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

[longview]

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.

Sorry the measured temperature says nothing about the cause of a temperature increase!
I agree that the our surface air temperature is increasing.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Sorry the measured temperature says nothing about the cause of a temperature increase!

That's why God invented Science!

 

[longview]

That's why God invented Science!

And the scientific method requires observed data to support hypothesis.
They have a hypothesis that the increase in the CO2 level caused the increase in temperature,
but did not have any observed data supporting that correlation.
The experiment was the CERES instruments, that were supposed to show the OLR decreasing as the CO2 levels rose.
The problem is the instruments recorded the OLR increasing as the CO2 levels rose.
Science is about following the data even when it disagrees with your pre conceived ideas!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And the scientific method requires observed data to support hypothesis.

Is that what you think data is for? To "support" the hypothesis? WRONG! As a matter of fact, it's for exactly the OPPOSITE of that.

In any case, your remark was

Sorry the measured temperature says nothing about the cause of a temperature increase!

For that PRECISE reason, on the Eighth Day God said, "Let there be Science!"...

 

[longview]

Is that what you think data is for? To "support" the hypothesis? WRONG! As a matter of fact, it's for exactly the OPPOSITE of that.

In any case, your remark was

For that PRECISE reason, on the Eighth Day God said, "Let there be Science!"...

What are you talking about? The way to move a hypothesis to a theory is by validating
via data produced by experimentation, if the assumptions in the hypothesis are correct.
In the case of the hypothesis that added CO2 would cause warming, the experiment was the CERES
instruments on satellites that would measure shortwave and longwave spectrums in and out of earth.
The intent was to validate that as the CO2 levels increased the OLR would decrease, but that is NOT
what the experiment showed.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

 

[Threegoofs]

What are you talking about? The way to move a hypothesis to a theory is by validating
via data produced by experimentation, if the assumptions in the hypothesis are correct.
In the case of the hypothesis that added CO2 would cause warming, the experiment was the CERES
instruments on satellites that would measure shortwave and longwave spectrums in and out of earth.
The intent was to validate that as the CO2 levels increased the OLR would decrease, but that is NOT
what the experiment showed.

So why don’t the CERES folks support your claims?

It’s mind boggling you can’t even comprehend that question.

 

[longview]

So why don’t the CERES folks support your claims?

It’s mind boggling you can’t even comprehend that question.

The data from the CERES instruments do, to me that is all that matters.
Their opinions of the data do not matter.

 

[Threegoofs]

The data from the CERES instruments do, to me that is all that matters.
Their opinions of the data do not matter.

Its just amazing that you are so incurious about the simple fact that the people who actually collect and interpret the data, and who are obviously far smarter than you dont think that theyve stumbled onto some magic data that tells us GHG cant be warmng the planet.

And the reason I know they are far smarter is that if they were presented with some data that did not jive with the existing scientific consensus, I can guarantee they would investigate why the originators of that data are not saying that data does not agree with what is accepted scientific theory.

For most people, I'd think that not being able to answer this question would be pure trolling, but I've never seen anyone be able to maintain a troll for years like this without having the self realization that its gobsmackingly stupid on its face. I guess the alternate theory is some type of delusional thinking. Maybe libertarianism really pollutes one's gray matter this much over time, I dunno. But its sure something to behold!

 

[longview]

Its just amazing that you are so incurious about the simple fact that the people who actually collect and interpret the data, and who are obviously far smarter than you dont think that theyve stumbled onto some magic data that tells us GHG cant be warmng the planet.

And the reason I know they are far smarter is that if they were presented with some data that did not jive with the existing scientific consensus, I can guarantee they would investigate why the originators of that data are not saying that data does not agree with what is accepted scientific theory.

For most people, I'd think that not being able to answer this question would be pure trolling, but I've never seen anyone be able to maintain a troll for years like this without having the self realization that its gobsmackingly stupid on its face. I guess the alternate theory is some type of delusional thinking. Maybe libertarianism really pollutes one's gray matter this much over time, I dunno. But its sure something to behold!

The different groups are not all focused on what is causing the observed warming, most research is
simply if we warm this amount, this will be the result.
If you actually had look at the study I cited they said very little about greenhouse gas warming dircetly.

Isolating the cloud contribution also requires removing the contribution from effective radiative forcing (aerosol-cloud indirect effects and greenhouse gas adjustments), which is highly uncertain.

Climate model AMIP simulations suggest that the larger ASR increase observed during the CERES period is due to additive contributions from effective radiative forcing (ERF) and climate response to warming and it is spatial pattern; while, the weaker OLR change is associated with compensation between increasing ERF from continued emission of well-mixed greenhouse gases and increased infrared cooling to space relating to the radiative response to warming (Raghuraman et al. 2021; Hodnebrog et al. 2024).

 

[Bullseye]

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

And yet you balked when I used it. I would have thought you were at least vaguely familiar with your OP content.

 

[Bullseye]

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.

Nonsense. Proof would require a controlled experiment(s) with duplicable results; not a litany of "me too" publications.

 

[Bullseye]

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.

Other than thermometers the margin of error is in tree rings, etc. is well below the accuracy required for proof.

 

[Threegoofs]

The different groups are not all focused on what is causing the observed warming, most research is
simply if we warm this amount, this will be the result.
If you actually had look at the study I cited they said very little about greenhouse gas warming dircetly.

Weird that you don’t even seem to be comprehending my question.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

What are you talking about? The way to move a hypothesis to a theory is by validating via data produced by experimentation, if the assumptions in the hypothesis are correct.....

No no no!!! Wrong in so many levels.... Any kid who has ever received even a C or above in a Middle School Science project would tell you how WRONG that is!

Research! Read my sig! And then come back to us....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Other than thermometers the margin of error is in tree rings, etc. is well below the accuracy required for proof.

Depends on what it is you want to prove.

 

[longview]

No no no!!! Wrong in so many levels.... Any kid who has ever received even a C or above in a Middle School Science project would tell you how WRONG that is!

Research! Read my sig! And then come back to us....

Clearly you have never done research professionally, I have many times, and for decades.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Clearly you have never done research professionally, I have many times, and for decades.

Not science research, I hope (if it is, we might be eating something we probably shouldn't). Clearly you're not very good at it if you talk about "moving" a hypothesis to a theory. That would be something a middle-schooler with a really really bad Science teacher might say. A theory IS a number of hypothesis and facts that are intertwined to explain a specific phenomenon. A hypothesis doesn't "move".

Saying that a hypothesis "becomes" a theory is like saying that atoms "become" a dining room table.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Other than thermometers the margin of error is in tree rings, etc. is well below the accuracy required for proof.

That's ridiculous! We don't "prove" temperature. Temperature is just data. We KNOW what kinds of rings a tree forms at certain temperatures. We can know this, for example, by growing trees in a controlled environment. We also know how much pollen many types of plants accumulate at different temperatures. We KNOW the ratios of different oxygen isotope in the water frozen in icebergs at different temperatures. The same for the chemicals in corals (especially aragonite). And then we correlate them all. If they ALL point to the same temperature in the same time-period, we KNOW that the measurement was accurate. And this has been done millions of times by MILLIONS of scientists and University students for over a century. And, guess what, they have ALL come to the same conclusions.

We also have very accurate thermometers since the 1700s. That's when the Farenheit and Celsius scales were invented. And basically,, that's enough to prove the level of the CURRENT warming.

Anyway... all this is very complicated for folks who are unfamiliar with science. And you HAVE to be unfamiliar with science to deny AGW at this stage in our history.

 

[longview]

Not science research, I hope (if it is, we might be eating something we probably shouldn't). Clearly you're not very good at it if you talk about "moving" a hypothesis to a theory. That would be something a middle-schooler with a really really bad Science teacher might say. A theory IS a number of hypothesis and facts that are intertwined to explain a specific phenomenon. A hypothesis doesn't "move".

Saying that a hypothesis "becomes" a theory is like saying that atoms "become" a dining room table.

Hello Feynman, been a while.
This concept that added CO2 can cause warming is a hypothesis, not a theory.
The CERES instruments were an experiment to validate the hypothesis with empirical data,
(A decrease in the OLR as the greenhouse gas levels rose), but the data showed the opposite.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We also have very accurate thermometers since the 1700s. That's when the Farenheit and Celsius scales were invented. And basically,, that's enough to prove the level of the CURRENT warming.

Not proof at all.

The problem here is taking a village reading and comparing it to a reading that is hotter because of the UHIE (urban heat island effect.) The region could actually be cooler as an average, but the city temperture will make the reading hotter than the surrounding area.

Anyway... all this is very complicated for folks who are unfamiliar with science.

Which you obviously are not, because you always deny the UHIE.

And you HAVE to be unfamiliar with science to deny AGW at this stage in our history.

Nobody here denies AGW. Only the quantification applied to it.

You cannot even get simple facts correct.

 

[Bullseye]

That's ridiculous! We don't "prove" temperature. Temperature is just data. We KNOW what kinds of rings a tree forms at certain temperatures.

Not exactly - ring thickness is effective by many factors and those factors tend to be SWAGs

We can know this, for example, by growing trees in a controlled environment.

Problem is the trees we sample don't grow in controlled environments- the grow in the wide in various enviornments, weather and various other factors.

We also know how much pollen many types of plants accumulate at different temperatures. We KNOW the ratios of different oxygen isotope in the water frozen in icebergs at different temperatures. The same for the chemicals in corals (especially aragonite). And then we correlate them all. If they ALL point to the same temperature in the same time-period, we KNOW that the measurement was accurate. And this has been done millions of times by MILLIONS of scientists and University students for over a century. And, guess what, they have ALL come to the same conclusions.

What we really know, at least most climatologists do is that tree rings are basically a swag with a wide margin of error.

We also have very accurate thermometers since the 1700s. That's when the Farenheit and Celsius scales were invented. And basically,, that's enough to prove the level of the CURRENT warming.

You can't be serious. "Very accurate" Not even close. Beyond that most reported temps in studies and reports are a mixture of live data and hug swathes of manufactured, uncorrected data for missing sensors.

Anyway... all this is very complicated for folks w[ho are unfamiliar with science. And you HAVE to be unfamiliar with science to deny AGW at this stage in our history.

I don't DENY it, it plays a small part of the overall result. I've seen estimates of 5-8% of total change, Water vapor is usually credited as the major contributor. And put them all together and it produces about 1.5℃ over the past hundred years.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Hello Feynman, been a while.
This concept that added CO2 can cause warming is a hypothesis, not a theory.

The concept that CO2 can cause warming IS, in fact, a hypothesis that is part of a huge and complex THEORY called "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

For epistemological purposes, compare that (just an example) to the hypothesis that the gravitational field of a massive object can bend light, which is part of another complex theory called "Relativity"

So what you say is technically true... but useless.

The point of this thread is that BOTH (Relativity and AGW) are PROVEN theories that are composed of many many individual hypothesis.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Not proof at all.

You need proof that the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales were invented in the 1700s?

You're in the wrong thread!

Nobody here denies AGW. Only the quantification applied to it.

The quantification is definitely under dispute, but not part of the AGW consensus. So far it has been somewhat off. The warming has been happening faster than expected. It was expected to start having the most dire consequences at a later part of the second half of the 21st century. And it appears that quantification was too optimistic.

But the quantification are basically models. And we must always remember...


"All models are wrong. But some models are useful" -J.P. Box



....

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Problem is the trees we sample don't grow in controlled environments-

Exactly! They grow in a natural environment. That's how we know the conditions in the natural environment.

It's how science works! They call it "inference". And it's a major part of science. From Air travel, to space travel, to medicine, to ... EVERYTHING that is based on science. All of them were tested in controlled environments. If you don't think "inference" proves anything, you might want to stay away from hospitals and traveling on airplanes.... because they assume that inference is VERY trustworthy. At least trustworthy enough to bet YOUR life on it.

 

[longview]

The concept that CO2 can cause warming IS, in fact, a hypothesis that is part of a huge and complex THEORY called "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

For epistemological purposes, compare that (just an example) to the hypothesis that the gravitational field of a massive object can bend light, which is part of another complex theory called "Relativity"

So what you say is technically true... but useless.

The point of this thread is that BOTH (Relativity and AGW) are PROVEN theories that are composed of many many individual hypothesis.

Relativity is a theory AGW is not, it is still a hypothesis.
At the core of AGW is the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming, if proven false then the rest of AGW
is fairly useless, like the idea of Net Zero stopping warming.
If as I suspect, warming since ~1979 is simply a release of earlier dimmed solar increases, then our warming will play out.
Other valid hypothesis are that soot is melting the ice and reducing the light that is reflected,