How to improve climate modeling and prediction

They can’t reduce the uncertainty because they will be forced to admit serious errors. What makes their position so preposterous, is even their lower bound for the effect of the next W/m^2 is significantly larger than the effect of the average W/m^2 while their upper bound effect from the next W/m^2 is about 5x times larger than the steady state effect of the first, last and average W/m^2 of actual solar forcing. COE requires that each average W/m^2 of solar input MUST contribute equally to the resulting average surface emissions. THIS IS AN IMMUTABLE REQUIREMENT OF FIRST PRINCIPLES PHYSICS THAT”S ABJECTLY IGNORED BY THE IPCC AND THE SELF SERVING CONSENSUS IT FABRICATED AROUND THE REPORTS IT GENERATES.

Examining the climate sensitivity in the energy domain makes their erroneous analysis so obvious they should be embarrassed to even suggest such insanity. To see this clearly, the many layers of obfuscation and misdirection between the physics and the presumed sensitivity must to be peeled back.

We start with the LINEAR physical sensitivity which in the energy domain is expressed as W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar input. The requirement of COE that each W/m^2 must have the same influence on the surface emissions is what infers linearity. For Earth, this is about 1.62 W/m^2 of average surface missions per W/m^2 of average forcing.

The first level of misdirection is to convert a linear relationship into a non linear one by converting the output W/m^2 into a change in temperature using the SB Law resulting in a temperature sensitivity of 0.3C per W/m^2 of solar forcing. The 1.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 resulting in an ECS of 0.3C per W/m^2 is certainly reasonable where the ‘feedback’ of 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is less than the forcing, as also required by COE. They convert W/m^2 of output into a temperature because while 1.6C per W/m^2 sounds plausible, the roughly 6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing required for the high end ECS of 1.6C per W/m^2 is obviously impossible because the extra 5 W/m^2 in excess of the forcing required to offset the emissions has no identifiable source. In other words, 1 W/m^2 of forcing would requires 5 W/m^2 of magic positive ‘feedback’ and no amount of pixie dust can create this much energy out of thin air. If each W/m^2 from the Sun resulted in this much feedback, as COE requires, the average surface temperature would be well over 100C.

A sensitivity of 0.3C per W/m^2 is too small for the IPCC to be relevant and corresponds to only about 1.1C for doubling CO2 since doubling CO2 is presumed to be equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 more solar energy while keeping the system, i.e. CO2 concentrations, constant. Of course, they don’t actually tell you about this equivalence and instead try to convince the world that the 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent ‘forcing’ from doubling CO2 is new energy equivalent to energy arriving from the Sun and is added to that solar energy, which once more is an obvious violation of COE since the origin of all W/m^2 of feedback power is surface emissions arising from previous solar forcing that have been absorbed by the atmosphere and returned back to the surface at a later time.

So to hide this, they add another level of indirection by calling the sensitivity the change in surface temperature arising from doubling CO2. They do this so they can plausibly add magic amplification from positive feedback by calling the steady state average effect of the next W/m^2 of 0.3C per W/m^2 the ‘zero feedback’ sensitivity which is then massively amplified by positive feedback, while in truth, this is the final steady state sensitivity after all feedback like effects, positive, negative, known and unknown have had their entire effect on each and every W/m^2 of actual forcing from the Sun. Then they magically apply an unstable amount of positive feedback to amplify this by as much as a factor of 5 to achieve the high end of their presumptive ECS even as the laws of physics precludes their low end from being possible since any amount of feedback in excess of 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is both unstable and requires the otherwise missing implicit power supply or else it also violates COE.

In fact, any physical sensitivity in excess of 2 W/m^2 of surface missions per W/m^2 of forcing can be trivially shown as violating COE as it would require the excess W/m^2 replacing the emissions to be magically created out of thin air. This is a direct result of the atmosphere emitting what it absorbs in roughly equal proportions to space contributing to the planets energy balance and back to the surface contributing to the surface energy balance. The absolute upper limit is when the atmosphere absorbs all W/m^2 emitted by the surface. If the surface emits 2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing and all is absorbed by the atmosphere, 1 W/m^2 of this absorption is returned to the surface to offset the W/m^2 of emissions in excess of the forcing while the other W/m^2 of absorption is emitted into space to offset the forcing. This establishes a hard limit on the maximum possible physical energy domain sensitivity of 2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing and their lower limit of 1.5C per W/m^2 of forcing already exceeds this upper limit dictated by first principles. They get confused by considering Venus as a proxy for Earth and consider that every W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere is ultimately returned to the surface, which couldn’t be more wrong.

Any scientist who accepts the IPCC’s insane quantification of the ECS should give back their degree(s) as they obviously didn’t learn first principles thermodynamics. Moreover; any skeptical scientist who doesn’t point out the obvious violations of COE is equally culpable for allowing the horribly broken science coming out of the IPCC to persist. If fact, it’s an embarassment to all skeptical scientists that this obvious and immutable truth hasn’t already resulted in the IPCC’s and UNFCCC’s dissolution.