You can keep all the doubts you want. But, right now, the consensus is that global warming is the result of human activity and that certain things should be done to lessen the impact. We should abandon those goals because there are some (again, a minority) has doubts? If you can get your doubts accepted by more scientists then we can look at it but as of RIGHT NOW where the majority (VAST majority) say we need to do something or risk disaster shouldn't we be taking their suggestions? Also Einstein was right, IF HE WAS WRONG, one would have sufficed. But if all you have is one and the other 100 agree with Einstein should we waste time and resources giving that one and equal footing? If he was right (and he was) then even 100 would not be enough to change the truth.
So, now a consensus of scientists is a NEGATIVE??? I don't believe you should take every 10 words of Einstein out of context and then attempt to use it in some other context. Climatology is a broad collection of fields of science. It is definitely important to know that there is a consensus of those who study these various fields of science concerning anthropogenic climate change. The fact that the fundamentals are NOT contentious is a serious result. Where the heck will you turn next in your desperate attempt to oppose all the fields of science related to climate?
Game. Set. Match. Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Has Not Been Enhanced, But Instead Its Impact Has Declined Since 1983 By Kenneth Richard on 10. April 2023 Share this... In the satellite era scientists have continued to observe the Earth’s total greenhouse effect (which includes effects from greenhouse gases and clouds) exerting an overall negative impact (cooling) on surface temperatures since the 1980s. This rules out both CO2 and an enhanced greenhouse effect as drivers of global warming. Earth’s total greenhouse effect impact on climate is realized by the sum of all contributors to it: water vapor, clouds, and the “anthropogenic” greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4. Given the modern assumption that humans are responsible for global warming due especially to our CO2 and CH4 emissions, it stands to reason that Earth’s downwelling longwave (LWdn) should be increasing and thus the Earth’s greenhouse effect should be enhanced due to the rising greenhouse gases emissions. But, as Cess and Udelhofen (2003) reported 20 years ago, Earth’s greenhouse effect has not been enhanced in recent decades. Instead, it has been in a state of decline since the 1980s. “[T]he negative trend in G [greenhouse effect] indicates that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is temporarily [1985-1999] decreasing despite the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing.” Image Source: Cess and Udelhofen, 2003 Song et al. (2016) also reported a flat (declining) greenhouse effect trend (shown in red) from 2002 to 2014 when all greenhouse effect factors (“all-sky”), including clouds and water vapor, are considered. The effects of greenhouse gases like CO2 were “offset” by the effects of clouds in producing the “zero-trend greenhouse effect” over this period. Image Source: Song et al., 2016 A new study (Zhang and Rossow, 2023) employs another data set (FH) and also shows the total greenhouse effect (expressed as downward longwave, or LWdn) declining from 1983 to 2017 (and 2001 to 2020 in the CERES record) even though the data “account for increasing CO2 and CH4” and this “should produce an increase in LWdn”. It doesn’t, of course, as CO2 and CH4 are not influential enough to compete with the greenhouse effect of clouds. “The LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)] shows a very large anomaly declining rapidly at the beginning of the record until the late 1990s. … The FH calculations (and previous versions) account for increasing CO2 and CH4 abundances, which should produce an increase in LWdn, all other things being equal; but as Fig 3…shows, the near surface air temperature (Ta) and skin temperatures (Ts) from ISCCP-H used in FH are generally decreasing. … [July 1983 to June 2017] overall downward trend in FH LWdn [longwave net at TOA (W/m²)]” Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023 The scientists also point out that trends in global mean albedo correspond to an “increase in surface solar radiation” since the 1980s (which can explain the warming over this period). Also, the W/m² trends in shortwave and longwave top-of-atmosphere fluxes are “dominated” by cloud cover changes or “caused almost entirely by cloud effects.” Image Source: Zhang and Rossow, 2023 In recent years there have been several other studies documenting an observed decreasing greenhouse effect despite the increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 (Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020). All of them note that natural cloud variations, which have a greenhouse effect impact larger than that resulting from a 100-fold increase in CO2 (Ramanathan et al., 1989), are driving the recent greenhouse effect decline, overriding the anthropogenic emissions impact. Image Source: Stephens et al., 2022, Dübal and Vahrenholt, 2021, Swift, 2018, Su et al., 2020 The clear implication of these observations is that an enhanced greenhouse effect has not been driving any warming trend since the 1980s. Further, a decline in the greenhouse effect means the impact of human CO2 emissions on the global climate are too weak to be a driver of total greenhouse effect trends or climate change.
My science says that an anthropologist can dig up the skeleton of a transgender in several hundred years and tell you what sex this person was.... There will be zero biological evidence of the sex they pretended to be. They might have lived a pretend life full of delusions but their bones will tell the truth. How's that for good solid science?
This does NOT refute the fact that scientists in the fields of climatology agree that Earth is warming, and that the primary reason is human behavior.
Not my science. My science is limited to stuff that can be developed into math capable of predicting outcomes. In the case of chemistry this math includes accounting for molecules and sometimes atoms. Nuclear fusion and fission is the result of my science. You never hear or see the use of the term consensus about my science. There is no one referring to the laws of thermodynamics as the consensus of scientists. The term is not used with respect to NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H2O, is it? The theory of evolution is intriguing, but it remains incomplete as it lacks any component that explains biogenesis - how is or was life created from inanimate matter? And, for those that look at a creature like a platypus and simply shrug and say, isn't evolution amazing, well, yes, yes it is, and incomplete. This is really interesting because it demonstrates a huge clash between my science and life itself. According to my science, there is no amount of time that can explain anything going from a disordered state to an ordered state. Rust never sleeps so to speak. Quite a mystery. Sunshine + Special Sauce & maybe lightning + 4 billion years = Life!? This business of AGW has a long way to go to cement that it is simply the combustion of our organic reserves that have caused or will cause irreversible global warming. We've sufficient kit these days to know that it's not the sun, the solar constant is for now constant. However, astrophysicists maintain that the world will in fact one day end in fire, in about 4-5 billion years. This theory is not referred to as the consensus of scientists either, by-the-way. It is based on known atomic reactions and mass. The Earth is heated on one side by the sun and cools on one side by space. Both are due to radiant heat transfer. There is an unimportant component of mass transfer. A very likely candidate to explain extinction level events and ice ages are massive comet impacts and massive volcanic explosions. Airborne particulates are particularly likely to cool the Earth it seems to me. The thing about the greenhouse effect of CO2 though is that it does not block the primary radiant wavelength responsible for cooling the Earth from its dark side every night. I've a post around here somewhere, about it, but while I'm at it let me review this again real quick. According to Wien's Law the Earth radiates primarily according to it's average surface temperature of about 57°F, or let's just call it 290 K, hence its primary wavelength is about 10 µm, 10,000 nm or 100,000 Angstroms. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law Now, CO2 does absorb IR radiation and its characteristic curve can be found here, https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC Here you will clearly see that at 10 µm, CO2's transmittance is basically 100%. Playing around with Wien's Law we see that for CO2 to begin to block radiant heat transfer the black body has to emit at between about 13.8 and 16.3 µm which corresponds to 210 K down to 178 K, or, -81 °F to -139 °F. My science, not yours, tells me this.
This is the nut of impossibility at the core of "climate change". Too many variables to model (there's no real empirical data to speak of. How could there be?) with any accuracy. Here's a website I used to love when it was my job to deal with this inane hypocrisy. https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations Enjoy.
Review Of Koonin’s “Unsettled”…Government, Scientific Institutions As “Instruments Of Hostile Forces” By P Gosselin on 16. April 2023 Share this... A German scientist asked if I would post the following text on behalf of William Walter Kay =================================== Koonin’s Sociology of Climatology By William Walter Kay BA JD Although focused on hard science, Koonin’s Unsettled broaches Sociology of Climatology in Chapter 10 (WHO BROKE “THE SCIENCE” AND WHY); commencing: Can it really be that a multiplicity of stakeholders in climate matters – scientists, scientific institutions, activists and NGOs, the media, politicians – are all contributing to misinformation in the service of persuasion?” Koonin answers “yes”, suggesting the culprit is: “not some secret cabal, but rather a self-reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests.” He then walks us through his “multiplicity of stakeholders.” Climate apocalypticism attracts politicians wishing to keep the public terrified and clamoring for safety. The media disseminates climate horror because “news is a business” and “if it bleeds it leads.” As newsrooms shrink overworked journalists, sans science degrees, cannot properly research climate stories: …the general lack of knowledge of what the science actually says, the drama of extreme weather events and their heart-rending impact on people, and pressures within the industry all work against balanced coverage in the popular media.” Governments, businesses and NGOs have “messages” that employees must deliver to stay employed or to attain promotions, tenure etc: …more than a few climate contrarians have suffered public opprobrium and diminished career prospects for publicizing data that doesn’t support the “broken climate” meme.” NGOs like 350.org, Union of Concerned Scientist, and Natural Resources Defence Council solicit donations with scary distortions of climate science. (This is off. Climate NGOs draw funds from Big Green philanthropies, vested corporate interests, and captured government agencies. Climateworks and Energy Foundation boast annual receipts, respectively, of $425 million and $230 million. Neither solicit from the public.) According to Koonin: “individuals and organizations in the scientific community are demonstrably misrepresenting the science.” Scientific institutions: “seem more concerned with making the science fit the narrative than ensuring the narrative fits the science.” Regarding climate: …institutions that prepare the official assessment reports have a communication problem, often summarizing or describing the data in ways that are actively misleading.” Scientists hype research, fudge uncertainty, and covet publicity. The public believes whatever science authorities say, and presumes journalists know what they’re talking about. Authorities oblige the public’s abhorrence of gray areas by keeping them wholly in the dark. As evidenced above, Koonin references mostly generic social phenomena. Financial pressure, groupthink and hype underly all discourse, not merely climate science. Koonin doesn’t adequately distinguish climate from other overegged topics, nor explain why climate is even on the agenda. Aware of this defect, he offers glimpses into the unusual treatment given Climatology; particularly the fear-borne ignorance exhibited by scientists whenever the topic arises. Climatology generates: “an eyes-shut-fingers-in-the-ears position I’ve never heard in any other scientific discussion.” And: “otherwise rigorous and analytical scientists abandon their critical faculties when discussing climate…” Koonin rebukes the National Academies of Science for publishing reviews of climate assessments so lacking in objectivity as to betray an intent to manipulate. A 2019 joint climate statement, freighted with misinformation, signed by each NAS academy president, bewildered Koonin: I’m quite sure that this personal statement of the presidents in a news release was not reviewed by the usual Academies procedures; if it had been, its deficiencies would have been corrected.” Climatology also receives unique treatment from politicos and journos. Politicians must pitch renewable energy as the only way to solve an urgent crisis; because the Energy Transition won’t sell if framed as one option for solving some distant problem. Politicians won’t discuss climate science uncertainties, nor admit the true cost of the Energy Transition. Thus, when crafting climate messaging: …the science is jettisoned in favor of The Science, and “simplified” for use in the political arena, which allows the required actions to be portrayed as simple as well – just eliminate fossil fuels to save the planet.” Alarmist media articles aren’t just the result of overloaded, undereducated journos. A legion of “Climate Reporters” zealously monger doom. Koonin understands that the Energy Transition is the dog wagging the Climate Change tail: Science should not be partisan, but climate science’s intersection with energy policy all but guaranteed that it would become so.” …as alternative energy grows, there is financial incentive for politicians to hype climate catastrophe.” Unsettled is a naïf’s confession. In 2004 Koonin thought Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was a legit hypotheses sincerely held by honest scientists. Few climate contrarians, under 50, can say the same. Koonin’s main claim is that the actual scientific literature doesn’t jibe with what alarmists call The Science. His testimony resonates because he’s a top-tier scientist who’s actually read the national and international climate assessments. The thought-fields Koonin wonders onto, however, are Climate Change Communication and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. These too are sciences, complete with literary canons to which Unsettled’s 200+ footnotes make nary a reference. Koonin apologizes for, and defends, the science establishment. He fears a corrupted Climatology undermines public confidence in the entire scientific project. He prefers “misinformation” but describes “disinformation.” Connecting his own dots, its obvious key US government agencies, and leading US scientific institutions, are instruments of hostile forces. This, added to the Energy Transition’s hobbling of the American economy, warrants designating climate alarmism as treason. Koonin ain’t there yet. Source Koonin, Stephen E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, And Why It Matters; BenBella Books, Dallas, TX, 2021; Chapter 10 “WHO BROKE ‘THE SCIENCE’ AND WHY” pages 185-96.
Criticism of Koonin's 2014 Wall Street Journal commentary[edit] In an article in Slate,[22] physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert criticized Koonin's 2014 commentary in The Wall Street Journal, "Climate Science Is Not Settled,"[23] as "a litany of discredited arguments" with "nuggets of truth ... buried beneath a rubble of false or misleading claims from the standard climate skeptics' canon." Reception of 2021 book Unsettled[edit] Critics of Koonin's book Unsettled accused him of cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.[24]
Just finished reading a piece on WUWT about the inverse relationship between climate knowledge and climate panic. <-link. Summary: The more you understate about climate change the less worried you are.
Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety Guest Blogger “The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts, the less you know the hotter you get.”. . . .
That's the most idiotic comment imaginable. It proves that the truth of the issue must be ignored, because someone somewhere protested!
The quote is from Bertrand Russell. Are you embarrassed yet? The paper is in the peer-reviewed literature. Are you embarrassed now? Hannes Zacher & Cort W. Rudolph Climatic Change volume 176, Article number: 32 (2023) Abstract This study tests the hypotheses that overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge are inversely related to climate change anxiety, such that people who know more (less) about the environment in general, and about climate in particular, are less (more) anxious about climate change. Time lagged data were collected from N = 2,066 individuals in Germany. Results showed that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and environmental attitudes, overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge were negatively related to climate change anxiety (both B = -.09, p < .001).
This could well be true. That was certainly true about slavery. Understating the problem was EXACTLY what people did when they had no concern about the practice continuing.
The fact that someone states something does NOT mean it is properly applied. I'm positive that people who known nothing about climate change aren't worried about climate change - regardless of whether they should be. Also, those who are climate science professionals make dispassionate statements about their findings - as is proper. >>>Taking that dispassion as a sign that the findings should be ignored is just flat out ignorance.
". . . . In summary, drawing on psychological theorizing and research on associations among knowledge, uncertainty, and anxiety, we hypothesize that people with greater overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge experience generally less climate change anxiety. In contrast, people with less overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge should be more likely to experience higher climate change anxiety. . . . ." Game. Set. Match.
