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

[Feynman Lives!]

Same thing. Scientists often refer to their publications as "papers".

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"

 

[Feynman Lives!]

These peer reviewed studies are trying to turn a hypothesis into a theory, but it is still just an unproven hypothesis.

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.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You keep going back and forth. AGW is NOT an unproven hypothesis.

The numbers placed on the variables is just a hypothesis. Does that clarify it for you?

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.

Bullshit.

It is no where close to actual science theories.

 

[longview]

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.

AGW is a VERY broad topic, basically, can any Human activity alter the climate, and the answer is yes!
The portion of AGW that is an unproven hypothesis, is that added CO2 can cause warming,
and the follow on question, is if the answer to the first question is Yes, how much warming could added CO2 cause?
Currently there is no test that can prove that added CO2 causes any warming.
On the surface it sounds plausible, but our atmosphere is very complex, and the observed data so far is saying NO,
added CO2 cannot cause warming in the current concentrations.
This does not mean that lower concentrations did not cause warming, only that for the time frame we have observed,
the CO2 level did increase, but the positive longwave energy imbalance decreased.
Any warming from the longwave spectrum would have to start with a positive energy imbalance in that spectrum.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The numbers placed on the variables is just a hypothesis. Does that clarify it for you?

No! It obfuscates it. What variables are you talking about? Numbers are not hypothesis. Numbers are just numbers.

Bullshit.

It is no where close to actual science theories.

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.

Looks to me like in you're in some sort of "transition" period. You should get that resolved before you debate any of these topics.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

AGW is a VERY broad topic, basically, can any Human activity alter the climate, and the answer is yes!

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.

The portion of AGW that is an unproven hypothesis, is that added CO2 can cause warming,

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.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

In another thread, I stated:

Nope. The idea of the variables can be called a theory, but not the quantification of them. And like Longview states, we do not know with certainty that CO2 has a net warming of the earth. In the troposphere, water vapor rules the greenhouse effect. What is left for CO2 is very small, and impossible to properly quantify. As we go past the 50% point of the atmospheric mass, CO2 rules because water vapor is a condensing gas. Past this halfway point of mass, the redirected greenhouse effect heat has the majority leaving the earth system, outward. CO2 is cooling the atmosphere in the upper layers.​

​

We simply have no way of determining the net result with any acceptable accuracy.​

 

[longview]

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!
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

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).

Between hypothetical results and observed results, I know which one wins in Science!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

In another thread, I stated:

Nope. The idea of the variables can be called a theory, but not the quantification of them.​

I'm afraid I'm not grasping what it is you're trying to say. Variables are considered variables and theories are considered theories.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I am not saying added CO2 cannot cause warming, but that the time period of observation (2000 to 2022) it has not!

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 2022

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm afraid I'm not grasping what it is you're trying to say. Variables are considered variables and theories are considered theories.

I am specifically speaking of the values placed on the variables. Like the sensitivity of CO2 in the complex atmosphere.

 

[longview]

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 2022

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.

 

[Bullseye]

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"

Those papers are the report of the studies, and most ARE peer reviewed before publication.

 

[Threegoofs]

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!

Yet you never question why scientists all disagree with you,

And the fact that you can’t see that is mind boggling.

 

[longview]

Yet you never question why scientists all disagree with you,

And the fact that you can’t see that is mind boggling.

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.

 

[Threegoofs]

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.

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.

 

[Bullseye]

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"

And "studies" implies investigation, experimentation, conclusions and publishing.

Let me remind you of the scientific method:

 

[longview]

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.

The issue is fairly simple, first law of thermodynamics, no longwave energy imbalance, no warming from the longwave spectrum!

 

[Threegoofs]

The issue is fairly simple, first law of thermodynamics, no longwave energy imbalance, no warming from the longwave spectrum!

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???

 

[longview]

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???

There have been poor attempts to explain the paradox, but the study used flawed logic.
There can be no feedback it there is no initial perturbation!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I am specifically speaking of the values placed on the variables. ...

Well, I'm not. I'm talking about SCIENCE.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

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.

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.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And "studies" implies investigation, experimentation, conclusions and publishing.

That's what the OP says. You might have saved yourself some time by reading it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, I'm not. I'm talking about SCIENCE.

I am. This is a topic of science.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I am. This is a topic of science.

Variables are not the topic of science any more than dates are the topic of science.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.