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

[Threegoofs]

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


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.



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

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.

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.

Tree ring proxies are verified by multiple other types of proxies.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Relativity is a theory AGW is not, it is still a hypothesis.

AGW is not nor has it EVER been a hypothesis.

You are utterly confused by the terms.

A hypothesis is an element that answers a specific question. It's tested by attempting to falsify it (you try to prove that it's FALSE). If it's falsified, then it's discarded. If it's not, it's not discarded... but it's still a hypothesis. Once it has been tested many times and it survives attempts to disprove it... they are still a hypothesis, but now it's a PROVEN hypothesis, and they can be used to form a general theory. But a hypothesis is ALWAYS a hypothesis. This general theory can be proven or unproven. If the hypothesis have survived the falisfy process, it becomes a PROVEN theory.

AGW is a theory composed of THOUSANDS of hypothesis. In the last 25+ years, there has been NO falsification of a single one of its core hypothesis. For THAT reason (and that reason only) it's settle science.

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.

AGW is way more than that. But if you can show a peer-reviewed study showing that CO2 has NO role in global warming, it would probably be very significant for the theory. You would need to produce a link to that peer-reviewed study and a quote from the conclusions stating that COS2 has NO role in AGW.

As for "stopping warming"... NOTHING can stop warming anymore. At this point we just need to prepare for the consequences of what it will bring. And try not to make it even worse.

 

[CLAX1911]

AGW is not nor has it EVER been a hypothesis.

Exactly it's dogma.

 

[longview]

AGW is not nor has it EVER been a hypothesis.

You are utterly confused by the terms.

A hypothesis is an element that answers a specific question. It's tested by attempting to falsify it (you try to prove that it's FALSE). If it's falsified, then it's discarded. If it's not, it's not discarded... but it's still a hypothesis. Once it has been tested many times and it survives attempts to disprove it... they are still a hypothesis, but now it's a PROVEN hypothesis, and they can be used to form a general theory. But a hypothesis is ALWAYS a hypothesis. This general theory can be proven or unproven. If the hypothesis have survived the falisfy process, it becomes a PROVEN theory.

AGW is a theory composed of THOUSANDS of hypothesis. In the last 25+ years, there has been NO falsification of a single one of its core hypothesis. For THAT reason (and that reason only) it's settle science.



AGW is way more than that. But if you can show a peer-reviewed study showing that CO2 has NO role in global warming, it would probably be very significant for the theory. You would need to produce a link to that peer-reviewed study and a quote from the conclusions stating that COS2 has NO role in AGW.

As for "stopping warming"... NOTHING can stop warming anymore. At this point we just need to prepare for the consequences of what it will bring. And try not to make it even worse.

Sorry we have to disagree on this!
AGW does come down to a single element from the perspective of the IPCC.
Does human added CO2 cause warming?
If the answer is yes, then there are follow on questions, but if the answer is no, then their entire approach is wrong.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Sorry we have to disagree on this!

We don't have to disagree. It's not an opinion. I'm only transmitting to you some facts. You can look them up yourself, if you don't believe me (read my sig!). Or you can simply deny facts. In my experience, that's what science denialists usually do.

AGW does come down to a single element from the perspective of the IPCC.

Of course it doesn't! That's why your obsession with CO2 is pointless.

Does human added CO2 cause warming?
If the answer is yes, then there are follow on questions, but if the answer is no, then their entire approach is wrong.

CO2 does not "cause" global warming. CO2 is ONE contributor in a very complex process that has produced an abnormal increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth. Your question is as simplistic as would be expected from somebody who doesn't understand AGW theory. But this thread is not intended to explain to you how Global Warming occurs. It's simply to point out what a Scientific Consensus is, and how AGW has attained that status.

However, you appear to have claimed that there was a a peer-reviewed study that demonstrated that an excess of CO2 cannot be an element in AGW. I am waiting for you to either correct that statement, or SHOW a reference to this pee-reviewed study by quoting the part of the conclusions that states this, and a link to the peer-reviewed publication that you consulted.

Bottom line, we don't need "opinions" when we have science FACT. And if you claim to have it, show it.

then their entire approach is wrong.

And, just out of curiosity, what IS the right approach? If you can mention it briefly here, please do so. If it's something more elaborate, open a thread (so we don't derail this one) and point me to it.

 

[longview]

We don't have to disagree. It's not an opinion. I'm only transmitting to you some facts. You can look them up yourself, if you don't believe me (read my sig!). Or you can simply deny facts. In my experience, that's what science denialists usually do.



Of course it doesn't! That's why your obsession with CO2 is pointless.



CO2 does not "cause" global warming. CO2 is ONE contributor in a very complex process that has produced an abnormal increase in the average surface temperature of the Earth. Your question is as simplistic as would be expected from somebody who doesn't understand AGW theory. But this thread is not intended to explain to you how Global Warming occurs. It's simply to point out what a Scientific Consensus is, and how AGW has attained that status.

However, you appear to have claimed that there was a a peer-reviewed study that demonstrated that an excess of CO2 cannot be an element in AGW. I am waiting for you to either correct that statement, or SHOW a reference to this pee-reviewed study by quoting the part of the conclusions that states this, and a link to the peer-reviewed publication that you consulted.

Bottom line, we don't need "opinions" when we have science FACT. And if you claim to have it, show it.

Your opinion is noted about hypothesis.
The IPCC is who is obsessed with CO2!
The Paris accord and net zero are not about sustainable energy but limiting CO2 emissions.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Your opinion is noted about hypothesis.
The IPCC is who is obsessed with CO2!

I would be too if the life of people were in my hands.

Again: my statement about "hypothesis" is NOT my "opinion". It's the standard definition accepted by anybody with even the most basic understanding of epistemology.

The Paris accord and...

This thread is not about the Paris Accord. Please FOCUS!

However, if your claim is as empty as the one you made up about some peer-reviewed study supposedly "demonstrating" that CO2 cannot be an element in AGW, then don't bother.... All you will have demonstrated is that you are willing to make up your own facts and ignore reality.

 

[longview]

I would be too if the life of people were in my hands.

Again: my statement about "hypothesis" is NOT my "opinion". It's the standard definition accepted by anybody with even the most basic understanding of epistemology.


This thread is not about the Paris Accord. Please FOCUS!

However, if your claim is as empty as the one you made up about some peer-reviewed study supposedly "demonstrating" that CO2 cannot be an element in AGW, then don't bother.... All you will have demonstrated is that you are willing to make up your own facts and ignore reality.

Consider that back in 1896 it was first hypothesized that the CO2 level may have caused the ice ages, and the other side of that hypothesis that an increase in the CO2 level may cause warming. While we have learned a lot more about CO2, no one was able to ether validate or invalidate the hypothesis.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Consider that back in 1896 it was first hypothesized that the CO2 level may have caused the ice ages, and the other side of that hypothesis that an increase in the CO2 level may cause warming. While we have learned a lot more about CO2, no one was able to ether validate or invalidate the hypothesis.

The fact that we don't have an ice age invalidated any hypothesis that it would create an ice age.

 

[longview]

The fact that we don't have an ice age invalidated any hypothesis that it would create an ice age.

The fact that we don't have an ice age invalidated any hypothesis that it would create an ice age.

Have you not read Arrhenius‘s 1896 study?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Have you not read Arrhenius‘s 1896 study?

I've heard about it being the first calculation of Global Warming. Irrelevant to this topic.

You know what I HAVEN'T read? The quote from the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating your claim that CO2 cannot possibly be an element in AGW. That or you correcting your statement.

 

[longview]

I've heard about it being the first calculation of Global Warming. Irrelevant to this topic.

You know what I HAVEN'T read? The quote from the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study demonstrating your claim that CO2 cannot possibly be an element in AGW. That or you correcting your statement.

That’s just it. It wasn’t really a calculation about global warming, but global cooling.
His hypothesis was that the CO2 level might have caused the ice ages by being too low.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

That’s just it. It wasn’t really a calculation about global warming, but global cooling.

Sorry. Don't really care. Clearly a new attempt to change the subject.

 

[longview]

Sorry. Don't really care. Clearly a new attempt to change the subject.

Not at all it’s at the core of the question!
The idea that added CO2 causes warming is and always has been a hypothesis.

 

[Volunteer]

Not at all it’s at the core of the question!
The idea that added CO2 causes warming is and always has been a hypothesis.

A hypothesis supported by data, collected and analyzed by many thousands of professionals. Maybe no proof, but mountains of data pointing to a greenhouse effect.

 

[longview]

A hypothesis supported by data, collected and analyzed by many thousands of professionals. Maybe no proof, but mountains of data pointing to a greenhouse effect.

What empirical data supports the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming ?
Can you cite and quote this supposed data?

 

[longview]

A hypothesis supported by data, collected and analyzed by many thousands of professionals. Maybe no proof, but mountains of data pointing to a greenhouse effect.

It should be noted that the fact that Earth has a greenhouse effect, does not mean that added CO2 causes warming.

 

[Volunteer]

What empirical data supports the hypothesis that added CO2 causes warming ?
Can you cite and quote this supposed data

I don't have the data. Hundreds of thousands of scientists say they have the data that supports their claims. I believe them just as I believe the scientists that say there will be cold next winter. They have no proof, either, but they say they have data that convinces them. I believe them, too.

 

[longview]

I don't have the data. Hundreds of thousands of scientists say they have the data that supports their claims. I believe them just as I believe the scientists that say there will be cold next winter. They have no proof, either, but they say they have data that convinces them. I believe them, too.

Do they say that they have the data or is that simply implied? The data does not exist!

 

[Threegoofs]

Do they say that they have the data or is that simply implied? The data does not exist!

Check here.

www.IPCC.ch

Thousand of highly trained scientists who collect and interpret this data for a living vs….. you.

I know who I’ll go with.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Check here.

www.IPCC.ch

Thousand of highly trained scientists who collect and interpret this data for a living vs….. you.

I know who I’ll go with.

With an editor that twists the actual science.

 

[Threegoofs]

With an editor that twists the actual science.

It’s the consensus. It’s agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists. That’s fact.

I can cite hundreds of articles that cite the IPCC conclusions as fact, you can post nothing outside of your kooky blogs that says that it ‘twists science’.

Crackpots who anonymously post on the internet may disagree, of course.

 

[longview]

Check here.

www.IPCC.ch

Thousand of highly trained scientists who collect and interpret this data for a living vs….. you.

I know who I’ll go with.

Thanks, but you never seem willing to quote the portion of the 1000 plus page report that has the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming! Is that because the empirical evidence does not exist?

 

[Lord of Planar]

It’s the consensus. It’s agreed upon by the vast majority of climate scientists. That’s fact.

I can cite hundreds of articles that cite the IPCC conclusions as fact, you can post nothing outside of your kooky blogs that says that it ‘twists science’.

Crackpots who anonymously post on the internet may disagree, of course.

Citing the IPCC almost guarantees being published.

 

[Threegoofs]

Thanks, but you never seem willing to quote the portion of the 1000 plus page report that has the empirical evidence that added CO2 causes warming! Is that because the empirical evidence does not exist?

It’s because you move the goalposts when I do.