Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[abu afak]

Voters dont care about the "consensus". Never have.

Ive watched the climate change obsessed scream about "the science" for 11 years in here. It still is not mattering to the public. Its not even debatable. The "science" has transcended nowhere past its own field. Nowhere except to symbolic platforms. This is still not understood by the climate obsessed who routinely spike the football on symbolic stuff.

Meanwhile, the folks who make energy policy could not possibly be any less interested in solar and wind energy which remains decidedly fringe on the energy landscape. The k00ks point to "growth rates" which is fakery. Wind and solar still provide well less than 10% to the electric grid.

Said it in here 10 years ago.......it still holds.........green fantasies are ghey.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

Most care.
Especially those who have to make the financial decisions and investments.

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021​

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021

Renewable energy sources dominated new U.S. electrical generating capacity additions in the first half of 2021.

www.renewableenergyworld.com

`

 

[abu afak]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature​

John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9

Published 15 May 2013 • © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2Citation John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024
References
1330613 Total downloads
Dimensions

Abstract​

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time.
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a Vanishingly Small proportion of the published research.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

`

Then as now, consensus is a Moonbat word and not relevant in a scientific discussion

 

[Crick]

The "scientists" can't even say if a rise in Co2 levels causes warming...or is caused by warming.

Just ask them if you don't believe me.

Here you go. From https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. Since 2011 (measurements reported in AR5), concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 parts per million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1866 parts per billion (ppb) for methane (CH4), and 332 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O) in 2019.6 Land and ocean have taken up a near-constant proportion (globally about 56% per year) of CO2 emissions from human activities over the past six decades, with regional differences (high confidence).7

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver12 of tropospheric warming since 1979 and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s.

Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (decreases of about 40% in September and about 10% in March). There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability. Human influence very likely contributed to the decrease in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1950. It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades, but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss.

 

[Decus]

Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (decreases of about 40% in September and about 10% in March).

Given that you obviously believe this, what do you think can be done about China - the world's biggest polluter? Please don't tell me that China is committed to going "green" because they aren't. The below article is dated January 26th, 2022:

"China’s ambitious low-carbon goals will not be realised easily and should not come at the expense of energy and food security or the “normal life” of ordinary people, its president, Xi Jinping, has said, signalling a more cautious approach to the climate emergency as the economy slows."

Low-carbon ambitions must not interfere with ‘normal life’, says Xi Jinping

President signals more cautious approach to climate crisis and says China must ‘overcome notion of rapid success’

www.theguardian.com

The truth is China couldn't care less about the climate but loves to greenwash for the sake of the gullible:

"China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions — according to a new report. The new projects were announced in the first half of this year despite the world’s largest polluter pledging to bring its emissions to a peak before 2030, and to make the country carbon neutral by 2060."

China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.

time.com

.

 

[Crick]

Given that you obviously believe this, what do you think can be done about China - the world's biggest polluter? Please don't tell me that China is committed to going "green" because they aren't. The below article is dated January 26th, 2022:

"China’s ambitious low-carbon goals will not be realised easily and should not come at the expense of energy and food security or the “normal life” of ordinary people, its president, Xi Jinping, has said, signalling a more cautious approach to the climate emergency as the economy slows."

Low-carbon ambitions must not interfere with ‘normal life’, says Xi Jinping

President signals more cautious approach to climate crisis and says China must ‘overcome notion of rapid success’

www.theguardian.com

The truth is China couldn't care less about the climate but loves to greenwash for the sake of the gullible:

"China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions — according to a new report. The new projects were announced in the first half of this year despite the world’s largest polluter pledging to bring its emissions to a peak before 2030, and to make the country carbon neutral by 2060."

China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.

time.com

.

This particular thread concerns the AGW consensus among climate scientists, not policy questions. There are other threads for which such an inquiry would be more appropriate. I will just say that the question of who is doing what is irrelevant in a discussion about the validity of the opinions of 99+% of the world's climate scientists.

The point I was making was that climate scientists can and do identify human GHG emissions as the primary cause of global warming. The original claim by Thunk was either ignorant or disingenuous.

 

[Decus]

This particular thread concerns the AGW consensus among climate scientists, not policy questions. There are other threads for which such an inquiry would be more appropriate. I will just say that the question of who is doing what is irrelevant in a discussion about the validity of the opinions of 99+% of the world's climate scientists.

The point I was making was that climate scientists can and do identify human GHG emissions as the primary cause of global warming. The original claim by Thunk was either ignorant or disingenuous.

It concerns solutions to a perceived problem and how to address the problem. Consensus is nothing more than tabulating the votes for a desired solution to what is claimed to be human influence in our changing climate.

.

 

[abu afak]

It concerns solutions to a perceived problem and how to address the problem. Consensus is nothing more than tabulating the votes for a desired solution to what is claimed to be human influence in our changing climate.

.

Actually not.
Crick had it right. There is no "desired solution" mentioned, only the obvious that Carbon fuels aren't the ideal or future one for the compounding damage they are doing and likely to get worse.
It might be Solar, Wind, Nuke, or hopefully fusion at some point.

`

 

[ding]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[abu afak]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

Debunked yesterday.. and about 7 or 8 other times.,

You've posted that stupid denier paper many times. (Connoly/Soon)
The overwhelming majority of scientists and ALL the world's scientific orgs acknowledge AGW.

It's rather funny in that:

Some observations about Connolly et al (2021) “How much has the sun influenced northern hemisphere temperature trends”​

Test article Test Article The Connolly et al paper can be found at: https://iopscience.iop.
www.linkedin.com

Among the many problems in the infamous POS paper/authors are:

1. It only deals with the Northern Hemisphere, Not GW. :^)

2. The Lockwood paper referenced by Connolly doesn't support what he is saying.

3. The most cited person BY FAR in the Connolly Soon Paper is... Soon himself. 149 Times!
who is he?
Wiki:
“Willie Wei-Hock Soon

Soon is a climate change denier,[4][6] disputing the scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[7][8] He co-wrote a paper whose methodology was widely criticised by the scientific community.[9] Climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have Refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions. He is nonetheless frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[4][6]
[.....]

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work”

Wiki:
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

Little TrollTwerp Ding tried more than one line with his worn out, Refuted, and renegade paper.
Busted.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The overwhelming majority of scientists and ALL the world's scientific orgs acknowledge AGW.

How much do they acknowledge it is?

 

[ding]

Debunked yesterday.. and about 7 or 8 other times.

Not.

In addition to that study.... there have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[Decus]

Actually not.
Crick had it right. There is no "desired solution" mentioned, only the obvious that Carbon fuels aren't the ideal or future one for the compounding damage they are doing and likely to get worse.
It might be Solar, Wind, Nuke, or hopefully fusion at some point.

`

So all this talk about "net zero" means nothing - according to you "net zero" is not the solution. Obviously China agrees with you and they thank you for your support.

Wind, solar.....or whatever else will be invented are nothing more than tools to achieve the desired result or as I said "desired solution",

" The Paris Agreement underlines the need for net zero, requiring states to ‘achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century’."

What is Net Zero? - Net Zero Climate

netzeroclimate.org

.

 

[abu afak]

Wind, solar.....or whatever else will be invented are nothing more than tools to achieve the desired result or as I said "desired solution",

" The Paris Agreement underlines the need for net zero, requiring states to ‘achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century’."

What is Net Zero? - Net Zero Climate

netzeroclimate.org

.

You still believe AGW is a "China Hoax" you MAGAt?
What about all those 'wrong predictions' from Western scientists in the 80s before China was a dynamo?

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still believe AGW is a "China Hoax" you MAGAt?
What about all those 'wrong predictions' from Western scientists in the 80s before Chian was a dynamo?

`

What did the scientists predict from 1940-1980?

 

[ding]

You still believe AGW is a "China Hoax"

100%. Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

 

[abu afak]

100%. Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

That's a Ridiculous opinion/REPEAT and Refuted by 97% of Climate scientists, and 100% of International Science orgs.
And the opposite of My Linked and sourced OP.

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

 

[ding]

That's a Ridiculous opinion/REPEAT and Refuted by 97% of Climate scientists, and 100% of International Science orgs.
And the opposite of My Linked and sourced OP.

Opposing (The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`

So then you don't believe that solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

How do you explain all of the climate fluctuations of the past 3 million years?

 

[abu afak]

So then you don't believe that solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

How do you explain all of the climate fluctuations of the past 3 million years?

No, and all you have is ONE Oil Paid study (Soon et al) to evidence it while the VAST MAJORITY of the Science community and 100% of Intl Science orgs and say the warming is AGW.

`

 

[ding]

No, and all you have is ONE Oil Paid study (Soon et al) to evidence it while the VAST MAJORITY of the Science community and 100% of Intl Science orgs and say the warming is AGW.

`

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).