Anthony will have a response to this silliness later today.
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, N.Y. – More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.
“It’s critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.
“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.
###
“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.
99,9% of papers agnowledge humans cause CC are written that way, thanks for confimation
I concede : 100% of climate change is caused by humans.
What will the “changed” climate be?
What should the “unchanged” climate be?
Is the solution to change the climate back to what it “should” be, or adapt as the changes become apparent?
Why are you conceding? The temps have been higher and lower for millennia, and the temps from the last 20-odd years certainly don’t impress anyone who has any common sense, especially considering how much fossil fuel use has increased and how flat the temp response has been.
Because you can’t argue someone out of a religious conviction.
Because Mann caused climate change
Yes, an article of faith (i.e. trust), religious/moral/ethical cause, and ideological bent. Principles matter.
And to your point David, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” as Mark Twain observed long before the UN spent other peoples money (U.S. tax dollars) to create the IPCC with the mission to manufacture evidence that humans are having an adverse impact on the Climate which has been changing since before fools walked the earth.
Did you mean “If I concede”?
Why is it not 100%? Maybe there is a good reason…
They state it:
“They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change.”
They deserve congratulations for being able to identify FOUR skeptical papers in the sample. As the total database contains “88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020“, we can expect that it contains around 120 skeptical papers published in the stated period of 8 years.
Someone please tell those guys to check https://notrickszone.com/, they certainly will be able to find there a few more (English-language) skeptical publications.
I admit I am surprised that there are over 9,000 English language climate papers per year.
Shouldn’t it have taken only one?
Was it not one Bert Onestone, who when Hitler ordered over a hundred German scientists to discredit his theory of relativity, replied, “Surely, it only takes one to prove me wrong!”.
You missed the missing word. Peer review has been dropped for this paper. That is why there are so many papers in just 8 year.
The one is about land use ….. 😀
The survey was done before the Peter Ridd decision was handed down, so maybe it is 100% now? (lol)
What you have to realize is that the scientific literature is a “curated collection”, much the same way the Soviet press was (Pravda, Izvestia, Tass).
So, when we look at those three publications, there was a 100% support for Josef Stalin and his policies.
Is there any scientist in there right mind that would stand up against the bus that just drove over Peter Ridd? (c’mon man)
99.9% isn’t the realm of science.
I doubt you could get 99.9% of papers to agree that gravity pulls things down.
Indeed. Arguably it doesn’t. Its just that space is naturally bent….
I would say it’s the other way now … 99.9% of papers agree gravity doesn’t pull anything down thanks to LIGO. That is the point 99.9% doesn’t really mean much in science.
I do wonder what selection criteria was used, especially in regard to how they defined climate change, or peer reviewed.
Knowing how the previous 97% was come up with, I’m expecting only 100 papers that agreed with the researchers were actually used.
Yes, the first 97 percent declaration was a distortion of the facts and I would expect this 99.9 percent declaration to be exactly the same.
It’s just a revision of the old report that has been enhanced for COP26.
They just keep repeating the same old lies over and over and over again, like good propagandists do.
Yes, the first study used a literature sample of over 11,000 papers. They then boiled the sample down to 75 papers, of which 97% were with the consensus( ?) A number of authors from the 75 papers, spoke up saying they didnt support dangerous global warming conclusions.
The big take here is the ridiculous number of papers published. 88,000!!! I was shocked with the first study’s 11,000 papers in a science over 20yrs with one small linear equation holding it all together. This means in a work year of 200 days each there is a paper a day written, reviewed and published every 3 days!
Have the 88,000 papers been published since 2013? Or did they include the first study’s 20 years of papers in the total? If they did the latter, and we know they threw out 93% of them (over 10,000 of them), that alone would make it impossible for the new study to claim 99.9%.
I’m sure one of the criteria was that the author’s had to be recognized “climate scientists”.
99.9% of priests agree that God exists.
I’m not sure that is true. I believe there are denominations that do not require theism of their priests. Surely they are more than .1%.
That’s why you exclude them from your calculations, of course, as they state no position.
At least that was the 97% study’s logic… never mind that only 30% agreed with their claims (IIRC).
Peer reviewed or written by a climate scientist are not listed in the study as requirements. Only criteria is that it is a climate related paper published in the 8 year period.
They most certainly have an algorithm. As they have to identify “skeptical”:
“ Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” ”
The algorithm for skeptical is based in what “they knew“. Probably “they knew” also what is related to climate and what is peer reviewd…
I thought it was an
AlGore-ithm
Actually Brian, it is an, AlGoreism
This means any study finding a low sensitivity to CO2 would be missed… or a study finding human contribution was below prior estimates would be missed.
I would just love to see a polling of all the authors to get an actual survey instead of this proxy nonsense.
I think the article is pretty, clear. They did an algoritmic search for a few key phrases that supposedly identified articles which denied human caused change. Then they decided that all articles which didn’t contain those phrases supported human caused climate change. An argument like that would, deserve an F in lower division logic classes.
Although peer reviewed is mentioned in the opening, it is not mentioned in the study. They pulled all climate papers printed in 8 years.
Cancel culture at work.
Ah, that’s nothing. A recent study proved that all 100% books in the Bible – every single one of them – nary a dissent in any way or form – agreed that God exists. Discussion terminated.
99.9% of scientists in Nazi Germany were pro Nazi.
100% of them were no longer Nazis after the 3rd Reich collapsed.
100% of the 1500 German Nazi scientist were 100% American after they were imported to the USA with operation paperclip.(the exact same thing happened to ice age scientists after money and fame switched to global warming)
100% of experts agreed that iraq had WMD ‘ s ,except Dr Kelly who was suicided before he can blow the whistle.
The same experts confirmed scorched earth(Lybia)tonkin (Vietnam),horseshoe plan ()Yugoslavia .
Not a single of those things ever existed,but it was confirmed by experts.
While the only real incident that ever happened = attack on the USS Liberty went unpunished,was buried by msm and politics and the survivors were silenced and threatened.
99.9% of experts agree qwith the official 911 story,
except the 3000 experts called architects and engineers for 911 truth.
Sometimes 3000 experts can be 0.1% when 100% of msm ignores them.
100% of politicians,experts and scientists in the western world know that islam is the religion of peace
though muslims kill 100.000 ++ Christians in their own countries each and every year and have destroyed many thousand churches during the last decades (while building thousand of mosques in Christian countries).
There never was a 100% consensus that Iraq had WMD’s prior to the second phase of the Gulf War.
Regardless, both WMD’s and WMD programs were found in Iraq.
There is no evidence to support a belief that anything other than two airplanes brought down the two towers.
WMD s were never found.
“UN inspectors find NO evidence of WMD s in iraq”29th of march 2018
ips-dc.org
” CIA’ s final report :No WMDs in iraq ” nbcnews 25th april 2005
Now to 911.I never wrote a single word about the two towers or planes.Don’t put words in my mouth
You obviously do not even know that 3 towers were brought down that day,and that the collapse of building 7 was announced 15 minutes BEFORE the building collapsed and that a person was inside the building.
There were many found and destroyed by our troops, but they were mostly older chemical stockpiles. There was a ballistic missile program that exceeded the limits, but the nuclear program was vaporware. The scientists were lying to their superiors or they managed to move more material to Syria than anyone guessed. I would say a combination of the two, with lying predominating. We did find loads of documentation and reports written about a WMD program that we never could physically locate. That is why I think it was scientists lying about their successes to Saddam. Admitting failure in that regime was not conducive to life.
Of course. Once building 1 and 2 had gone after the fire sfaety time limits had been reached, and building three was massively on fire, it was going to go the same way – as any building construced out of steel frames will go if a fire eats out the strengh in the middle sections – the upper sections will fall on the lower sections, and the buldings are not designed to withstand the shock loads, and progressive collapse happens. That taking out the main strength by fire produces the same failure modes as taking out the strength with explosives, is never understood by tinfoil hatters, any more than the effect of the first storey collapsing looks and sounds like an explosion as one concrete floor slams into another.
The one conspiracy that seems to exist, is climate change.
Not COVID 19, Not the twin towers, not faked moon landings.
The only conpsiracy surrounding 911 was the invention of Iraq as an enemy when really Bin Laden was from Arabia, and hiding out in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
but that has been pretty transparent really. And it makes perfect political sense.
The impact explosion of the planes striking the twin towers, blasted away the fire protection panelling, exposing the structural steelwork, with all that aircraft fuel exploding & burning anything & everything flammable, the building was doomed from then on!!! It was a credit to Leslie Robertson & his design team that it stood for as long as it did!!!
I used to subscribe to the New York Times, and they, after 2008 election, ran a series on how the troops were out in danger disposing of the various caches of poison gas. WMDs existed, but only after the election.
WMD’s of the type and scope used to justify the war, were never found. Yes he had some gas shells stockpiled. That’s all.
We all know that post 911 it was important that an Enemy be found, identified, and Strong Action takern, or else a weak and incompetent US adminstration would have been seen for what it was.
We lnow that Dr Kelly’s death was far far too convenient, and that he was proved right, and we know that Blair would never have got cross party support for the gulf war without sexing up a certain dossier.
Post 911, what happened and why it happened are fairly clear. The US invented a war that they could win, to restore public confidence.
“WMD’s of the type and scope used to justify the war, were never found.”
That’s a dishonest statement. The inspections regime required Saddam bring the WMDs he already claimed he had TO the weapons inspectors to prevent the trigger for war. Forcing them to go on an easter egg hunt itself is what justified the war.
And your WMD program was found in neighboring Libya anyway. Saddam simply outsourced his nuclear weapons program outside the range of weapon’s inspectors, and arguments like yours help shield him. Well done…
The timing of the setting of fires in the twin towers and their collpase ties in exactly with the fire safety margin on encassed fireproofed steel frames. They went exactly when they could have been expected to go, and the same goes for the third building.
There is no need to invent other causes when the fire alone would absolutely have resulted in exactly what happened.
And its hard to see that anyone above the fire line would have survived if the buildings had not collapsed. In short there was no propaganda advantage to be gained from complete collapses over and above 3000 dead in two aircraft crashes.
Unless you think that the two aircraft never existed and it was all faked up in real time.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is actually the one mots likely to be true.
CuI Bono?
In the case of climate chnage its very obvious who benefits from promulgation of a very hard to disprove myth.
In the case of 911, I can’t see it benefiting anyone.
9/11 = eroding democracy and freedoms(patriot act,naked scanners, more surveillance,more control )
A free pass to justify all the coming wars for the sake of globalist (all the countries attacked since 9/11 belonged to the very few remaining that were not members of the BiS = world central bank of all central banks)
1)Research Sibel Edmonds = ex secret service oriental expert.
She quit,because the Bush government surpressed and ignored informations about an incoming attack before 9/11.
She also warned Erdogan about a coup in turkey before the coup happened.that’s why the coup failed.
2) Watch Terry Jenkins.he was inside building 7.Listen to what he says what was going on inside building 7.
The majority of studies agree. So what? The majority of facts disagree.
Facts are illusions that only exist outside of marxist Utopia.
That’s true indeed. If you want to do a proxy study, count the number of calculators that the nitwit utopians own.
I wouldn’t think you could get published writing a skeptical paper. Ergo you wouldn’t find any.
Exactly! Papers that challenge the “climate change is caused by humans” premise don’t get published in “acceptable” locations, so are automatically excluded from the search. Also, nobody gets awarded grant money or other accolades for going against the consensus, so contrary results aren’t explored by “reputable” climate scientists.
And those that you do find are being disappeared by Google and Farcebook Factcheckers
Do you think you could get published in a communist country when criticising the communist government?
The only thing they’d publish is your suicide and the fact that you shot yourself 3 times in the back of your head.
Communist parties were hated by 97% of the population yet always got 97% of the votes.
These guys were consensus climate scientists long before global warming replaced the ice age scare.
It wasn’t quite as bad as that in the USSR. My grandfather only spent 16 years in Lubyanka for dissing Stalin. He did have to leave the country to publish his book about the holodomor, however.
Sir ,your grandfather must have had tons of luck if he mentioned the holdomor and wasn’t killed.
And i think the holdomor is prove that it was worse than that,as millions were killed for much less than criticising the party.
And i know for sure that people got shot on the spot if they owned the wrong books.
Btw
My grandfather lost everything twice thx to this system.
He got out of the USSR before writing and publishing it. If you search for the holodomor online, I guarantee that most of not all of the photos you see are his, Alexander Wienerberger.
Sounds like election returns in North Korea.
Well, now that that’s settled, I guess we can divert all the money being spent on confirming the existence of Climate Change to something else.
Only Korea?
The Democrats are already trying out excuses to explain away any losses in 2022.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-contributor-republicans-cheat-win-2022-midterm-elections
When you want to know what a socialist is up to, just check out what they are accusing others of.
The democrats are already setting up their strategies for cheating.
I believe the appropriate explanation for that tactic is confession through projection. The trouble is they’re no longer even subtle about it. It’s so blatant to be almost comical. I remember, before the election. Pelosi remarking that no matter what happens don’t accept defeat because “everything has been arranged”.
Thanks for the link.
Oh no, no, you misunderstand what we’re saying!!! Yes we have proven that Climate Change exists & it’s all mankind’s fault, especially evil wicked free-enterprise Capitalism, but further research is needed & must be publicly funded, so that we can determine how best to extract the maximum amount of taxpayers’ loot from their bank-accounts!!! We are also carrying out vital research into what we can invent as the next futuristic disaster when AGW fades from the public interest!!! Otherwise we’re all doomed!!! No I am NOT being sarcastic, it is merely the truth!!!
Fossil Fuels are the Basis of the Medical industry and Food supply chains – Breezes and sunshine that generate intermittent electricity, cannot manufacture the oil derivatives that support the 8 billion on this planet.
Pursuing the elimination of fossil fuels would put billions at risk as renewable breezes and sunshine only generate electricity. With Biden apparently pro-humanity with his COVID vaccination campaign to save thousands, how dare he, a pro-humanity individual, support banishment of fossil fuels, when their banishment would be the greatest threat to civilization resulting in billions dying from starvation, diseases, and weather-related deaths?
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/19/fossil-fuels-form-the-basis-of-our-medical-and-food-supply-chains/
Joke methodology. It’s how you frame the keyword search. And with Lynas as first author, you know it was rigged worse than Mann’s Nature trick. Plus, claiming 99.9% consensus is just laughable.
”This should pretty much be the last word.” It is, as proof of ridiculous warmunist desperation about their failed consensus:
Models getting more wrong.
Sea level rise not accelerating.
Maldives growing rather than shrinking.
Arctic ice not disappearing.
Polar bears thriving.
Earth greening.
Renewables failing.
99.9% of surveyed papers covered all those facts? Proof of bogus Lynas claims.
Socialists agree that socialism works.
Well, NEXT time it will 🤪
They always will do, especially when it fails because that will be the result of inappropriate actions by non-believers!!!
Socialist leaders agree that socialism works.
Run,
Do you really think there is a methodology that would find a substantially higher percentage of peer reviewed scientific articles that call into doubt human caused climate change? If so can you say what it is and demonstrate that it works?
There are two aspects.
First, simply searching out skeptical papers. There are many cited in my ebook. For example all of Lindzens publications, all of Curry’s publications, all of Moncktons publications, all of Soon’s publications. All of the Kenneth Richards spotted papers cited at NoTricksZone. And then framed key word search would for example pick up Nils Axel Moerner on SLR, Zwally on Antarctic ice mass gain rather than loss, Crockford on Polar bears. These collectively by themselves blow up the 99.9% claim.
Second, taking consensus papers and showing they are dead wrong, so the consensus they support must be wrong. I provided over a dozen examples in ebook Blowing Smoke. Marcott’s hockey stick, Fabricius’ Milne Bay corals, PMEL’s Whiiskey Creek oyster hatchery on Netarts Bay (two papers), O’Leary’s WAIS Eemian SLR tipping point paper, Cazenove on SLR, are just some that come to mind without even checking the book published in late 2014.
Searching out skeptical papers is a sure way to bias the survey. And the question is not whether there are skeptical papers but rather what percentage of the total number of papers are skeptical. If there have been over 90000 papers published and 99.9% are supportive that still leaves room for all of the papers you mention to be included without the claim being false.
I assume that you missed the “Second, taking consensus papers and showing that they are dead wrong”.
Which I think is a great demonstration of the folly that Rud is pointing out. If I were to agree with 1% of a paper and then not read or comment on the 99% that is bat scat insane, does that mean I’m part of a consensus?
AWG,
the second part is irrelevant to the claim that 99.9% of papers support the consensus. This paper is not addressing
whether or not the consensus is correct but only whether or not one exists.
Are you actually trying to claim that there are 90,000 papers supporting the global warming scam? Or are you simply that desperate to distract from the point being made?
Mark,
Do you doubt that there are 90 000 papers published in the last 10 years that agree with the consensus?
“This paper is not addressing whether or not the consensus is correct but only whether or not one exists.”
.
So are you saying it’s pointless dribble and should not have been published?
.
Perhaps search “What is the purpose of a scientific paper?”
Only if propaganda rather than truth, is your game.
Just one skeptical paper that refutes man made climate change as the dominant factor in what little climate change there has in fact been, would be enough to establish some truth, no matter how many Bandar Log were citing the great untruth -“We all say it, so it must be true”
So you are nor arguing from the perspective of established science, but as a propagandist, that what matters is not the truth, but how many people believe in something that cannot be proven to be true.
Don’t forget this from 7 years ago:
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
So we need 1.35 million peer reviewed papers to get 99.9%
Step one, allow papers that disagree with the consensus to be published, and stop firing authors who try to publish such papers.
The problem is, Al Gore and his minions are unable to define how much “man” has altered the global temperature. They are afraid to say, because to do so exposes their scam.
Al Gore no longer gives a rip about any of this pseudo-science bovine sh1t, because he has succeeded in doing what he set out to do, make $M & retire to his 4M$ sea-front retirement mansion!!! If he truly cared about it, he would still be campaigning for action on climate, but he isn’t so doesn’t, full stop!!!
What, they couldn’t get 110%?
Nah !
Spinal Tap were too busy that day
to sent a beer reviewed paper.
Spinal tap never struck me as beer drinkers.
Next time. Just wait.
How did the other 0.1% slip through the peer review?
They did that on purpose to “make it seem believable.”
Yes, 100 percent would have made it look a little suspicious.
I’d have believed it more if they said 101 percent ☻☻☻
I agree, as a meteorologist.
Humans have contributed greatly to the increase in beneficial CO2 that’s greening up the planet during the slight, mostly beneficial warming of the current climate optimum for most life.
They want you to think that 99.9% of atmospheric scientists think that it’s bad…..when some of us KNOW that its good.
Some of us give most weighting to objective observations/empirical data not computer simulations based on mathematical equations.
And the computer simululations keep busting from being too warm, while the observations/empirical data……..JUST IS.
You know there are no useful factual arguments to support the CAGW narrative when this is all they’ve got. Let’s just round up and say that 100% of scientists believe humans cause global warming, and global cooling, and a host of other changes in natural phenomena. This has nothing to do with the argument about the role of human emissions of CO2 in dangerously increasing the global surface/atmospheric temperature. Yes they have an effect. We are arguing about what effect and how much and the answer isn’t found in juvenile counts of scientific papers. Nor does is it resolved in rigged climate models that have never been validated. It can only be found in careful analysis of observations of our real world and, in that sphere, the evidence of a problem is completely lacking so far. Yet the pundits continue to beg us all to forgo the energy underpinnings of society and accept social collapse based on their intuition and rigged models.
Which just proves that you go where the money is.
Back in 2006 when I visited Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska, we were handed a map of the bay showing the retreat of the former glacier which had occupied the entire bay back in the year 1700 according to navigation charts of the time. The charts were updated periodically during the 1800’s, documenting the melting of that glacier, the better part of which had disappeared by about 1900. So the question is, what caused the melting of most of that massive 65 mile long glacier prior to the invention of the airplane and the mass-production of the automobile, and with the population of the earth a fraction of what it is today?
Of course you will be hard pressed to find copies of that chart now, since it is obviously very politically incorrect, and Glacier Bay Park would not want to have the Democrats in Congress stop funding them.
Well it’s a actual known fact that Human activity has destroyed the Ozone Layer, despite recent back-page announcements that BAS now think it is a natural variable phenomenon with several “thinnings” & not actual holes!!! As someone said at the time of discovery of this apparent “hole”, “How do we know that it hasn’t always been there!”. His comments appear to be endorsed by observation over time!!!
Yes, similar phenomenon. Humans might actually hav some impact, but it is highly plausible that the thinning in polar ozone during winter season are an entirely natural phenomena and the impact of chemicals released by human activity may be so trivial as to be unmeasurable. There is growing evidence this is just a longstanding seasonal effect of cold, reduced UV and possible assistance from aerosoliozed halides from natural sources.
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html
Just to point that “man made” (as opposed to Mann made) will not necessarily mean due to CO2 emissions..
man made..
Mann made..
I laugh out loud at supposedly-serious statements that slip in the word “could”.
If pigs had wings, they could fly.
Extraterrestrial beings that landed on Earth some 200,000 years ago could explain the explosive growth in primate intelligence culminating with homo sapiens. Oh, and the pyramids found around the world as well.
Er no! Wings alone are not enough. Deadalus had wings. Leonardo sketched out flying machines with wings, Lilienthal had most of the theory of gliding flight pinned down in the min 19th century.
But what none of them had, was a cruciial element to flight. Power to weight ratio.
the biggest flying animals are large birds really. and the biggest of these are just powered gliders almost unable to take off.
Mankind could have flown back in the 15th century if he had internal combustion engines or somethimg of similar power to weight.The fact of the matter is that it takes pretty much the same horsepower per ton to fly a bumblebee as a A320.
Weight goes down as the cube of linear dimensions. Or even more. a bumble bee does not need too be made out of aluminium alloy or carbin fibre.Power does not go down so fast.
Small stuff can fly on muscle power. large stuff cannot. Pigs are over the limit for flight in terms of weight, and if they were hollow boned deep chested athletes they wouldn’t be pigs.
Leo,
It appears that you have based your reply on Sus scruff domestics as it exists today, not a different animal altogether that hypothetically took a different evolutionary path to not only grow wings but to employ them for flight.
Nowhere in my comment did I state any restrictions on things such as aerodynamic lift coefficient, aerodynamic drag coefficient, thrust-to-mass ratio, or whether or not the hypothetical pig flight involved muscle-powered ascent or just a gliding descent, such as currently used by flying squirrels.
Since I specifically used the word “could”, in order to falsify my statement you have to “prove a negative”, i.e., that it is impossible that any possible evolutionary path of genus Sus starting, say, 1 million years ago, could have resulted in a flying/gliding species within this genus. You may or may not have heard about the difficulty of “proving a negative” using the scientific method.
But go ahead, give it a try . . . you’ve made a start down that path.
BTW, as for your assertion
there is this:
“Pterosaurs had a wide range of sizes. Generally they were rather large . . . The most sizeable forms represent the largest known animals ever to fly, with wingspans of up to 10–11 metres (33–36 feet) . . .
Standing, such giants could reach the height of a modern giraffe . . .Some modern estimates therefore extrapolate a weight of up to 250 kilograms (550 pounds) for the largest species.”—source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
FYI, 550 pounds weight is, indeed, in the range of modern day mature pigs.
Good luck to you.
Then why did temps go down from say the start of the jet age until then? They didn’t invent jet passenger planes in 1975.
Why have temps been basically flat since about 2000 (nevermind 1998!) In spite of air traffic basically exploding in the meantime?
See, in the medieval “little ice age” there were no planes flying, to our knowledge. Case proved..
Come on, be serious! We know the climate is changing naturally, and I did not claim there were only contrails to consider. However, climate was largely in good accordance to solar activity right into the 1970s. Despite some issues with what accuratly represents solar activity. Since then however there has been some other factor playing into it. Notably solar activity has been declining and contrails, or the increase in air travel, fits the gap just perfectly.
Then of course understanding the physics makes contrails a no-brainer forcing.
Actually air traffic more or less stalled post 911, an hasnt increased that much since, also there may well be a saturation effect – once all the sky is full of high level clouds cretaed by jets that’s all the warming you are going to get – -adding a bit more wont make any further difference.
which explains the ‘pause’
I’m surprised their consensus is so low, but I guess they must make it appear ‘studied’. They could easily have declared a 200% consensus and it wouldn’t have validated their weak science with any greater certainty. Hmmmm …. maybe if they found some evidence?
Sorry, can’t resist this: More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies. – articles
Okay, then what about those climate changes that existed LONG before mere mortal Hoomans were even a twinkle in Mama Nature’s eye? Explain who caused THOSE climate change episodes. That, or stick it some place special.
What a load of baloney these people concoct!
Pebbles Flintstone must have been a Camp Fire Girl.
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
And? This implies that studies (any study) is 100% correct, because it is a study. Why?
There is a study that claims that most scientific findings are false (and some follow-ups that claim similar things). If they agree with each other, too bad.
Most of these Climate Science ™ dropkicks are from social science or arts and it’s a popularity contest in those fields so they think that is how science works.
So they didn’t read the studies, just looked for key words. Sounds like climate science. Maybe all of the instances of “cosmic ray” mentions were alarmists trying to debunk that effect?.
This is science?
“This is science?”
No, it’s alarmist science. There’s a difference.
No it’s Climate Science ™ which bears no relationship to actual science.
No, it is market surveys -what you do to find out if a particular advertising campaign has ‘traction’ and is generally believed or trusted.
Psychology, not physics.
Anatomically-modern Homo sapiens originated some 200,000 years ago, although they were not accompanied by automobiles, fossil fuel power plants, cement production plants and other mass technology until about the most recent 200 years.
If the above-cited claim that climate change is/was caused by humans was assumed to be true, then it follows that the corollary must be “There was no climate change prior to the appearance of modern homo sapiens appearing on Earth”, or alternatively “There was no such thing as climate change prior to humans appearing on Earth.”
The science of paleoclimatology clearly falsifies the two preceding boldface statements.
Only one additional comment on the stupidity of such statements and their originating proposition is warranted: science is NEVER established by consensus . . . such is not part of the scientific method.
Gordan,
that is nonsense. Stating that “A causes B” does not imply that “only A can cause B”.
If my car stops because I apply the brakes that doesn’t imply that that braking is the only way to stop my car. I could run out of petrol etc. Similarly the fact that humans are causing climate change does not imply that nothing else can change the climate.
Which leaves you (and the 97% to 99.9%) to quantify just what “Climate Change” is just Nature doing what Nature does and what “Climate Change” is Mann doing what Mann does.
Has anyone EVER quantified the difference?
What started the Ice Age?
What ended it?
What started “The Little Ice Age”?
What ended it?
Why was only Yamal 06 used?
Approximate quote from George Will:
When they claim the science is settled, you can be sure of two things:
1) The battle is raging.
2) They are losing.
It’s what lefties do on every subject: stifle oppostion/speech. They claim the science is settled not because it is, but because they want to shut everyone else up who doesn’t agree with them.
So, unless your name is griff, loydo or snodgrass, and you are visiting the WATTS website, it is 99.9% certain you are an unscientific idiot.
How much is that strawman in the window?
The one with the hockey stick tail?
Should be how much is the hockeystick.
Too many syllables to fit the original line.
Not to mention the major difficulties in getting a paper published that does not go with the “consensus.” They could have saved themselves the time. contrary papers don’t get published. Still all grist for the mill of COP26
“Still all grist for the mill of COP26”
Yes, we are going to get a lot of climate hyperbole between now and the COP26 meeting in a few weeks.
So 99% of climate alarmist scientists aggree that climate change is a man-made thing. Well that’s surprising considering that only full members of the climate doomsday cult seem to get funding and are allowed to publish.
So all the scientists are wrong, wow!
Question begging on stilts, if you ask me.
Most definitely petitio principii.
And 99.9% of UFOlogists believe aliens exist. 99.9% of ghost hunters say ghost exist. 99.9% of Bigfoot hunters say Bigfoot exists. See a pattern?
Good points. 🙂
The only thing that comes close to 99.9% ,
indeed it is 100%,are the failures of doomsday predictions.
They were al completely wrong.
Ice age scare.
Run out of oil by 2000.
Disappearence of arctic ice and polar bears.
We will all die in a blue dust cloud.
Etc.etc. Etc.
And the only other 100% thing is,
that all those doomsday predictions are Made in USA.
Out of 200 countries only one has the ultimate superior people that can redefine
reality.
Frpm the article: ““We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.”
If that’s the case, can you explain how CO2 works to create this situation?
I didn’t think so.
And none of those studies you surveyed can explain it either.
From the article: ““It’s critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study,”
None of that is true. These guys are just parroting the climate change propaganda.
I honestly fear the solutions they propose, as they will do more damage to the world than any amount of CO2 that has been released ever could.
It’s okay with all the COP26 pledges we are still putting out 35Gt of CO2 in 2040. So for the doomsayers we are going there to see if they are right 🙂
Lying with a true statement:
“….since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters.”
Of course we are witnessing “in real time” devastating impacts; impacts that have occurred since extreme weather has been recorded, and often much worse in the past. (You are supposed to conclude these impacts are only recent.)
When they attempt to mislead as obviously as this, there is reason to doubt their main assertion.
Past “studies” of this nature used the assumption that if a paper very specifically did NOT disagree with “human caused” climate change, and even made no comment, the study made the assumption you agreed.
And of course ANY human contribution to increased CO2 and then by inference increased temperatures was also “agreement”. (e.g. Doran and Zimmerman).
Lastly if you wrote a paper asking what impact increased temperatures would have on a horned frog, that was ALSO implicit agreement.
But we have cell phones now! Written records? Black and white pictures? Film?!?
Nothing bad happened before a cell phone was there to record it.
Everything else is, like, prehistoric!
If you chart them starting in 1700 you’ll see a huge increase in the numbers of “Named Storms” in the last half of the 20th century…
Yeah, that too.
I used to play golf with a professor/friend about 2003, and he told me the surest way to get funding was to have global warming mentioned in your proposals. I told him that was going to bastardize the science … He agreed it wasn’t a good thing BUT he had a kid in college, a mortgage, and it greatly aided his real research interests’ funding! He was a biology professor.
Yes, why fund research into some obscure beetle unless it was threatened by climate change?
‘“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change.”’
That is undemocratic. Case closed. Indeed it’s long past time us, the demos, set about democratising every institutional dictatorship, academic and otherwise, that seeks to close down us, the demos, and democratic debate on this or any other issue.
From the article: “If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.”
The 97 percent study was a fraud, and this new study is just a continuation of the same fraud.
Wait until you see how they arrived at their results.
I agree, 100% of journal editors refuse to publish papers skeptical of the degree of human causes of climate change. Yet they will publish any and every paper that attributes every type of weather to human causes and any and every paper that claims that a particular creature is in danger because of climate change.
Also, as in the earlier 97% paper, they include in their statistics any paper that mentions (i.e. assumes) a possible human cause for climate change even if the primary subject of the paper is a completely unrelated topic.
Suppose there were only 8 papers that actually focused on the causes of climate change and 4 of them were skeptical about human causation?
Figures lie and liars figure.
What utter humiliation for Cornell. Such abject, non-scientific rubbish. I really think that in terms of scientific integrity we are approaching The End of Days.
I get so tired for hearing consensus when people are talking about science. Consider the statement “The consensus is you can make a lot of money in a short time by robbing a bank”. It often overlooks other important facts and it can be very wrong. Consensus as an air of authority but it means opinion, not fact. The problem is people think they are being told fact when it could very well be fiction.
Consensus (i.e. democratic/dictatorial agreement) is a social construct that bears a degree of correlation with the facts, truth, etc.
Even Kim Young Un does not get a vote like that. These people do not live in the real world.
Since they’re begging the question, I’m surprised their conclusion wasn’t 100%.
The claim is so transparently ridiculous that it doesn’t merit comment, never mind debate!
It is the only possible result from circular reasoning. Always look for the fallacy when encountering any warmunist claim. You needn’t bother with science at all.
Some, Select Scientific Literature Matters (SLM)
Weapons grade rubbish.
Ignore it.
Dual-use. A doubled-edged scalpel, certainly.
Excuse me, despite these bogus claims from another Ivy (Cornell) that has bitten the dust, what astounded me is that over 88 thousand climate-related papers were published over a 9 year period! That is almost 10,000 papers per year, all starting with the same premise — human-induced climate change. To get published today, anthropogenic climate change must be stated as a “given,” so of course almost 100% would appear to agree as would have been stated in their abstracts, introductions and discussions.
Of course, when I looked it up, I found a 2015 medical paper that said there were over 28,000 journals (JOURNALS, not articles) just in the biomedical field alone.
You are on to it. You have made an excellent observation. What we are seeing is a “production enterprise” turning out (study/article/speculation/opinion/boul chit) publications intended to inject a forceful narrative when there is none.
“.. intended to inject a forceful narrative when there is none.”
More simple than that.
“intended to qualify for a degree or tenure” is more like it.
Dr. Jill’s doctoral thesis is exhibit one.
This is absolute nonsense. The climate has ALWAYS changed even when there were very few humans living on the planet !!! Do some research and find the graphs which show what our climate was like 500 + years ago – it changed continuously depending on the sun and its sunspots.
Or look at the changes from about 12,000 to 7,000 BP … dramatic!
Could be true. Just means publications are censored, though. The Climategate emails show that this is what they have been trying to do well before 2012.
Even Stalin didn’t think that over 95% was believable
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mugabe et al aborted the deniers to sustain a semblance of consensus. The Earth is flat, not limited to climate model viability.
When you first refuse to publish anything that disagrees with your narrative, then use the published body of work to say the narrative is right, only means you control the publishers. It would be a lot like standing under a street light for 24 hours and then claiming night isn’t dark because you could see light the whole time.
It used to be a consensus (and is still scientifically factual) that there are two genders. Now you can lose your job and be charged with a crime for using a pronoun wrong.
They are probably pissed that the dissenting 0.1% got published, too.
Two genders: masculine and feminine, sex (male and female)-correlated physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) attributes. And a minority transgender (i.e. state or process of divergence from normal) spectrum a la anthropogenic climate forcings.
Four out of five dentists agree — science isn’t determined by concensus.
No it’s 9 out of 10 doctors agree if you don’t eat sunblest bread you will get squashed by elephants
While I don’t disagree that (1) it’s difficult to publish of your research doesn’t support the global warming narrative due to ideological bias by editors and reviewers, and (2) over the last 20 years it has been exceedingly difficult to get a PhD in a science that would provide sufficient credibility to allow you to publish in climate journals, thus boasing the entire field of research….
….I would argue the paper methodology is flawed not just because the key word search might not be effective, but because they only worked to identify articles that openly stated the authors are skeptical of AGW — quite a feat in itself — while many articles might well have presented data and analysis that clearly counters or weakens the AGW theory without making a statement to that effect. AND MOSTLY because they then ASSUMED ALL the other articles clearly agreed that AGW is real and meaningful….how do they know that if they did not read that in so many words in each of the remaining 87,00…oh, never mind.
Cornell should be embarrassed beyond words. This work is so sloppy that any undergraduate in the sciences should be able to make that assessment.
Anybody else notice the first author is a journalist, not a scientist? (Mark Lynas – Wikipedia)
Not saying a non-scientist can’t have an informed opinion. WUWT refutes that contention, so don’t say that’s what I’m arguing. Journalists have a terrible track-record of mistating environmental issues, misframing them and ignoring dissenting views.
JournoLism has been established as a front for social and economic advocacy. A consensus of special and peculiar interests a la environmentalism, etc.
88,000 peer reviewed papers in 8 years. That’s 11,000 per year on average. Almost all apparently being research into the cause of climate change and concluding based of sufficient evidence to pass peer review that our burning fossil fuels is the cause. Hmm, minimal funding for virtually any publishable academic study is what, $100,000? That’s $1.1 Billion a year $8.8 Billion since 2012 to prove what was considered settled science back in the 1990s. That’s insane. The people funding these studies are wasting a lot of tax payer money and the people writ8ng these papers are ripping all of us off. Either that or this new paper is just plain bogus crap.
Oops, looks like the average research grant is more like $400,000-500,000. So the water money is around $40 billion.
“Almost all apparently being research into the cause of climate change and concluding based of sufficient evidence to pass peer review that our burning fossil fuels is the cause.”
No, that ship’s sailed. It has been demonstrated decades ago that AGW is the predominant cause of most of the anomalous modern climactic trends. These papers are largely increasingly granular attempts to explain changes over shorter periods, and/or smaller geographic areas. Also to sharpen individual GHG and natural forcings. Also to look at natural reactions to those modern climactic trends..
All climate events can be completely explained with natural processes and phenomena. Anthropogenic forcings affect a limited frame of reference, and while CO2 is a forcing in the laboratory, it is a first-order forcing of greening in the wild, and a lagging indicator of warming.
How dare you try to refute the sacred models using mere data.
So tell me oilybob, when did natural climate change stop and human caused climate change start? Just curious.
Apparently the models are unable to recreate the present warming without adding CO2. So that proves that CO2 is the cause of warming since 1950.
The fact that the models can’t replicate the warming prior to 1950, with or without CO2 just isn’t relevant.
Decades ago?
You mean during the ice age scare?
Or you mean Hansens predictions that were 100% shit.
Or Manns mixing of satellite data with tree ring data ?
To begin with no such thing has been demonstrated.
Beyond that, there is nothing anomalous is happening in the modern climate.
Two lies in your first sentence. You are going for a record.
You’re lying. No such demonstration has been made, or, otherwise no sane or honest government would waste money on redundant research papers instead of investing in real mitigation and protection actions.
More like 88,000 that did not explicitly and overtly reject the CAGW theme.
The odds are that the vast majority of those papers did not address global warming in any way, shape or form.
”case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas.
So let me get this right. The climate was changing before the use of fossil fuels. But with the advent of fossil fuels, natural climate change stopped and humans took it over. Rrrright, so ”any meaningful discussion” about why this is so is case is closed??? And people wonder why there is scepticism to this new religion.
Why do they need so many? Only 1 paper is needed if it is correct.
(paraphrased from Einstein)
You people just do not understand how this works…if you are making up numbers you get to pick any number you want. It doesn’t have to be supported by any facts because it’s made up.
Kind of like AGW – just make up anything you want to support your view and make certain to “cancel” anybody who disagrees.
I am so canceled I am surprised I still show up in a mirror. 😀
Their 97% in 2013 turned out to actually be 7% on analysis of the 11,000 climate papers selected. 75% of them didnt mention CC or CAGW and so were rejected from the study! In any case, we reached Peak windmills and solar panels in 2018-2019. Apparently the last year for showing an increase in renewables percentage of the total electrical generating mix was 10yrs ago. They increased in numbers, but didn’t keep pace with fossil fuels.
Arising from the ideology and policies of madmen, this winter in Europe could be the worst manmade peacetime human disaster ever. Supply chains broken, empty food shelves, skyrocketing prices for fossil fuels (to quote from an Obama speech) for heating and tranport and industry (jobs) and agriculture. Boris The Terrible and the EU Marxists will go down in infamy when the history is written.
Blaming the Russians won’t work. UK and EU refused long term supply contracts at $3/million BTU (the price that Hungary, Serbia and Turkey agreed to with much shaming from empty headed Brussels bureaucrats. Now its probably higher than the recently quoted word spot price of $40!
The only plus to this debacle is the NWO marxists’ putsch will be over at last and quickly. Even the 3 generations of deluded folk lobotomized by their ‘education’ will break ranks with their masters out an end to it
The consensus is affirmed in a conditional set a la vaccine safety and efficacy. It’s a democratic thing that undermines social and scientific integrity.
You give them far too much credit. The 97% turned out to be 2%. They found over 3,000 papers with an opinion on the cause of warming, and only 64 said it was mostly human (Cook et al). Two other papers didn’t even check whether authors stated were mostly human, but if they said humans had any effect (Doran&Zimmerman and Oreskes). A fourth, Anderegg, used assumptions as data; the actual result was that nearly twice as many scientists outright opposed the IPCC claims as supported them, with an unknown number in between.
Yep it surely is getting warmer. Why, 100 years ago it was only 99.9% as hot as it is nowadays.
They “examined” 3,000 or roughly 2.6% of the papers. What does examine mean? Did they read them? Probably not. Did they control for implicit bias? Doubtful. Seems like a case of “assume your conclusions and you’ll conclude your assumptions.”
“Examined” means they submitted them to a computer for a simple textual search for certain phrases. So, they didn’t read them.
The science is so settled that they spend more time re-affirming it than actually doing it. Especially before COP’s.
It’s a busted flush.
How many atmospheric quantum molecular spectroscopists’ papers were included in all of this. Noone outside of that discipline has any valid basis for opinion on the extent of greenhouse effect warming. I read Wijngarten and Happer on the subject and found it rather compelling. However since my atmospheric molecular spectroscopy is only at undergrad level and that 50 years ago, my opinion on the subject is worthless like Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth except Kev and Mikie think they know better but maybe Al Gore just told them so.
humans cause enviromental changes … nobody disagrees … so what ? unless they define what changed (they don’t) they can’t begin to attribute it to humans … and they certainly can’t attribute it to CO2 …
Okay… This is absurd. Humans do alter the planet – which alters the climate from it’s pure none altered by human state. In point of fact I would argue humans ‘changed’ the climate when they killed all the buffalo. I can promise that the climate has changed due to large cities that have been built.
The question is not ‘is the climate changing’ but is it getting WORSE. Is it a crisis? SHOULD WE BE WORRIED. That is like saying that humans have changed the make up of the mix of atmospheric gases – well duh.
I am so tired over this stupid debate. I AM SKEPTICAL not of the science of Climate Change – I am Skeptical of its CONCLUSIONS.
I am also SKEPTICAL of the way people cherry pick data sources and proxy data ( on both sides )
This has NOTHING to do with the absurd idea that humans do not effect change in the environment. OF COURSE WE DO. Does that make it BAD?
So tired… SO SO SO tired at foolish metrics.
….More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree….
or
in Montgomery county, Maryland, USA 99.9% of adult population is fully or partly vaccinated, average household income is US$99,900,
When you pay your money you are free to believe the story teller’s fables if inclined so.
“ In spite of such results…”
How many papers are based on models?
Consensus is a political term
Well, that just means that 99.9% of climate studies are false.😀
“Any paper that didn’t state a few keywords must agree with us.”
By that methodology, it can be claimed the Washington Post and New York Times agree that Trump won in 2020 because most of their articles don’t use the words ‘legitimate’ or ‘proven’.
I’m not at all surprised by the number of papers. When you offer big bucks for “research” that is supposed to find that climate change is caused primarily by human activity, you get a lot of such papers. It’s all about responding to the market.
This post would have been more useful if it laid out the arguments for WHY the claim was unsupportable. We need ammunition out here!
Since COP26 is very close, has the file all.7z been opened yet?
The whole Net Zero campaign is founded on the self delusions and confirmation bias of the academic establishment consensus model forecasts . The main stream Media notably the BBC ,Guardian, NBC ,ABC, CBS,PBS have been the greatest sources of false news. They have produced a generation of scared and psychologically disturbed teenagers and green fanatics who believe that the world has no future if fossil fuels continue to be used. The effect of C02 on temperature is immeasurably small. There is no CO2 caused climate crisis. It is left to sites like WUWT and the Blogosphere in general to question and discuss the basic science on which the disastrous Net Zero policies are based. See my paper at
“Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals”
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Excerpts:
“Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur. ……………………..
Solar Activity and Temperature Correlations
Fig 4 The NRLTSI2 Solar Activity – CET Relationship 1600- Present (25,26,27)
In Figure 4 the Roth & Joos Cosmogenic Index (CI) is used as the emergent proxy for the solar activity driver of the resulting emergent global and NH temperature data.
The CI designation here integrates changes in solar magnetic field strength, TSI, EUV, IMF, Solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, the BZ sign and changes in the GCR neutron count which modulates cloud cover and thus albedo.
The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends, of the combined effect of these solar and GCR drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Figure 4 shows an increase in CI of about 2 W/m 2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak. This increase, together with the other solar “activity” variations modulate the earth’s temperature and albedo via the GR flux and varying cloud cover.
The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.
The temperature increase since the1680s is due to the up- leg in the natural solar ” activity” Millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” (ibid). Figure 4 also shows the correlation between the CI driver and the Central England Seasonal Temperatures. (27). The 1650 – 1700 (Maunder), 1810 – 20 (de Vries/Dalton), and the 1890-1900 (Gleissberg) minima are obvious. The Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point (MSATP) at 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Turning Point (MTTP) at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
The CET in Figure 4 shows that this up-leg in the CET has an annual absolute temperature Millennial cycle amplitude of at least 16.5 +/- degrees C. Using the Millennial cycle lengths of Figure 3 at least that same amount of future cooling from the 2004 high is probable by the winters of 2,680-2700 +/-. These temperature changes correlate very well with the changes in energy flow from the sun shown in Figure 4 without any measurable effect of C02 levels.
Fig 5 Correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. (28,29)
The Oulu CR data shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/-.There is a new solar activity minimum at 2009. As in Fig.4 the MSATP at 1991 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. Short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos.
Temperature Predictions
Loeb et al 2018 in “Changes in Earths Energy budget during and after the “Pause” in Global Warming”(30) provided an important observational database from 1998 – 2018.This
showed that a reduction in global mean reflected short wave top of atmosphere flux in the three years following the hiatus resulted from decreased low cloud cover which added to the 2016 El Nino temperature spike.
Figure 5 also predicts SST3gl and Specific Humidity trends from 2022 – 2037. (Blue and Purple dashed lines) The secular change in the Solar Activity to a lower base level after 2007 projects to 2021. The SST3gl general decline trend from 2021 to 2037 is here projected as the reverse of the increase from 1983 – 2004 with the cycle 24 peak projected at 2028 and the cycle 25 peak at 203………………………………………….
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/9 was + 0.25 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in ”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2.”
See also the published paper from Energy and Environment 2017
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
The key point in Fig.5 is the Peak of the natural solar activity cycle at 1991/2.
Note the range in Fig 4 is 2 W/m2 Anthropogenic. CO2 has no measurable effect on Temperature. See Fgs 1 – 10 and tex
Have any of the following questions been addressed? What is the optimal temperature of the earth? What is the optimal co2 concentration of the atmosphere? How is it that a molecule eith a concentration of 0.04% controls all of the climate? Have there been warmer periods in earth’s history? Have there been colder? Are human beings living longer than before the industrial revolution? Shall I continue? I just a country pharmacist who can read. Thank you.
David, I have been asking your first two questions for years and have yet to get an answer.
I know that about 10% of the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe between 2012 and 2007 don’t jive with each other. (ie 2012 record highs are lower that 2007 record highs for the same day, etc.)
Just what data did these papers use?
If the root of the data is corrupted, can the fruit, the conclusions, be anything but corrupted?
It seems that, yet again, the science is settled and nothing new can be learned about climate. In other words it is beyond any debate as this would be would be futile. I have never heard of any branch of science, let alone one so much still in its’ infancy, that would be so arrogant and dismissive of proper debate and discussion. The progress of science in it’s search for knowledge and understanding is absolutely dependant on listening to counter-arguements, new hypotheses, challenges to those which are out-moded and, above all upon free and open debate. The conduct of climate science at present is an absolute disgrace and brings shame on the profession. It is far too enmeshed in politics, finance, ideology to make any real progress towards gaining the necessary knowledge and understanding on which to base sound policies.
Unless they register all scientists and have them vote on the validity of the AGW conjecture it is all a matter of speculation. It is also meaningless because science is not done that way. Science is not a democracy. Scientific theories are not validated by means of a voting process or some other form of a popularity contest. For example a very important part of the AGW conjecture is that CO2 based warming must cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere and that additional H2O amplifies CO2 warming because H2O is also a so called greenhouse gas. But the undeniable reality is that H2O is a net coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So H2O must act to reduce any warming that CO2 might cause. That is fact and cannot be changed by different opinions or popularity. The AGW conjecture may sound plausible to many but upon closer analysis it is based on only partial science and is full of holes and no popularity contest can change that.
If consensus really was the defining arbiter of facts we would not need scientists.
Clearly at the moment we need some scientists to write stuff, otherwise there would not be a possibility of establishing consensus among scientists. But as scientists are made obsolete, by the consensus trumps all scientific sceptics policy, what point is there having any scientists?
In future we should just have a show of hands to define everything and once the consensus has been established nothing more needs to be done. That research activity we have been wasting so much time and effort on, not to mention state funds, could all be saved
I am suspecting BBC logic is in play, with this latest consensus is king movement..
Let’s no platform scientists and have “BBC” placards on anti science demos.
“BBC” as in Bring Back Consensus,
Uh, just because a paper was not found by their questionable methodology to be “skeptical” does not by default mean it therefore endorses anthropogenic factors as being the cause of climate change. Very likely a high percentage of papers take no position at all.
If this sort of study has been passed through peer review, things are far worse than I thought.
When you start with a premise you usually prove that premise.
The Cook et al Paper (2013) is not credible.
See “ Fraud ,Bias and Public Relations- The ‘97% Consensus’and its critics” by Andrew Montford at the GWPF.
The Lynas et al paper is equally unconvincing.
The cherry-picking is built into the funding mechanisms, you frackin’ idiots! It’s built in to the whole tendentious IPCC process, and built in to the political correctness and wokery of major research universities.
Pull your damn heads out and feel the sunshine, again.
I would have thought that given that humans have only been around for, lets be generous and say 300k years, that the 99.9% of studies was the result of a not very widely cast net.
Without reading every paper how can you possibly make pronouncements like this? You find the words “natural cycles”, but in what context? Similarly with all the other phrases. Just another pathetic attempt at manipulating public opinion. And that’s what it is. No scientist will ever bother to read it, which is the whole point of publishing a scientific paper. Pure propaganda.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.
it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” Any, every, & all effort to shut down enquiring minds that may raise questions or challenge the claims, how quaintly Orwellian, I feel we are in need of a real life V for Vendetta to make them warmist rent seekers tread more cautiously!!!
This is a rampant political paper devoid of scientific ethics.
It is obvious that this survey excluded all those potentially sceptical papers which failed to get published due to the woke/commercial views of media editors and the reluctance of scientists to publish due to the likely effect on their career prospects.
“algorithm”
There you have it in one word. You find what you are looking for.
Scientism by Paperism. If you cannot prove it – just use pretense to pretend proof.
The whole consensus nonsense is merely proof of the observation that it is very difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on not understanding it.
Amazingly, exactly the same percentage who realize their funding is predicated on it!
Reading between the lines. The Paper has an algorithm that they defined in software to search “FOR” skeptical papers. The assumption is that ALL of the other papers SUPPORT human caused climate change. This is more voodoo science. We don’t even know if the algorithm accurately finds skeptical papers … as nowhere in the summary do they hint that they verified the algorithm.
It could very well be that of 88,000 papers, 1% are skeptical, 1% are alarmist and the rest don’t have anything to do with the topic.
Insane people tend to believe insane things. Sane people tend only to believe insane things when they are heavily financially invested in them. A Dutchman who was invested in Tulip Mania in the 17th century (when everyone with 2 gilders to rub together was invested in the tulip ‘market’) would have told you that you were insane, when you told him he would soon lose everything he owned; in1637 he lost everything.
.