This was written by a meteorologist?

Guest “I’ve lost track of how many things this guy got wrong” by David Middelton

WEATHER

Humans are causing climate change: It’s just been proven directly for the first time

by: David Yeomans

Posted: Apr 5, 2021 / 04:00 PM CDT / Updated: Apr 6, 2021 / 07:04 AM CDT

AUSTIN (KXAN) — While it’s now common knowledge that man-made greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat at the Earth’s surface and cause global temperatures to rise, it’s never been proven 100% by conclusive, direct, and observational data.

But that’s now changed.

In a first-of-its-kind study, academic researchers along with NASA scientists are quantifying the direct impact that human activity is having on our climate system — and proving human activity is to blame for recent warming trends.

Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis where heat energy coming in to the atmosphere was equivalent to energy going out. Note that the sun brings incoming heat energy, and the Earth itself gives off outgoing energy to maintain balance.

There is a natural greenhouse effect caused by the aerosols and clouds in our atmosphere…

[…]

KXAN

“Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis…”

Horst schist! Ever hear of the Little Ice Age?

Figure 1. CPS with historical climate periods and Neoglaciation (Grosjean et al., 2007)

Or maybe the 1970’s?

Without the roughly 0.8 °C of warming since 1975, that allegedly can’t be explained by natural factors alone, we’d still be waiting for The Ice Age Cometh!

Figure 2. Modeled human climate forcing compared to three instrumental records (see Terando for specifics)

Even if humans are the primary cause of the warming since 1975, the fracking climate was doing this before we mucked up the “stable, harmonious stasis”!

Figure 3. HadCRUT4 Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly (°C) 1952-1976, Wood for Trees.

How about the Pleistocene? Ever hear of that?

Figure 4.  Late Quaternary temperature reconstruction for Central Greenland from the GISP1 ice core (after Alley, 2000).
Figure 5. CPS with historical climate periods and Neoglaciation (Grosjean et al., 2007), Early Holocene ice extent map (Dyke et al., 2003) and Alps tree line altitude (Bohleber et al., 2021).

“There is a natural greenhouse effect caused by the aerosols and clouds in our atmosphere…”

Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas”… Clouds aren’t water vapor.

Clouds are not water vapor. Water vapor is the gas state of H2O and is invisible.

West Texas A&M University

Aerosols do not cause the “greenhouse effect.”

Aerosols: Tiny Particles, Big Impact
Take a deep breath. Even if the air looks clear, it’s nearly certain that you’ll inhale tens of millions of solid particles and liquid droplets. These ubiquitous specks of matter are known as aerosols, and they can be found in the air over oceans, deserts, mountains, forests, ice, and every ecosystem in between. They drift in Earth’s atmosphere from the stratosphere to the surface and range in size from a few nanometers—less than the width of the smallest viruses—to several several tens of micrometers—about the diameter of human hair. Despite their small size, they have major impacts on our climate and our health.

[…]

The bulk of aerosols—about 90 percent by mass—have natural origins. Volcanoes, for example, eject huge columns of ash into the air, as well as sulfur dioxide and other gases, yielding sulfates.

[…]

Aerosols and Incoming Sunlight (Direct Effects)
The Sun provides the energy that drives Earth’s climate, but not all of the energy that reaches the top of the atmosphere finds its way to the surface. That’s because aerosols—and clouds seeded by them—reflect about a quarter of the Sun’s energy back to space.

[…]

NASA

The first-of-its-kind study mentioned aerosols…. Didn’t you read it?

Abstract
Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space‐based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all‐sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53±0.11 W/m2 from 2003 through 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well‐mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.

Kramer et al., 2021

Willis discussed the paper in this WUWT post… Losing Ones Balance. It’s interesting. It might even have some merit… But this graph from Mr. Yeomans’ article doesn’t have any climatological merit, even if it is correct…

Figure 6. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature trends since 1880 (Climate Central)

Figure 7. “A funny thing happened on the way to the Anthropocene.”

If the only difference between the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic episode of the Holocene Epoch, is about 130 ppm CO2… Then CO2 isn’t such a bad thing.

References

Alley, R.B. 2000.  “The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.” Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.

Bohleber, P., Schwikowski, M., Stocker-Waldhuber, M. et al. New glacier evidence for ice-free summits during the life of the Tyrolean Iceman. Sci Rep 10, 20513 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77518-9

Dyke, A.S., Moore, A. and L. Robertson. [computer file]. Deglaciation of North America. Geological Survey of Canada Open File 1547. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, 2003.

Grosjean, Martin, Suter, Peter, Trachsel, Mathias & Wanner, Heinz. (2007). “Ice‐borne prehistoric finds in the Swiss Alps reflect Holocene glacier fluctuations”. Journal of Quaternary Science. 22. 203 – 207. 10.1002/jqs.1111.

Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C. et al. Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci Data 7, 201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7

MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins. 2006. “The Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O Ice Core Records Extended to 2000 years BP”. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810 10.1029/2006GL026152. LINK Data

Monnin, E., et al.. 2004. EPICA Dome C Ice Core High Resolution Holocene and Transition CO2 Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series # 2004-055.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Terando, A., Reidmiller, D., Hostetler, S.W., Littell, J.S., Beard, T.D., Jr., Weiskopf, S.R., Belnap, J., and Plumlee, G.S., 2020, Using information from global climate models to inform policymaking—The role of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2020–1058, 25 p.,
https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201058.

4.8 19 votes
Article Rating
119 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 8, 2021 10:07 am

Aerosols have a cooling effect, though less as previously thought.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 10:51 am

Sulfate aerosols cool climate less than assumed
May 14, 2013
Sulfur dioxide is as antagonist of greenhouse gases less effective than previously assumed. It forms sulfate aerosol particles in the air, which reflect sunlight, and as so-called cloud condensation nuclei influence the chemical processes within clouds. Therefore, sulfate aerosol particles help to cool the earth, making them an important factor in climate models. However, a team around researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry found out that it is likely most models overestimate the cooling effect of these particles. The reason is a largely disregarded reaction pathway catalysed by mineral dust within clouds, which has a strong influence on the life span of sulfate aerosol particles and their ability to reflect sunlight.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 10:59 am

Which is exactly what is done in “tuning” the models.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  John Tillman
April 8, 2021 6:29 pm

Definition #1: adjusting various computer code “fudge factors”, retroactively, to make sure the models hindcast climate trends reasonably well . . . the unscientific implication being that if they do that they will then be reasonably accurate predicting future climate trends.

Definition #2: adjusting the code “fudge factors” to make the models agree with what the AGW proponents claim will happen, so as to insure the maximum flow of money to those running the models, particularly for the IPCC and Biden administration.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 11:07 am

That paper was a big surprise at the time, I remember well 😀

Aerosol particles cool the climate less than we thought
The impact of atmospheric aerosols on clouds and climate may be different than previously thought. That is the conclusion of cloud researcher Franziska Glassmeier from TU Delft. The results of her study will be published in Science on Friday, January 29th.

A newer paper

Last edited 14 days ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 2:21 pm

Most didn’t realise, that less cooling by aerolols implicate less warming by CO2…

Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 8, 2021 12:04 pm

…less effective than previously assumed…

In other words, after they correct their models, the result will be: “It’s worse than we thought”?
I am so surprised…

Paul
Reply to  paranoid goy
April 8, 2021 6:49 pm

That is the only answer permitted to exist.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 9, 2021 5:17 am

“Therefore, sulfate aerosol particles help to cool the earth, making them an important factor in climate models.”

It’s a good thing they are so important to climate models. I would hate for them to be that important to the real world.

whiten
Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 12:29 pm

Yeah true Dave, but as far as what you address for whatever reason under “weather”, supposedly it could have some merit.

Otherwise as per “climate”… the data is pretty clear thus far…
Yes it could be contemplated that way or many other ways,
as just to be fair enough, somehow as to be considered as balanced,
or politically correct,
to all possible kinds of weirding worships…
But no anywhere as with any merit, above or beyond the
zero point zero line. 🙂

Sorry to put it this way, but you too,
somehow still under the spell of
Radiative Theory of Climate.

Whatever,
good luck with it, Dave.

🙂

cheers

Last edited 14 days ago by whiten
garboard
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 8, 2021 12:36 pm

don’t forget cosmic dust

E. Schaffer
April 8, 2021 10:43 am

“There is a natural greenhouse effect caused by the aerosols and clouds in our atmosphere”

But NOT by GHGs??? The confusion is strong in David!

Let’s get serious. Why would clouds even cause a GHE, if their net effect was cooling? You could only argue this, if you take the cloud albedo (SWCF) as given, and then find there also is a LWCF and call this GHE. In reality, since these are literally two sides of one cloud and thus inseparable, that is already confused stupidity. But actually it is far worse.

Clouds are not net cooling at all, but rather warming the planet. Both SWCF and LWCF as measured by satellites (ERBE, CERES..) are total non sense. It is easy to show the mistake if we use the linked modtran “calculator”:

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html

Let us play through 4 different scenarios with it. We keep the “tropical” scenario as loaded by default and then make some adaptions.

1. GHGs as they are, no clouds or rain: 298.5W/m2 in emissions
2. GHGs as they are, altostratus clouds top 3.0km: 269W/m2 in emissions
3. GHGs all set to 0, no clouds or rain: 443.7W/m2 in emissions
4. GHGs all set to 0, altostratus clouds top 3.0km: 350.7W/m2 in emissions

LWCF is defined as the difference in emissions between clear skies and (average) cloudy skies. The difference between 1. and 2. is 29.5W/m2. So in this case the “altostratus top 3.0km” causes a LWCF of 29.5W/m2.

If we do away with all GHGs (that is setting all 6 fields in the left, upper position to 0), the same modelled altostratus cloud reduces emissions by 93W/m2. In absence of GHGs the LWCF for the same cloud has grown from 29.5W/m2 to 93W/m2, over 3 times as large!!!

How comes? It is quite obvious, GHGs and clouds are largely overlapped. If you determine LWCF (as it is being done) only as the difference between clear and (average) cloudy skies, that overlapped part is allocated to GHGs only. Although this is logically wrong, it is great if you have a politcal agenda where you want to overstate the significance of GHGs, and downplay that of clouds.

Of course, as a consequence, all these satellite data based assessments of cloud forcing are total garbage, which ironically no one seems to take note of. Or even care about. At least David Y. is not so lonely with his confusion..

Jim Gorman
Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 3:57 pm

Thank you for using the correct terminology of retarding cooling. Net heat transfer is what causing warming. Clouds do not have sufficient temperature to warm the earth, only retard its cooling rate.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  David Middleton
April 9, 2021 9:51 pm

So we’re okay as long as we don’t go full retard, right?

damp
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
April 10, 2021 1:47 pm

Never go full retard.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 4:43 pm

Yes, on the preceeding graph, the upper “eye” of 50 watts/ sq.M daily “average” is caused by nightime IR from thin high clouds. Low thick clouds do the same thing at night, but are much more effective sunlight reflectors during the day.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2021 8:55 pm

….oops, somehow became the following graph….

E. Schaffer
Reply to  David Middleton
April 9, 2021 7:09 am

What point are you trying to make? That nights are negligible???

DMacKenzie
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 8, 2021 4:28 pm

E. Schaffer, it is textbook stuff that low thick clouds cool the planet, and high cirrus tend to warm. On the following graph, Cirrus has optical depth of 3 or less. Overcast cumulus is >10, so you can see on the graph in the lower right hand region, clouds in general reject a lot of heat to outer space. However, sea surface temperature and the Clausius Clapeyron equation work together to yield a net cloud radiative effect visible by satellite that is a little bit negative or positive depending on your your calculation accuracy and the frequency bands you measure.
Hartmann’s standard textbook “Global Physical Climatology” section 3.12 explains it rather well, and his rather brilliant lecture slides are at https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/321_Lecture_9.pdf

198CEF9F-2A64-4FC7-A92B-0ECAEC37E6D7.jpeg
DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2021 5:17 pm

BTW, that graph is by Corti and Peter , Fig 4c, at
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/9/5751/2009/acp-9-5751-2009.pdf and is not paywalled.
Plus see Judith Curry’s
“A Parameterization of Ice Cloud Optical Properties for Climate Models”
from 1992 for earlier work.

Last edited 13 days ago by DMacKenzie
E. Schaffer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 9, 2021 7:07 am

It honors you that you can read a text book. It does not honor you quite as much, that you fail to read my post (like your fellow commentators). My critically important message resonates in no way in your response.

It is like me pointing out that the Earth is round, and you taking out a text book and reading me that it is flat. A “computer says no” moment..

I am aware of the text book, and I am just telling you it is wrong!

Btw. as it just occurs to me. Where would you put artificial cirrus clouds aka contrails in the chart you post? What would their NCF be like? And how would it affect global climate if we would put ever increasing amounts of it into the skies, starting say with the 1970s?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 9, 2021 7:32 am

The error in calculating heat transfer area between parallel flat surfaces and the area of concentric spheres at a radius of 6370 Km/ 6374 Km is 0.15 %. The area of contrails in the sky…is so much less that it doesn’t matter what their optical thickness is.

E. Schaffer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 9, 2021 8:42 am

???

DMacKenzie
Reply to  E. Schaffer
April 9, 2021 5:12 pm

Just for you, E Schaffer, contrails, 60 mW…see fig. 7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04068-0#Fig6

Last edited 12 days ago by DMacKenzie
Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2021 10:44 am

How much crap
Could a Climacraptologist crap
If a Climacraptologist could crap crap?

Jeffery P
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2021 11:04 am

Well, what else would he/she/they crap if not crap?

philincalifornia
Reply to  Jeffery P
April 8, 2021 2:03 pm

Hockey sticks ?? Ouch.

n.n
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2021 11:13 am

Brown matter is the terrestrial congruence to dark matter.

jmorpuss
Reply to  n.n
April 8, 2021 2:36 pm

To muck red wine turns brown matter into dark matter.

Scissor
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2021 1:03 pm

That deserves applause. Well done. 🙂

H. D. Hoese
April 8, 2021 10:49 am

Paywalled, but who edits these??? You don’t have to understand “radiative kernel technique.” Four years didn’t used to be “direct.”

Abstract—These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.
Plain language summary—-“This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past.”

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 8, 2021 11:00 am

Wouldt like to know too, what “kernels” are, in contrast to data ??? 😀

Last edited 14 days ago by Krishna Gans
Kevin kilty
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 8, 2021 12:05 pm

Indeed, the radiative kernels are like an impulse response function. I suppose the word kernel sounds more “sciency” but is the same thing. You integrate the kernel multiplied by an assumed input distribution, and the math goes around and down and down — what comes out here is a response.

Here is a comparison of several radiative kernels. Apart from a scale factor note how much the surface LW temperature kernel mimicks the atmospheric water vapor kernel. Surface albedo is inverse of surface temperature. Lots of correlation among them, thus difficult to figure source in an inversion of observated data.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Kevin kilty
April 8, 2021 12:12 pm

yikes! observated = observed!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Kevin kilty
April 8, 2021 1:26 pm

Kevin,
I like observated; it has a nice ring to it!
If the Climastrologists can make facts and data, we should at least be able to make up a few words! Maybe it could refer to data that is observed and adjusted like much of the alarmist brown matter!

Reply to  Kevin kilty
April 8, 2021 1:56 pm

A little bit French in it ? 😀

Fraizer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 8, 2021 2:10 pm

A little Eschenbachish

Johanus
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 8, 2021 8:46 pm

“AUSTIN (KXAN) — While it’s now common knowledge that man-made greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat at the Earth’s surface and cause global temperatures to rise, it’s never been proven 100% by conclusive, direct, and observational data.

“But that’s now changed.”

In a first-of-its-kind study, academic researchers along with NASA scientists are quantifying the direct impact that human activity is having on our climate system — and proving human activity is to blame for recent warming trends.”

This is main premise of the Kramer paper, which claims to provide proof of directly observed manmade forcings to global warming for the period 2003 to 2018. [The main link to the Kramer paper is indeed paywalled, but you can see that I found a public link to the author’s draft on researchgate.net website. Click on ‘Kramer paper’ to read the paper yourself]

The truth is that the “proof” of this premise is only partly based on observational data, but also depends on model-derived data (the so-called “kernel data”) from analysis of radiative forcings and their responses to forcings at top-of-atmosphere (TOA).

Kevin Kilty’s explanation of “kernels” as impulse-responses is essentially correct. Instantaneous forcings from various source, including GHG’s, cannot be directly observed at TOA because they are mixed (“convolved”) with the responses to these forcings. So, to nail GHG’s as a ‘culprit’, for example, we must learn how to deconvolve the responses from the initial impulses. Here’s where the models start to creep in.

An assumption is made (perhaps correctly, by virtually all climatologists, I believe) that these responses are simple linear “sensitivity” coefficients, modeled as the rate of radiation transfer with respect to a specified source parameter. (See Eq 3 [line 131] in the draft paper).

The main idea of this assumption is that detected energy balance at TOA (e.g. CERES data) can be deconvolved to ascertain the actual input of GHG’s, for example, to the overall radiation transfer scheme.

But they did not “observe” this data. They computed it from some initial observations AND assumptions and data from various models! So, I believe, the premise, as stated above, was not actually fulfilled. [Somebody correct me if it can be shown that their conclusion was supported directly and exclusively from observations.]

I quote from the draft paper, starting from around line 126:

“While no observational product measures the radiative response terms in isolation, they can be diagnosed using radiative kernels combined with observations of the relevant state variable, x (B. Zhang et al. 2019; Bony et al. 2020).”

and line 143:

“To diagnose dRx or dRCS x we use observational-based radiative kernels developed from the CloudSat Fluxes and Heating Rates product 2B-FLXHR-LIDAR (Kramer et al. 2019). Unlike GCM-derived radiative kernels, these kernels are free from model bias in the base state, and thus ideal for diagnosing observed radiation changes. Calculating Kx requires using a radiative transfer model to convert base state perturbations to radiative sensitivities. Therefore, using radiative kernels introduces some radiative-transfer model dependency…”

BTW, I have no problem with the use of models in this kind of work. Models are useful, and essential, for obtaining estimates of parameters which cannot be directly observed. That is how physics has always worked. The models become “laws of physics” only after they have been observed to be correct for a sufficiently long time.

But you cannot then assert (or imply) that the meme “Man-made GHG’s cause global warming” has been proven 100% by conclusive, direct, and observational data.

Last edited 13 days ago by Johanus
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Johanus
April 9, 2021 8:12 am

The huge problem is see with the paper is how they treat the Cloud Masking problem. Cloud masking cannot be observationally determined. Even with the models this a still a huge problem. Kramer, et al discus these “difficulties” (they call them difficulties) in the Supp Appendix manuscript. What they admit they did was simply substitute the into the divisor the “masking of IRF from CO2 perturbations” to get their final answer for the Cloud Masking they could not determine, saying they “assume” they are equal. They of course are in no way equal. How they got that thru the peer review testifies how broken peer review is at AGU pubs.

That action, regardless of the reason or justification they provide, turns that final answer into the very thing they were trying to find. Circular, self-affirming logic at work.

Johanus
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 9, 2021 10:02 am

Cloud masking cannot be observationally determined. 

Agreed. It is more like “fudged”, instead of “observed”.

Also troubling is the widespread use of historical short-term forecasts (MERRA-2 reanalysis) as a substitute for actual observations.

Robert of Texas
April 8, 2021 10:53 am

I will believe that water droplets are not actually gasses only when they build a model of it on a computer and adjust the data. Models after all, define reality – not your silly sciency-stuff. (Yes, sarcasm)

Meanwhile, all my hot-temperature drought resistant shrubs and hedges are wiped out due to cold. Maybe I should just plant rocks.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 8, 2021 8:05 pm

Robert, just imagine if the scientologists are somehow able to warp us back to the LIA, you too can live in a zone 3 climate like we do in calgary and worry that a real cold snap will prevent you growing tulips, an ice plant

commieBob
April 8, 2021 11:05 am

The late twentieth century warming is virtually indistinguishable from the early twentieth century warming.

The alarmists are natural variability deniers. Follow the science folks. But what about Dr. Mann you ask. Because of his non-production of evidence in the Ball case, Mann has admitted that he and his hockey stick are frauds. To reiterate … follow the science folks … not the made-up crap.

Is there any difference between CAGW and a conspiracy theory?

n.n
Reply to  commieBob
April 8, 2021 11:22 am

Intuitive (e.g. cargo cult), consensus (e.g. sociopolitical), and hypothetical (e.g. model) science masks (pun intended) observational, deductive, statistically significant philosophy and practice in a limited frame of reference (i.e. science).

Jerry Harben
Reply to  commieBob
April 9, 2021 1:49 pm

Good term — natural variability deniers.

Joel O'Bryan
April 8, 2021 11:16 am

On the Kramer, et al, AGU paper, Charles R posted it here at WUWT along with the NASA presser release on that a few days before Willis took it on as well.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/25/claim-direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

That’s when I first started looking at the paper, guessing Willis would take it on in short order since it dealt directly with CERES data analysis. The paper itself was not much on the way of surprising on deep insight to how they made their Instantaneous Radiative Forcing (IRF) calcs and adjusted for clouds (cloud fraction, CF).

I posted a comment in that Article suggesting folks go read read the Kramer paper’s Supplemental Appendix which is Openly accessible.

That Supplement is worth reading to understand “how” they got the results that appear in the main paper. Keep in mind they estimate “All clear-sky IRF” = “Overall Clear sky TOA radiative imbalance (term: dR)” – (kernal derived clear sky responses). All clear sky IRF is then divided by “cloud masking constant” to get their all important “All sky IRF” from which they draw conclusion.

It is the Cloud masking constant (C1) that they admit they make a huge assumption which is where the extraction from Kramer’s central orifice (h/t Willis) occurs and the BS flow-eths forth.
Go read the Kramer, et al, Supplement for yourself to see what I mean. Go read the problems and difficulties trying to determine C1 from data, as they admit, and then what “magic” they use to get them to the conclusion they obviously desperately want.

Hint: (page 5, 3rd paragraph) They write there: “With these limitations, we assume the LW cloud masking is equivalent to the masking of IRF from CO2 perturbations in this study, ….”

Circular junk reasoning.
We know what happens when climate scientists “ass u me”.

Last edited 14 days ago by joelobryan
Mike Maguire
April 8, 2021 11:19 am

I’ve been a practicing meteorologist for 39 years. This guy must be applying the principles of the political atmosphere…… applying the same principles that Michael Mann uses to teach his disciples about climate politics. In those realms, you are allowed to apply subjective interpretations of all data to spin it to support and prove your preconceived notions. Those armed with all the authentic data and the scientific method understand its atmospheric politics. But it sells as mainstream science.

Pat Frank
April 8, 2021 11:21 am

What an utterly … “Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis where heat energy coming in to the atmosphere was equivalent to energy going out.” … stupid thing to aver.

Holocene climate variability.

Rousseau’s Eden, writ to planetary scale.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 8, 2021 11:52 am

The statement speaks to the romantic, religious view of a Garden of Eden, which Man has been forced to leave because of our evil use of fossil fuels. This isn’t an objective view of reality, but rather, an idealistic fantasy promoted by those whose support of Gaia are the basis of their religion.

Curious George
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 8, 2021 12:03 pm

Creationism at its best.

commieBob
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 8, 2021 1:41 pm

Oh for crying out loud! The Earth’s climate is just as stable as it ever was.

Reply to  commieBob
April 8, 2021 2:06 pm

Oh for crying out loud! The Earth’s climate is just as unstable as it ever was.

commieBob
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 8, 2021 2:17 pm

I recently ran into a woman I had known decades ago. I told her she was just as lovely as she was back then. She took it as a compliment.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  commieBob
April 8, 2021 3:48 pm

Was her name Karen??? I think I’ve met her.

Paul
Reply to  commieBob
April 8, 2021 6:59 pm

Beauty is only skin deep but ugly is to the bone.

commieBob
Reply to  Paul
April 8, 2021 8:18 pm

She ain’t pretty … she just looks that way.

TonyG
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 10, 2021 1:01 pm

That seems to be the doctrine today. It meshes with the pervasive mentality that seems to think history began less than 20 years ago.

Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 11:38 am

From the article: “While it’s now common knowledge that man-made greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat at the Earth’s surface and cause global temperatures to rise, it’s never been proven 100% by conclusive, direct, and observational data.”

The human element never been proven before now, but it’s common knowledge that it exists, according to the author. Yes, that’s just the way True Believer Alarmists think.

David Yeomans, the author, says we didn’t have conclusive proof before, although we assumed as much, but *now* we have definitive proof.

Mr. Yeomans, I don’t think this is proof, either. You will have to go back to assuming things not in evidence.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 2:08 pm

If it was only proven on April 5th, 2021, what was all that guff we’ve been bombarded with for 20 or 30 years?

Also, is kernel a new BBC word? Has existential run its sad course?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 10, 2021 7:54 am

“all that guff” was actually unsubstantiated speculation put forward as evidence.

OweninGA
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 3:38 pm

I prefer Inigo Montoyaesque version “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”. In the movie it was inconceivable, but in climate science it is the word “Proof”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  OweninGA
April 10, 2021 7:55 am

Yes, the meaning words are definitely being lost on some people.

David A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 9, 2021 2:27 am

The author in affect said…
“we didn’t have conclusive proof before, although we assumed as much, but *now* that we have assumed more, we have definitive assumptive proof.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David A
April 10, 2021 7:56 am

Yes, I think this author is still assuming too much. I’m pretty good at detecting evidence, and I don’t see any evidence here.

Last edited 12 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 11:45 am

And Figure 6., just perpetuates the Big Lie.

A legitimate temperature chart would show the 1930’s to be as warm as it is today. That would certainly screw up the comparisons between temperatures and CO2 levels.

That’s why the alarmists invented the bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart (one of which is shown in Figure 6) to misrepresent the temperature record of the world and make it appear that temperatures are marching “lock step” with the CO2 levels.

This is a Big Lie. This is the Big Lie that sells the Human-caused Climate Change scam. This is the Big Lie that needs to be debunked.

If you see a chart that does not show the Early Twentieth Century to be as warm as today, then you are looking at a misrepresentation of reality called a Hockey Stick chart.

Comparing such a chart to CO2 levels is meaningless.

fred250
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 12:19 pm

A legitimate temperature chart would show the 1930’s to be as warm as it is today.

.

That needs repeating in bold print

A legitimate temperature chart would show the 1930’s to be as warm as it is today.

GISS is an illegitimate barstardisation , not resembling any sort of reality.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
April 10, 2021 8:08 am

Here’s the temperature chart they should use instead of a Hockey Stick chart, the AMO chart. The AMO chart temperature profile is representative of all the regional surface temperture chart profiles from areas all over the world, which makes this temperature profile the *real* global temperature profile of the Earth, imo.

Overlay the Carbon Dioxide chart over this temperature chart. You get a whole different picture of the world we live in. It won’t show temperatures climbing in lockstep with CO2 levels like the bogus Hockey Stick charts show.

The “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick charts are deliberate distortions of reality. The regional surface temperature charts are the real reality, and they all show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which means that CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures.

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 10, 2021 8:21 am

Figure 6 is the ONLY thing the alarmists can point to that makes it appear that CO2 is connected to temperatures.

The alarmist temperature Data Manipulators created the bogus, instrument-era Hockey Stick charts for the specific purpose of making it appear that temperatures and CO2 levels are moving in lockstep.

This is the Big Lie. This is the only “evidence” the alarmists have. This bogus “evidence” is costing the world $Trillions of dollars in wasted spending.

All the regional surface temperature chart’s temperature profiles look like the AMO chart, where it shows temperatures were just as warm in the recent past as they are today.

None of the regional surface temperature charts have the “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart temperature profile.

The historic regional surface temperature charts were recorded by human beings who had no political biases regarding temperatures.

The bogus Hockey Stick charts were created by Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn to sell the Human-caused Climate Change scam.

Who you gonna believe?

Last edited 12 days ago by Tom Abbott
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2021 11:29 pm

Actually if you see a chart that has a single line representing “global temperature”, just start laughing, because it’s a joke.

April 8, 2021 12:08 pm

>>
Water vapor is the gas state of H2O and is invisible.
<<

I bet Greta Thunberg can SEE water vapor; just like she can SEE carbon dioxide.

Jim

Gordon A. Dressler
April 8, 2021 12:49 pm

Quoted from the above article: “We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all‐sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53±0.11 W/m2 from 2003 through 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance.” (my bold emphasis added) 

Hmmm . . . just wondering how those “radiative kernels” are consistent with the claim of “. . . it’s never been proven 100% by conclusive, direct, and observational data.”

Really, we’re to believe that applying “radiative kernels” is compatible with “direct and observation data”? Sorry, go sell your Brooklyn Bridge to somebody else.

Good grief.

fred250
April 8, 2021 12:55 pm

“Before the Industrial Revolution,”

There was the LIA, a period of brutal and highly erratic weather patterns that cuased great suffering to humans all around the globe, especially noted throughout Europe.

This is NOT a time we should be worshiping !!

April 8, 2021 12:56 pm

Humans are causing climate change? OMG. This validates the video …
https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/Z2odgVf

Paul
Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 8, 2021 7:09 pm

Of course humans cause it, who else is going to pay the imaginary solutions bill.

CD in Wisconsin
April 8, 2021 1:21 pm

Holy hysteria Batman! CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit 420 ppm and many the media are reacting in the usual way…..”We have to act!”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/04/06/we-have-act-atmospheric-co2-passes-420-ppm-first-time-ever

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide surged past 420 parts per million for the first time in recorded history this past weekend, according to a measurement taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii.

When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research station “began collecting CO2 measurements in the late 1950s, atmospheric CO2 concentration sat at around 315 PPM,” the Washington Post reported. “On Saturday, the daily average was pegged at 421.21 PPM—the first time in human history that number has been so high.”

Climate activist Greta Thunberg took notice of NOAA’s most recent data on CO2 levels. She described the first-ever documented eclipse of 420 PPM of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere as “truly groundbreaking.”

************

The above is just one example…there are many more reporting this news. I can hardly wait for Earth Day later this month when Biden and company are supposed to announce there game plan for address this “climate crisis”. God help us…

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 8, 2021 1:34 pm

Agree. Only God (or maybe John Kerry) can save us …
https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/aGqDEVt

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 8, 2021 3:30 pm

So “… first time in recorded history …“, then “… first time in human history …” Moving the goalposts as you watch. And as to the first time in recorded history, there are several recorded paleoclimatic seriesd that show atmospheric CO2 concentrations well above 421 ppm.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 10, 2021 8:50 am

Yes, they would really freak out if they learned that CO2 concentrations had been around 7,000ppm during certain periods of history. No runaway greenhouse effect was caused by even these large amounts.

Plants starve for CO2 at about 180ppm, if I recall correctly. Plants grow very well at 420ppm. Well enough to feed the world.

We should not turn CO2 into the boogey man. It is a benign gas, essential for life.

CO2 can’t help it that unscrupulous humans beings are trying to demonize it for power and profit.

Last edited 12 days ago by Tom Abbott
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 8, 2021 3:38 pm

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide surged past 420 parts per million for the first time in recorded history”

Which is about a millionth of Earth history.

fred250
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 9, 2021 6:18 pm

“”We have to act!””

.
Which is exactly what they do… act like drama queens !!

KT66
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 9, 2021 6:56 pm

Despite shuttering economies across the world.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 10, 2021 8:46 am

I heard Greta is not going to attend the next climate change summit as a protest to the fact that not all seven billion humans on Earth have been vaccinated yet.

I guess when everyone gets vaccinated, then Greta will get active in the climate change community again.

Myron
April 8, 2021 1:39 pm

KXAN, Austin. Liberals. That is all you really need to know.

Steen Rasmussen
April 8, 2021 1:54 pm

Sad to see all this wasted science! However a Norwegian science team last year cut into the bone. They sat up an experiment to actually measure the long wave infrared radiation LWIR absorption by CO2 and the IR backscattering? Result showed (as I read it) – very very low backscattering even if they used CO2 concentration up to 100%! Their peer reviewed paper can be found here:

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

Other scientists suggest that the LWIR in the 13-17 micrometer band absorbed by CO2 just milliseconds after the absorption is dissipated as energy in other frequency bands. Thereby there will be no significant warming by GHGs. Hopefully measurements like this can prove that AGW is just wrong science.

kind regards
SteenR

Reply to  Steen Rasmussen
April 13, 2021 1:14 pm

I think this paper trumps that one as this is a real world in-situ 10 year long period of gather the data which shows re-radiated energy seasonal fluctuations also. In saying that the retuning energy can only be absorbed by objects which in turn can warm the air around it….. the air itself, going from the Norway study, hasn’t really got the potential to warm from the re-emited back scatter.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

April 8, 2021 2:01 pm

remember the art of PostModern BlackMagic is based on the construction of a fase narrative, using the techniques of the Assumptive Close ‘we all know about climate change: the issue is what we are going to do about it’ , The appeal to authority: ‘science has proved…’ , the Precautionary principle ‘the possible outcome is so awful it doesnt matter if its real or not’ the appeal to social consensus ‘97% of people think so do you want to be odd man out?’…the ad hominem ‘only deplorable people don’t believe in Climate Change’ …
…and so it goes on.
science is not even in the frame, this is a political and commercial narrative, and above all psychologically informed narrative. It’s not science. Understand that and the outrage and amazement vanishes, just as it does when you realise that the bearded guy is really blatantly lying to you through his back teeth, because his religion tells him that that is a the moral and noble way to behave towards Unbelievers, so not only has he no conscience about it, he is proud of doing it.

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 8, 2021 2:40 pm

Speaking about “science,” here’s a very quotable statement in a Scientific American article on April 6, 2021..People in the Climate Cargo Cult Program would consider it to be heretical:

“Yet a scientist’s trade, the very fabric of his profession, is uncertainty. Almost by definition, a biologist or a physicist or a chemist has a head filled with inaccurate information; even those with the biggest egos realize that much of the knowledge they’ve built up over the years is tentative, incomplete or even outright wrong. Indeed, the scientist’s whole purpose is to reduce that uncertainty by just a little bit. While prophets are always right, good scientists, trained to strive to be a little less wrong, are by nature tentative and conditional.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-stephen-hawking/

Mike Maguire
April 8, 2021 2:44 pm

Here’s another interesting recent story by this same meteorologist.

https://www.kxan.com/news/climate-change-makes-your-allergies-worse/

“Pollen loves CO2”
“The more CO2 we put into the air, the more pollen plants produce” Then he goes on to tell us how bad it will be in the year 2080.
This is true……………except he intentionally neglects to tell us that its because they grow faster, bigger and more robust because CO2 is a beneficial gas for life. Besides more pollen, it causes plants/crops to produce much more food. Trees to grow much faster. EVERYTHING, ALL PLANTS to greatly benefit. The optimal level of CO2 for most plants is 900 ppm, more than twice the current level.

Maybe we should go back to the old climate, during the Little Ice Age a few centuries ago(that he doesn’t acknowledge)? Pollen was MUCH LESS back then. Don’t mind that a couple billion people would starve to death because of the lower CO2 and colder global temperatures. Who cares….. people with allergies would not suffer as much (-:

Who in the heck would single out only pollen, when telling us the affects of CO2 on plants?
A person looking to find something bad, which is the exception to the science about CO2 and plants in order to dishonestly present the big picture so their viewers will accept their political belief system, being sold as science. First he gave us bad climate science and meteorology…….now it’s bad agronomy.

He just got busted by authentic science!

Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  David Middleton
April 8, 2021 3:35 pm

But his job, especially in Austin, Texas, depends on spouting the CCC story, regularly and loudly.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 10, 2021 8:59 am

I’ve noticed a lot of Texas newspapers taking the leftist line, in recent articles I’ve seen.

Texas has a lot more leftists than people would think. And Joe Biden is busy importing what he thinks will be more Democrat voters, from south of the border, into Texas.

It’s time for people to pay attention to what is going on around them.

jmorpuss
April 8, 2021 2:51 pm

Here is the missing link that nobody wants to talk about …

Microwave and Millimetric Wave Propagation
Originally published May, 2000by Carlo Kopp

© 2000, 2005 Carlo Kopp

Basic Issues in Propagation

The problem of getting a radio frequency signal, in the decimetric, centimetric or millimetric bands, between two geographically well separated antennas, is in principle simple but in practice messy.

The Atmosphere as a Propagation Environment

Virtually all of the difficulties encountered in microwave transmission, be it between terrestrial transceivers, or satellite ground stations, stem from the physical properties of the atmosphere.

Refraction Effects

Refraction is a physical phenomenon observed in any medium which has a varying refractive index, and produces the effect of bending a light ray or microwave beam. The atmosphere is exactly such an environment, since its density and thus refractive index varies significantly with changing altitude and weather conditions.

Absorption and Scattering

Absorption and scattering are the dominant sources of microwave band, and especially millimetric wave band transmission losses in the lower atmosphere.

The primary source of absorption losses at all altitudes is an effect called gaseous absorption, which results from the quantum physical behaviour of atmospheric gas molecules.

For Australia’s microwave networking community, many of whom may be very excited about the latest generation of 28 GHz LMDS hardware, a note of caution is appropriate: ensure that your weather models and power budgets are well researched, since the propagation environment above 20 GHz is by any measure, unforgiving

Microwave and Millimetric Wave Propagation (ausairpower.net)

Microwave transmission is the transmission of information by microwave radio waves. Although an experimental 40-mile (64 km) microwave telecommunication link across the English Channel was demonstrated in 1931, the development of radar in World War II provided the technology for practical exploitation of microwave communication.

Microwave transmission – Wikipedia

Chris Hanley
April 8, 2021 3:44 pm

“… In a first-of-its-kind study, academic researchers along with NASA scientists are quantifying the direct impact that human activity is having on our climate system — and proving human activity is to blame for recent warming trends …”.

It doesn’t as has been pointed out, it merely suggests human activity has been a factor and the use of ‘blame’ betrays the author’s bias.
Simple logical fallacies abound in climate debates, on both ‘sides’.

PaulH
April 8, 2021 4:34 pm

Perhaps the author of this paper “self-identifies” as a meteorologist. That’s all that matters nowadays, don’t you know. 😉

yirgach
April 8, 2021 4:42 pm

This video was published by a meteorologist.
My deepest apologies to all the professionals out there.

https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-highest-in-recorded-history

Chris Hanley
April 8, 2021 5:52 pm

Dr Roy Spencer (meteorologist) has some wise words.

Patrick MJD
April 8, 2021 9:44 pm

From the article; “…greenhouse gas emissions trap more heat…

Didn’t need to read anymore to know he was talking garbage.

Jeff Alberts
April 8, 2021 11:12 pm

“Before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth’s climate was, for a large amount of time, in a relatively stable, harmonious stasis…”
Using Pages12k, or really anything with proxies, to fight this statement is ludicrous. Virtually none of the proxies used would have captured any centennial scale changes.

Charles Fairbairn
April 9, 2021 3:18 am

Meanwhile as all this waffle goes on about radiation and the GHE at some 1.6 Watts/sq.m we have the Latent Heat of evaporation at some 694 Watthrs/kg being driven up through the atmosphere by the buoyancy of the vapor/gas for dissipation. Some of which gets dissipated to space by the cirrus clouds nudging the tropopause where the ice crystals grow.
And no one seems to care a fig about that.

Charles Fairbairn
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
April 9, 2021 3:23 am

I should have added here to the above that the ice crystals then descend to form rain etc. thus cooling the atmosphere on the way down for recycling in the Hydrocycle.

Mark Whitney
April 9, 2021 4:39 am

Mr. Middleton
Your namesake David seems to be doing the Yeoman’s work of keeping Austin weird! Chuckle.
Mark

Last edited 13 days ago by Mark Whitney
JoeG
April 9, 2021 5:00 am

Seeing that CO2 is unaffected by 92% of what the earth radiates, how can anyone say it traps heat?

Petit_Barde
April 9, 2021 9:42 am

This excerpt from the comments made in 1989 by Thomas Karl (NOAA – NCDC) totally discredits the fake temperature graph used by the crooks who wrote the pseudo-science true garbage “humans blah blah blah …”:

“Analysis of warming since 1881 shows most of the increase in global temperature happened before 1919 — before the more re-cent sharp rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Thomas Karl, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. While global climate warmed overall since 1881, it actually cooled from 1921 to 1979, Karl said”

h/t to Tony Heller :
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/humans-causing-climate-change-superstition/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Petit_Barde
April 10, 2021 9:05 am

Every now and then a little truth pops out about the climate.

Thanks Petit_Barde, and Tony Heller.

Paul Penrose
April 9, 2021 9:48 am

You were too generous; I give him an F-

Mike Maguire
April 9, 2021 11:06 am

I’ve sometimes heard that meteorologists would not be experts at climate because it’s not their field of expertise………..understanding and predicting climate is completely different.
What is climate?
The average weather prevailing for a long period of time, often starting at an interval of 30 years. Not just the averages of weather metrics but the variations and extremes in the weather during that period.
So you are telling me that somebody who is an expert on weather, can’t apply that expertise to compute longer term, statistical analysis, on their area of expertise, weather to apply it to climate?
I would think that it would be exactly the other way around. A climate scientist must first understand weather/meteorology before they can understand the climate…..their area of expertise.

Meteorologists are the ones that observe the actual conditions that go into the climate and must reconcile model differences with reality every day. We can have all these great theories and computer simulations of a possible atmosphere going out 100 years but none of them should get weighted more than the observations that meteorologists make for a living.

A climate scientist, projecting the atmosphere 60 years from now will be dead before we can give it a verification score. People like that are extremely slow to adjust their speculative theories based on current observations……even when the theories are busting based on the observations…….of meteorologists.
Meteorologists make a living on the observations, applied to short term forecasting that is ALWAYS reconciled with the reality of what happened. Either they are good at it…………….or they find something else to do. Orrrrr, they could look for a job as a climate scientist…. where accurate observations are not important and projections are NEVER objectively evaluated for skill (-:

Mike Maguire
April 9, 2021 11:11 am

There are actually some wonderful, objective climate scientists in the biz, so I was being unfair. Mainly, I was referring to the MAINSTREAM climate science being sold to us.

philincalifornia
April 9, 2021 12:06 pm

By an amazing coincidence, proof of the tooth fairy’s existence manifested itself in the early hours of April 5th. Up to that point, her existence was quite clearly a well established truth, but now her existence was confirmed by actual observation. My five-year old nephew Michael’s older sister Nancy actually woke him up to see a fleeting image of the tooth fairy exiting his bedroom. Since she saw her too, she appeared to be so happy that she was in a fit of giggles that lasted all morning. Meanwhile, Michael knew he had seen her because his tooth was GONE, and there was a five dollar bill under his pillow. When interviewed at his kindergarten class, Michael’s friends Kevin and Karl said that they hadn’t actually seen the tooth fairy, but they had similar experiences with a missing tooth and some money under the pillow, so there was no doubt that his sighting was real. They were all busy working on loosening a few more teeth. as five bucks buys a decent amount of candy.

In another strange twist of fate, this too is a complete work of fiction.

John M. Brown
April 9, 2021 2:36 pm

This has to be about the biggest load of hi-tech garbage I have seen yet on this subject, even the graphs used either avoid mentioning time periods and/or leave out entire areas of information. It is well known CO2 levels were much higher in the past and temps were also higher in the past at times.

old construction worker
April 9, 2021 5:56 pm

These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.’ With in 4 years = send more money. LOL. If they believe they have found “distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity” then they don’t need more money.

Matthew Sykes
April 10, 2021 2:57 am

ERBE clearly shows the warming is not due to trapped heat, since it shows an increase in heat leaving the plant.

tom0mason
April 10, 2021 9:46 am

As always with these types of papers from ‘science’ of the hyper-hubris type, they amount to —
“We have done some math (often with computer models) and it gave us the right answer, so it MUST be correct!”
The fact that the math and models they use grossly misidentify some natural climate properties (averaging of solar energy flux over the whole globe at once[utterly unreal!], what particulates do in the atmosphere, the varying temperature of the oceans, etc.) utterly misintrepret many other weather effects, and that the Earth’s ‘energy balance’ does not have to ‘balance at any particular time!. These ‘scientists’ lack the humility to understand that in real world science process, observations and measurements are the prime movers in gaining knowledge and understanding, and not some mathematical modeled slime ejected from these computer onanists.

The scientific process has never been absolute, anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluded.

%d bloggers like this: