Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

You said earlier it is not about consensus, but what they can prove.

Educated and other people were lied to. They were told there was a consensus of scientists. What they should have told them was that there was a consensus of the scientific papers which they selected.

 

I don't know who "they" is, I don't know who said that, I don't know if that's a lie, and I don't know the context to understand what whoever said it meant. All I know is that there is a Scientific consensus. Which is how we know AGW is settled science. The rest is just background noise.

If a serious person were to say to me that there is a consensus of scientists, first thing I would interpret that to mean is that scientists are expressing what peer-reviewed studies demonstrate. And OBVIOUSLY I would interpret that to mean scientists who are SPECIALISTS in the area about which they are opining. NOBODY cares if a Scientist in Anthropology or Genetics or Chemistry... has an opinion contrary to what studies on AGW demonstrates. Their opinion is no more relevant than that of your local school-bus driver.

 

"They". The people spreading the lie that a consensus of scientists believe AGW is a threat to earth. If there was a consensus they would poll the scientists. Instead they make up this story about how peer reviewed studies consist of proof of scientific consensus.

How about they just tell the truth and let the general public decide what to believe. i.e. "There is a consensus of the peer reviewed studies which we selected".

 

The lie as originally told was that there was a consensus of scientists that believed that AGW was a threat to the earth. They did not specify what kind of scientist. However, which every group you choose to poll, the results will be the same. There is no consensus.

 

Hmmm... was that the same people who told you that the January 6 insurrection was staged by Antifa?

I don't know where you get your news, but if I were you, I'd change channels.

 

Unlike you, I did not get it from a "channel or from what your masters told you". It is a belief based on logic and how thermal exchange takes place between the earth and the atmosphere.

I have not seen a single poll that showed a consensus of scientists. However, at no point was I told that it was after an analysis of scientific papers. When I tried to find where the 97% consensus came from, that was all there was. There was no poll of scientists of any type that showed a consensus.

 

It seems the "consensus" climate alarmists may have it backwards. Research suggests that rising CO2 does not cause rising temperatures. Rather, rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2. Nir Shaviv, among others, pointed this out long ago, but the alarmists were determined to promote their narrative. One wonders how many times will it be necessary to point out the emperor is not wearing any clothes?

New Study: The Rising-CO2-Causes-Warming Perception Not Supported By Real-World Observation
By Kenneth Richard on 18. September 2023

Share this...
“Oddly, while the principal direction suggested by the models is ΔIn[CO₂] → ΔT, the explained variance is impressively low (10-15%) in this direction and impressively high (reaching 90%) in the opposite direction, at ΔT → ΔIn[CO₂].” − Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
One of the most basic concepts in physics is that causes precede effects and effects follow causes. Determining the directionality sequence is thus essential in any causality analysis.

The assumed CO₂→T causality direction cannot be scientifically supported

The assumption in climate models is that CO₂ causes changes in temperature, or T. More specifically, it is assumed modern global warming has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

However, scientists (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023) have now expanded upon last year’s 2-part study on stochastics-formulated causality published in The Royal Society (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (1) and Koutsoyiannis et al., 2022 (2)) where they notably contend:

“Clearly the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO₂] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.”

A year later these same authors have again conspicuously demonstrated the assumed CO₂→T causality direction cannot be scientifically supported because observations clearly show that variance in T leads or precedes growth rate variance in CO₂ by 6 or more months.

“All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T [temperature] as the cause and [CO₂] as the effect.”

Observational evidence overrules modeled assumptions, regardless of how compelling or mainstream the conventional wisdom.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
Cross-correlation analysis reveals CO₂-causes-warming trend alignment depictions are spurious

Because it is widely assumed human CO₂ emissions are the cause and temperature changes are the effect, tendentiously adjusting the axes on graphs to make it appear that the CO₂ and T trends align (i.e., curve-fitting, as shown in the left-side chart below) has become a popular pursuit for those advancing the anthropogenic global warming narrative.

It can be shown, however, that these trend alignments are spurious. Why? Because in the industrial era there have been periods when temperatures have risen rapidly with negligible CO₂ emissions (1700-1750), and decreasing temperatures while CO₂ emissions were rising (1880-1900, 1950-1970). When including all these counter-alignments together and differencing the time series (cross-correlation), the CO₂→T trend alignment disappears. These non-correlations are clearly shown in the right-side charts below. If there are non-correlations, or if the correlations are spurious, causation cannot be established.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
Natural CO₂ emissions induced by warming can be shown to be responsible for rising CO₂ concentrations

Fossil fuel emissions amount to 9.4 GtC/year, which is only 4% of the total CO₂ emissions from all sources. In contrast, nature (respiration, freshwater outgassing, fire, volcanism, etc.) produces CO₂ emissions amounting to 216 GtC/year.

It is assumed that the carbon cycle is, in its natural state (without human interference), in perpetual equilibrium, with emissions from natural sources almost perfectly balanced by natural sinks. This presumption is flawed, however, because nature’s sinks don’t decide to only absorb the 216 GtC/year from natural sources as they simultaneously fail to absorb the 9.4 GtC/year from human activities. The 216 GtC/year from nature and 9.4 GtC/year from fossil fuels are instantaneously combined, and nature’s sinks absorb emissions proportionately from the total, ~225 GtC/year.

In their new paper’s appendix, Koutsoyiannis and colleagues have used basic chemistry to show that outgassing from warming and respiration can be biochemically shown to produce emissions rates of 31.6 GtC/year. This is 3.4 times more than the annual emissions from fossil fuels (9.4 GtC/year). Thus, the observation that temperature may potentially a cause of rising CO₂ concentrations appears to be observationally supportable. A substantial portion of modern CO₂ rise may thus be natural.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023
Natural mechanisms for warming may include the natural increase in sunshine duration

If rising CO₂ concentrations cannot explain modern warming due to the violation of the requisite causality direction, what can?

As has been detailed extensively in many other observational studies, the recent decline in Earth’s planetary albedo (clouds, aerosols) has been reflecting less solar radiation and increasing sunshine duration in recent decades. This, in turn, warms the surface.

A 0.01 change in planetary albedo can induce a radiative forcing of ±3.4 W/m² (Wielicki et al., 2005).

Koutsoyiannis and colleagues cite CERES data that depict a falling linear trend of -0.0019 per decade in planetary albedo since 2000. This can be shown to have elicited a +1.4 W/m² positive imbalance from incoming shortwave, which is sufficient to explain the modern radiative forcing associated with rising temperatures.

So the warming in recent decades may be natural. The CO₂ increases resulting from the natural warming may be substantially natural too. And these results are observationally supportable.

Given the evidence presented in this new study, the claim that human CO₂ emissions are the cause of modern warming is not observationally supportable.



Image Source: Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023

 

I read a report many years ago that theorized that the warming occurred before the rise in CO2, but he could not prove it.

 

Specious logic.

AGW could eventually cause the earth to be uninhabitable. Fentanyl won't do that.

Therefore, AGW is a bigger problem.

 

We know fentanyl is a real problem. AGW is a half baked theory which is falling apart one piece at a time.

 

I can always count on kriman for a simplistic rebuttal.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is a well-established scientific theory that explains the long-term increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere as an effect of human industry and agriculture. It’s based on extensive scientific evidence and is supported by a majority of climate scientists.

https://www.sciencealert.com/anthropogenic-global-warming
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The theory suggests that as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, so does the planet’s capacity to retain heat. These greenhouse gases include methane and carbon dioxide, among others. While some sources of these gases are natural, such as volcanoes, their overall emissions compared with those produced by human industries, transport, and livestock have been regarded as insignificant over recent centuries.

Moreover, research shows that scientific agreement on the anthropogenic nature of climate change has strengthened since 20092. A survey conducted in 2019 indicated that 91.1% of Earth Scientists believe that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. This is roughly 11 percentage points higher than the 80% agreement found by a similar study in 20092.

While it’s true that scientific theories evolve over time as new data and improved models become available, this doesn’t mean that they are “falling apart”. Instead, it reflects the ongoing process of scientific inquiry and our increasing understanding of complex systems like Earth’s climate.

Note that the consensus among scientists increases with the level of expertise—the more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to understand that humans are responsible for climate change. Near 100% of scientists in our most expert group who identify as climatologists and actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature are in complete agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans.

Therefore, it would be inaccurate to describe AGW as a “half-baked” theory. It is a robust scientific theory backed by extensive research and a strong consensus within the scientific community.

 

Please see #1557.

 

I'm not a climate scientist, nor a scientist whatsoever. What I do is run your webpage through Bing AI.

I asked it to rebut your link you gave on the last line, and this is what it reports, with hotlinked lines and annotations;

*******************************************
The paper you’ve linked to is titled “On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere” and it’s published in the journal Sci1. The authors of the paper challenge the commonly assumed causality link that increased concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) causes a rise in temperature (T)1. They suggest that all evidence resulting from their analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and CO2 as the effect1.

While this paper presents an interesting perspective, it’s important to note a few points:

1. Consensus in the Scientific Community: The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human activities are causing the planet to warm by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere2. This consensus is based on multiple lines of evidence, including rising levels of CO2, rising temperatures, melting ice caps, and rising sea levels2.
   
   
2. Role of CO2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range2. This process is fundamental to the greenhouse effect and is well understood scientifically2. Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to more absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation, which in turn leads to warming2.
   
   
3. Temporal Relationship: While it’s true that in the geological past there have been periods where temperature increases preceded increases in CO2, this doesn’t negate the fact that increased CO2 causes warming3. In fact, these past episodes provide evidence of positive feedback loops, where initial warming due to factors like changes in Earth’s orbit led to increased CO2, which then led to further warming3.
   
   
4. Climate Models: Climate models that incorporate increases in CO2 as a driver of warming have been successful in predicting observed warming trends4. If T were driving changes in CO2 (and not vice versa), we would not expect these models to be successful4.

In conclusion, while this paper provides an interesting perspective and it’s always valuable to challenge and test our understanding, it’s important to consider it in the context of the broader body of scientific evidence and understanding.


But, if you asked me, personally, I wouldn't know.

 

Thank you for a serious reply. I would argue that CO2-based models do not track with warming trends, but in fact run too hot. That's another topic.

 

A simple majority is anything over 50%. That appears to be true. However, in the surveys I have seen it is not much more than 50% which means that nearly 50% have their doubts. That is hardly a ringing indorsement.

Why do you believe in AGW? Because you understand the science? Because you believe an overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe? Or because that is what you are supposed to believe? Be honest now.

 

Figure 1: GCM global surface temperature ensembles (yellow area, ±1σ) versus HadCRUT5 (infilled data), GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records (black, 12-month moving average).


CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion
Posted on September 25, 2022 by curryja
by Nicola Scafetta Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics: Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures. Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.

 

Brilliant. So rising temps causes human activity in the form of powering air conditioners, resulting in the release of billions of tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere causing CO2 levels to rise? I can't believe the world's actual climate scientists missed that. Here's the equation. 8.1@&^)(#vector7=+_*&^%$#@!x9.7/.,><[.9]=C--O--W--D--U--N--G

 

Please see #1557.

 

Okay, I'll offer you this rebuttal:

1. Model Diversity and Improvement:
   
   • The diversity in climate models, including those in CMIP6, represents different approaches to understanding and simulating the climate system. It is not unexpected that there will be variations in ECS estimates.
   • Climate models are continually being improved and refined to reduce uncertainties and biases. The fact that some models may overestimate warming in certain periods does not invalidate the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
2. Surface Temperature Records:
   
   • The suggestion that surface-based temperature records are significantly biased is not widely supported in the scientific community. Multiple independent analyses of surface temperature records have consistently shown a long-term warming trend.
   • Adjustments and corrections are routinely made to address potential biases in temperature records, such as urban heat island effects.
3. Consensus on ECS:
   
   • While there is a range of estimates for ECS, the scientific consensus, as represented by assessments like those of the IPCC, considers a range of evidence, not just model projections. Paleoclimate evidence, observational studies, and process-based understanding all contribute to ECS estimates.
   • The possibility of ECS being at the lower end of the range does not negate the risks associated with climate change, given the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions and observed impacts.
4. Risk and Urgency:
   
   • Even if future warming is moderate, the impacts of climate change are already being observed in the form of sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and ecosystem changes. Addressing these risks is still urgent.
   • The argument that lower ECS would make IPCC’s predictions of future climate catastrophes unfounded oversimplifies the complexity of climate impacts and risks, which are not solely dependent on global mean temperature change.
5. Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Influence:
   
   • The document seems to suggest the possibility of natural oscillations controlling the climate system. While natural variability does influence climate, multiple lines of evidence, including attribution studies, demonstrate a clear anthropogenic signal in recent warming.
   • The role of greenhouse gases, including CO2, in warming the planet is well-established through fundamental physics, and is not contingent on the exact value of ECS.

In conclusion, while it is important to critically assess and improve climate models and understand uncertainties, the core argument presented in the document does not undermine the well-established scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change and the associated risks.

 

Great to see some progress in the right direction.

A coalition of 25 state governors announced a major push to reach 20 million deployed heat pumps by 2030, they said in New York City on Thursday.

That would represent a quadrupling of the 4.8 million heat pumps that were installed in the United States in 2020, according to a analysis of the announcement from RMI, independent, non-partisan, nonprofit clean energy think tank.

Heat pumps are energy efficient replacements for fossil fuel powered furnaces and air conditioners. They use electricity to transfer heat, as opposed to generate heat, and they can either heat a building when it is cold outside or cool a building when it is hot outside.

Compared to a gas boiler, heat pumps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% when operating on emissions-intensive electricity and as much as 80% compared when operating on cleaner electricity, according to the International Energy Agency. The operation of buildings accounts for 30% of global energy consumption and 26% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, according to the IEA.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/21/states-push-to-get-to-20-million-installed-heat-pumps-by-2030.html

 

Again, thanks for taking the topic seriously. ECS is in fact the Achilles heel of the AGW claim. Simply put, without high ECS the AGW hypothesis doesn't work.

The AGW paradigm has dominated climate science in recent decades, certainly since about 1995. See Bernie Lewin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. In a nutshell, the AGW paradigm holds that greenhouse gases are the vastly predominant driver of climate change in our time. The paradigm has however failed its test, as we shall see. I recently re-read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, within which the following passage is found (p.144, University of Chicago Press, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition):

"In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. . . . Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm."

The noteworthy puzzle is the specification of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and the failure to solve it presents the crisis of the AGW paradigm. Professor Nir Shaviv put it well.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

"The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think."

Meanwhile, research to specify ECS has pushed the likely range lower.

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]

 

(note that I've hotlinked sources)

The claim that the AGW hypothesis doesn’t work without a high Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is not entirely accurate. While ECS is an important factor in climate models, it’s not the only factor that determines the impact of human activities on global warming.

Firstly, the scientific consensus on AGW has strengthened over time. A survey of Earth Scientists conducted in September 2019 found that 91.1% of respondents agreed that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. This consensus has increased across the board and reaffirms that consensus increases with the level of expertise.

Secondly, even if ECS were lower than some estimates, it does not mean that AGW is not occurring or is not a significant concern. Lower ECS would mean that temperature increases might be slower, but not that they won’t happen. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities is still likely to lead to long-term changes in climate, including increases in average temperatures, rising sea levels, and changes in precipitation patterns.

Lastly, it’s important to note that uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates does not imply a lack of impact; rather, it underscores the need for precautionary measures to mitigate potential risks. Even with a lower ECS, the potential consequences of AGW, such as extreme weather events and sea-level rise, warrant serious attention and action.

I will address the main points raised in the article you linked to and provide evidence-based counterarguments. Here are several points to consider:

1. Selective Use of Studies:
   • The article selectively cites studies that support the claim of lower climate sensitivity. However, the scientific consensus, represented by assessments from organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), indicates that climate sensitivity to CO2 is substantial and poses a significant risk.
   • A comprehensive review of the literature, including meta-analyses and systematic reviews, reveals a range of climate sensitivity estimates, with the majority indicating a significant impact of CO2 on global temperatures.
2. Misinterpretation of Uncertainty:
   • The article may interpret the range of climate sensitivity estimates as uncertainty about the impact of CO2. However, the presence of a range of estimates is a normal part of scientific inquiry and does not diminish the overall consensus on the significance of CO2 as a driver of climate change.
   • Uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates does not imply a lack of impact; rather, it underscores the need for precautionary measures to mitigate potential risks.
3. Consensus and Expertise:
   • The article does not adequately address the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. The majority of climate scientists and reputable scientific organizations worldwide agree on the significant impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on global warming.
   • It is important to consider the expertise and credibility of the sources cited in the article. Peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals and assessments from established scientific organizations carry more weight than isolated studies or opinions.
4. Real-world Observations:
   • The article’s claim contrasts with real-world observations of rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events, all consistent with predictions based on higher climate sensitivity to CO2.
   • Empirical evidence, including temperature records, satellite data, and climate models, collectively supports the conclusion that CO2 emissions are a major contributor to ongoing climate change.
5. Policy Implications:
   • Downplaying the impact of CO2 on climate change has serious policy implications. It risks undermining efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change, potentially leading to more severe environmental, social, and economic consequences.
   • Addressing climate change requires a precautionary approach, informed by the best available science, rather than selective interpretation of studies to downplay risks.

In conclusion, while it is important to consider a range of scientific studies and viewpoints, the article’s claim of decreasing climate sensitivity to CO2 is not supported by the broader scientific consensus and empirical evidence. A balanced and comprehensive review of the literature, along with consideration of real-world observations and the potential risks associated with climate change, supports the need for continued efforts to address the impact of CO2 emissions.

See:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3017/making-sense-of-climate-sensitivity/
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2023/09/19/climate-policies-with-real-world-results
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/?trk=public_post_comment-text

 

A climate scientist on how to recognize the new climate change denial

For the past dozen years or so, every time the United Nations General Assembly holds its annual session in New York City, climate activists hit Manhattan to protest outside. They call it Climate Week. And this week has been a big one, with tens of thousands of protesters demonstrating as part of the New York March to End Fossil Fuels.

After a summer of extreme weather, Vox’s daily news podcast Today, Explained is tackling Climate Week with some help from a scientist — one who’s been at the center of climate science since before it was cool, and has some ideas on how we can keep the planet from getting too hot.

Michael Mann is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the new book Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons from Earth’s Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis. Mann is perhaps best known for the “hockey stick curve” in a 1998 paper he co-published about the planet’s rapidly rising temperature after a mostly steady millennium.

Mann spoke with Today, Explained host Sean Rameswaram about his experience fighting climate denialism, and the new tactics that have emerged from the fossil fuel industry and the groups it supports. Read on for an excerpt of the conversation, edited and condensed for length and clarity, and listen to the full conversation wherever you find podcasts.
https://www.vox.com/climate/23885799/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel-companies-exxon-mobil

Looking forward to seeing which blogger created some junk data to refute Mann.

 

In order: The article does not selectively cite studies; it is comprehensive.
I could not care less about claimed consensus.
No one disputes rising temperatures up to 2016. The disagreement is about causation. Lower ECS strongly suggests a cause other than CO2.
Of course downplaying CO2 has serious implications. It should.

 

The charlatan who falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate is not of interest to serious people.