The Consensus of Scientists

[longview]

Because they are convince the earth is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. Their models say so, and satellite data suggests it.

It could just be the satellites are less accurate than they want to believe...

The satellite data is coming in very low also.

 

[Jack Hays]

Science
[h=1]Paper examines ‘unconscious assumptions that have impeded scientific progress in the past’[/h]Scientist emphasizes importance of multi-level thinking in atmospheric science From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES An unusual paper “On multi-level thinking and scientific understanding” appears in the October issue of Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. The author is Professor Michael Edgeworth McIntyre from University of Cambridge, whose work in atmospheric dynamics is well known.…

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]A Consensus Of Convenience[/h]We publish this here, not to confirm that it is correct, but to stimulate the debate needed to determine whether or not it is correct or if it’s simply an exercise in curve fitting. ~ctm George White, August 2017 Climate science is the most controversial science of the modern era. A reason why the controversy…
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

[h=1]A Consensus Of Convenience[/h]We publish this here, not to confirm that it is correct, but to stimulate the debate needed to determine whether or not it is correct or if it’s simply an exercise in curve fitting. ~ctm George White, August 2017 Climate science is the most controversial science of the modern era. A reason why the controversy…
Continue reading →

George has said so many things I have stated, and he is the only other who mentions the runaway condition of feedback if it were as large as the alarmists claim:

This is 330% of the forcing and any system whose positive feedback exceeds 100% of the input will be unconditionally unstable and the climate system is certainly stable and always recovers after catastrophic natural events that can do far more damage to the Earth and its ecosystems then man could ever do in millions of years of trying. Even the lower limit claimed by the IPCC of 0.4C per W/m2 requires more than 100% positive feedback, falsifying the entire range they assert.
​

The earth would be squealing millions of years ago if there was over 100% feedback. Like the squealing you get with the feedback of a speaker to a microphone when the amplifier is set too high.

It is amazing that respectable climate scientists are ignorant to feedback. The facts we know about electronics have nearly identical formulas for other disciplines.

 

[Media_Truth]

George has said so many things I have stated, and he is the only other who mentions the runaway condition of feedback if it were as large as the alarmists claim:

This is 330% of the forcing and any system whose positive feedback exceeds 100% of the input will be unconditionally unstable and the climate system is certainly stable and always recovers after catastrophic natural events that can do far more damage to the Earth and its ecosystems then man could ever do in millions of years of trying. Even the lower limit claimed by the IPCC of 0.4C per W/m2 requires more than 100% positive feedback, falsifying the entire range they assert.
​

The earth would be squealing millions of years ago if there was over 100% feedback. Like the squealing you get with the feedback of a speaker to a microphone when the amplifier is set too high.

It is amazing that respectable climate scientists are ignorant to feedback. The facts we know about electronics have nearly identical formulas for other disciplines.

Climate science isn't controversial. We're all in agreement that it's warming, due to mankind's activities. Correct? The only controversy is the extent of the warming, and whether this warming will continue to rise at these relatively fast level, versus other eras in history. The only other contoversy is related to effect, and it's really not a controversy at all. Probabilities are that there will be effects from the warming. Since none of the catastrophic events that have taken place in the last couple decades, where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, can be proven to be the result of AGW, one has to accept the probablity or reject it, as a possible cause, or a contributor to the cause and effect.

 

[Jack Hays]

Climate science isn't controversial. We're all in agreement that it's warming, due to mankind's activities. Correct? The only controversy is the extent of the warming, and whether this warming will continue to rise at these relatively fast level, versus other eras in history. The only other contoversy is related to effect, and it's really not a controversy at all. Probabilities are that there will be effects from the warming. Since none of the catastrophic events that have taken place in the last couple decades, where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, can be proven to be the result of AGW, one has to accept the probablity or reject it, as a possible cause, or a contributor to the cause and effect.

. . . Each of the many complexities cited to diffuse a simple analysis based on the immutable laws of physics has been shown to be equivalent to variability in the α, κ and ε coefficients quantifying the Physical Model. Another complaint is that the many complexities interact with each other. To the extent they do and each by itself is equivalent to changes in α, κ and ε, any interactions can be similarly represented as equivalent changes to α, κ and ε. It’s equally important to remember that unlike GCM’s, this model has no degrees of freedom to tweak its behavior, other than the values of α, κ and ε, all of which can be measured, and that no possible combination of coefficients within factors of 2 of the measured values will result in a sensitivity anywhere close to what’s claimed by the consensus. The only possible way for any Physical Model to support the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC is to violate Conservation Of Energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is clearly impossible.
Predictions made by the Physical Model have been confirmed with repeatable measurements while the predictions arising from a high sensitivity consistently fail. In any other field of science, this is unambiguous proof that the model whose predictions are consistently confirmed is far closer to reality than a model whose predictions consistently fail, yet the ‘consensus’ only accepts the failing model. This is because the IPCC, which has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science, needs the broken model to supply its moral grounds for a massive redistribution of wealth under the guise of climate reparations. It’s an insult to all of science that the scientific method has been superseded by a demonstrably false narrative used to support an otherwise unsupportable agenda and this must not be allowed to continue.
Here’s a challenge to those who still accept the flawed science supporting the IPCC’s transparently repressive agenda. First, make a good faith effort to understand how the Physical Model is relevant, rather than just dismiss it out of hand. If you need more convincing after that, try to derive the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC using nothing but the laws of physics. Alternatively, try to falsify any prediction made by the Physical Model, again, relying only on the settled laws of physics. Another thing to try is to come up with a better explanation for the data, especially the measured relationships between Pi, Po and the surface temperature, all of which are repeatably deterministic and conform to the Physical Model. If you have access to a GCM, see if its outputs conform to the Physical Model and once you understand why they don’t, you will no doubt have uncovered serious errors in the GCM.
If the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC can be falsified, it must be rejected. If the broadly testable Physical Model produces the measured results and can’t be falsified, it must be accepted. Falsifying a high sensitivity is definitive and unless and until something like the Physical Model is accepted by a new consensus, climate science will remain controversial since no amount of alarmist rhetoric can change the laws of physics or supplant the scientific method.

 

[Rich123]

The climate-science deniers would most likely never drive across a bridge if 97% of structural engineers told them it would collapse if they did so. Most climate-science deniers would not take a medication if 97% of physicians stated it would kill them. Yet, when it comes to 97% of climate scientists stating that the planet is dangerously heating up due to humans? Then all of a sudden they go into denial mode, claim that they are not gullible for believing the 3% that work for Big Oil, and even go so far as to lie on their internet sites about the most basic facts regarding the science. It's a bizarre cult that the science-deniers belong to.

Well said,
The science supports the observable. I lived in New Hampshire as a child. Long snowy cold winters were the norm. Now if we have a snow fall of any significance Fox Noise yells about it for three days.

 

[Aberration]

. . . Each of the many complexities cited to diffuse a simple analysis based on the immutable laws of physics has been shown to be equivalent to variability in the α, κ and ε coefficients quantifying the Physical Model. Another complaint is that the many complexities interact with each other. To the extent they do and each by itself is equivalent to changes in α, κ and ε, any interactions can be similarly represented as equivalent changes to α, κ and ε. It’s equally important to remember that unlike GCM’s, this model has no degrees of freedom to tweak its behavior, other than the values of α, κ and ε, all of which can be measured, and that no possible combination of coefficients within factors of 2 of the measured values will result in a sensitivity anywhere close to what’s claimed by the consensus. The only possible way for any Physical Model to support the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC is to violate Conservation Of Energy and/or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which is clearly impossible.
Predictions made by the Physical Model have been confirmed with repeatable measurements while the predictions arising from a high sensitivity consistently fail. In any other field of science, this is unambiguous proof that the model whose predictions are consistently confirmed is far closer to reality than a model whose predictions consistently fail, yet the ‘consensus’ only accepts the failing model. This is because the IPCC, which has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science, needs the broken model to supply its moral grounds for a massive redistribution of wealth under the guise of climate reparations. It’s an insult to all of science that the scientific method has been superseded by a demonstrably false narrative used to support an otherwise unsupportable agenda and this must not be allowed to continue.
Here’s a challenge to those who still accept the flawed science supporting the IPCC’s transparently repressive agenda. First, make a good faith effort to understand how the Physical Model is relevant, rather than just dismiss it out of hand. If you need more convincing after that, try to derive the sensitivity claimed by the IPCC using nothing but the laws of physics. Alternatively, try to falsify any prediction made by the Physical Model, again, relying only on the settled laws of physics. Another thing to try is to come up with a better explanation for the data, especially the measured relationships between Pi, Po and the surface temperature, all of which are repeatably deterministic and conform to the Physical Model. If you have access to a GCM, see if its outputs conform to the Physical Model and once you understand why they don’t, you will no doubt have uncovered serious errors in the GCM.
If the high sensitivity claimed by the IPCC can be falsified, it must be rejected. If the broadly testable Physical Model produces the measured results and can’t be falsified, it must be accepted. Falsifying a high sensitivity is definitive and unless and until something like the Physical Model is accepted by a new consensus, climate science will remain controversial since no amount of alarmist rhetoric can change the laws of physics or supplant the scientific method.

I'll listen to real scientists instead of some stranger on the internet. /sarcasm


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

Well said,
The science supports the observable. I lived in New Hampshire as a child. Long snowy cold winters were the norm. Now if we have a snow fall of any significance Fox Noise yells about it for three days.

Sorry, but there's as much snow in NH as there ever was.

 

[Media_Truth]

I'll listen to real scientists instead of some stranger on the internet. /sarcasm


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Watts isn't a stranger. We all know him very well by now. Did you know he has a High School education? That's a big PLUS in Jack's book.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Climate science isn't controversial. We're all in agreement that it's warming, due to mankind's activities. Correct?

Yes, but to clarify... Part of the warming is due to mankind.

The only controversy is the extent of the warming, and whether this warming will continue to rise at these relatively fast level, versus other eras in history.

The extent of the warming is not so controversial. For the alarmists to claim that a cyclical rise will continue to rise and not fall though is ludicrous. We have cyclical events that the pundits suggest will stop being cyclical buy continuing their sharp rise.

The only other contoversy is related to effect, and it's really not a controversy at all. Probabilities are that there will be effects from the warming.

Why do the pundits make such wild claims? This shouldn't be controversial. Yes, there will be effects. Just not dramatic ones.

Since none of the catastrophic events that have taken place in the last couple decades, where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, can be proven to be the result of AGW, one has to accept the probablity or reject it, as a possible cause, or a contributor to the cause and effect.

So... You agree much more research needs to be done in an area not claimed to have a high level of understanding, right?

So why do hey continue to ignore researching these areas?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well said,
The science supports the observable. I lived in New Hampshire as a child. Long snowy cold winters were the norm. Now if we have a snow fall of any significance Fox Noise yells about it for three days.

Sorry, it is exceptionally ignorant as the physics for bridges is well know,with thousands built and tested. We only have one earth, it has a very slow moving cyclical periods, and we have only observed an insignificant fraction of these cycles.

When someone either makes such an ignorant claim, or agrees with it...

You all belong on my IGNORE list, because you aren't worth debating.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'll listen to real scientists instead of some stranger on the internet. /sarcasm


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then read the actual science papers, and stop listening to he pundits.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Warning... Logical fallacy follows:

Watts isn't a stranger. We all know him very well by now. Did you know he has a High School education? That's a big PLUS in Jack's book.

 

[Media_Truth]

Yes, but to clarify... Part of the warming is due to mankind.


The extent of the warming is not so controversial. For the alarmists to claim that a cyclical rise will continue to rise and not fall though is ludicrous. We have cyclical events that the pundits suggest will stop being cyclical buy continuing their sharp rise.


Why do the pundits make such wild claims? This shouldn't be controversial. Yes, there will be effects. Just not dramatic ones.


So... You agree much more research needs to be done in an area not claimed to have a high level of understanding, right?

So why do hey continue to ignore researching these areas?

More research? Fine. To summarize, we know that AGW is occuring. Global temperatures are rising, and it is having some effect. I say 1 deg C, you say 1 deg F. It's somewhat subjective, as some areas, such as Alaska are higher, and some are lower.
Does it really matter? There is a 95% chance that the rising temperature will cause major issues. More research can occur, but at some point, one either accepts the probabilities as a major risk factor for the human race, or one rejects it. As for me and my house, we are taking action.

 

[Lord of Planar]

More research? Fine. To summarize, we know that AGW is occuring. Global temperatures are rising, and it is having some effect.

Yes, we do know those basics. We just don't have enough solid science in many aspect that affect temperatures.

I say 1 deg C, you say 1 deg F. It's somewhat subjective, as some areas, such as Alaska are higher, and some are lower.
Does it really matter?

There are several problems with knowing the real effects when methods of collection differ from the past to present, and then complicated with poorly placed meteorological sites that suffer unnatural warming from the urban heat island effect.

I suggest that temperatures we see today are highly tainted by the heat island effect, that is not a global phenomena.

There is a 95% chance that the rising temperature will cause major issues.

I disagree. We really aren't seeing higher peak temperatures, so each climate system around the globe should be fine.

Can you tell us why, in your own words, instead of saying so because your favor pundits tell you that?

More research can occur, but at some point, one either accepts the probabilities as a major risk factor for the human race, or one rejects it. As for me and my house, we are taking action.

The problem is research is being focused on supporting the idea that man is to blame on all of it. There is almost no research for over a decade focusing on the direct and indirect warming of the sun. The sun is the source of over 99.99% of the earths heat, yet it goes ignored in research funding.

More research also needs to be done on the effect of albedo changes due to aerosol in the sky and on the ground. Even more importantly, research the losses of evaporative cooling as precipitation is more and more channeled to storm sewers rather than keeping healthy evapotransiration.

 

[Media_Truth]

Yes, we do know those basics. We just don't have enough solid science in many aspect that affect temperatures.


There are several problems with knowing the real effects when methods of collection differ from the past to present, and then complicated with poorly placed meteorological sites that suffer unnatural warming from the urban heat island effect.

I suggest that temperatures we see today are highly tainted by the heat island effect, that is not a global phenomena.


I disagree. We really aren't seeing higher peak temperatures, so each climate system around the globe should be fine.

Can you tell us why, in your own words, instead of saying so because your favor pundits tell you that?


The problem is research is being focused on supporting the idea that man is to blame on all of it. There is almost no research for over a decade focusing on the direct and indirect warming of the sun. The sun is the source of over 99.99% of the earths heat, yet it goes ignored in research funding.

More research also needs to be done on the effect of albedo changes due to aerosol in the sky and on the ground. Even more importantly, research the losses of evaporative cooling as precipitation is more and more channeled to storm sewers rather than keeping healthy evapotransiration.

We know plenty. I go back to education - climate scientists are the experts. Not you. Not me. The issue is a greater probability of climate-caused disasters. Now we've seen these - hundreds of thousands of people killed around the world. Nobody can prove that AGW had anything to do with it. You will NEVER have that proof. So you either accept the expert's opinion or you don't.

You want to wait. That's basically what you're saying. Here's my viewpoint. Why wait, when the alternatives are better in every way, shape, and form? Renewables are better for localized pollution, and the health of the populace. We'd be much healthier, if there was a gradual reduction in vehicular internal combustion engines. No point in waiting...

 

[longview]

We know plenty. I go back to education - climate scientists are the experts. Not you. Not me. The issue is a greater probability of climate-caused disasters. Now we've seen these - hundreds of thousands of people killed around the world. Nobody can prove that AGW had anything to do with it. You will NEVER have that proof. So you either accept the expert's opinion or you don't.

You want to wait. That's basically what you're saying. Here's my viewpoint. Why wait, when the alternatives are better in every way, shape, and form? Renewables are better for localized pollution, and the health of the populace. We'd be much healthier, if there was a gradual reduction in vehicular internal combustion engines. No point in waiting...

The problem is that the alarmist claims are not really the same as the claims of the actual scientist.
From the observable data, the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be at the extreme low end of the range.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Everything besides the observable data, is simply speculation, educated guesses, but guesses just the same.
Also you point to the internal combustion engine as it it were some sort of evil, in and of itself,
it is a heat engine, nothing more nothing less. The fuel we use to transport the energy is the theoretical issue.
As to the point in waiting, our current infrastructure is no where near prepared to handle the transition from oil based fuels to
some alternative. President Trump was going to talk about infrastructure improvements last week,
but clearly the press seems to think statues are more important than our future.

 

[Media_Truth]

The problem is that the alarmist claims are not really the same as the claims of the actual scientist.
From the observable data, the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be at the extreme low end of the range.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Everything besides the observable data, is simply speculation, educated guesses, but guesses just the same.
Also you point to the internal combustion engine as it it were some sort of evil, in and of itself,
it is a heat engine, nothing more nothing less. The fuel we use to transport the energy is the theoretical issue.
As to the point in waiting, our current infrastructure is no where near prepared to handle the transition from oil based fuels to
some alternative. President Trump was going to talk about infrastructure improvements last week,
but clearly the press seems to think statues are more important than our future.

Your links appear to be nothing but propaganda, with little or no actual evidence. The very first paragraph of your 1st link states a blatant lie. No need to go any further. It states:

The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously.

And then there is the truth:

Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014. It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html

 

[Media_Truth]

The problem is that the alarmist claims are not really the same as the claims of the actual scientist.
From the observable data, the climates sensitivity to CO2 appears to be at the extreme low end of the range.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Everything besides the observable data, is simply speculation, educated guesses, but guesses just the same.
Also you point to the internal combustion engine as it it were some sort of evil, in and of itself,
it is a heat engine, nothing more nothing less. The fuel we use to transport the energy is the theoretical issue.
As to the point in waiting, our current infrastructure is no where near prepared to handle the transition from oil based fuels to
some alternative. President Trump was going to talk about infrastructure improvements last week,
but clearly the press seems to think statues are more important than our future.

Also, your argument against my statement about "waiting" basically reinforce my "gradual" statement.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We know plenty. I go back to education - climate scientists are the experts. Not you. Not me. The issue is a greater probability of climate-caused disasters. Now we've seen these - hundreds of thousands of people killed around the world. Nobody can prove that AGW had anything to do with it. You will NEVER have that proof. So you either accept the expert's opinion or you don't.

You want to wait. That's basically what you're saying. Here's my viewpoint. Why wait, when the alternatives are better in every way, shape, and form? Renewables are better for localized pollution, and the health of the populace. We'd be much healthier, if there was a gradual reduction in vehicular internal combustion engines. No point in waiting...

Yes, the climate scientists are the experts.

The pundits you read do not accurately represent what the scientists say.

I read the actual papers. You do not! You just reads the lies of the pundits.

 

[Media_Truth]

Yes, the climate scientists are the experts.

The pundits you read do not accurately represent what the scientists say.

I read the actual papers. You do not! You just reads the lies of the pundits.

Actually, I have read plenty of the papers, and I have cited quotations and scientific evaluations from the papers. You always claim to read them, and never reference any of them. Please, by all means, prove me wrong...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, I have read plenty of the papers, and I have cited quotations and scientific evaluations from the papers. You always claim to read them, and never reference any of them. Please, by all means, prove me wrong...

LOL...

The scientific evaluations from papers.

LOL...

LOL...


LOL...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually, I have read plenty of the papers, and I have cited quotations and scientific evaluations from the papers. You always claim to read them, and never reference any of them. Please, by all means, prove me wrong...

I could pick a paper and show you how you are wrong, but then you would accuse me of cherry picking.

That is why I have repeatedly asked for you to pick the cherry. Pick a paper that you can link for us all to see.

 

[longview]

Your links appear to be nothing but propaganda, with little or no actual evidence. The very first paragraph of your 1st link states a blatant lie. No need to go any further. It states:

The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously.

And then there is the truth:

Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier, which beat one set in 2014. It is the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html

You are free to disagree with the lead authors of IPCC AR5 and take the position of a New York times article over
an article in the Scientific Journal Nature, but they are discussing two different things.
Even if the rate of warming is lower, we will continue to see higher temperature records.
Let me ask you a question, Why do you think most of the climate scientist who worked on IPCC AR5,
found it necessary to write a letter to the editor of Nature, spelling out their findings they found while
doing research for the IPCC AR5 report?
We may only speculate to their motives, but it could have something to do with the Scientist finding
a most likely ECS of 2 C, and the summery for policymakers stating,
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a
lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

If you bothered to look at the second link, it is a peer reviewed publication of the actual measurements
of energy imbalance from a change in CO2 levels, but I guess true zealots, cannot be bothered with evidence.