Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

[VanCleef]

The authors of your link:

Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck

Wasn't Connolley kicked out of Wikipedia for spamming endless climate change dogma?

Not sure, but it doesn't change the facts listed. The 1970's global cooling claims are false. This was not widespread or a consensus. I'm simply stating facts.

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

 

[Into the Night]

What you seem to be avoiding is that the concept the Human activity can cause changes to climate,
is not the same thing as those changes being dangerous or even bad.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas! increasing it's level can cause some warming, but the actual forcing
has only been detected at level less than predicted.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
It still all goes back to the first law of thermodynamics, Energy cannot be created or destroyed!
The climate system can only work with the energy present.

No gas or vapor, including CO2, is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth. The amount of warming from CO2 (or any other gas in the atmosphere) is ZERO.

 

[Into the Night]

Not sure, but it doesn't change the facts listed. The 1970's global cooling claims are false. This was not widespread or a consensus. I'm simply stating facts.

The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I

The 1970's global cooling consensus was real. It was just as stupid as the current global warming consensus. Consensus is not used in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[VanCleef]

False authority fallacy. Consensus is not used in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Consensus is only used in religion and politics.

1. I'm only bringing up consensus because that's what we are discussing.

2. I agree with you. Consensus isn't important. Fortunately, AGW and CC have a consensus due to the overwhelming evidence.

The Church of Global Warming denies science denies science and mathematics.

2,000 pages of Math and Science, peer reviewed:

Our Changing Climate - Fourth National Climate Assessment
Climate Science Special Report

Please post a passage you find to be false and prove it wrong, directly, with a peer reviewed study.

Until you can prove the entire field of science if wrong on this one, I will continue to state AGW is a fact.

 

[VanCleef]

The 1970's global cooling consensus was real.

Citation needed. I just provided evidence proving it was not the consensus nor did it have any numerous amount of studies stating so.

 

[Jack Hays]

1. Those are Meteorologists, and they aren't looking at peer reviewed data and that is an old survey. The 2016 study on Climatologists suggests a 90-99% Consensus on AGW on the people who actually study this field of science based off of peer reviewed studies rather than opinions.

2. In 2016 a newer survey there is a 88% Consensus of the AMS (American Meterological Society) for AGW, even if you do use that angle (although you shouldn't, we should use Climatologists). (PDF) A 2016 Survey of American Meteorological Society Members about Climate Change

3. I'm glad you dropped the Richard Tol angle when you found out he disagrees with your inaccurate opinion.




Not only is the evidence overwhelming, but the consensus is overwhelming.

Try again. Stenhouse debunks the 97% claim.

1. The evidence for attribution of warming to human activity does not exist.
2. It would be hard to name something that matters less than consensus.
3. Richard Tol? Here you go.

… the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in … - ‎Tol - Cited by 32


[h=1]Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis[/h]Author links open overlay panelRichard S.J.Tolabcde






Show more
RedirectingGet rights and content
Referred to byJohn Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Andrew Skuce, Peter Jacobs, Rob Painting, Rob Honeycutt, Sarah A. Green, Stephan Lewandowsky, Mark Richardson, Robert G. Way
Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’Energy Policy, Volume 73, October 2014, Pages 706-708




Purchase PDFRichard S.J. Tol
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: RejoinderEnergy Policy, Volume 73, October 2014, Pages 709




Purchase PDF


[h=2]Abstract[/h]A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

 

[VanCleef]

Try again. Stenhouse debunks the 97% claim.

1. The evidence for attribution of warming to human activity does not exist.
2. It would be hard to name something that matters less than consensus.
3. Richard Tol? Here you go.

1. That's from 2013. The latest consensus re-affirming study was in 2016. 97% is a fact at the time being.
2. Indeed, consensus is not that important. Fortunately, as I've stated, an overwhelming evidence is more important. And the reason for the current 97%.
3. Richard Tol said the consensus is high and correct - he's simply mad at methodology. Not the results. And this statement was after his 2014 study.


“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

-Richard Tol

The evidence for attribution of warming to human activity does not exist.

It exists, and is massive, resulting in a consensus. I've already linked 1000's of pages and 100's of studies proving this fact.

 

[longview]

No gas or vapor, including CO2, is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth. The amount of warming from CO2 (or any other gas in the atmosphere) is ZERO.

We will have to disagree on some of the technical aspects. CO2 if at ground state, can absorb the very low energy 15 um photons
that would otherwise exit the system.
After absorption, the state is excited to the 667 cm-2, level will likely never emit much of anything but will pass off it's energy with
molecules and atoms at ground state that it's mean free path brings it into contact with.
If it does not contact an atom or molecule capable of passing the energy, in a few 10's of milliseconds,
the energy state will start to spontaneously decay, releasing some combination of photons and microwaves,
who's total energy must equal that same 667 cm-2 absorbed.
As part of this process, it might add some local warming through vibration transfer.
The reality is there is something very wrong with that idea of CO2, in that the concept says CO2 will always do the same thing.
The asymmetric pattern of the warming implies that CO2 is likely not functioning as well during the sunlight hours as during the non sunlight hours.

 

[Jack Hays]

1. That's from 2013. The latest consensus re-affirming study was in 2016. 97% is a fact at the time being.
2. Indeed, consensus is not that important. Fortunately, as I've stated, an overwhelming evidence is more important. And the reason for the current 97%.
3. Richard Tol said the consensus is high and correct - he's simply mad at methodology. Not the results. And this statement was after his 2014 study.


“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

-Richard Tol



It exists, and is massive, resulting in a consensus. I've already linked 1000's of pages and 100's of studies proving this fact.

Violating the norms and ethos of science

Posted on January 31, 2016 by curryja | 419 comments
by Judith Curry Don’t let transparency damage science. – Stephan Lewandowsky & Dorothy Bishop

419 Comments
Posted in Ethics, Sociology of science

The comments at the end of the Nature article are very interesting, however the most interesting ones are the large number of comments that Nature has deleted, including a comment from Richard Tol. Paul Matthews has post on this, excerpts:
Tol’s deleted comment read:

“Research integrity and transparency are great. It starts at home. It would be good if Professor Lewandowsky would come clean about his research on climate change, and if he would tell his student John Cook to do the same. Harassment would be much reduced if researchers would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their data, how it was gathered, and how it was processed and analyzed.”
​

 

[Threegoofs]

If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you link to and quote actual sources rather than the idiotic commentaries on Watts' fake science site.

P.S. This is not just BS; it's 4-year-old recycled BS!

Jack has entire threads dedicated to 15 year old BS, so this might be considered an improvement!

 

[Jack Hays]

1. That's from 2013. The latest consensus re-affirming study was in 2016. 97% is a fact at the time being.
2. Indeed, consensus is not that important. Fortunately, as I've stated, an overwhelming evidence is more important. And the reason for the current 97%.
3. Richard Tol said the consensus is high and correct - he's simply mad at methodology. Not the results. And this statement was after his 2014 study.


“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

-Richard Tol



It exists, and is massive, resulting in a consensus. I've already linked 1000's of pages and 100's of studies proving this fact.

[h=1]Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus[/h][FONT=&quot]Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not representative. “In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

1. That's from 2013. The latest consensus re-affirming study was in 2016. 97% is a fact at the time being.
2. Indeed, consensus is not that important. Fortunately, as I've stated, an overwhelming evidence is more important. And the reason for the current 97%.
3. Richard Tol said the consensus is high and correct - he's simply mad at methodology. Not the results. And this statement was after his 2014 study.


“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

-Richard Tol



It exists, and is massive, resulting in a consensus. I've already linked 1000's of pages and 100's of studies proving this fact.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Dr. Richard Tol In their eagerness to discredit a colleague[1] Harvey et al. (2017) got ahead of themselves. The write-up shows signs of haste – typographical errors (“principle component analysis”, “refereces cited”) and nonsensical statements (“95% normal probability”) escaped the attention of the 14 authors, 3 referees and editor – but so does…
[/FONT]
December 26, 2017 in Polarbeargate.

 

[VanCleef]

[h=1]Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus[/h][FONT="]Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not representative. “In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol
[/FONT]

“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

-Richard Tol


He simply didn't like the methodology used in Cook's paper. He doesn't disagree with the consensus.

 

[Jack Hays]

“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

-Richard Tol


He simply didn't like the methodology used in Cook's paper. He doesn't disagree with the consensus.

Note that he doesn't endorse the 97% claim.

 

[VanCleef]

Jack has entire threads dedicated to 15 year old BS, so this might be considered an improvement!

He keeps citing a debunked conspiracy blog to boot,


Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[VanCleef]

Note that he doesn't endorse the 97% claim.

Note he still claims it's overwhelming and correct. He's literally just upset at the specific 97% number and methodology procedures, but still agrees it is likely very high.

And it is high because, as Tol stated, it is correct - as shown by overwhelming evidence of AGW.

The man disagrees with your general position on this subject yet you keep using his work.

 

[Jack Hays]

Note he still claims it's overwhelming and correct. He's literally just upset at the specific 97% number and methodology procedures, but still agrees it is likely very high.

And it is high because, as Tol stated, it is correct - as shown by overwhelming evidence of AGW.

The man disagrees with your general position on this subject yet you keep using his work.

He's an honest man. I don't require agreement, only good faith.

 

[marke]

No, it wasn't.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

That's literally a made up thing to make people doubt AGW/CC. Fortunately all that doubt is slowly fading.

Leftists chicken little silly science climate alarmists cannot change the weather so they change history.

 

[VanCleef]

Leftists chicken little silly science climate alarmists cannot change the weather so they change history.

Dude, that literally didn't happen. There was no consensus on a upcomming ice age.

Stop making me debate historical facts.

 

[polgara]

Violating the norms and ethos of science

[FONT=&]Posted on January 31, 2016 by curryja | 419 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry Don’t let transparency damage science. – Stephan Lewandowsky & Dorothy Bishop

419 Comments
Posted in Ethics, Sociology of science

The comments at the end of the Nature article are very interesting, however the most interesting ones are the large number of comments that Nature has deleted, including a comment from Richard Tol. Paul Matthews has post on this, excerpts:
Tol’s deleted comment read:

“Research integrity and transparency are great. It starts at home. It would be good if Professor Lewandowsky would come clean about his research on climate change, and if he would tell his student John Cook to do the same. Harassment would be much reduced if researchers would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their data, how it was gathered, and how it was processed and analyzed.”
​

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article on ethics, and one that is long overdue, IMO! :thumbs: It appears that instead of making some headway on expecting honesty and ethical reporting on climate change, we are instead just seeing new ways of "papering over" the same old problems we have always dishonestly had in one form or another! My question asks if any scientist actually believes what is being touted currently, since they would know that every accusation leveled at the other side could describe what they might also be doing! :wow: Gotta be careful, too much money at stake .....

Judith Curry believes this is a very big deal, since the potential for harming science is colossal, plus the two largest well-respected "old school science publications" - NATURE and SCIENCE - have apparently provided more than enough evidence on how they have been subverted by "warmunist" anti-science forces. Many people believe that our US values are being eroded to accommodate socialism and centralized control; and believe that Lewandowsky's work is a big part of the the mess that climate science has become! As usual the comments were numerous and quite interesting! :mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article on ethics, and one that is long overdue, IMO! :thumbs: It appears that instead of making some headway on expecting honesty and ethical reporting on climate change, we are instead just seeing new ways of "papering over" the same old problems we have always dishonestly had in one form or another! My question asks if any scientist actually believes what is being touted currently, since they would know that every accusation leveled at the other side could describe what they might also be doing! :wow: Gotta be careful, too much money at stake .....

Judith Curry believes this is a very big deal, since the potential for harming science is colossal, plus the two largest well-respected "old school science publications" - NATURE and SCIENCE - have apparently provided more than enough evidence on how they have been subverted by "warmunist" anti-science forces. Many people believe that our US values are being eroded to accommodate socialism and centralized control; and believe that Lewandowsky's work is a big part of the the mess that climate science has become! As usual the comments were numerous and quite interesting! :mrgreen:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

The world would be a better place if there were more Judith Currys in it.

 

[longview]

Dude, that literally didn't happen. There was no consensus on a upcomming ice age.

Stop making me debate historical facts.

I don't know about a consensus, but the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,
put together a board to look at the issue and they wrote a comprehensive report, in 1975.
Full text of "Understanding climatic change"
The introduction covers that they were concerned about how cooling would affect global food production.

A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments
on a worldwide scale, because the global patterns of food production
and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate
of the present century. It is not primarily the advance of a major ice
sheet over our farms and cities that we must fear, devastating as this
would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve. Rather,
it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas com-
mitted to agricultural use, changes in the frost content of Canadian and
Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas of high nutri-
ent production, for example, that are of more immediate concern.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Central Europe’s Warming Since 1990 Coincides With Instrumentation, Solar And Precipitation Changes, Not CO2[/h]By P Gosselin on 20. February 2019
On Sunday I wrote here how any warmth that gets found anywhere on the globe almost always gets blamed on heat supposedly getting trapped by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations (due to man). Of course here all other powerful, real factors such as solar and oceanic cycles get ignored.
Yet in the case of Japan, we see that it’s recent temperature increase happens to coincide with more solar radiation reaching the surface.
All of Germany’s temperature rise came in just 2 years
And not surprisingly, the same turns out to be true for Central Europe – particularly Germany.
Germany’s DWD national weather office has been keeping records since 1881, and what follows is a chart of Germany’s mean annual temperature anomaly for the period:

Germany mean annual temperature anomaly since 1881. Data source: DWD here. . . . ​

 

[Surface Detail]

[h=2]Central Europe’s Warming Since 1990 Coincides With Instrumentation, Solar And Precipitation Changes, Not CO2[/h]By P Gosselin on 20. February 2019
On Sunday I wrote here how any warmth that gets found anywhere on the globe almost always gets blamed on heat supposedly getting trapped by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations (due to man). Of course here all other powerful, real factors such as solar and oceanic cycles get ignored.
Yet in the case of Japan, we see that it’s recent temperature increase happens to coincide with more solar radiation reaching the surface.
All of Germany’s temperature rise came in just 2 years
And not surprisingly, the same turns out to be true for Central Europe – particularly Germany.
Germany’s DWD national weather office has been keeping records since 1881, and what follows is a chart of Germany’s mean annual temperature anomaly for the period:

Germany mean annual temperature anomaly since 1881. Data source: DWD here. . . . ​

How does that graph support the statement that "all of Germany’s temperature rise came in just 2 years"?

 

[Jack Hays]

How does that graph support the statement that "all of Germany’s temperature rise came in just 2 years"?

Apparently you did not read any of the link.

". . . One interesting aspect from the above chart is that we see Germany temperature saw no increase from about 1900 to 1990, but then suddenly it shot up almost instantly by a full degree. In terms of warming, that’s not how CO2 is supposed to work. CO2 doesn’t sleep on the job for almost a century, then go to town in a single year or two. . . ."