By Robert Bradley Jr.
Kim Rogalin posted on social media (Facebook) about the controversy concerning the (now removed) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (fourth edition) of the National Academy of Sciences Federal Judicial Center (FJC). Her post (August 28, 2026) summarized a Federalist article, “After Climate Activism Scandal, 25 State AGs Push Feds to Suspend Grants to National Science Org,” where author Shown Fleetwood wrote:
The problem with that chapter centered on the fact it was not neutral or unbiased, as the science manual is supposed to be, but was written by activist lawyers and academics actively involved in climate lawsuits filed across the nation, plus plaintiffs, advisors, and climate experts participating in those trials. Being written by public advocates of climate lawsuits, while citing materials and using whole sections written by attorneys and academics testifying for the plaintiffs in those lawsuits, doesn’t just tiptoe along the line of the appearance of impropriety. It is flat-out improper and should have been sufficient by itself to disqualify the climate science document from inclusion in the FJC science manual….
The Academy did the right thing by removing the climate chapter from its website and formally investigating.
Jim Cooper Exchange
Enter Jim Cooper, Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, who commented.
What BS. Members of National Academy of Sciences are elected based of quality of their scientific research not their political positions. Members are elected … in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Membership is a widely accepted mark of excellence in science and is considered one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive. Current NAS membership totals approximately 2,700 members and 500 international members, of which approximately 200 have received Nobel prizes.” [NAS here]
I then engaged him as follows:
Bradley: Shame that climate science ruined the reputation of science in general. From Climategate to RCP 8.5.
Jim Cooper: No the shame is folks unwillingness to read the scientific literature . As retired scientist and Scientific Journal Editor, I know that the scientific evidence for Climate Change is robust and the quality of the research on par with other scientific fields. The exchange of personal opinions in a few emails did not affect the quality of the published research. I challenge you to prove otherwise using links to credible documentation.
Bradley: Are/were you part of the problem? Climategate was about real-time cheating for ‘the cause’ (and getting called out for it) and an admitted promise to attempt to skew peer review. Read the quotations! Secondly, what about all the journal articles based on RCP 8.5. Retraction? Climate models are not science….
Bradley: What about the busted paradigm of RCP 8.5-based peer-reviewed articles? Why did the profession turn the speculative (and now rejected) model scenario into a base case? Politicization or mass intellectual error?
Cooper: Again and again I will remind you and others that posts without links to credible domination for claims are noise. Links please, otherwise I will not respond.
Bradley: It is international news in the climate community that RCP 8.5 was formally rejected after a decade of primary use. It was the basis for literally thousands of published climate articles. Roger Pielke Jr. has covered this in detail. Are you following the debate? So again my question: “What about the busted paradigm of RCP 8.5-based peer-reviewed articles?” rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead
Conclusion
My points were never directly answered by the self-anointed authority. If I had made the same case in a journal article, providing a link, what would Cooper have said? My guess is that he would state that it was not a quality journal. Such is the narrative that the experts do not want to disturb.
Climategate lives–and should never be forgotten. As a leading climate alarmist-qua-scientist, Andrew Dessler, stated back in 2009: “There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.”
Jim Cooper Background
In a previous Facebook post concerning the Climate Change Reality Forum, Cooper wrote:
The goal of this site is: “The Climate change reality forum is an open Facebook group established to reach people with information that differs from the IPCC’s official position on this subject.” IPCC presents scientific research findings and the only valid debate must be with scientific research findings accompanied by full citation of sources not opinions. But I find that the latter predominant thus are not honest discussions of reality.
This led to more than one hundred comments, with Cooper responding to criticism by stating:
It’s your responsibility to prove your claims using data and/or previous published research findings. That’s part of critical thinking, and I repeat in science all statements and/or claims must be backed by citation of credible documentation. Please provide a link to paper where the figure appears….
How true–except when it comes to climate science and other politicized areas of scientific research.
The academy was late to respond and that is another problem.
Biased ?
Do wild bears crap in the woods ?
😉
“Is Climate Science Politicized?”
Of course not!
Everybody knows that Michael Mann’s “The Cause” was about scientific integrity.
(Anybody know how to make a giant “/SARC” tag?) 😎
If climate science is not politicized than politics do not exist.
Climate science is more political than politics themselves – it has to be as it can not win the fight on the scientific battlefield.
Regardless, catastrophic climate change due to humans is relentlessly presented as gospel in the press and popular media, in schools from elementary through university, and as a tenet of faith on the political left. “Everybody knows” climate change is happening and at an unprecedented rate due to “fossil fuels” and the Magic Molecule CO2. The drumbeat never stops.
It’s as if the proponents of CAGW have never experienced weather extremes before, in their whole lives, until one happens – it’s hot this summer and records were set somewhere: “See! Climate change is real!” It rains somewhere and floods result: “See! How can you deny climate change!?” And on and on.
And the “climate scientists” some secretly and some openly ride the waves of propaganda which benefit them, not in search of truth but only in self-interest, the truth be damned.
You keep hearing about climate change because it’s happening quickly, human caused and harmful to humanity. Are you living in a cave?
Wazza, look out your f’n window occasionally and tell us how “climate change is happening quickly”.
You’re f’n DELUSIONAL, man.
He’s a true member of the party.
He believes whatever he’s told to believe.
Actually, it is NOT happening quickly, it is NOT human caused at all, and, as we are NOT warming (except in urban temperature-measuring sites and artificial cooling of the past and warming of the recent data by dishonest methods and people) but gently cooling, it is not harmful to humanity. None of the alarmist predictions have been true.
For most of us, it’s a nice, well-furnished “cave.”
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
You should avoid watching Hollywood science fantasy movies. The quality of the science is very poor. I’m afraid that you are living in a distorted matrix.
Convince me.
Show me your data.
Direct me to the evidence you accept as verification for your opinion. Give me a hint about the level of education and expertise you have attained in ANY actual real branch of science.
Folks, Mr. Beeton’s comment does not merit a reply, but it makes this point- Mr. Cooper is so busy demanding scientific citations of skeptics, does he ever demand citation supporting CO2 clisci claims? The Coopers of the world are so funny, they take CliSci as gospel and demand proof from others. And they don’t see it!!!
If it’s happening so quickly, why doesn’t the actual data show it?
The data shows that the earth is warming faster than at any time in human existence: 0.29C per decade.
“It’s your responsibility to prove your claims using data,,,”
Uummmm, yum, data……
You said:
Kewl & thanks some more.
Copilot said:
You’re welcome, Nick. https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f604.svg
And honestly, thanks for uploading the PPT. It moved the conversation from slogans to something much more productive: an actual experimental argument.
After reading it, I think I understand your position better than when we started:
The heater experiment, fan experiment, mist experiment, sealed-box experiment, and vacuum experiment are all intended to demonstrate that changing the effectiveness of non-radiative pathways changes the equilibrium temperature and therefore the radiative share of the energy transfer.
Whether the broader climate conclusions follow is where the scientific debate would occur, but at least now I can see the logical chain you’re trying to build:
1. Surface temperature depends on all heat-transfer modes.
2. Therefore radiation cannot be considered in isolation.
3. Therefore treating the Earth’s surface as an independent blackbody emitter is questionable.
4. Therefore the 396/333/63 bookkeeping loop should be re-examined.
That is a much more precise argument than many climate debates ever get to.
One thing I particularly appreciate is that your presentation explicitly tries to connect a physical experiment to the theoretical argument rather than relying solely on criticism of the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram.
So: kewl discussion. Thanks for sharing the report. https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f44d.svg
And for what it’s worth, if you ever decide to refine the presentation for a technically skeptical audience, I’d focus heavily on slides 7, 12, and 13, where the heater/vacuum methodology and conclusions are presented, because that’s the part most likely to generate a substantive physics discussion rather than a philosophical one.
Sources
Consensus view: A bad assumption, bad math, bad physics, bad balance, insults and censorship.
My view: Hard data, classical science, experiment, balance and open debate.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78
I applaud your persistence.
“…when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
“The Blanched Soldier” Sherlock Holmes
396/333/63 is impossible.
My data might be arguable but is it better than the impossible data that 396/333/63 does not have.
How is 396 measured? 333? By whom? With what instrumentation? Reduction methods? Watts and area measured or S-B hocus pocus factor calculated from temperature?
That whaterever remains:
There is no GHE.
CO2 contributes nothing of consequence to the thermal behavior of Earth’s atmosphere and surface.
Cooper said, “I know that the scientific evidence for Climate Change is robust and the quality of the research on par with other scientific fields.”
Absurd. Certainly not on a par with physics and chemistry, most of which can be verified in a lab. I’ve said it before on this forum and I’ll say it again, the mass of a proton is 1.67262192 × 10-27 kilograms. Now, that’s robust science. When has climate “science” come up with FACTs like that?
When has climate “science” come up with FACTs like that?
Dunno about that; the climastrologists can predict the temperature on 35th February 2706 to fourteen decimal places.
I think he meant to say, “on a par with sociology”. 🙂
Their “climate science” = “political science”. “Political science” has never been a science. Therefore neither is a science. Period.
The social sciences do claim to be sciences. It’s just that there not productive sciences. And the reason is that their subject, human behavior, is too complicated- with countless variables and unknown variables- kinda like climate “science”.
Sir, I fully respect your right to have your point of view re social sciences, meanwhile I would kindly recommend you to revisit the episode titled “Room Service” (Frasier, Season 5, Episode 15, namely Scene 5 – Hotel) that nicely shows what wannabe psychology scientists are (I assume that psychology does also claim to be a science). Hope you enjoy watching it. You are absolutely right re unknown variables in climate “science”. I cannot agree more. Thank you.
Mr. Z: As I say above, so funny that Mr. Cooper cannot see his entire position is based on assumption, even as he hops around demanding “proof” from those who ask questions. His “facts” can’t be questioned. He’s at the level of the house trolls here.
“Climategate lives–and should never be forgotten.”
Has it ever been covered in a major science journal? Wasn’t it quickly covered then rapidly forgotten by the MSM?
After several
investigationswhitewashes.Cooper is obviously focused on the trivial change in temperature supposedly world wide. But, many climate crisis skeptics agree there is a trivial change- very trivial! Cooper fails to appreciate the politics involved- such that we’re told we must spend trillions to arrive at net zero nirvana. And I bet he never addresses other concerns like how we don’t like seeing millions of acres of land being covered with solar panels and whale habitat being disturbed by at sea wind turbines. And the vast amount of new mining that will be necessary to produce vast amounts of wind and solar energy. And the problem of industrial scale batteries. And he seems unaware that many areas of the world will be BETTER with a slight warming- longer growing seasons for example. So, he seems to think he’s won the battle because the skeptics can’t PROVE that there isn’t a trivial change in temperature.
Then Cooper goes on to say, “It’s your responsibility to prove your claims using data and/or previous published research findings. That’s part of critical thinking….”
What exactly have climate “scientists” actually PROVEN? So, only he understands critical thinking- implying that the skeptics are dummies.
They have only proven that there have been changes in averages.
Which, in themselves, have little to do with “climate”.
GMST rise 0.0156 C/y per 40 y UAH.
There is no aspect of reality validly designated as a global mean temperature in any way shape or form.
It is a fantasy, a notion, a spurious mental invention using crude mathematics.
The only objective data directly relevant to the question will ever be a measure of the amount of energy leaving the planet and the amount of energy arriving on the planet collectively measured and aggregated over a thirty year period.
That would then tell us about the state of something humans call a “climate” applied to planet earth for about one human lifetime.
Calculated is not the same as measured.
Xcel spreadsheet linear curve fit of UAH measured anomalies from 12/1979.
UAH does not give surface temperatures.
First off, the loss of a major portion of temperature-measuring sites in the world with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the abandonment of many rural sites worldwide, which caused and enrichment of urban sites that are subject to the urban heat-island effect, and the creation of new low-grade (poorly located) sites has created a mathematical warming that is not valid. Furthermore, as cooling is occurring on half the planet 24/7 and the proportions of land and sea heating up or cooling are constantly changing, there is no such thing as a global temperature that has any meaning. It makes more sense to choose and watch a sample of sites.
The US is most of a continent and has one of the most robust set of sites. Thus, it would be meaningful to simply examine this set for changes in temperature over time. As it is simply a slice of the planet, it could be used to represent overall temperature changes, not actual changes, just the temperature trends over time.
‘Trivial change’? 0.29C per decade – the fastest rate of global temperature change in the time of human existence. Fast enough for you?
No, I’d prefer it was faster.
Then you’d prefer more severe storm disasters, more rapid acceleration in sea level rise, tropical diseases moving north at a faster rate, more species extinctions, and higher taxes on your children and grandchildren to pay for it all.
‘Climate Change Reality Forum’
I will bet that Forum never discusses the following realities:
And, the tropical hotspot has been found to be cooling gently for over 30 years. Yeah, warming, not.
Shouldn’t Mr Cooper provide links supporting “I know that the scientific evidence for Climate Change is robust and the quality of the research on par with other scientific fields.” ?
He can’t because there aren’t any.
”quality of research on par with other fields”. Some counter examples:
Which means that is trend line was probably not statistically significant and indistinguishable from no trend.
You claim re Marcott is utterly false, Istvan. The Hockey stick has been validated and replicated multiple times by other scientists in the peer reviewed literature.
A story with a rhetorical question as it’s title.
Seldom if ever, does climate science provide a variance of a distribution when quoting a mean value. Without some idea of the range in a distribution, one has no way to judge if a change in the mean value is significant or not.
Oh boy. This will be fun. Or esteemed “flame warriors” will have a field day with this.
Missing is the definition of the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, requiring unanimous concurrence by over 130 political representatives.
The Guardian (one of our favorite publications /sarc) now calls it Climate Breakdown.
No wonder. The UN has called it “climate catastrophe” since long. Wonder that we are still alive and kicking despite the UN and The Guardian.
(This message is long; it consists of two parts.)
Mr. Cooper’s reactions remind me of this line by M (Judi Dench) in Casino Royale, after Bond was caught on surveillance cameras causing a disturbance in Africa: “They only care about what we do if we’re photographed doing it.”
Here, there are no photographs, but there is written evidence of agreements between researchers belonging to the same clique to silence dissenting opinions, boycott journals publishing work they disapprove of, and provide as little information as possible to those who request it (and are legally entitled to obtain it under FOIA). For people like Mr. Cooper, this is apparently not enough to demonstrate that climate science and the institutions involved in it are thoroughly politicized and engage in intellectual sectarianism that flouts good scientific practice. This is absolutely appalling. The fact that such prominent figures in the climate “consensus” as Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and others engaged in these exchanges tells anyone acting in good faith more than enough about how transparency was never an option seriously considered by the proponents of institutional climate science.
I can no longer remember which climate scientist said something along these lines about the hockey stick curve: “I don’t see why we should provide them with the results of 25 years’ work if all they want to do is pick it apart.” Reading that, I felt as though I were listening to a petulant child. Why should it matter that 25, 50, or 75 years’ worth of work might be dismantled in a matter of weeks or months? That is what we call scientific progress.
For a scientist, stubbornly clinging to an error can lead to some strange things.
Here is a little story. Everybody knows the “water memory,” a theory developed by Jacques Benveniste, who fell into disrepute after the results of his work were published in an article in the prestigious (which apparently matters) scientific journal Nature, before being demolished by a rigorous investigation. The article was retracted, as it should have been, but Benveniste could not accept it. He then developed a new theory to salvage the original one: what he called “digital biology.” Here is what Gemini has to say about it:
“Isolated in his INSERM laboratory (from which he would eventually be expelled), Benveniste refused to abandon his research. To explain how water could retain information in the absence of molecules, he formulated a new hypothesis: molecules did not communicate through direct contact, but through low-frequency electromagnetic signals.
According to him, each biological molecule has its own ‘digital signature’ or characteristic Hertzian fingerprint. It is this vibrational signal, rather than the matter itself, that would trigger biochemical reactions in the organism.
Taking his concept to the extreme in the late 1990s, Jacques Benveniste claimed to have succeeded in:
Recording the electromagnetic signal of an active molecule (such as ovalbumin or histamine) using a computer sound card.
Digitizing this signal and storing it as a standard computer file.
Sending this file by email (he notably claimed to have sent it from Clamart to the United States).
‘Replaying’ the audio signal onto a sample of pure water placed next to loudspeakers, claiming that the water then acquired the same biological properties as the original molecule.
This subsequent research finally destroyed his credibility in the eyes of the academic world.
Sanctions and ridicule: He lost INSERM’s support, his funding was cut, and he was awarded the derisory Ig Nobel Prize twice (in 1991 for water memory and in 1998 for the digitization of biological signals).
Setting up his own organization: To continue his experiments, he founded his own private company, Digibio, funded in part by private investors and supporters of alternative medicine.
Jacques Benveniste died in 2004, aged 69, without ever having succeeded in getting his digital biology protocols validated by an independent scientific body.
Although regarded as pseudoscience by the international scientific community, the idea of digital biology was taken up after his death by virologist Luc Montagnier (Nobel Prize in Medicine). Montagnier made similarly controversial claims that DNA emitted electromagnetic waves in water, temporarily reigniting the controversy without providing reproducible evidence.”
(Continued below)
This may seem laughable (and understandably so), I ultimately find the whole story rather sad. Benveniste was a world-renowned immunology researcher, regarded by his peers as a very serious candidate for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, thanks to his groundbreaking discoveries in the fields of allergy and inflammation. These findings revolutionized the treatment of asthma and anaphylactic shock. A serious man, then, who had come up with an idea no more foolish than any other and who, had he admitted he was wrong, would have lost none of his credibility. How can one make scientific innovations if one is unwilling to take even the slightest intellectual risk? He was unable to detach himself from his mistake and sank deeper into it, like someone trapped in quicksand. In a different context, this reminds me of the way climate modelers cling to their model outputs to the point of prioritizing them over observations. So much work cannot possibly have been for nothing!
Well, yes and no. It was for nothing in the sense that it was refuted by various lines of evidence, but this failure taught us something. This particular path is not viable, here is why, and here is what that teaches us about the state of the world and how we can discover more about it. We must continue to make progress with even greater determination and complete honesty.
Feynman is one of my heroes. We know what a scientific genius and extraordinary communicator of science he was. But while it is true that great men themselves stand on the shoulders of giants, those giants would not necessarily have achieved much without the dozens, hundreds, and thousands of scientists whose names remain unknown, who never made a revolutionary discovery during their careers, yet who nevertheless kept digging away relentlessly, out of sheer love of knowledge.
Have you read T. C. Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses?
I’ve just looked into this book. It seems extremely interesting. Thank you for the reading recommendation!
In a graduate marine biology course, 50 years ago, our assignment was to do some original marine lab research, analyze the results, and submit a paper to be critiqued by the professor. It was great fun, except for one graduate student who did the research and data analysis and wrote the paper. However, she refused to submit the paper as she knew the professor was going to criticize it. She claimed the work was so good, it should not be judged. Really? That was the whole point of the exercise, to be critiqued and judged by a critic, as all other scientists should do.
The behavior of this student was appalling, we agree on that.
Why should I give you my data when your only goal is to find something wrong with it?
Some climate “scientist” some 40 years ago.
and they did!
Climate Science is every bit a science as is Economics.
There are two BIG important differences.
’Climate Science’ is neither a ‘science’ nor useful.
Keynesian economics, and its many variants, is a pseudo science that became ‘mainstream’ because it justifies / enables active government intervention in the economy. It’s basically how the US government piled up almost $40T of unpayable debt since the so-called gold window was closed in 1971.
Yes, but speaking as a PhD level economist, economics is a LOT more than just macro Keynesian spending policy. There is macro Freedman monetary policy. There is macro Leontief I/O analysis. There is micro price elasticity of demand. There is micro economy of scale. And outside macro and micro, there is also much valuable stuff like capital market theory or behavioral expectations. Plus a lot of math ‘tools’ first developed for econometrics.
Rud, I hope you agree that “economics” is not a science, any more than “political science” or “social science”. Is “psychology” a science? Psychologists think so, but consensus or self praise counts for nought – in my opinion.
You say “Yes, but speaking as a PhD level economist . . . “.
There are people who call themselves “PHD level Climate Scientists” too, but appeals to authority fall flat where facts don’t support them.
Unfortunately, economists believe in “modelling”, but can predict the future no better than a smart 12 year old. Sorry, but if economists did not exist, the world would get along quite nicely, wouldn’t it?
Even more unfortunately, many governments have great faith in economists, even when they frequently change their forecasts – while disagreeing with each other about what the future holds.
Highly paid fortune sellers, taking advantage of the ignorant and gullible. Rather like “climate scientists”, wouldn’t you say?
Just my worthless opinion, of course.
I’ll take Friedman over any Keynesian any day of the week, solely on the former’s preference for free markets, excluding monetary policy, of course. Having said that, the Austrian’s are hands down the better economists.
Keynes was a UK official who advised government policy, which resulted in his enrichment. It was never meant to be good for the country.
It is not Climate Science, it is Climate Politics. Very different playing fields.
Well there sure are a lot of stupid economists and stupid “journalists” that will let them broadcast their views no matter how many times they’ve been terribly wrong before and that characteristic is certainly shared with “climate scientists”.
Ouch!
I’ve always been a bit impressed by Economists, since they reportedly must grok partial differential equations.
But then, there is that “dismal science” moniker.
Actually, it is closer to the social sciences, otherwise called the soft sciences, which are constructions largely made of many assumptions and even opinions and guesses (that might sound logical).
Are you referring to the “Dismal Science?”
“Economists are only there to make weather forecasters look good.”
(that was the opening statement of my economics lecturer, who was also a proud, card-carrying Marxist. We separated after 2 semesters.)
Anyone who claims that those who are elected to the NAS based solely on their scholarship has demonstrated a will full blindness to reality.
A man who treats models and the study of models as genuine, authentic mainstream science is not a scientist.
A man who does not understand that pal review is not any sort of review, historically data and evidence has always been required when guesses aka theories are being tested and judged.
Review means – do the work again taking into account all the possible ways that the theoretical claim might be falsified.
The thermometer and the tidal gauge and the historical record are data, models are tools examining complex systems to find clues as to internal mechanisms.
The IPCC models have failed the test of time – all predictions have actually been wrong when the time has arrived to test reality.
They have also been wrong by greater margins.
It’s what they always do. They play stupid like they need citations for obvious facts and then take their ball and run away home when you refuse to play their silly game.
Here’s one example that drove hundreds of not thousand of junk papers that shows climate science is garbage. “[Place] is warming 2x faster than rest of world” papers. Most of the world is ocean that takes longer to heat up, so naturally the average worldwide will be biased toward the ocean temperature and any city, state or country will be warming faster, being on land and not in the ocean. The fact those papers ever passed peer review shows the corruption to the core.
One could argue that “The Science” is not really politicized. Not on the basis that it is not biased, but on the basis that it is far more religious than it is political. Although, those who have faith in the religion of Scientism do tend to be on the political left, though that correlation is not necessarily causative, and even if it was the direction of causality would not be readily apparent.
Mr. Cooper’s arguments come across as juvenile and circular. He is basically arguing from authority, that good science is done by scientists, and scientists are those who do good science, where good science is defined as that which agrees with his position. When shown that those who he would consider “scientists” (and good scientists at that) had engaged in deliberately unscrupulous behavior in order to bias what was published and to sabotage the peer review process in favor of their ideological/religious positions, he just denies and ignores.
I don’t think you, or anyone else, will have much luck getting through to Mr. Cooper. He is a true believer in his faith. Maybe put him in the “too hard” basket, at least for now. Hope, I think, lies in getting those who are not zealous believers to think about why they hold their beliefs, what evidence they have to support them and what it would take for them to change their minds. If they insist that nothing could change their minds, you are dealing with someone who is running on blind faith. A Socratic dialog can help those who are not at the level of blind faith to start to question their assumptions.
One commonly reads articles wherein the author(s) remark about the “dark water” in the Arctic (e.g. https://scitechdaily.com/for-decades-the-arctic-melt-season-kept-growing-then-it-stopped/ ) absorbing more heat energy than the ice and snow in the water.
There are several reasons why the water appears dark to a casual observer. The most important ones are supported by Fresnel’s equation on the behavior of specular reflectors (i.e. water) where the reflectivity is a function of the varying angle of incidence; that is, at high angles of incidence, the amount of EM energy entering the water decreases inversely with the reflectivity, which is opposite the typical claim.
Additionally, unlike with diffuse reflectors, the reflected rays of the sun are constrained to a narrow sheaf which can only be observed when looking into the sun on the horizon at about the same angle as the sun is above the horizon. All other viewing geometries produce only a little light because so little light is entering the water and the frozen land produces little suspended sediment to reflect light back out of the water.
However, it is common for people unfamiliar with Fresnel’s equation to not provide a reason for the water appearing dark and naively claiming that if something appears dark it must be absorbing more heat energy, which is a false assumption.
I would also point out that you are describing the action of insolation (light) and its absorption by the surface. A heat ray (light) has three components when viewed from the surface it encounters, incident, reflected, and transmitted (absorbed). It is why finding an “average” absorbed insolation for the surface of the earth is a joke.
Geometric albedo: The brightness of an object when viewed with the light source to the back aka planet in the nadir viewing 180 from the sun.
Bond albedo: The brightness of an object when viewed not on nadir.
Albedo is both reflected EM and “grey body” emissions as well as other sources of EM (cell phones, radio, radar, etc.).
Albedo has been hijacked and repurposed to mean only reflectivity. Bogus science. Corruption of language.
Other fun words and expresssons:
Anomaly
Feedback
Control knob
GMST
Fossil Fuel
Carbon emissions
Green energy, etc.
Mean orbit
Trap heat
Only part of a long list of words and expressions designed to create a socially emotional response and are not based on concise engineering or scientific definitions.
Thank you.
This Cooper clown talks and writes like a third grader, how can anyone take anything he puts forward seriously? And so far the only thing the “climate science” crowd have done is prove they will tell any lie as long as it puts money in their pockets. Totally, 100% political.