Earth's temperature certainly can be measured. Earth's increasing temperature means climate is changing.
It would be possible for one paper to destroy a cosensus - Einstein is an example. That is a rare kind of event. Normally, one paper is one paper. We haven't seen anyone publish the kind of paper you propose. Anyone who did so would be famous.
It has been done MANY times already! Example: Smirnov, 2018 2X CO2 = 0.4ºC) (2X AnthroCO2 = 0.02ºC) From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect. Warmists have been fighting that reality for years...……. Besides that Consensus doesn't establish science, REPRODUCIBLE papers does that.
Posted this yesterday: HERE ========================================================================== CO2 Climate sensitivity has been declining for years now. Positive Feedback has not showed up, just the basic CO2 warm forcing effect is all we can see and it is diminishing over time.
Gee you are quickly bailing out, you are welcome to stop replying my supported fact and databased replies.
Here are the confirmed unsupported replies from Tecoyah in this thread, to my postings: Post 1038: Post 1040: Post 1046: Post 1047: Post 1057: Post 1061: posted a video calling me a bridge Troll. To sum it up, the child Tecoyah, provided ZERO evidence, and ZERO data to all these replies he sent to me, Meanwhile I post charts, definitions, all with links to back them up in MY postings, yet has the gall to call me a Troll. What a wanker.....
The catch is that single bits posted by you with no comment from the majority of all climatologists just doesn't measure up. We have significant science organizations - NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, etc. There are similar organizations throughout the world. Yet you suggest I change my mind because of your post?
I posted an actual published paper, there are another 100 more I could post, but YOU make clear you are not interested in talking about it. Your loss.
The climate is always changing. We have been warming for over 30,000 years now, why should the next 300 years be any different. Here is my question though. Do you think the problem is the emission of CO2? Because in the last 25 years we have down enough rainforest to absorb all of our annual CO2 emissions, and we are cutting them down even faster than ever. Funny, how nobody ever talks about that giant elephant in the room. We cut down enough rainforest every year to absorb over 9 million metric tons of CO2, and we have been doing that for decades. This year and last we have destroyed the ability of the planet to absorb 18 million tons of CO2. By next year, those 3 years we destroyed enough rainforest to absorb 27 million tons of CO2 emissions. I have been saying for over a decade that these 'scientists" are completely ignoring the obvious. How about finding a way to stop the cutting of rainforests? If we can do just that things should return to "normal" within a quarter of a century.
There are large numbers of published papers on climate change. Finding one that appears to you to be in conflict with the overall consensus among climatologists isn't that difficult. Accepting science by picking a paper you like and ignoring the reasons the vast majority believe you are wrong is not a legitimate approach. And, NOBODY on this board should be looking at one paper and making a decision of any kind.
Climatologists know about stuff like climate change through history and deforestation. So, you could save 27 million tons of CO2 by stopping people from clearing rainforests. But, automobile emissions worldwide are nearly 1,000 times more significant than that - 24 BILLION tons. Even relatively small improvements in transportation could save more than stopping the cutting of rainforests - a solution that requires major economic change in a relatively small number of countries that are far from being wealthy. Right now we're not even seeing the US government (home of the highest per capita CO2 emissions) accepting the notion that there is a climate problem to solve!! The Senate has a Republican majority and this issue of SCIENCE has been turned into an issue of PARTISANSHIP. How phenomenally stupid is THAT?
https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/13/extremes/#more-24939 Extremes by Judith Curry Politics versus science in attributing extreme weather events to manmade global warming. If you follow me on twitter, you may have noticed that I was scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Jun 12 [link]. The subject of the Hearing is Contending with Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change. Late on Jun 10, I received an email telling me that the Hearing is postponed (as yet unscheduled). Apparently the Committee finds it more urgent to have a Hearing related to holding the Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce in contempt of Congress [link]. Interesting to ponder that Congressional procedural issues are deemed to be more important than Climate Change. So I spent all last week working on my testimony (which is why there have been no new blog posts). I hope the Hearing will eventually happen (Michael Mann is also scheduled to testify). Hurricanes and climate change constitute a major portion of my testimony. You may recall my recent series on Hurricanes & climate change [link]. Specifically with regards to detection and attribution, my bottom line conclusion was: “In summary, the trend signal in hurricane activity has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes. Man Made climate change may have caused changes in hurricane activity that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of these changes compared to estimated natural variability, or due to observational limitations. But at this point, there is no convincing evidence that man made global warming has caused a change in hurricane activity.” I’m sure many would dismiss this conclusion as ‘denial’, in spite of the extensive documentation and logic of my arguments. Lets dig into: the latest from the hurricane researchers ‘storylines’ from non-hurricane researchers why blaming extreme events on AGW is important in ‘winning’ the public debate what happens when scientists get in the way of AGW activist ‘scare stories’ about extreme events ‘scaring the children’ strategies
Tell us all about those dastardly traffic jams in the primitive parts of Africa? Explain the same problem all over South America. Especially among the poor!!! Indonesia must be a hot bed of global heaters or did you mention that?
Not testifying before the House is undoubtedly disappointing to Curry. Curry does have some good ideas that Democrats are interested in. But, they just aren't going to be implemented with a divided congress and a president who doesn't care about checks and balances or the laws passed by congress or climate change.