Sure. But I'm talking about peer-reviewed STUDIES.Same thing. Scientists often refer to their publications as "papers".
You keep going back and forth. AGW is NOT an unproven hypothesis. It is at a level that is only comparable the most well-established theories: Evolution, Cell Theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity, ... and a few more. It's in a very select niche.These peer reviewed studies are trying to turn a hypothesis into a theory, but it is still just an unproven hypothesis.
The numbers placed on the variables is just a hypothesis. Does that clarify it for you?You keep going back and forth. AGW is NOT an unproven hypothesis.
Bullshit.It is at a level that is only comparable the most well-established theories: Evolution, Cell Theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity, ... and a few more. It's in a very select niche.
AGW is a VERY broad topic, basically, can any Human activity alter the climate, and the answer is yes!You keep going back and forth. AGW is NOT an unproven hypothesis. It is at a level that is only comparable the most well-established theories: Evolution, Cell Theory, Quantum Theory, Relativity, ... and a few more. It's in a very select niche.
No! It obfuscates it. What variables are you talking about? Numbers are not hypothesis. Numbers are just numbers.The numbers placed on the variables is just a hypothesis. Does that clarify it for you?
It's as if you were two different people. One day you embrace the Scientific Consensus but question some of the details about the specific man-made activity that produces the warming. The next you go all-out science denial.Bullshit.
It is no where close to actual science theories.
That plus the fact that it IS altering the climate is the consensus. The poster I responded to is not clear on whether or not he/she agrees with that consensus.AGW is a VERY broad topic, basically, can any Human activity alter the climate, and the answer is yes!
I never heard anybody question that CO2 CAN cause warming. Not even science denialists. I've seen them argue that there is not enough in the atmosphere, or that the effect is negligible. You're the first one arguing that maybe it CAN'T.The portion of AGW that is an unproven hypothesis, is that added CO2 can cause warming,
In another thread, I stated:That plus the fact that it IS altering the climate is the consensus. The poster I responded to is not clear on whether or not he/she agrees with that consensus.
I never heard anybody question that CO2 CAN cause warming. Not even science denialists. I've seen them argue that there is not enough in the atmosphere, or that the effect is negligible. You're the first one arguing that maybe it CAN'T.
In any case, for answers to this and the rest of your questions.... not interested. That is a matter that is no longer an issue in Science. We know WHAT causes AGW. We might need a bit more precision as to how much of it is due to each factor. But no serious researcher even bothers with it anymore. The time for that is long gone. Now is the time to find out what we need to find how to ameliorate the effects. Going back to past long ago settled discussions is a waste of time. And I'm not interested in helping those who would get us stuck in the past at the expense of dealing with the future.
I am not saying added CO2 cannot cause warming, but that the time period of observation (2000 to 2022) it has not!That plus the fact that it IS altering the climate is the consensus. The poster I responded to is not clear on whether or not he/she agrees with that consensus.
I never heard anybody question that CO2 CAN cause warming. Not even science denialists. I've seen them argue that there is not enough in the atmosphere, or that the effect is negligible. You're the first one arguing that maybe it CAN'T.
In any case, for answers to this and the rest of your questions.... not interested. That is a matter that is no longer an issue in Science. We know WHAT causes AGW. We might need a bit more precision as to how much of it is due to each factor. But no serious researcher even bothers with it anymore. The time for that is long gone. Now is the time to find out what we need to find how to ameliorate the effects. Going back to past long ago settled discussions is a waste of time. And I'm not interested in helping those who would get us stuck in the past at the expense of dealing with the future.
Between hypothetical results and observed results, I know which one wins in Science!The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR)
that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
I'm afraid I'm not grasping what it is you're trying to say. Variables are considered variables and theories are considered theories.In another thread, I stated:
Nope. The idea of the variables can be called a theory, but not the quantification of them.
I don't know what your point is but, to put your mind at ease, I can assure you that the period of observation has been way more that 2000 to 2022I am not saying added CO2 cannot cause warming, but that the time period of observation (2000 to 2022) it has not!
I am specifically speaking of the values placed on the variables. Like the sensitivity of CO2 in the complex atmosphere.I'm afraid I'm not grasping what it is you're trying to say. Variables are considered variables and theories are considered theories.
No, we only go the CERES instruments up in 2000, and earlier satellites did not have the full capabilityI don't know what your point is but, to put your mind at ease, I can assure you that the period of observation has been way more that 2000 to 2022
Those papers are the report of the studies, and most ARE peer reviewed before publication.Sure. But I'm talking about peer-reviewed STUDIES.
You're probably the only one in this thread who didn't understand that. Maybe the rest did because I SAID "studies"
Yet you never question why scientists all disagree with you,I am not saying added CO2 cannot cause warming, but that the time period of observation (2000 to 2022) it has not!
I would have thought it would do something, even a slight warming, but any warming would require that
the added greenhouse gases reduce the OLR more than the Planck radiation increases the OLR, and that did not happen.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000
Between hypothetical results and observed results, I know which one wins in Science!
Can you cite and quote any scientist who disagrees that you have to have some longwave energyYet you never question why scientists all disagree with you,
And the fact that you can’t see that is mind boggling.
If what you say is true, you’d think it would be the subject of at least ONE paper.Can you cite and quote any scientist who disagrees that you have to have some longwave energy
imbalance in the longwave spectrum to have any greenhouse gas warming?
They are not even asking the question, and that should concern us all.
The issue is fairly simple, first law of thermodynamics, no longwave energy imbalance, no warming from the longwave spectrum!If what you say is true, you’d think it would be the subject of at least ONE paper.
Have you thought that maybe they aren’t asking the question because it’s a profound misunderstanding of the issue? Surely it must have occurred to you at least once.
Yeah, we have heard this from you ad nauseum.The issue is fairly simple, first law of thermodynamics, no longwave energy imbalance, no warming from the longwave spectrum!
There have been poor attempts to explain the paradox, but the study used flawed logic.Yeah, we have heard this from you ad nauseum.
How come no actual publishing scientists make this argument?
Doesnt that make you think AT ALL???
Well, I'm not. I'm talking about SCIENCE.I am specifically speaking of the values placed on the variables. ...
So? We had thermometers. And before that we had tree rings, corals, glaciers, pollen... A combination of elements that would be too complex for somebody who believes that "temperature" is something you read on an LED screen. Modern tools like CERES makes it easier. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't have an adequate temperature record from millions of years in the past.No, we only go the CERES instruments up in 2000, and earlier satellites did not have the full capability
to measure the in and out from the different spectrums.
That's what the OP says. You might have saved yourself some time by reading it.And "studies" implies investigation, experimentation, conclusions and publishing.
I am. This is a topic of science.Well, I'm not. I'm talking about SCIENCE.
Variables are not the topic of science any more than dates are the topic of science.I am. This is a topic of science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?