What is (and isn't) the AGW Scientific Consensus?

I will post this in two parts. Part 1 is about defining the terms I use. In the 2nd part I provide my position. Which is actually not "mine" (would love to claim ownership, but I can't) But the scientific position

The scientific consensus (defined below) is simply this: that there is an abnormal increase in the Earth's surface temperature. And that increase is caused mainly by human activity.

That's it! No more. No less. The scientific consensus is NOT that you should buy an EV, or that you should change your light bulbs. All of which is great advice, but "advice" is outside the realm of science, and wanders into the realm of technologists and politicians.

So the NAME of this consensus is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW for short) which means:

Anthropogenic: The roots of which literally translates to "Generated by Man"
Global: Meaning "the whole planet". Not just a region of the planet.
Warming: Meaning the AVERAGE global (see above) temperature is increasing.

Abnormally: Refers to everything that is not a normal known natural event. Like El Niño and La Niña events, Solar flares, cosmic rays, volcanic activity, natural green-house gas emissions ... all of them are considerations that are known by climate scientists (nothing more childish than the argument "but scientists don't know about solar flares"... or similar). They learn to account for them in the first few lessons in their career. Once you "normalize" the temperature readings to account for those, what we have is what is due to human activity. And even when a study demonstrates that this or that event might have more influence than expected, none ever come close to taking over the place of human activity. Green house gases produced by humans are unique isotopes and can be identified directly. So this also helps verify that the measurements are accurate.

Scientific Consensus: Means that a large enough majority of STUDIES (not opinions or articles) published in peer-reviewed publications (meaning that they are reputable magazines that do everything that is humanly possible, including hiring other scientists (peer-reviewers) to make sure that the conclusions of a study are a direct consequence of the processes and data used to test them. Studies published in the last 30 years ALL conclude that AGW is real If anybody wants to check, they are references in the IPCCC website.

Peer-review: This is the final and completely unavoidable part of the Scientific Method. The conclusion is not considered "science" (even if it were absolutely accurate) unless it undergoes peer-review and is then published. The publication hires scientists who check the methods used, and to make sure that the conclusion is a direct unavoidable consequence of the data and methods used. Publishing is also necessary in science, because the conclusion is then evaluated by the readers (typically other scientists and students) in what is called "post-publication peer review". It is a HUGE deal in science if a reader finds a flaw in the study that the peer-reviewers and the editor didn't spot. The reader earns big credits in the scientific community, and often the editor and/or peer-reviewers are fired. After some time, and when the studies prove to be useful to other scientists, peer-reviewed studies usually become part of an index, like the ISI (International Scientific Index) database. But are removed if they become obsolete, or if post-publication reviewers detect errors.

The AGW scientific consensus: In the case of AGW the number of peer-reviewed studies that support AGW is so huge (many thousands) that the number of peer-reviewed studies (most of which were published before 2000) that negate AGW is completely negligible in comparison. Most indicate the scientific consensus was established.

The consensus was established in science in the early 2000s, and made available to the public after a ground breaking Meta-Analysis of studies in the ISI database was published in Science Magazine in 2005

... Continue to Part 2

... Part 2

My position is very comfortable. It relies on the premise that the Scientific Method WORKS. I don't have to bother with physics and chemistry and graphs because I have thousands of peer reviewed studies that make my case for me. Most of them referenced in the IPCC website (https://www.ipcc.ch/). On the other hand, arguments that state that the Scientific Method DOES NOT work can be debated (it's certainly not perfect). Those who hold this last position deny science and, for that reason, are properly considered "science denialists". It's not an insult. They are simply people who honestly question that science works. If you're one of those, just admit it, and we can discuss whether or not there is a better method.

All other objections to the scientific consensus are pseudo-science. It's easy to find websites that take charts and data out of context. Sometimes publishing graphs and data from studies about REGIONAL climate changes as if they were Global (remember the G in AGW) Or taking small periods of cooling of 5 or 6 years (typical of El Niño and La Niña natural EVENTS) as if they defied AGW, which refers to long term changes. Or articles and opinions published by scientists, most of which have been PAID to write something... anything... that can be used to deny the scientific consensus.

Easy money!

Playing the "I'm a climate expert too" game: I am not a climate expert. And neither are YOU. So I stopped playing this game a long time ago. I (and you) can understand the conclusion of these studies. But if you tell me that you understand the science that led to that conclusion, we all know you're just playing a juvenile game. And this includes taking graphs and data out of the context of the study. Graphs and data are not the study. They are simply referenced used by the study. The conclusion is the only part that is debatable in a peer-reviewed study. So if you have anything to argue quote (ie. transcribe verbatim, word by word, what the conclusion says) the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study, and provide a LINK so we can verify what you're saying.

@Lord of Planar tells us that there are things in the body of the papers, which are all behind pay walls, but which only he has subscription to, which directly contradict what the abstracts of the papers say. But he will never quote those things. Only he knows, because it is esoteric acknowledge, you see.

ataraxia said:

@Lord of Planar tells us that there are things in the body of the papers, which are all behind pay walls, but which only he has subscription to, which directly contradict what the abstracts of the papers say. But he will never quote those things. Only he knows, because it is esoteric acknowledge, you see.

Click to expand...

At least the excuse is... UNIQUE.

Feynman Lives! said:

... Part 2

My position is very comfortable. It relies on the premise that the Scientific Method WORKS. I don't have to bother with physics and chemistry and graphs because I have thousands of peer reviewed studies that make my case for me. Most of them referenced in the IPCC website (https://www.ipcc.ch/). On the other hand, arguments that state that the Scientific Method DOES NOT work can be debated (it's certainly not perfect). Those who hold this last position deny science and, for that reason, are properly considered "science denialists". It's not an insult. They are simply people who honestly question that science works. If you're one of those, just admit it, and we can discuss whether or not there is a better method.

All other objections to the scientific consensus are pseudo-science. It's easy to find websites that take charts and data out of context. Sometimes publishing graphs and data from studies about REGIONAL climate changes as if they were Global (remember the G in AGW) Or taking small periods of cooling of 5 or 6 years (typical of El Niño and La Niña natural EVENTS) as if they defied AGW, which refers to long term changes. Or articles and opinions published by scientists, most of which have been PAID to write something... anything... that can be used to deny the scientific consensus.

Easy money!

Playing the "I'm a climate expert too" game: I am not a climate expert. And neither are YOU. So I stopped playing this game a long time ago. I (and you) can understand the conclusion of these studies. But if you tell me that you understand the science that led to that conclusion, we all know you're just playing a juvenile game. And this includes taking graphs and data out of the context of the study. Graphs and data are not the study. They are simply referenced used by the study. The conclusion is the only part that is debatable in a peer-reviewed study. So if you have anything to argue quote (ie. transcribe verbatim, word by word, what the conclusion says) the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study, and provide a LINK so we can verify what you're saying.

Click to expand...

You wrote:

The scientific consensus (defined below) is simply this: that there is an abnormal increase in the Earth's surface temperature. And that increase is caused mainly by human activity.

Click to expand...

I agree. And, so what?

Steve Case said:

You wrote:



I agree. And, so what?

Click to expand...

My post is only relevant to anybody who believes Science is the best way to understand reality.

Feel free to assume it's not addressed to you, if that's not your case.

Feynman Lives! said:

My post is only relevant to anybody who believes Science is the best way to understand reality.

Feel free to assume it's not addressed to you, if that's not your case.

Click to expand...

The scientific method requires that we look at all the data, not just the data we like!
Human activity covers a wide swath of was we can screw up the environment.

longview said:

The scientific method requires that we look at all the data, not just the data we like!

Click to expand...

Exactly!

longview said:

Human activity covers a wide swath of was we can screw up the environment.

Click to expand...

Yep! My post is about one of them: AGW

Feynman Lives! said:

My post is only relevant to anybody who believes Science is the best way to understand reality.

Feel free to assume it's not addressed to you, if that's not your case.

Click to expand...

You've spelled out the reality that human activity has a role in the warm-up since 1850.
The warming is mostly in the winter, at night and in the polar latitudes at least that's what the IPCC says in the AR4 Chapter 10 page 750 pdf3
You didn't say so but the rise in CO2 is certainly due to fossil fuel consumption.
There's more rain, at least in the USA48 there is. LINK
There's good evidence that the hardiness zones are getting wider and moving northward. More arable land?
We all learned in sixth grade science that CO2 + Water & Sunshine is why plants are green and produce our food.

That's some of my understanding of reality.

Some more reality:
Western countries are subsidizing the building of solar and wind farms to combat "Climate Change"

Do you have some opinions about reality that is different than that and is of significant concern.

Steve Case said:

You've spelled out the reality that human activity has a role in the warm-up since 1850.

Click to expand...

Yes. That's the purpose of this thread.

Steve Case said:

The warming is mostly in the winter, at night and in the polar latitudes at least that's what the IPCC says in the AR4 Chapter 10 page 750 pdf3

Click to expand...

At night? I'm not following. It's ALWAYS night.... somewhere... The warming I'm referring to is GLOBAL. As the "G" in AGW. So it's everywhere. Typically conveyed as a yearly average. Therefore it includes ALL seasons.

Steve Case said:

You didn't say so but the rise in CO2 is certainly due to fossil fuel consumption.

Click to expand...

In no small part. I didn't mention it because it's not part of what people generally refer to as "The Scientific Consensus" However, I don't dispute that is true.

But what I wanted to do here was clarify the concept. Because some folks have shown difficulty understanding what a a "scientific consensus" IS.. Not that that's your case, of course. Just that there might be some readers who might benefit from that explanation. And I wanted to leave this here for reference.

Steve Case said:

There's more rain, at least in the USA48 there is. LINK
There's good evidence that the hardiness zones are getting wider and moving northward. More arable land?
We all learned in sixth grade science that CO2 + Water & Sunshine is why plants are green and produce our food.

Click to expand...

There is no lack of CO2. for plants. We won't have more plants just because we have more CO2. But there are studies that seem to indicate that the nutritional value diminishes when there is too much. And floods are not good for most crops anyway.

Some areas might experience a few benefits from Global Warming. But that comes at the expense of people who DIE due to the effects. At a minimum lose their homes, farms, land.... The problem of change is CHANGE. Once the "change" is done, we are stable, and we adapt. But the "change" part will affect the global economy. So even many of those who might experience some benefit, in the end, might find that the pay-off was not worth it.

Like I said before, AGW is unavoidable. It was possible 20 years ago. Not so anymore. The best we can hope for now is to make change as gradual as possible.so we can adapt to it before it kills and displaces too many people.

None of this is the topic of this thread, though. I just wanted to explain the AGW consensus.

Steve Case said:

Do you have some opinions about reality that is different than that and is of significant concern.

Click to expand...

I try to stay away from opinions whenever I can. I prefer to convey facts. And I think that Science describes reality in the best of all possible.

Feynman Lives! said:

Exactly!


Yep! My post is about one of them: AGW

Click to expand...

But human caused global warming also is any human activity, correct?
If we follow the data, we see that Earth is loosing energy in the longwave spectrum, if added CO2 were causing the warming, Earth would have to be gaining energy in the longwave spectrum!

Feynman Lives! said:

Yes. That's the purpose of this thread.



At night? I'm not following. It's ALWAYS night.... somewhere... The warming I'm referring to is GLOBAL. As the "G" in AGW. So it's everywhere. Typically conveyed as a yearly average. Therefore it includes ALL seasons.



In no small part. I didn't mention it because it's not part of what people generally refer to as "The Scientific Consensus" However, I don't dispute that is true.

But what I wanted to do here was clarify the concept. Because some folks have shown difficulty understanding what a a "scientific consensus" IS.. Not that that's your case, of course. Just that there might be some readers who might benefit from that explanation. And I wanted to leave this here for reference.




There is no lack of CO2. for plants. We won't have more plants just because we have more CO2. But there are studies that seem to indicate that the nutritional value diminishes when there is too much. And floods are not good for most crops anyway.

Some areas might experience a few benefits from Global Warming. But that comes at the expense of people who DIE due to the effects. At a minimum lose their homes, farms, land.... The problem of change is CHANGE. Once the "change" is done, we are stable, and we adapt. But the "change" part will affect the global economy. So even many of those who might experience some benefit, in the end, might find that the pay-off was not worth it.

Like I said before, AGW is unavoidable. It was possible 20 years ago. Not so anymore. The best we can hope for now is to make change as gradual as possible.so we can adapt to it before it kills and displaces too many people.

None of this is the topic of this thread, though. I just wanted to explain the AGW consensus.



I try to stay away from opinions whenever I can. I prefer to convey facts. And I think that Science describes reality in the best of all possible.

Click to expand...

So describe in your own words or quote some peer reviewed source that says exactly how added CO2 is supposed to cause average warming in the surface troposphere system?
The term for most of the average warming being at night is diurnal asymmetry. The average increases because the lows do not go as low as they used to.

ataraxia said:

@Lord of Planar tells us that there are things in the body of the papers, which are all behind pay walls, but which only he has subscription to, which directly contradict what the abstracts of the papers say. But he will never quote those things. Only he knows, because it is esoteric acknowledge, you see.

Click to expand...

That is a fact in many papers. In this case, the fact is not a single consensus study has that 97% or higher consensus as the activists then claim. They will claim that this 97%+ scientists agree we are the greatest cause of climate change, some say that this percentage applies to the belief greenhouse gas emissions are the greatest cause of the warming. The fact is, they add up three different categories for this 97%. The weakest of the three is only that we have an effect. So that is all the 97%+ can be said to have consensus on. That we have an effect. The first category, indicating the scientists that believe we are that primary cause, is under 10%.

And this is among papers that give a position, which is only less that 1/3rd of the papers surveyed.

I have shown this as fact before in a consensus paper. Given the link and images from the paper.

longview said:

But human caused global warming also is any human activity, correct?
If we follow the data, we see that Earth is loosing energy in the longwave spectrum, if added CO2 were causing the warming, Earth would have to be gaining energy in the longwave spectrum!

Click to expand...

You're in the wrong thread. This is about the scientific consensus.

longview said:

So describe in your own words or quote some peer reviewed source that says exactly how added CO2 is supposed to cause average warming in the surface troposphere system?

Click to expand...

You can look up any peer-reviewed study you want to research using the link I provided. Here is the link.

Your search is as good as mine.

longview said:

The term for most of the average warming being at night is diurnal asymmetry. The average increases because the lows do not go as low as they used to.

Click to expand...

Cool! But this is about GLOBAL warming. Day or night is meaningless in respect to the scientific consensus regarding AGW. Like I said: it's
always night somewhere.

Feynman Lives! said:

Yes. That's the purpose of this thread.



At night? I'm not following. It's ALWAYS night.... somewhere... The warming I'm referring to is GLOBAL. As the "G" in AGW. So it's everywhere. Typically conveyed as a yearly average. Therefore it includes ALL seasons.



In no small part. I didn't mention it because it's not part of what people generally refer to as "The Scientific Consensus" However, I don't dispute that is true.

But what I wanted to do here was clarify the concept. Because some folks have shown difficulty understanding what a a "scientific consensus" IS.. Not that that's your case, of course. Just that there might be some readers who might benefit from that explanation. And I wanted to leave this here for reference.




There is no lack of CO2. for plants. We won't have more plants just because we have more CO2. But there are studies that seem to indicate that the nutritional value diminishes when there is too much. And floods are not good for most crops anyway.

Some areas might experience a few benefits from Global Warming. But that comes at the expense of people who DIE due to the effects. At a minimum lose their homes, farms, land.... The problem of change is CHANGE. Once the "change" is done, we are stable, and we adapt. But the "change" part will affect the global economy. So even many of those who might experience some benefit, in the end, might find that the pay-off was not worth it.

Like I said before, AGW is unavoidable. It was possible 20 years ago. Not so anymore. The best we can hope for now is to make change as gradual as possible.so we can adapt to it before it kills and displaces too many people.

None of this is the topic of this thread, though. I just wanted to explain the AGW consensus.



I try to stay away from opinions whenever I can. I prefer to convey facts. And I think that Science describes reality in the best of all possible.

Click to expand...

You said:

Yes. That's the purpose of this thread.

Blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah … blah

I try to stay away from opinions whenever I can. I prefer to convey facts. And I think that Science describes reality in the best of all possible.

Click to expand...

You're really good at high & mighty platitudes and otherwise saying nothing.
You know where you can go, and what you can do when you get there.

Feynman Lives! said:

You're in the wrong thread. This is about the scientific consensus.

Click to expand...

And from your own quote the scientific consensus does not specify that the human activity is added CO2!

Feynman Lives! said:

You can look up any peer-reviewed study you want to research using the link I provided. Here is the link.

Your search is as good as mine.


Cool! But this is about GLOBAL warming. Day or night is meaningless in respect to the scientific consensus regarding AGW. Like I said: it's
always night somewhere.

Click to expand...

Actually I cannot guess what is in your mind so any link will not work with respect to what link or quote you think shows the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming.

Because the average temperature is determined by the daily low plus the daily high, divided by 2,
For each location it matters!
Hansen had a study where they found that as much as 70% of the warming up to 1997 occurred in evening lows not going as low!
This is what Tyndall expected in the 1800’s.
The difference between daily highs and lows were lessened by the circumstance.
Aahenius quoted him in has 1896 paper!

Steve Case said:

You're really good at high & mighty platitudes and otherwise saying nothing.

Click to expand...

So you're complaining because you didn't understand my post.

Ok. I guess an explanation of how science works may be a bit elevated for some.... Keep trying and maybe one day you'll get there....

longview said:

And from your own quote the scientific consensus does not specify that the human activity is added CO2!

Click to expand...

Exactly! Because it's NOT part of the scientific consensus "that the human activity is added CO2". There are OTHER activities related to humans that also contribute to Global Warming.

That's exactly one of the myths this thread would like to dispel: that the consensus is ALL about humans producing CO2.

longview said:

Actually I cannot guess what is in your mind so any link will not work with respect to what link or quote you think shows the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming.

Click to expand...

Of course CO2 produces warming. As does CH4 and N2O.... and many other products of human activity.

longview said:

Because the average temperature is determined by the daily low plus the daily high, divided by 2,
For each location it matters!

Click to expand...

Everything matters. But AGW is about the GLOBAL surface temperature increase.

longview said:

Hansen had a study where they found that as much as 70% of the warming up to 1997 occurred in evening lows not going as low!

Click to expand...

That's a symptom. Not a cause. The Scientific Consensus describes what the problem is (Global Warming) and the overall cause (Anthropogenic... i.e.: human activity). And the symptom is always relevant to fin remedies. But symptoms alone don't describe the problem.

I'm just conveying the fact that there is a Scientific consensus IS. And why we who are not climate experts determine that it's accurate and needs to be addressed.

Feynman Lives! said:

Exactly! Because it's NOT part of the scientific consensus "that the human activity is added CO2". There are OTHER activities related to humans that also contribute to Global Warming.

That's exactly one of the myths this thread would like to dispel: that the consensus is ALL about humans producing CO2.

Click to expand...

I do believe CO2 warms the earth. I simply do not believe the levels the alarmist cult would have is believe. Look at what they ask on a global scale. It amounts to more government control over what people do.

Unless there is a peer reviewed paper that can show beyond hypothesis that warming from CO2 is more than 1 degree for a doubling, I will retain my position that it is only about 0.5 degrees.

The largest part of warming I believe comes from the contaminants we put in atmosphere with CO2 emission. Not the CO2 itself.

Then I also believe that the observed readings are not adjusted right to remove the UHIE and that even the assumed warming we see is over estimated.

Feynman Lives! said:

Of course CO2 produces warming. As does CH4 and N2O.... and many other products of human activity.

Click to expand...

The question is how much.

Feynman Lives! said:

Everything matters. But AGW is about the GLOBAL surface temperature increase.

Click to expand...

Which I touched on. Our observed readings are influenced by nearby heat, specifically the UHIE.

Feynman Lives! said:

That's a symptom. Not a cause. The Scientific Consensus describes what the problem is (Global Warming) and the overall cause (Anthropogenic... i.e.: human activity). And the symptom is always relevant to fin remedies. But symptoms alone don't describe the problem.

I'm just conveying the fact that there is a Scientific consensus IS. And why we who are not climate experts determine that it's accurate and needs to be addressed.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that consensus is that we have an effect. There is no large consensus that our effect is harmful.

Feynman Lives! said:

Exactly! Because it's NOT part of the scientific consensus "that the human activity is added CO2". There are OTHER activities related to humans that also contribute to Global Warming.

That's exactly one of the myths this thread would like to dispel: that the consensus is ALL about humans producing CO2.

Click to expand...

It leaves to door open for any portion of the consensus to think some other human activity besides CO2 emissions could be responsible for the observed warming since 1978!

Feynman Lives! said:

Of course CO2 produces warming. As does CH4 and N2O.... and many other products of human activity.



Everything matters. But AGW is about the GLOBAL surface temperature increase.


That's a symptom. Not a cause. The Scientific Consensus describes what the problem is (Global Warming) and the overall cause (Anthropogenic... i.e.: human activity). And the symptom is always relevant to fin remedies. But symptoms alone don't describe the problem.

I'm just conveying the fact that there is a Scientific consensus IS. And why we who are not climate experts determine that it's accurate and needs to be addressed.

Click to expand...

You say “Of course CO2 produces warming”, but I would ask how you know?
There is no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming, it is all hypothetical.

Is AGW really global? If it is then the Southern Hemisphere did not get the memo!