Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

More data points to refute the "consensus" of the IPCC.
New Study Finds The Post-1900 CO2 Rise Has Not Discernibly Altered The Greenhouse Effect
By Kenneth Richard on 27. November 2023

Variations in the greenhouse effect are predominantly modulated by water vapor and cloud cover. CO2’s role in the greenhouse effect is so minor it cannot be discerned.
For decades scientists have reported that a CO2 concentration of about 300 ppm can only increase the downwelling longwave radiation (DLWR), or greenhouse effect, by about 1.5 W/m² at the surface. See, for example, the complementary studies by Ramanathan (1981) and Newell and Dopplick (1979).

“The infrared flux dominated by CO₂, as is well known, is only about 10% of that controlled by water vapor. The decrease in infrared flux from the surface to the atmosphere due to the increase in CO₂ ranges from 1.0 – 1.6 W/m².” – Newell and Dopplick, 1979

With the total DLWR value assessed as ~330 W/m² , this means that CO2’s 300 ppm (~1.5 W/m²) impact can only enhance the greenhouse effect by around 0.5%. Nearly all the rest is dominated by water vapor (and cloud). . . .

New research (Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023) published in the Hydrological Sciences Journal serves to further affirm the minor, even non-discernible role of CO2 within the greenhouse effect.
.
Using DLWR data from 71 globally distributed sites, these scientists assesses the post-1900 increase in the CO2 concentration (from 300 ppm to 420 ppm) “has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect.”
.
If CO2 concentration increases were to enhance the greenhouse effect – and thus be considered the driver of modern warming – there should be a change in data point distribution (displacement) in alignment with CO2 increases along the equality line as shown in the DLWR data set chart (Figure 2). This has not occurred.
.
“An enhancement of the greenhouse effect, due to increasing CO2 concentration, through the years would be seen as a gradual displacement of the points from left to right with the progression of time. However, the alignment of the points of the different data sets does not show a gradual displacement from left to right. This means that the effect of the direct CO2 emission at the surface is smaller than the side effects…causing the variability in Figure 2, and thus it is impossible to discern.”


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023
In fact, the opposite of what should happen with an enhanced greenhouse effect has been slightly more discernible in data sets. All-sky (clouds included) DLWR trends at the top of atmosphere (TOA) have actually been shown to be declining in 21st century CERES observations, as they are “slightly negative for all-sky.” In other words, the 2000-present greenhouse effect has been weakening despite increasing CO2 concentrations.


Image Source: Koutsoyiannis and Vournas, 2023
The declining greenhouse effect observed in recent decades has been reported by many other scientists.

“…the negative trend of G [greenhouse effect anomalies] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing, despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.” – Cess and Udelhofen, 2003

If the greenhouse effect has not been enhanced since the 1980s, it cannot be responsible for modern warming.

 

So much for the "consensus."
New Study: 68% Of Scientific Papers Can Be Said To Reject The AGW Hypothesis…
By Kenneth Richard on 30. November 2023

…when using the same assumption-based methodology to arrive at the conclusion only 0.5% of scientific papers reject AGW.
In a new study, six scientists (Dentelski et al., 2023) effectively eviscerate a methodologically flawed 2021 study (Lynas et al.) that claims 99.53% of 3,000 scientific papers examined (by subjectively classifying papers based only on what is written in the abstracts) support the anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, position.



Image Source: Dentelski et al., 2023
The Lynas et al. authors begin with the assumption that a consensus on the human attribution for global warming not only exists, it is ensconced as the unquestioned, prevailing viewpoint in the scientific literature. So their intent was to effectively quantify the strength of this assumed widespread agreement by devising a rating system that only assesses the explicit rejection of AGW in the paper’s abstract as not supporting the presumed “consensus.”

Of the 3,000 papers analyzed in Lynas et al., 282 were deemed not sufficiently “climate-related.” Another 2,104 papers were placed in Category 4, which meant either the paper’s authors took “no position” or the position on AGW was deemed “uncertain”…in the abstract. So, exploiting the “if you are not against, you are for” classification bias, Lynas and colleagues decided that the authors of these 2,104 scientific papers in Category 4 do indeed agree with AGW, as what is written in the abstract does not explicitly state they do not agree.

Interestingly, if this classification bias had not been utilized and the thousands of Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) papers were not counted as supporting AGW, only 892 of the 2,718 (climate-related) papers, or 32%, could be said to have affirmatively stated they support AGW. So, simply by assuming one cannot divine the AGW opinions of authors of scientific papers by reading abstracts, it could just as facilely be said that 68% (1,826 of 2,71 of climate-related papers reject AGW.

Dentelski and colleagues also point out that by their own analysis, 54% of the papers they examined that were classified by Lynas et al. as only “implying” support (Category 3) for AGW or Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) actually described a lack of support for AGW in the body of the paper itself. But since this expressed non-endorsement of AGW was not presented in the abstract, these papers were wrongly classified as supporting AGW anyway.

To fully grasp the subjective nature of the methodology employed by Lynas and colleagues, Dentelski et al. uncover the internals of the study indicating 58% of the time two independent examiners did not agree on numerical classification scale (from 1 to 7) for a paper. If two people agree just 42% of the time when classifying papers, it cannot be said that the rating system is sufficiently objective.

The Lynas et al. paper appears to be little more than an exercise in propaganda.

 

Down goes another alarmist climate myth.
Natural Disasters Are Not Increasing — Really
Kip Hansen
The fact that natural disasters are not increasing and not killing more people – due to climate change or any other fanciful cause — has once more been firmly entered…

 

We need #weathernazis to waste our paychecks.

 

Fantastic, that's what my dad said, he signed the Oregon petition,

How much co2 is there, is it exactly the same worldwide.
Is the sun guaranteed to be constant.
Sea level rise ? Hurricanes tornados wild fire
What about record cold deniers.
Global warming scams & scandals... what about that.

Global warmalists have dug a hole so deep it would take Noah's flood to redeem them. People are losing interested in spending their paychecks on something so stupid. How dare me, right ?

 

Yep! Because that's how science works: it's not considered "scientific" until enough people die.

To serious posters: see what I'm saying in the OP? Years ago I would have wasted hours looking for REAL science published in REAL scientific peer-reviewed journals to counter the nonsense this poster copy-pastes from his science denialist websites. But, why bother? Pseudoscience websites provide them with an unlimited trove of denialist propaganda. They just go on and grab the next one. Now they can even create anti-science articles using AI at a rate of dozens a day. Whereas REAL science takes months... sometimes years... to go through the scientific process and proper peer-review to produce just ONE paper..

 

Incidentally,
We're known now as meteorological rejectionists

 

You do not think Environmental Hazards is a "real journal?"

Please consult the peer-reviewed literature in a new paper appearing in the journal Environmental Hazards. The paper is Alimonti and Mariani (2023) titled: Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?

ABSTRACT
We analyze temporal trends in the number of natural disasters reported since 1900 in the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Visual inspection suggests three distinct phases: first, a linear upward trend to around mid-century followed by rapid growth to the turn of the new century, and thereafter a decreasing trend to 2022. These observations are supported by piecewise regression analyses that identify three breakpoints (1922, 1975, 2002), with the most recent subperiod 2002–2022 characterized by a significant decline in number of events. A similar pattern over time is exhibited by contemporaneous number of geophysical disasters – volcanoes, earthquakes, dry landslides – which, by their nature, are not significantly influenced by climate or anthropogenic factors. We conclude that the patterns observed are largely attributable to progressively better reporting of natural disaster events, with the EM-DAT dataset now regarded as relatively complete since ∼2000. The above result sits in marked contradiction to earlier analyses by two UN bodies (FAO andUNDRR), which predicts an increasing number of natural disasters and impacts in concert with global warming. Our analyses strongly refute this assertion as well as extrapolations published by UNDRR based on this claim.

Environmental Hazards | Journal
ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com › journal › environmental...


Read the latest articles of Environmental Hazards at ScienceDirect.com, Elsevier's leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature.

 

I heard PBS taxpayer fundedtrumphater amy Goodman say
and all these wild fires are cause by climate change.
She's a government troll for the Dems, she's a dim bulb but people believe the mantra.
Environmental Protection Agency as natural disasters, only 10 to 15 percent of wildfires occur on their own in nature. The other 85 to 90 percent result from human causes, including unattended camp and debris fires, discarded cigarettes, and arson.Aug 10, 2023

I heard Democrats start the fires to boost the alinsky.

Dipshit...

 

Hours spent learning are never wasted.

 

I have said NOTHING about "Environmental Hazards". What YOU quoted was a known science denialist blog. NO serious publication (llet alone a peer-reviewed publication) would accept a paper claiming that it demonstrates that something is an "alarmist climate myth" like your anti-science blog does. Once you read that, nothing else is worth wasting time on.

Outside the AGW Scientific Consensus (which IS autoritativo), you can find papers that offer diverse conclusions about the future effects of AGW. NONE of them is authoritative.

 

Damn, u r good. Right on man.
Their first blunder was using the word consensus.

 

I prefer physics adherent, as opposed to the physics deniers that are so invested in the fake global warming/global cooling/climate change agenda to destroy humanity.

 

Neither PBS nor Amy Goodman are peer-reviewed scientific publications.

There is no way at all of knowing which wildfires are "caused" by climate change. What we DO know is that Climate Change will produce increasingly more, stronger and deadlier wildfires at some point. Most estimates used to point to the 2nd half of the 21st century as the period where the most dire consequences would be felt. However, there are signals that these may come sooner than expected. . The claim that there will be MORE wildfires doesn't require science. I mean, it's obvious that more warm months and more warmth are likely to mean more wildfires in regions that are prone to wildfires. And that more wildfires are likely to produce more deaths. However, climate science is not concerned with the number or lethal effects of wildfires.

 

Yep. That extra tenth of a degree will do it. Or maybe the additional wildfires will just occur another tenth of a mile further north in the northern hemisphere and a tenth of a mile further south in the southern hemisphere.

Personally, I am looking forward to a little global warming. I am already tired of the cold weather and it is not even winter yet.

 

May I ask, how did you get so smart, this is great
are you in science professionly ?
Your research is sublime.
I'm glad U R on our side,
People are being terrorized & billed out of their paychecks, for nothing. Get a life chicken littles.

 

It's it's "the big lie"

 

In previous posts he's claimed that the source of all his knowledge is a minor he got in college in Epistemology (or something like that). Apparently that allows him to decipher truth from whatever someone says. So if you were to say, "I'm hungry and want a ham sandwich", he could decipher "the planet is perilously warming and we need to stop it".

See? Simple.

I've never heard what his major was, but apparently that doesn't matter.

 

actually I was hoping he would me.
I wouldn't tell you anything,
you seem a bit hostile
sorry amigo.

 

I appreciate your kind words. Not professionally in science. My professional career is in IT. I do have a degree (equivalent to a Minor) in Epistemology at the university where I obtained my IT degree. But that's not as "fancy" as it sounds. Just a handful of extra courses in addition to those you had to take anyway got you an extra "Diploma" and a chance to do a brief internship (clerical work, mostly) for the Committee that analyzed research funding at my university.

 

Epistemology allow us ONLY to discern what is science from what is not science. But that doesn't require a diploma. You can basically do that by understanding as few as two words: peer review.

If you understand those two words, you're golden. The problem is people who REFUSE to understand them. The poster I responded to and others believe that all it takes to rebut over 100 years of peer-reviewed studies is to copy-paste an AI generated article from one of his beloved pseudo-science blogs.

 

You are very humble in your great talent. Pleased to meet you, people need the truth. It's about greed and control and cushy job security. Everyone else is a victim.

 

Peer review is the furthest thing from objective science. Major publishers like Nature and Science have refused to accept papers that question the AGW Holy Writ. - that's not science.

Correction, once you embrace those words in lieu of adhering to the Scientific Method, including ample skepticism, you've become a useful idiot in the politicolimatological cabal where political power surpasses scientific knowledge and advancement.

 

That makes absolutely no sense, scientifically or just plain logically.

The variations in temperature are many magnitudes greater in relatively short distances from north to south than occur in decades due to climate change. According to your logic, the wildfires should be concentrated in those areas that are warmer and that simply is not true.

 

The blog is an aggregator. The peer-reviewed paper was the featured item in the blog post and all the information came from it. The paper was quoted and linked in the post. You should read before you react.