), and it is time to move on to a new theory, as to what is causing our climate to change!
I think global dimming and brightening from pollution is much more likely than added CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The consensus position I am referring to is on the OP

That is a crock of shit.

To say that "The consensus is that they will be dire." is simply a total lie.

 

[jpn]

Let's, first of all, make clear what a scientific consensus is. It's not, as some people think, an agreement of opinions, or an agreement among scientists. A scientific consensus is an agreement among peer-reviewed studies!

Feynman died in 1988.

As far as a scientific consensus among peer-reviewed studies, goes, here we are:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.​

 

[longview]

Feynman died in 1988.

As far as a scientific consensus among peer-reviewed studies, goes, here we are:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.​

But what is agreed upon is the two original points!
1: The average temperature has increased over the last century.
2: Human activity is very likely involved.
What is not said is the type of Human activity, of the ratio of the observed warming caused from said activity.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Feynman died in 1988.

As far as a scientific consensus among peer-reviewed studies, goes, here we are:

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature​

We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.​

We have discussed this paper when it came out three years ago. Only the first of seven levels of endorsement allow for the narrative you guys like to portray, but to get the 99%, the first three levels are added together:



Only 19 of 3,000 papers had the level 1 endorsement. You really should read and understand the material you link.

The actual numbers by level of enforcement are:

1 0.63%
2 13.77%
3 15.33%
4 70.13%
5 0.07%
6 0.03%
7 0.03%

They removed the 70% of the papers that were neutral. This is not proper science. These first three only indicate 29.7%. To get the 99.5%, they remove more than 2,000 of the papers, and count the first three categories of endorsement.

 

[jpn]

You really should read and understand the material you link.

Snore. Wake me up when you identify a significant number of climate scientists challenging the National Institute of the Sciences' stated conclusion that climate change is primarily caused by human activities.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Snore. Wake me up when you identify a significant number of climate scientists challenging the National Institute of the Sciences' stated conclusion that climate change is primarily caused by human activities.

That's right.

Disown your own link.

You should double-check everything some activist directs you to.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The IPCC has a position and the....

So what? SHOW a peer-reviewed study that contradicts the AGW consensus....

I don't give a crap what the IPCC does or doesn't do. This is not about the IPCC. it's about SCIENCE. If you can't provide a reference (link and quote from the conclusions) a peer-reviewed STUDY (not report) that contradicts the scientific consensus.... then you need to acknowledge the consensus described on the OP.