This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission.
Before apparently backing off the idea this week, the U.S. Department of Justice had announced the creation of an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare” from the government.
While the original idea for such a fund might have been on shaky ground – with criticism coming from both parties – establishing a way to compensate Americans who were victims of the weaponization of the Obama and Biden administrations’ energy policies would be entirely legitimate.
The time is ripe for a serious accounting of the harm done to Americans by climate hysteria, considering how many mea culpas are now emerging. The latest to line up with at least some nod to truth and accuracy is the New York Times, the leading “mainstream” media proponent of climate change nonsense.
The Times last week produced a story headlined, “Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade.” The story reported that an international team of researchers has “abandoned a dire — and often criticized — high-emissions scenario known as RCP8.5 that has been prominently cited in thousands of climate studies over the past decade. The authors said the scenario was now ‘implausible’ given recent energy trends.”
The story went on to acknowledge that “the new paper has raised questions about whether some of the risks of climate change have been poorly communicated or overstated in years past and how best to think about those risks going forward.” In other words, the “climate deniers” – as the far-left media derisively describes anyone who has questioned the outlandishly dire gloom-and-doom climate scenarios – have turned out to be right.
Of course, the New York Times being the New York Times, it was still necessary to claim that “the majority of climate scientists still say global warming is a serious problem, and that even more plausible, medium-emissions scenarios can carry grave dangers.” And some true believers are claiming that the revised, less panicky outlook is because the fight against fossil fuels has been so effective. Sure.
But in between the occasional “we should still be a little nervous” qualifiers, the lengthy New York Times piece contained numerous stunning confessions both in regard to the climate cult movement in general and the newspaper specifically. For instance:
- “For years, critics of the high-emissions scenario had argued that it was always unrealistic, in part because it envisioned that countries would burn coal at absurdly high rates.” No kidding.
- “Predicting emissions over the next century is extremely difficult, since so much depends on future economic growth and technological changes.” Just like so many of us have been saying (or screaming) for years.
- “The high-emissions pathway wasn’t meant to be a prediction, but more of a ‘worst case,’ said Detlef van Vuuren, a climate scientist at Utrecht University…” That’s not the way it was sold.
- “News stories about climate research often emphasized results based on RCP8.5 as a picture of what the world can expect unless countries slash their emissions, which isn’t right, either.” Oh, now you tell us.
- “…the highest estimated damages based on RCP8.5 were a big focus and got more attention, including in The New York Times [emphasis mine].” That was not by design?
The story goes on to note examples of scientists urging caution, but “many policymakers and researchers continued to emphasize the high-emissions scenario for years afterward,” as one think tank critic said. The story quotes several people who now say that the worst-case scenario was not intended to be presented as realistic.
And yet, it was. It was used to demand radical changes. To set unrealistic targets for transitioning from fossil fuels to “alternatives.” To throw billions in tax dollars into subsidies for solar and wind in the name of saving the planet while strangling the life out of the most affordable, reliable and effective energy sources available. To shame anyone doubting the logic and the predicted severity of manmade climate change.
The authors of the new study are now presenting revised predictions that imagine worst-case scenarios “that could lead to similarly high estimated levels of warming later in the 22nd century (but) they’ve added a warning that these are not business-as-usual pathways.”
Read that carefully. The worst-case scenarios could lead to dangerous warming levels “later in the 22nd century.” Not 12 years from now, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) (and others) have warned. Not 30 years from now. Not in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of most of our children or grandchildren. And even that prediction is unlikely to happen, they admit.
But saying “I told you so” is not enough. The admission that we have been lied to over and over and over cannot be the end of it. As they used to say in the old days, “We demand satisfaction!” And citizens deserve it.
It’s now time for a reckoning. After years of lectures from government leaders (especially during the Obama and Biden administrations) insisting we needed to spend billions of dollars to fight the Big Bad Climate Boogeyman, we must insist on three things.
First, the money directed toward far-left climate-related mandates and projects (EV mandates, carbon penalties and fees, hundreds of thousands of acres of solar panels replacing cropland, no more gas appliances) must be immediately halted.
Second, damages to the American people who fell for the worst-case global warming scenarios or were forced by federal or state government to change their energy-related lifestyles are entirely warranted.
Finally, as often stated here, enacting the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), either by congressional action or White House executive order, would ensure that the disastrous initiatives undertaken in the throes of climate hysteria can never be repeated. Americans deserve to be reassured that we will never go down that path again.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
It’s not just Americans who’ve been harmed by this. It’s the population of the whole planet.
Well, except China and India; in fact, almost every country in the ‘Global South’ didn’t suffer.
Just N. America, Western Europe and the Antipodes gulped down the Kool-Aid dispensed by the socialist Western elites because they’re devoted to the redistribution of wealth (to them) by any means possible.
As far as I’m concerned, the next big move should be to outlaw socialism. It’s done nothing but harm wherever it’s raised its ugly head around the world.
You’re obviously not including Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the “Global South” ? … Here in Australia, we have been decimated by ludicrous Net Zero policy.
China and the global south. Pause. Consider all those workers…
So in the end, the Marxist plan to cripple Western economies worked well enough to put serious dents in them. And it would continue working if it weren’t for Trump. AGW, Covid, “immigration”, LGBTQ, race relation meltdown, multi tier justice systems, hate for police/authority, etc. all didn’t come about by chance. With compliant MSM in all countries it will take some time, if ever, to get back to normal. The Marxist played the long game and did it well.
Destruction is quick and easy, while building something of value takes a lot of time and effort. It’s why those that destroy always seem to be ahead.
They wouldn’t do that would they?
Rama alleges hybrid war behind protests against Kushner-linked coastal development
Nothing on the net is unhackable or uncorruptible and the bad guys will even be able to use the power of AI to help corrupt it all and control the message-
Anthropic warns AI may soon begin recursive self-improvement | Scientific American
Recursive self improvement or regurgitative Groupthink that is the question.
The problem with socialism is it’s always two steps forward and only ever one step back.
Whilst the right might overcome all the phenomena you mention, the one step forward the socialists will leave as their legacy is Islam.
The only way to defeat it is for conservatives to drop their traditional tolerance and resist by every means available.
The Middle East is the home to the Judeo-Christian faith, and like it or not, the only nation left resisting Islam is Israel. Now Europe is under threat, and Islam is on the march in Africa, quite literally murdering Christians in their beds.
Unfortunately being ‘compensated’ would mean more taxes and more debt. What we really need to a way to hold the power and control hungry alarmists responsible.
We are living in Wonderland in Australia.
Over the past 15 years, Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator has stolen $72bn from low income earners and handed it over to owners of wind farms, solar farms and rooftop solar.
Now the Clean Energy Regulator is administering the Safeguard Mechanism. This is the name for theft from large industries that provide good jobs for working people. In this case the money goes mostly offshore to companies managing controlled burning of Australia’s savanna. (I am not making this up).
I participated in a social justice webinar this week. The Victorian head of the social justice council had no idea when I asked if the Clean Energy Regulator was doing enough to advise low income earners how much their Purchase of STCs and LGCs through their electricity bills was costing them.
So Australia has these cute, deceptive names to hide the theft they involve.
The time for compensation AND retribution is indeed approaching.
Aussies will never see compensation; go for the retribution. Y’all need a Trump-like guy and a seriously bad attitude. Maybe then.
Reparations. I thought that was a minority thing.
Correct, Rick.
We, in Australia, have been assaulted by a continuous string of lies from politicians and senior bureaucrats fro at least a decade now.
“It’s now time for a reckoning.”
Agreed. Vote the proponents of “climate action” out of office. We’re only part way there on this point.
“Second, damages to the American people who fell for the worst-case global warming scenarios or were forced by federal or state government to change their energy-related lifestyles are entirely warranted.”
No. Just correct the policy errors and move on. Don’t be like the gullible graduates with useless college degrees who claim they should not have to pay back their student loans because they were deceived. For air-tight cases of deliberate fraud, sure, prosecute.
And it’s not just the extreme emissions scenarios at fault here. The suggestion that rising pCO2 represented ANY risk at all, at ANY time scale, was physically unsound all along. Expose this error all the way back to its core claim. This can be readily demonstrated here using the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for tolerating this message I keep posting about.
The fraudsters deserve prison but civil suits for the perpetrators could be a reckoning.
Nobody in American government is ever going to compensate anyone for any climate legislation. The fact that ALL CO2 mitigation efforts have ALL failed miserably for 40 years is besides the point.
All you can do is vote accordingly and stop being a sucker for politicians of any stripe who think their job is to offer you salvation.
I thought only minorities were looking for reparations.
“…that could lead to similarly high estimated levels of warming later in the 22nd century…”
Hey, the setting of the movie Waterworld was set in something like 500 years from now. Granted, it was a silly plot, but still, it shows that the warmunists are playing a long game, in that particular case by Hollywood. The 22nd century is still right around the corner!
As satisfying as it would be if there was a least a hint of ‘mea culpa’ recognized by the legacy misledia, almost all Democrats and not a few Republican fear mongers and, of course, those ‘scientists’ (used as a title in this case, not an adjective) will never a) admit their duplicity or b) accept or be held responsible for the totally unnecessary damage they did to children, economies and trust in ‘science.’
And it will take years before even the slightly honest ones in any of the groups I and others have mentioned will truly admit they were wrong. What we WILL get are a litany of excuses, blame on someone else, and above all, continuing demands for funding for whatever they claim as the next imminent catastrophe.
>> The story went on to acknowledge that “the new paper has raised questions about whether some of the risks of climate change have been poorly communicated or overstated in years past and how best to think about those risks going forward.”
Well, that is not enough! The times needs to be specificaly listing all their affected articles in the past and if their meaning changed due to this model invalidation, they need to state so for every affected article! Nothing short of that should be acceptable as remedy for the times false alarmism.
Absolutely! Those darn scientists are always trying to trick us honest Deniers.
Mr. Beeton: The honest janitors (who don’t count, in your book) are experts in this respect- they recognize trash when your comments appear.
I have often found it useful to “check my assumptions”, which occasionally leads me to an “I definitely mis-remembered that one !” moment.
After reading one of Roger Pielke’s articles on the declaration of RCP 8.5 as “implausible” (along with SSP5-8.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP1-1.9) I downloaded the original RCP papers just to be sure.
van Vurren et al (2011) “summarizes the development process and main characteristics of the [RCPs]”.
URL 1 : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
.
The specific paper that “summarizes the main characteristics of the RCP8.5 scenario”, however, is Riahi et al (2011).
URL 2 : https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
The first paragraph of the “Discussion and conclusions” section of that paper (on page 54 / “Page 22 of 25” in my PDF file reader application) follows :
Notes
RCP 8.5 was explicitly introduced to the overall scientific community, in 2011, as a “high-emission business as usual scenario”.
To the lay reader, just because something is not “presently” — whether that means “in 2011 or “in 2026” — extractable does not mean it cannot become “extractable” by the year 2100.
RCP 8.5 was presented to the climate modelling community as “representative” of the current (2010/2011) emissions pathway generation “literature”, albeit at the “high (GHG) emissions” end.
The climate modellers dutifully used RCP 8.5 as an input to their ever-evolving — higher resolution and more compute intensive — models.
The media reporting, as it always has, used the “If it bleeds, it leads” method of headline creation and choice of overall “tone” … i.e. either “Oh my $DEITY, we’re all gonna diiiiiiiiiiiie ! ! !” (mostly tabloids) and/or “We have to [ / must ] stop burning all fossil fuels by next Thursday” (many broadsheets).
One positive point is that at least the “All life on Earth will go completely extinct by [ next week / 2050 / 2100 : Delete as appropriate]” storyline has fallen out of favour over the last 5 years or so.
.
The Riahi et al paper may have presented RCP 8.5 as being “unlikely” in many aspects, but it could definitely also be interpreted as providing a “realistic” option overall.
So it seems that RCP-8.5 never was plausible because it 1) Required the burning of more fossil fuel than is known to exist on the surface of the Earth, 2) Burning it quicker than it is possible to do and 3) It depends on water vapor magnification of CO2 warming which is clearly not happening as shown by global humidity and cloud cover data; all decreasing, not increasing as the CO2 theory requires. Three impossible conditions lead to “implausible” outcomes only to climate “scientists.” It was impossible then as it is impossible now. The wheels of “climate science” turn most slowly, erratically and errantly still to this day. “Implausible?” Nonsense! Impossible? Always has been. Most informative. Thanks.
The bureaucrats who fashioned the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers deserve a mention as the primary mischief makers, by design.
It is right that some journalists and advocates overused the worst-case climate scenario known as RCP 8.5. But it is an unwarranted leap from that observation to the suggestion that climate concerns themselves have been exaggerated.
The misuse of one extreme emissions scenario does not invalidate decades of evidence showing that human activity is warming the planet and increasing risks to infrastructure, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health. The debate over RCP 8.5 did not begin with Donald Trump or WUWT; climate scientists themselves have spent years discussing its limitations and warning against its misuse.
Some imply that because Americans may be wealthier in 2090 than today, climate damages must be manageable. That is a non sequitur. A growing economy can still suffer enormous losses from sea-level rise, extreme heat, drought, flooding, and infrastructure damage. Growth does not eliminate costs.
Most importantly, the guest blogger confuses flaws in climate communication with flaws in climate science. Sensational headlines and exaggerated rhetoric deserve criticism. But they do not negate the underlying evidence.
Reasonable people can debate climate policy. What they should not do is mistake the correction of an overused scenario for proof that the broader scientific concern was misplaced.
The planet is greening and humans are thriving. No crisis.
“The misuse of one extreme emissions scenario does not invalidate decades of evidence showing that human activity is warming the planet and increasing risks to infrastructure, agriculture, ecosystems, and public health.”
What risk to agriculture? It’s been 30 years and ag production continues to grow. NO EVIDENCE OF INCREASING RISK TO AGRICULTURE!
What risk to ecosystems? It’s been 30 years and POLAR BEARS ARE THRIVING. Coral reefs have *NOT* disappeared. The Arctic ice has *NOT* disappeared. There has been significant greening of the earth – meaning MORE HABITAT FOR INSECTS AND ANIMALS. NO EVIDENCE OF INCREASING RISK TO THE ECOSYSTEM.
What risk to public health? Storms are *NOT* getting more frequent or more powerful. Since cold weather kills more people than warm temperatures, we are seeing fewer weather related deaths. NO EVIDENCE OF INCREASING RISK TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH.
What risk to infrastructure? Building near the coasts has increased, not decreased. More and more businesses and population are moving south of the Mason-Dixon line where temperatures are warmer. NO EVIDENCE OF INCREASING RISK TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
All you are doing is echoing the claims of those that benefit from scaring the public. Look around! What problem does longer growing seasons create? What problem does fewer cold deaths create?
You remind me of the guy that shows up on the corner EVERY SINGLE DAY with a sign saying “REPENT! THE WORLD ENDS TOMORROW!”
What evidence is that? Repeating an unsupported claim does not make it so. Underlying assumptions and related exaggerations are not “scientific concern” if they remain unquestioned and unsupported. They are simply dogma.
‘What evidence is that’? It’s the evidence that can be found in the 10s of thousands of published scientific papers on the climate, and summarized in the IPCC assessments.
I think you confuse speculation with evidence. There are tens of thousands of unreproducible, largely computer-scenario-driven flights of fancy dressed up as “science”. They do not constitute evidence of anything other than the need to publish and be granted funding, and the drive to confirm a political agenda.
As for the IPCC, they conclude that there is no identifiable increase in extreme weather events attributable to any cause, including human emissions of CO₂.
Heat waves have not become more extreme or common, though urbanization has led to localized increases.
There is evidence that cold extremes have declined, that CO₂ enrichment has made the planet greener, and that deaths due to weather events have dramatically decreased, all while the availability of affordable, abundant energy has improved the human condition by orders of magnitude.
Increases in infrastructure damage is the result of more being placed in areas historically vulnerable to weather events. What humans build has always been challenged by Ma Nature’s fury. We have always managed climate change by adapting to it. We certainly cannot hope to control it, especially by tweaking the concentration of a minor trace gas.
Your post is so full of lies, it violates even WUWT standards. Just a few — the IPCC does indeed show heat waves have become more common and extreme, that extreme weather events are more common, that wildfires in the Northern hemisphere are more common, that glaciers and arctic sea ice have been declining for decades, that SLR is accelerating, that oceans have been warming and acidifying, and that the most intense storms are becoming more intense.
Here are WUWT standards regarding extreme weather.
“Extreme Weather” Page – Watts Up With That?
The IPCC was created specifically to find what it was looking for, and even most of its findings are equivocal at best. It is easy to ignore anything that contradicts the agenda.
All of your claims remain unsupported by data that is not carefully cherry-picked for ad hoc presentation.
Sorry, but the WUWT “Extreme Weather Page” is not peer reviewed science, but instead is data prepared by a known Denier, Ryan Maue, and it is not credible. I suggest that before you criticize the wok of hundreds of peer reviewed researching scientists working under the IPCC, you should first look at all the NON PEER REVIEWED nonsense that WUWT spews.
Your appeal to anonymous authority sources is a logical fallacy and dooms your argument.
Evidence: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Newton’s Laws of Motion, Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation.
These were proven by experimental measurements and replication, not by some jury of reviewers claiming the papers were correct.
None of these were PEER REVIEWED. Peer review in the sense you are using it, is not a judge of something being a physical law. In most cases it simply does a casual job of confirming the math regardless if the math meets the requirements for its use.
That is actually spelled “woke”.
You should reevaluate your “expert” knowledge in light of the declaration that RCP 8.5 has been declared implausible. Why? That drastically lowers the differences between observations and model predictions going forward. In other words, human caused increases pretty much disappear going forward.
NB : To me, at least, “evidence” = “data” = “empirical measurements made by (correctly calibrated) scientific instruments in the real world“.
Please provide at least three (3) concrete examples of this “underlying evidence” of which you speak.
Qualifying criteria
1) You should provide a reference, e.g. “Author et al (Year) + Title” or a DOI number (and ideally a link), to a peer-reviewed paper published in a “serious” scientific journal.
2) The “evidence” from that paper should not conform to the following template :
“We ran a climate model on our (super-)computer using RCP 8.5 (or SSP5-8.5) as input, and it showed [ insert ‘Very Bad Thing’ here ] happening in [ 2100 / 2075 / 2050 / … : Delete as appropriate ].”
The evidence is cited in the IPCC assessments, which summarize the scientific research as it existed at the time of publication.
Unlike you, Oh Wise One, I have not read every single one of the citations included in the AR6 assessment reports.
Please enlighten us.
What percentage of those papers do not conform to my “template” above ?
If you haven’t read the assessments and the evidence, then how could you claim there wasn’t evidence?
Note to other posters : I know, I know ! DNFTT …
Having just scrolled through Warren’s responses to the (many) other requests for “supporting information” for his original bald assertions they are clearly exhibiting “troll-like” behaviour (*) … but this specific point really annoyed me …
.
In the past I have downloaded PDF versions of the FAR (WG-1 and WG-3) and SAR (WG-1 only) reports but I have only “dipped into” them, I never sat down and read them “cover to cover”.
I have a “dead tree version” of the TAR WG-1 report (2001) on my bookshelf, with the set of handwritten notes I made (in the middle of the 200x decade) tucked inside the cover.
I read electronic versions (on computer screens as PDF files) of the WG-1 reports for AR4 and AR5, but ignored the WG-2 and WG-3 reports for those cycles (2007/8 and 2013/4). I only wrote down a few pages of “Notes” for AR4, and didn’t bother for AR5.
I read PDF versions of the WG-1 and WG-2 reports for AR6 (2021/2) “cover to cover” — along with the SPM, TS, chapters 1 to 5 and Annex III of the WG-3 report — and typed in relatively copious electronic sets of “Notes” along the way.
What I have never done is chase down the thousands of citations contained in the combined “References” sections of those three (AR6) assessment reports.
.
Your original bald assertion :
Roger Pielke Jr., amongst others, has shown that the “infrastructure” part is (mostly ? / all ???) simply due to more “stuff” being build for tornados, hurricanes and floods to “hit”.
FAO data shows steadily increasing values of “tonnes produced”, “yields / tonnes per acre” and “calories per capita” since the 1960s, both overall and for each major individual food source (wheat, maize / corn, rice, …).
NB : There is a case to made that human activity has adversely impacted a wide range of environmental “ecosystems”. That’s what the original, genuine, “ecologists” kept (and keep) getting upset about.
There is precisely zero “evidence” to show that the 1°C rise in GMST over the last century (/ since 1975 ?) has increased the “risk” to public (human) health.
.
I repeat my requests.
1) Please provide “concrete examples” of the “evidence” you are so convinced exists for the specific points you made in your OP, so others can check that they do not conform to my “template” above.
2) What percentage — Oh Wise One who has downloaded and read every single citation in all three AR6 assessment reports — of those citations does not conform to my “template” above ?
.
.
(*) Some characteristics of “troll-like” behaviour :
– Systematic refusal to provide “supporting evidence” when requested, more often than not “deflecting” to completely unrelated issues instead
– A tendency to assume both omniscience and “mind-reading” capabilities in the questioner, e.g. “It’s the evidence [ for the specific issue I’m currently thinking of ] that can be found in the 10s of thousands of published scientific papers on the climate, and summarized in the IPCC assessments”
– Systematic refusal to answer questions asking for clarification, more often than not responding with a completely unrelated question instead
– Very quick to descend to the “Name calling / Abuse” level of the debate pyramid
“The evidence is cited in the selected IPCC assessments, which summarize the preferred scientific research as some of it it existed at the time of publication.”
Fixed it for ya.
The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is written by politicians.
Ah, but this where you are wrong Warren-
the broader scientific concern was misplaced.'</span><span style="color: rgb(7, 7, 7);"> Science has shown that modern cyclic global warming is not a real threat to humans or the planet, and the same goes for CO2 growth. Therefore, the whole IPCC consensus is nonsense as we are not experiencing greater climate threats than we have always faced as a species-think about the endless glaciations we survived over the past 2m years. The Holocene warm era is when civilization thrived, and society was at its most dire straits during cold periods like the LIA. Thus, history and physics says humans are not and cannot at present control climate, but we can adapt to it with technology.. Technology may change that aspect in future, meanwhile enjoy the urban warmth that makes life easier in our cities, but just don't call it AGW its not.</span>
<span style="color: rgb(7, 7, 7);"> So back to the real argument, IPCC climate science has been politically directed from the start by leftist activists who used the climate scare to promote one world government hosted by the UN.</span>
<span style="color: rgb(7, 7, 7);"> Luckily, the US under Trump has seen through this scam and called it out, defunding the principal NGO's responsible and trying to make them act with more integrity and honesty using the proper scientific method, instead of peer pal reviews and corrupted editors. Once the EPA Endangerment Finding for CO2 was repealed, the writing was on the wall for the subsidizedrenewables ‘industry and fossil fuels regained their rightful place of honor in the power stakes.
Those responsible for telling lies about the climate science and the environment, and bureaucrat activists who effectively stole money from the public by the various taxes and subsidies for the failed energy transition, should be publicly admonished and fined for their greed and cruel ideology. This was the greatest scam ever invented by the globalist elites, who have not yet suffered, unlike the general population of many nations caught up in their political machinations. So, it’s now their time to be exposed and humiliated for their hubris and miscalculations.
All scientific research contradicts your lengthy post. So all nonsense.
“All scientific research”?
What, even the research that went into compilation of the Null Hypothesis used for the AGW conjecture?
(oh wait . . . 🙁 )
Chuckle. That response is on par with “Everybody knows it.” Aristotle would be speechless.
It was not just “some journalists and advocates overused” RCP 8.5.
From 2018 to date over 36,000 papers by climate scientists were published in the journals using the scenario!
Exactly. Scientists were discussing , and analyzing, RCP8.5 just as I said they were.
I believe it is time to start tossing catnip again.
Some journalists and advocates overused RCP-8.5? If by “advocates” you mean climate scientists, Google estimates that over 9,200 reports using RCP-8.5 have been published since 2011 when the pathway was created and about 30 are still being published each day despite its “implausibility.” And where do you get your understanding that “risks to infrastructure, agriculture, ecosystems and public health are increasing?” Roger Pielke has shown without doubt that in recent decades, increasing dollar losses due to storms are due to building more stuff in harm’s way. Readily available data shows without doubt that agricultural crop production is steadily increasing and that public health is improving (perhaps because it is getting warmer?)
As to “ecosystem risk,” If you could provide examples of what you mean I have no doubt that data exists to disprove whatever that is. It couldn’t be polar bears or black bears because actual bear surveys show that their numbers are increasing. It can’t be sea level rise as a USGS study has shown that on average, sea level has been rising at 1-2 mm/year for the past 6,000 years! Before then it rose much faster as the planet emerge from the last glacial age. Just what do you mean? It cant be hurricanes as ACE data clearly show that they have not been increasing in number or strength for many decades. Ditto global floods and draughts. It is clear that it is getting warmer. That could in whole or in part be due to decreasing cloudiness (about 4.5% reduction in recent decades.) It could be due to solar and planetary cycles which we know so little about. It could be due variations in ocean currents which occur over periods as short as 10 years and as long as 1,000. Something other than CO2 increase must have been the cause of the 800 year drought in the southwest US about 1,000 years ago, and when broken, was followed by a 200 year drought. Something must be the cause of the Little Ice Age that occurred between 400 and 200 years ago. Such information is readily available to those who look for it. I suggest you do this to gain a more realistic view of our planet’s variable climate.
Roger Pielke, Jr. is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, so his contradictory views of the science are immaterial. And polar bears have nothing to do with the evidence for climate change.
Ah, only “climate scientists” can comment on “climate science” and its “results”.
You can comment all you want. But your comments carry no weight because you lack expertise in the field.
I am so excited to learn that the world now has a self-appointed arbiter of who has expertise and who does not. The proles now have someone who can tell them what to believe and what not to believe.
Exactly what expertise do you personally claim?
None shown so far, yet you comment extensively.
That was an excellent summary, Denis – a fine demonstration of rational thinking.
I suggest it’s well worth ignoring the man – anybody who dismisses Pielke Jr to the remarkable extent of declaring “his contradictory views of the science are immaterial” . . . is probably nothing more than a brainwashed twerp who has allowed himself to become frightened witless.
“It is right that some journalists and advocates overused the worst-case climate scenario…”
Absolutely no point in reading any further. Overusing something that was known to be incorrect and then acknowledged as incorrect is neither scientific nor credible.
What planet do you inhabit?
The word ‘right’ in my post means ‘correct’, or yes, they did so, but it does not mean that it’s justified.
Even your reply is nonsense.
“Correct” == “justified.”
Warren,
There is no evidence that “human activity is warming the planet” as you write.
If there was evidence, you would be able to quote it.
In terms of what really happened, the IPCC was about to declare this lack of evidence when a prominent US “climate scientist” crashed that intention and stated that there was now adequate evidence of a link.
Warren, you should be able to quote that adequate evidence.
I cannot find it and I bet that you cannot either.
Geoff S
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
Warren,
Are you aware of Ben Santer telling IPCC in 1992 or so tha there was now an adequate case that mankind was warming the Earth, when the IPCC was about to again declare from scientific evidence that inadequate evidence existed?
This is how the link between people and global warming was made. Not with scientific research, but with a private opinion.
Now, show me some valid science that links mankind to global warming. Geoff Sa
You are very easily conned by conspiracy theories.
Actually, Mr Beeton, there were many drafts of the report floating about on the internet stating that no “fingerprint of human involvement’ had been found. The final report stated that the fingerprint had been found. The results had been magically changes. The editor of the document was Dr Santer.
You can try to revise history, but there are enough folks out here with archived copies of the documents that it isn’t going to work.
Then, of course, there was the “climate scientist” who stated that “climate science results” had to be exaggerated to get the public’s attention, to get Government’s to act, and it was up to each individual “climate scientist” to determine ho far to exaggerate.
Oh I’m sure there are ‘many drafts’ of many so called reports on the internet. In fact, the internet has lots of snake oil circulating . But Deniers gullibly swallow it all.
You are no doubt aware that the IPCC mandated that science reports that did not align with the political summary report were to be revised to agree.
Warren,
Your link says zero about proving a link between people and global warming. It shows poor science by comparing measurements that have high resolution over time (like thermometers giving daily readings) with low time resolution data (as in proxies with measurements months to years apart at best of past events like tree rings and ice cores). Good scientists do not do that, for obvious reasons ( it is cheating). Geoff S
Proving once again that Deniers cant discern real science. That’s why they are so easily conned.
NASA said that a long time ago, as their jobs and income relied on it.
The very first graph it produces is a distortion of the truth on two levels. It has never been proved conclusively that atmospheric CO₂ is the principal driver of a warming planet, and the graph only goes back 800,000 years; this one goes back further and demonstrates no correlation between CO₂ and temperature.
Worthless brain dead post
LOL, in other words, it doesn’t suit your brainwashing.
Sophistry.
That page has not been updated since 2020 and has been officially archived.
Why did they justify surrounding rural residents with industrial wind turbines…telling people that the turbines were necessary to ‘save the planet’? Why did ‘environmentalists’ remain silent about how they ruined the environment in rural communities.
Shouldn’t these people be compensated?
At the very least, shouldn’t the turbines that were sited too close to homes be turned off?
Actually, the know-nothings that believe the nonsense you spew should be banned from civilized society.
And yet in 50 years of catastrophic climate predictions, not a single one has happened.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f923.svg
Actually, there have been no invalid predictions by climate scientists. You cannot cite even one, because they simply do not exist 😂😂
-The US National Snow and Ice Data Center predicted in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. I guess you don’t consider the employees there to be “climate scientists”?
-In June, 1988 James Hansen testified to Congress that by 2000 the world would see catastrophic results from global warming. I guess you don’t consider Hansen to be a climate scientist?
-In 2007 the IPCC predicted the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. I guess you don’t consider the IPCC to be climate scientists?
These are just three that come to mind immediately. Admittedly these predictions were made 20 years or more in the past. Perhaps you weren’t even born yet. That’s the only reason I can think of no other reasons that you wouldn’t be aware of these predictions.
How many more examples do you need to convince you that you are just throwing crap against the wall to see if it sticks?
1) The NSIDC made no such prediction. You can’t even provide a link.
2) Hansen didn’t make the prediction you claim (and once again , you provide no link)
3) The Himalayan Glacier prediction was an error found by the IPCC and immediately corrected.
keep looking, Mr Gorman — or provide links that prove your case.
1) You want something more recent maybe?
Go here: The first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean could occur before 2030 | Nature Communications
An article by climatologists Heuze and Jahn.
————————–
2) Hansen: ” However, we conclude that there is evidence that the greenhouse effect increases the likelihood of heat wave drought situations in the southeast and midwest United States even though we cannot blame a specific drought on the greenhouse effect. ”
I assume you don’t consider an increased likelihood of drought to be a catastrophic result of global warming?
————————–
3) “The Himalayan Glacier prediction was an error” ROFL!!! You ASKED for predictions that were invalid. That includes predictions that were in error!
You are just committing another argumentative fallacy here. It’s called a rationalization – An after-the-fact justification meant to defend an assertion you have already made instead of providing a reason that led you to make the assertion in the first place.
In other words you are now trying to claim that a prediction that was an error is not a prediction that failed to happen – a rationalization.
—————————–
Do you have *anything* to offer here besides argumentative fallacies?
Talk about fallacies. First, I never said scientists made no predictions. I said they never made any FALSE predictions or predictions of a CATASTROPHE. So let’s check your first fallacies, Mr Gorman:
1) Unless you have a time machine, how do you know that the prediction by Heuze and Jahn for a 2030 outcome is invalid and will not come to pass? And they didn’t predict a catastrophe!
2) How is Hanson’s prediction false? And where is the “catastrophe”?
3) The IPCC made an error–and quickly corrected it so it is not part of the IPCC Assessments. And it never predicted a catastrophe.
So, Mr Gorman, NO predictions of catastrophe, and NO predictions that haven’t come to pass.
Keep trying — so far, you have earned the same grade you likely earned in physics class — a FAIL.
1) Because ice loss happens over time. 2030 is only three years away. Insufficient time for the ice loss to happen. Do you think someone with a BIG blowtorch is going to melt all the ice in a day? A month? A year? Three years?
2) So you don’t believe increased droughts are a catastrophe. Why am I not surprised? If increased droughts are not a catastrophe then what *do* you consider them to be? In fact, the frequency and intensity of droughts around the globe has not changed in either the last century or this century. WHERE they have been happening may have changed but that also means that other “wheres” have seen a decrease.
3) ROFL! Melting of the Himalayan glaciers wouldn’t be a catastrophe? And again, you are trying to say that a prediction that was wrong, for that is what an error *is* – something that is wrong, is not wrong. A pure and utter rationalization.
Rationalizations and argumentative fallacies are all you have to offer. Don’t you ever get embarrassed at having these thrown back in your face continually?
The whole CAGW is a prediction of CATASTROPHE. If anyone is a denier, a TRANS-REALITY DENIER, it is you.
To All Readers Here: Please note that Mr. Beeton wants us out of civilized society, “eliminate those who disagree” is a true signal of a progressive lefty. Commenters here (he wants us out) rarely, if ever, promote removal of CliScis.
The good news is that, in spite of the efforts of Mr. Beeton and his group, we have not been removed. Apparently, Mr. Beeton’s know-nothings are also incompetent at that.
The problem is not “disagreement”. Rather, it’s the anti science attitude of many WUWT dwellers — refusals to acknowledge the reams of evidence confirming AGW, the mind bending logical fallacies and twisted distortions employed to avoid accepting the solid conclusions of125 years of scientific research, the nit picking — of which the best example is Gorman’s refusal to acknowledge that the first derivative of the First Law is equally valid, or the reliance on scientific frauds and dismissal of the work of top tier scientists, or even refusal to acknowledge the peer review process as the best method of screening out unreliable science.
These individuals reject the greatest gifts of the Enlightenment — Science and the Scientific Method — and so yes, they don’t deserve to be considered members of civilized society.
“The problem is not “disagreement”. Rather, it’s the anti science attitude of many WUWT dwellers “
How many more examples do you require in order to convince you that your assertion is just more crap thrown against the wall hoping some of it will stick?
“Wrong” doesn’t even begin to describe the incredible dysfunction of your beliefs about Science, Gorman. Every single one of your claims exposes your gross misunderstanding of basic physics.
“ Every single one of your claims exposes your gross misunderstanding of basic physics.”
Yet you can’t seem to refute a single assertion I have made. Just who is exposing their gross misunderstanding of physics?
Pick just one, that’s all, JUST ONE assertion above and actually refute it.
All you are doing is using one more argumentative fallacy – Argument by Dismissal. No refutation, no evidence, no counter argument – just flat out refusal to engage: Dismissal.
Do you have ANYTHING besides argumentative fallacies to offer?
The first derivative of a function is the rate at which the function changes. It can be linear or follow some other function. Insolation actually follows a sine function, while outgoing radiation is much more complicated due to radiating while receiving insolation and transitioning to a pure exponential function after sunset.
Let’s examine a simple linear function a with constant rate.
So, let P(t) = Joules/sec; which is the rate.
To determine the total value of energy at a given rate, one must integrate the rate over time.
E=∫P(t)dt |ₐᵇ
Now make your point about equating different rates that occur over different time periods.
Include in your point about how the surface stores heat from insolation for varying periods of time reducing the outgoing rate from the incoming rate. That heat storage, especially in the oceans, means very, very long time periods, like centuries, must be integrated to equate energy in to energy out.
Energy in — crossing the boundary of the system (ie, through the outer surface of earths atmosphere), vs energy in from the sun, crossing the same boundary. And that difference represents an increase in the earths internal energy . i.e., dU/dt = Ddot in minus Qdot out
And Are you saying that the sun doesnt have a constant output? Or that earths atmosphere doesnt have an overall constant rate of energy out (via thermal radiation to space)?
And Are you saying that the sun doesnt have a constant output? Or that earths atmosphere doesnt have an overall constant rate of energy out (via thermal radiation to space)?
Your question illustrates your ignorance of the system. Incoming insolation varies as a sine function from sunrise to sunset. If you don’t know that, you need to learn it.
The earth’s atmosphere most certainly doesn’t have an overall constant rate of energy out. Again, the question illustrates your ignorance of the system.
The sun’s insolation is absorbed in two places, 1) the atmosphere to a small amount, and 2) the surface, both ocean/land, before being radiated toward space. Some of that insolation that is absorbed by the surface is directed downward to be stored for later release.
As a meteorologist I believe, you should know this. Whether you learned enough calculus to create and evaluate gradient equations for heat flow in a dynamic system, I don’t know. As an EE, believe me, I studied calculus-based thermodynamics for both power plants and heat sinks in electronic devices.
I cant believe that even you are making some of these inane statements. You do realize I hope, that the planet earth receives a constant share of earths solar output 24/7? The total solar load on earth is not a sine wave.
Dude, here is graph of the insolation I receive at my weather station. Do you really want to describe this as a CONSTANT?
Every point on the earth receives this. The AVERAGE value of this sine function is 0.64*max insolation. Yes, over 24 hours of the earth turning, every point on the earth will have received this value, but every point on earth will also receive it based upon a sine function.
Yet temperature is not determined by an average. If you use SB to evaluate temperature, the temperature of the surface will also vary based upon this sine wave. In other words, when your point on earth receives 1 W/m² at sunrise, you do the calculation as to what the temperature rise will be. It won’t be the temperature you see at noon, or you have calculated something wrong.
You do know that when you write an energy balance on planet earth’s system, that the energy in is a constant, not a sine wave. You’re treating the problem incorrectly.
Tell us what kind of a function this is. It is a graph of the insolation at my location.
Look at Figure 12 in this publication.
(PDF) Performance Evaluation of a MW-Size Grid-Connected Solar Photovoltaic Plant Considering the Impact of Tilt Angle
Do you need more references?
You’ve failed to specify the system boundaries for the analysis. The system is earth and its atmosphere. Therefore the system boundary is the outside surface of earth’s atmosphere.
Earth intercepts approximately -1.73 times 10^17 W of power from the Sun. This total is derived by multiplying the solar constant (1361 W/m^2) by Earth’s cross-sectional area.This equals the average power received over earth’s surface. Note that this average varies only about 1% from solar minimum to solar maximum.
The boundary for absorption is the surface of the earth, both ocean and land, with a small potion absorbed directly by the atmosphere.
Your education is showing. The cross-sectional area is πr². That is not the surface area. The actual surface area of one hemisphere of a sphere is 2πr².
Here is a question of utmost importance. You need to answer it to illustrate your understanding.
Explain why the sun does not illuminate every point on the surface of the hemisphere using your assertion? Does the insolation skip over every other square meter.
You yourself say:”the system boundary is the outside surface of earth’s atmosphere.”. That surface is curved to match the earth. It’s area is 2πr², where “r” is the radius of the atmosphere.
Explain how a plane wave (the insolation) misses half the earth.
It will make more sense if you use trigonometry rather than the plane geometry (cross-sectional system) you are currently attempting.
You need to download this textbook. It is available free online.
Practical Meteorology: An Algebra-based Survey of Atmospheric Science. v1.02b
Copyright © 2017 by Roland Stull.
You should read and understand Section 2.3 and 2.4. I hope your trig understanding is up to snuff.
This is a very important concept.
You must be familiar with calculus from your reference to first derivatives. You should know that the first derivative of a sphere’s equation evaluated at a point on the sphere gives the slope of a tangent line at that point. The equation for F_rad uses the angle Ψ that E makes with that tangent line.
“F_rad = E · sin(Ψ) (2.19)”
Your reference doesn’t specifically state it but this is the Divergence Theorem, a “cousin” of Gauss’ Law, that I use in my post.
It requires an understanding of vector calculus to understand. What this does is break the vector of incoming radiation into a component vertical to the surface and a component parallel to the surface. The component parallel to the surface can never cross the boundary. I guess you could say it just skips along the surface as a tangent and continues on its path. Only the vertical component can actually cross the boundary.
I use cos(θ) instead of sin(Ψ) but which you use is just a definition of which angle you use. Either can be used to find the vertical component, it just depends on how you define the angles.
When measuring the actual amount of heat loss by the system by a satellite that is outside the surface you must include both the parallel component and the vertical component that it will see. It’s not obvious, to me at least, how a measuring device can distinguish between IR emitted from the surface because of energy crossing the surface and the parallel component that never entered the system. The EM wave representing those flux flows are not tagged with an identifier. If the aperture of the measuring device is restricted so it only responds to the vertical component directly below it then it’s not really seeing the entire picture. If it is not restricted, then how are the components distinguished? Since each of the infinitesimal components of the total, both the vertical and parallel, will encounter different path lengths and different unknown individual path losses, measurement accuracy takes a hit.
It’s just a personal opinion but I sincerely doubt that the differences trying to be identified are outside the measurement uncertainty, meaning you don’t know and can’t tell if the differences actually exist or not.
Perhaps someone can explain how the measurement uncertainty is not a factor in measuring this system.
Judas H. Priest! Do you not understand that absorption of heat is the NORMAL vector of the flux?
The energy absorbed is *NOT* a constant. As the earth turns the angle presented by a point on the earth, i.e. the angle of incidence, to the plane wave that is the solar flux CHANGES. The normal component of the plane wave at a point on the surface of the earth is related to cos(θ).
Divergence Theorem: (bolded letters indicate vectors)
∯ div F dA = ∫ F · N dS
N is the normal vector.
The dot product F · N ensures that only the component of F that is perpendicular to the surface contributes to the flux crossing the boundary.
As a point on the earth’s surface travels during the day the amount of energy from the sun that is perpendicular to that point on the surface CHANGES. It is *NOT* constant.
It’s no different than a toy car placed on an inclined plane. As the angle of the plane changes the amount of the gravity vector accelerating the toy car down the plane changes.
If you don’t believe this then SHOW YOUR MATH!
The earth’s atmosphere has no physical surface. Sheesh.
a surface isn’t necessary to define a system for using the 1st Law
Of course it is. How do you do surface integrals without defining the surface?
You love doing high school algebra on the back of an envelope don’t you? Show us a reference that does not define a surface when dealing with thermodynamics.
No physical surface is necessary for such a calculation. You should know that if you’ve ever worked with thermo or fluid mechanics problems.
If you don’t have a surface then you don’t have a boundary. If you don’t have a boundary then how do you integrate the flux?
Fluid mechanics makes substantial use of the Divergence Theorem – which is integration over a surface.
∯ div F dA
What do you think the ∯ symbol represents?
The symbol ∯ is unknown to beeton. The circle indicates a closed surface.
I’m not sure how to show integration over a non-closed surface. Maybe just the double integral ∬ ?
I suspect he thinks the “div” operator means divide.
You’re tangled up in your underwear — trying to impress by using words you don’t understand. Div isn’t necessary. Just use projected area, emissivity, and the solar constant, to determine the flow rate of energy into earths system.
And since greenhouse gases only restrict infrared frequencies, and the earth radiates in the ir range, it’s easy (for most people) to deduce earth is gaining heat energy , and as the atmosphere accumulates CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, the thermal restriction grows,causing earths temperature to rise.
“Just use projected area”
As Sparta has already pointed out – this results in an ice free north and south pole!
If Earth was gaining heat energy with out level of CO2 then the dinosaurs would have cooked when CO2 was much higher. We wouldn’t have had the last ice age.
The earth can’t distinguish between CO2 sources. If CO2 levels are greater in the past then the exact same results would be seen that climate science claims is happening today. There aren’t any CO2 molecules today that are micro-engraved with “CAGW”.
The 1st Law must always hold. Therefore, if you calculate the gross energy absorbed by earths system — ie, the solar constant times emissivity times projected area, you get the energy in. And since energy outflow is restricted by ghgs, you’ve proven that earth must be warming – -which the data confirms, in sprite of nudnicks like you who want to deny data and reality .
You haven’t proved anything. Heat in has an interval of 12 hours (approximately). Heat out has an interval of 24 hours, i.e. the earth emits heat over a much bigger time period.
Even with a restricted flow you don’t know if that longer interval sheds all the joules in or not.
What has to balance is joules-in vs joules-out. NOT FLUX.
You just don’t listen do you. Heat STORED in the ocean and land is not stored in or restricted in any way by GHG’s.
Stored heat in the oceans and land does raise the temperatures of those. That heat is not radiated away it is stored at depth. That is part of the reason there is an imbalance in fluxes in and out.
If you don’t think heat is stored in land then you need to explain how soil temperatures increase after winter to a germination temperature. Tell us how that happens.
Yeah, let’s do it wrong so WB doesn’t need to do it correctly.
Your dismissal of “scientific frauds” includes physicists, geologists, and other noted scientists that have numerous published, peer reviewed papers. It speaks loudly to your ideological blindness to accepting alternative views. That is not a good position to take when trying to convince others of the soundness of your arguments.
You have been told many times that peer review is not a panacea nor a guarantee of the correctness of the information it contains. I suppose you think that there is no replication crisis occurring in peer reviewed literature at all. Your insistence that the only accurate science must come from peer reviewed publications is another indication of your ideological blindness. I would recommend that you join the new internet crowd sourcing world of publishing.
You have consistently argued against the body of peer reviewed mainstream Science, with no support from any peer reviewed science to support your position. If fact, your positions are so garbled and dysfunctional Gorman, that no scientist or engineer could support anything you say.
So there’s a subset of science now called “mainstream science?”
Was this subset created by mainstream media, and does it have the same credibility cerdentials?
Mainstream science is the Bandwagon in the Bandwagon Fallacy.
No, it’s “mainstream climate science”.
I am sorry that you are unable to decipher scientific language. I feel for you.
Here is the pet peeve I started with years ago and nothing has changed since then. If you can refute what I say, I invite you to do so.
Measurement uncertainty has been totally ignored by climate science. I challenge you to find a peer reviewed paper that deals with measurement uncertainty by developing an uncertainty budget and propagating that from the first Tmax and Tmin measurement to the end of an anomaly for a single month at a station.
This is not “statistical uncertainty” evaluated by finding the experimental standard deviation of the mean (SEM to you) based upon the variance among sample means, but actual experimental standard deviations based on the dispersion of observations around the mean of measurements of the same thing.
If you can’t find anything, then tell us how scientific supposed measurements to the one-thousandths decimal place are determined when estimated measurement uncertainty is in the units digit.
“If fact, your positions are so garbled and dysfunctional Gorman, that no scientist or engineer could support anything you say.”
Ask any engineer you know if Gauss’ Theory and the Divergence Theory are garbled and dysfunctional. Let us know what you find out.
(I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for you to do so because I know you won’t do it)
Wrong. Most of us engineers and scientists understand exactly what Jim Gorman is saying and concur with the accuracy of his statements.
HOW DARE YOU try to speak for me.
Amazing brain dysfunction you have Gorman. Do you not understand the concept of “projected area”, and how it inherently takes care of the angle of incidence of solar radiation upon a spherical surface? So far, we’ve learned that you cannot grasp the following concepts: 1) the First Law 2) First Derivatives , and now 3) projected area of a sphere. What’s next?
Your science teachers must have been very frustrated with you
The projected area takes care of nothing. It is a simple algebraic plane geometry that tells you nothing about the distribution of absorbed energy and resulting temperatures across the earth.
It tells you nothing about how much energy is absorbed by oceans or by land. It assumes a uniform distribution across the entire surface area with a uniform albedo which is useless.
Look at page from the textbook I showed you. Do you think your method gives you the ability to compute absorption at any point? Show us how.
Do you think your method can calculate the value of insolation that is reflected at any specific location? Show us how!
Do you think your method can estimate the amount of energy that is stored for release much later, say years?
If you are unable to do the work required to model the piece parts with trig and calculus, then you have no business telling others they don’t know what they are doing.
Thanks for confirming your inability to grasp #3 on my list of your failures, Gorman. I’m about to add a 4th — your inability to grasp your own rather severe limitations
Received is not the same as absorbed. A plane wave is not a spherical wave.
Perhaps you should evaluate your own limitations.
“Received is not the same as absorbed.” Did you forget that the absorption takes place INSIDE the system boundary, so that ‘received’ is the correct way to look at the problem? Or is this #5 on your list of fails?
“ Did you forget that the absorption takes place INSIDE the system boundary,”
Again, received is not absorbed unless you have a true black body. Your geometric analysis loses the fact some of the radiation illuminating the surface of the earth instead of the atmosphere will have a parallel component. That parallel component will travel through the atmosphere and exit at a point different than where it entered the surface of the atmosphere. How do you distinguish this component of heat loss in your geometric viewpoint when trying to measure the outgoing radiation flux using a satellite?
The only PROPER way to analyze this is based on vector calculus and splitting the incoming vector into a vertical and parallel components.
As usual, you and climate science simplify the thermodynamic system to a point where it is no longer an accurate physical representation of the system. And then you just blow off the measurement uncertainties introduced by your simplifications.
Here’s an example. You want to know the wind resistance the front of your car presents at speed. So you park it against a wall, illuminate it from behind, and find the area of the shadow cast on the wall.
This may work as a first APPROXIMATION, but it won’t be very accurate since the actual resistance is very dependent on the actual air flow over the surface. It’s why high-performance vehicles are measured in an air tunnel instead of just using the cheaper method of the wall and a light.
You and climate science, as usual, like to represent your first APPROXIMATION as a high accuracy scenario. It isn’t.
All of your assumptions are based on a non-rotating, non-spherical, system at equilibrium. It would be nice to stop the world while evaluating different variables, but such is life that it isn’t possible.
The real earth requires the use of trigonometry, gradients based on time, integrals of those gradients, identification of subsystems and their function, in other words complicated math that you have not demonstrated the ability to use.
Nice refutation of the textbook that I referenced and its implications. Your ability to explain simple trigonometry is unbounded.
Perhaps you would do better learning math, than simply conjuring ad hominem attacks to show how intelligent you are.
Here are some things you could address with actual resources you have. Heck, even give us some textbooks you have that we can purchase to validate your assertions.
1) Yes, but unnecessary information to conduct 1st Law analysis of the planet
2) Also unnecessary information
3) of course, but also unnecessary
4) false and irrelevant for any analysis
I am going to refute you in the same manner you use.
1) wrong – this is the first step in analyzing variables like albedo variance
2) wrong – this is necessary to find the distribution of the temperatures on the earth. You method requires every point to be the same.
3) wrong – The ocean/land stores heat for varying lengths of time.
4) wrong – The ocean stores heat or the OHC would never increase
The land stores heat or agriculture would fail to have germinating seeds.
In Beeton’s world, the sun travels directly overhead at noon everywhere on the earth. Latitude doesn’t exist. All points have the same latitude, 0deg.
That would explain, of course, why the Arctic and Antarctic never have ice.
Yep!
I disagree with everything Warren Beeton posts, but I will defend to the death his Constitutional Right to prove himself an idiot.
Banning people, limiting free expression, and insisting on reverence for unchallenged dogma can hardly be considered “civilized society”. It has been done, and it resulted in anything but civil behavior.
Science is not dogma. And rejection of peer reviewed science by non experts is puerile.
Anything unquestioned is dogma. Peer review is of little value on its face regarding the veracity of the material in question, and it does not require an expert to find a flaw in something. Ask any lawyer how easy it is to find an “expert” to testify to either side of an argument.
Your replies certainly qualify as repetition of dogma since they remain devoid of any attempt at substantive support.
Lacking such, appeal to authority is like unto deference to the edict of the priesthood.
Yes, my company was involved in legal proceedings that had this situation.
Convinced me forever that citing “expert opinion” is abject bullshit.
You get what you pay for.
“Climate expert” quotes in media, journals, etc etc is the most egregious example.
Climate experts are scientists publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, not in “media”. You get what you look for.
“peer reviewed climate journals”.
The alarmists shouldn’t be surprised at this counter-proposal since they’ve been babbling about taking action against governments and corporations whom they claim haven’t been doing enough to save the environment and human well-being. Now that the shoe’s on the other foot, I’d like to see what their reaction will be. They’ll huff and puff but won’t accomplish anything regardless because their credibility has been steadily eroding for years now.
Scientists will claim that they were very clear that this was only an unlikely scenario, and that their silence as the media predictably misrepresented their studies was because they were in the bathroom at the time.
And that the -8.5 scenarios are only now improbable because of all the good work done by climate science over the years. Yet the Keeling curve continues to increase.