Who should I believe, AGW/ACC advocates, or deniers?

I own up to every word I WROTE, not to every half-assed implication YOU want to "infer". Oh, you'll get "crap" from me anything you pull bullshit like this. It's total nonsense.

 

This article explains why you should use a number close to 240 watts per square meter (average solar irradiance absorbed by the earth) and not 1367 (maximum total solar irradiance). What matters is how much the average solar irradince absorbed the earth has changed from the year 1750 to the present, +0.05 watts per
square meter, and compare that to the total anthropogenic radiative forcing from the year 1750 to present, close to +2.5 watts per square meter. The anthropogenic
forcing is 50 times the solar forcing. This explains why no climate scientist uses your argument to debunk anthropogenic global warming.

Solar Radiation & The Earth’s Energy Balance | Dawn Wells (columbia.edu)

The Earth’s climate is a solar powered system. Globally, over the course of the year, the Earth system—land surfaces, oceans, and atmosphere—absorbs an average of about 240 watts of solar power per square meter (one watt is one joule of energy every second). The absorbed sunlight drives photosynthesis, fuels evaporation, melts snow and ice, and warms the Earth system.

The Sun doesn’t heat the Earth evenly. Because the Earth is a sphere, the Sun heats equatorial regions more than polar regions

The total solar irradiance is the maximum possible power that the Sun can deliver to a planet at Earth’s average distance from the Sun; basic geometry limits the actual solar energy intercepted by Earth. Only half the Earth is ever lit by the Sun at one time, which halves the total solar irradiance

In addition, the total solar irradiance is the maximum power the Sun can deliver to a surface that is perpendicular to the path of incoming light. Because the Earth is a sphere, only areas near the equator at midday come close to being perpendicular to the path of incoming light. Everywhere else, the light comes in at an angle. The progressive decrease in the angle of solar illumination with increasing latitude reduces the average solar irradiance by an additional one-half.

Averaged over the entire planet, the amount of sunlight arriving at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is only one-fourth of the total solar irradiance, or approximately 340 watts per square meter.

About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.

This article comes up with an average of 240.5 watts per square meter absorbed over the entire Earth's surface and discusses the planetary energy imbalance
which is causing the Earth's surface to warm.
Earth's energy budget is out of balance – here's how it's warming the climate (msn.com)

Virtually all the energy in the Earth’s climate system comes from the Sun. Only a tiny fraction is conducted upward from the Earth’s interior.

On average, the planet receives 340.4 watts of sunshine per square meter. All sunshine falls on the daytime side, and the numbers are much higher at local noon.

Of that 340.4 watts per square meter:

• 99.9 watts are reflected back into space by clouds, dust, snow and the Earth’s surface.
  
  
• The remaining 240.5 watts are absorbed – about a quarter by the atmosphere and the rest by the surface of the planet. This radiation is transformed into thermal energy within the Earth system. Almost all of this absorbed energy is matched by energy emitted back into space. A tiny residual – 0.6 watts per square meter – accumulates as global warming. That may not sound like much, but it adds up.
  
  
• The tiny residual between incoming sunshine and outgoing infrared is due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the air.

 

Those 240 W/sqm are incorrect for a very simple reason: sunlight does not shine across the entire surface of the Earth.

How much of the surface of the Earth receives sunlight each day?

And of that portion, does the sunlight fall with equal energy from the equator to the poles on any other dates than the two equinoxes?

Just because many of these folks' primary interest is atmospheric chemistry does not mean that they are allowed to ignore addressing the multitude of other dynamics at work, which they clearly have. Smearing solar forcing into an overly simplistic lumped parameter is an excellent example of this fact.

Where are all the thousand of papers with hundreds of authors that nail down the dynamics of latitudinal convective heat transfer in the atmosphere between the equator and the poles? Prove to me first that this isn't some form of an oscillation similar to El Niño but on a longer time scale? We had a serious Western drought in the early 1930's and here about 100 years later we're already into multiple years of insufficient rain in the Western US. And we have no way of knowing historical periods of minor droughts based on proxies that don't have century old trees. There are no isotope studies of dirt and rocks that can possibly be used to infer Western US rainfall and temperature in 1721.

So called global warming is a misnomer in and of itself, isn't it? Aren't the tropics still running about the same as they always have? And isn't it the Northern Hemisphere that holds the vast landmass of the Earth, in significant disproportion to the Southern Hemisphere? So wouldn't it be critical to fully understand what the dynamics are here, since AGW seems to be primarily an assertion concerning the Northern Hemisphere? Certainly the richest and most powerful members of the UN are all located in the Northern Hemisphere, but perhaps I'm allowing the fact that a political organization that makes the statement for all to see that it and it alone "determines the state of knowledge on climate change" to, pardon me, but influence my skepticism that this is a policy agenda attempting to masquerade under the guise of being based on "science".

***
Earlier in this discussion you quoted an article claiming that, "Fortunately, the calculation of climatic variables (i.e., long-term averages) is much easier than weather forecasting, since weather is ruled by the vagaries of stochastic fluctuations, while climate is not." This assertion was refuted in the comments section by this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke:

Roger A. Pielke Sr. (born October 22, 1946) is an American meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change, environmental vulnerability, numerical modeling, atmospheric dynamics, land/ocean – atmosphere interactions, and large eddy/turbulent boundary layer modeling. He particularly focuses on mesoscale weather and climate processes but also investigates on the global, regional, and microscale. Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.[1]

Pielke was awarded a B.A. in mathematics at Towson State College in 1968, and then an M.S. and Ph.D. in meteorology at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) in 1969 and 1973, respectively.

From 1971 to 1974 he worked as a research scientist at the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Lab (EML), from 1974 to 1981 he was an associate professor at the University of Virginia (UVa), served the primary academic position of his career as a professor at Colorado State University (CSU) from 1981 to 2006, was deputy of Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University from 1985 to 1988, from 1999 to 2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003 to 2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October–December 2004. Since 2005, Pielke has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU. After retiring from CSU and he remains a CIRES emeritus researcher.

Pielke spearheaded development of the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) with William R. Cotton.

Pielke has served as Chairman and Member of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, as Chief Editor of Monthly Weather Review, was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2004, has served as Editor-in-Chief of the U.S. National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and as Editor of Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere.[2]

In the comments section of the article you cited, here is what he had to say about this assertion , "This is incorrect."

"We need to move the discussion to studying climate as a complex, nonlinear system which displays chaotic behavior if we are going to provide scientifically robust understanding to policymakers."

"The climate system is the highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the biosphere, and the interactions between them. The climate system evolves in time under the influence of its own internal dynamics and because of external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, solar variations and human-induced forcings such as the changing composition of the atmosphere and land-use change."

"There are numerous examples of sudden climate transitions of different spatial and temporal time scales. For just one example, the megadrought of the 16th Century in western North America represented a transition which lasted for decades, and was much more severe than what we have seen since historical records began (e.g. see “Megadrought and Megadeath in 16th Century Mexico."

"
Dan-there are numerous examples of sudden transitions on all time scales. For example, I mentioned the 16th Century megadrought in my reply to William, which is well documented in the proxy record. During the 20th century, we had the dust bowl years of the 1930s when many all time heat records occurred (and many of them remain records today). The 2002 drought in western North America is a shorter term transition, which has already shifted to a different wetter regime.

In terms of how we are altering the climate, it is these sudden transitions that we need to understand, rather than focus so much of our resources on assessments of the global averaged temperature trend."

"James-regarding your comment #8, I completely agree with you that we need to apply models to better understand climate system processes in response to the spectrum of natural- and human- climate forcings and feedbacks. I have numerous papers that utilize this approach. However, to comminicate to policymakers that the models provide skillful multi-decadal regional and global predictions grossly oversells their capability. We can both agree that we should work to minimize the human alteration of the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, but still disagree whether we can skillfully predict the climate consequences of such actions."

"The issue we need to debate is not whether the global average temperature changes by 0.1C or 0.2C over the next decade (or whatever). We need to assess the predictability of regional climate changes that have serious societal and/or environmental consequences. This includes any change in our risk to drought such as the West had in 2002. Models cannot skillfully predict the change in probability of such events. This is why we have encouraged the adoption of a vulnerability framework as more inclusive and useful to policymakers than the global average temperature predictions."

 

What is your source for this +0.05 W/sqm variance? This value in AR5 refers to the variance in the TOA solar constant, not in the transmission versus reflection balance, which is not rigorously calculated anywhere and is so complex and dynamic that modeling it and it alone is beyond our current abilities. However, we could certainly take a good stab at it. Chaos theory and fractal mathematics has opened incredible abilities to simulate natural phenomena such as clouds. So, if this really were about the science of it then we would have a dynamic model of solar radiation transmittance and reflectance that would give us better understanding of what the real value is and how it changes season by season, and then month by month, followed with even more granular time series simulations that would actually allow these climate scientists to merge their efforts with the real science based methods of meteorology.

All the AR5 has to say about the value of transmittance is this:

8.4.1 Solar Irradiance
In earlier IPCC reports the forcing was estimated as the instantaneous
RF at TOA. However, due to wavelength-albedo dependence, solar radiation-
wavelength dependence and absorption within the stratosphere
and the resulting stratospheric adjustment, the RF is reduced to about
78% of the TOA instantaneous RF (Gray et al., 2009). There is low confidence
in the exact value of this number, which can be model and time
scale dependent (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 2005). AR4 gives
an 11-year running mean instantaneous TOA RF between 1750 and
the present of 0.12 W m–2 with a range of estimates of 0.06 to 0.30 W
m–2, equivalent to a RF of 0.09 W m–2 with a range of 0.05 to 0.23 W
m–2.

And now these folks have concluded it must be closer to 70%, because this is what it must be to support their concerns about CO2.

I accept the fact that the solar constant is indeed constant and there are no possible variations in solar activity that can explain climate cycles or weather patterns on Earth: not even the 11y solar cycle, much less this other solar cycle that I see mentioned from time to time.

Comparing the AR5 0.05 W/sqm "solar irradiance" "forcing" to the AR5 2.3 W/sqm AGW "forcing" and then claiming that mankind is influencing the climate with 50 times the power of the sun is simply incredible and, worse, you are now trying to be serious and discuss actual science and are making unequal comparisons.

There are plenty of climate scientists, like Pielke that have tried to correct the undue influence of the Al Gores and Greta Thunbergs of the world on this process and have failed.

 

One other thing, please that I might ask if it's not too much trouble to please delineate between your words and those of others.

 

Even though there isn't 240 watts per square meter of solar irradiance evenly spread among the Earth's spherical surface, that can be used as an abstraction in
order to compare the 2.3 watts per square meter of anthropogenic radiation forcing which is evenly distributed among the Earth's spherical surface. It is well
known that energy is transferred by convection from the tropics to the polar regions. Using an evenly spread out 240 watts per square meter that strikes all
areas of the Earth's spherical surface perpendicular to the surface is equivalent to what actually happens, the same amount of solar radiation gets absorbed by
the Earth's surface.

I am not 100% sure about this but I would say that the same amount of energy is absorbed by the Earth's surface every day of the year. The hemispherical distribution of where the energy is absorbed obviously changes. The Earth's distance from the sun changes slightly throughout the year so that causes some daily fluctuation in energy absorbed, 91.4 million miles minimum to 94.5 million miles maximum.

Global warming is about the Earth's entire surface area., but most of the warming has been in the Northern Hemisphere. There is more land in the N. Hemisphere
and land has warmed 50% more than the surface area covered by oceans. There has been a reduction in the albedo of the N. Hemisphere due to the the
melting of Arctic sea ice and glaciers. That causes a positive feedback resulting in a disproportionate amount of warming in the northern latitudes. There hasn't
been any reduction in sea ice surrounding Antarctica but that will come in the future. I don 't know what other effects, if any, have created more warming in the N. hemisphere, maybe changes in air circulation or ocean circulation.

Roger Pielke's definition of climate is different from the standard one that is a statistical average of weather over a large region and representing 30 years
or longer. He brings in the definition of the climate system to support his position, which is not the same as the definition of climate. I don't doubt that
regions of the earth can have unpredictable climate lasting for either a few months, years, or decades. I am more concerned about the predictability
of the entire surface of the earth. When it warms unpredictably in one region there is a good chance that other regions of the earth are cooling, so the
global mean temperature isn't changing very much. If the global mean temperature increases by 3 degrees C. above the pre-industrial period, and
that could happen with a moderate RCP 4.5 scenario, then we have catastrophic warming. That can be shown from radiative forcing models as
well as climate models. The complicated climate models are not need to show this.

 

The PII was 0.3-100 kt. It was fun. You mate the radar section to the warhead, then mate that to the guidance control adaptor. The PIA, which the German Air Force had was a three-stage fission-fusion-fission warhead. It was multiple yield, rather than "dial-a-yield" (as the Media calls it). And it had those damn firing cables that sucked.

I delivered the last several PII warheads to Neu Ulm in December 1985, only about 7 weeks behind schedule considering what the fire at Camp Redleg did. I wasn't there for that. A friend of mine was. We were talking about what if the 1st or 2nd stage had ignited on a Chinook in-flight.

Unlike the US, the Soviets had conventional warheads for all their missiles. The SS-20 had three 3,000 pound PBX warheads. It was like a shot-gun. Flies over the target, opens up and kicks the warheads off the bus.

Given the fact that neither the US nor any NATO member had a clue how the Soviets actually fought, I've often wondered why they never tried.

They would have defeated NATO in 60 days or less.

The claim is that the Russians violated it with the the deployment of a missile system that is alleged to fall within the "intermediate-range" class. I don't know if that's true or not. The absence of intermediate-range missiles doesn't make war more or less likely.

 

We had a very good idea how they fought, and we would have won.
The Third World War: General Sir John Hackett: Amazon.com ...
https://www.amazon.com › Third-World-General-John-...


The Third World War [General Sir John Hackett] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Third World War.

 

Who were you working for when you did the nosecone assembly? Civilian or military? I think the nosecones were assembled in San Antonio, but I'm not sure about that. I met a warrant officer once that was an interesting character. Claimed he had a chunk of uranium embedded in the palm of one of his hands from running it over a finished sphere of a component to check the finish and found a small burr the hard way. I asked him why he didn't have it surgically removed and he claimed that the doctors advised him it was better to leave it in. This made no sense to me then and it makes no sense to me now. That whole story makes no sense, but what do you expect from a chief besides where to find a cup of coffee.

I was finishing up a TDA assignment at the Cape in support of a Pershing II live fire exercise in December 85.

They may have equipped some SS-20s with three conventional warheads, but they would be an exception. The SS-20 carried 3 150kt MIRV warheads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSD-10_Pioneer

That's a both a bold assertion and a slightly insane question, followed by another bold assertion. How is it that you know more than the US or NATO about how the Soviets actually fought? It seems unlikely to me that the USSR would have defeated NATO in 60 days or less.

Why have you often wondered why who never tried what exactly? Why the USSR never initiated a war with NATO because they would have easily won in less than 60 days seems to be the only possible meaning of the somewhat ambiguous use of they in that sentence. What year did you have in mind for this little party to start? The 80s? And what exactly is your secret knowledge of what the plan would have been? A nuclear first strike would have guaranteed a retaliatory MAD attack from the US. You are aware how the US fights I assume. The only nation on Earth that has and will nuke an opponent and has always maintained a first strike option with its nuclear arsenal. If you're speculating about a conventional battle then if the Soviets had overrun our bases in West Germany we would very likely have approved the use of tactical nukes like the Lance. It is questionable whether or not we would have given up the PII QRA sites without launching instead. This is just a bizarre couple of sentences here. That along with your assertion that the SS-20 carried conventional warheads rather than the 150kt MIRVs it was known for seems a bit odd to me, but whatever.

Yes, that was the reason Trump gave for taking the initiative for the US to the first one to formally withdraw from the INF treaty. Even if it was true that Russia had developed what I believe was a ground based cruise missile system with warheads and range sufficient to violate the treaty, then the proper diplomatic procedure would be to pursue sanctions rather than abrogate the treaty so that the US MIC is free to start building its own next gen intermediate range nuclear missile system.

There are many many things that make war more or less unlikely and I am no expert on what those factors are, but having PIIs on QRA pads theoretically worked both ways. My first squad leader was on pad one night in 82 I think it was. The round at that time was the P1A. The story I heard was that because of a faulty NORAD relay they were on pad and on an active alert for 3 hours one cold winter night and were very close to pulling the pins for a launch. Talk about man made global warming....

 

I got the 0.05 watts per square meter +/- 0.05 w/m squared from Table 8.6, page 696, in the AR5 report and it is also shown on this representation. Your
numbers came from the AR4 report and the total solar irradiance change from the year 1750 was found to be a global mean of +0.12 with a range that varies from +0.06 to +0.30 in that earlier report. I know that this very small number for the total solar irradiance forcing seems to be to small; smaller than I thought it would be.
My claim that mankind is influencing the change in climate by a factor of 50 times the total solar irradiance change is based on evidence, but the actual number could be smaller. It doesn't really matter what the exact number is, as long as greenhouse gases continue to increase, the anthropogenic/solar irradiance factor
will get larger in the future. The cooling caused by anthropogenic aerosol pollution is expected to decrease throughout this century and that will increase the
human contribution to warming even more. The carbon dioxide forcing was 1.7 watts/square meter in that 2013 report based on 2011 results and the number on
the Wikipedia page for the year 2019 shows that the CO2 forcing was 2.076 watts/sq. meter 9 years later.

Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing — IPCC Figure 8.17

 

Grey Matter said: "This value in AR5 refers to the variance in the TOA solar constant, not in the transmission versus reflection balance, which is not rigorously calculated anywhere and is so complex and dynamic that modeling it and it alone is beyond our current abilities."

My reply: The change in albedo (reflectance) is discussed extensively in the AR5 report. I have read over some of it and the overall change in albedo is
very small. It is so small that it barely has any effect on the climate. They discuss the change in land surface albedo and that is shown in Figure 8.17 above.
I can't recall how much detail they went into discussing aerosol changes to atmospheric albedo and cloud albedo.

 

Why do you insert line breaks in the middle of your sentences? It makes your posts difficult to read.

This next paragraph doesn't have any of those weird line breaks and it's much easier to read,

Using 240 W/sqm evenly spread out over the Earth's entire surface is most certainly not equivalent to what actually happens, is it? You might want to rethink this one. The same amount of energy is likely not absorbed every day of the year. Consider that the Northern Hemisphere has substantially more land than the Southern Hemisphere and that land absorption has different characteristics than ocean absorption. Also, as the Earth precesses in its orbit around the Sun, the subsolar point changes a bit everyday and this is constantly shifting the portions of the Earth that receive the most direct solar energy. Clouds are probably more significant than any of these considerations though. Sometimes here in Houston clouds will sit on top of the town for days in a row and just bounce the heat right back out to space.

Yes, that was the point I was attempting to convey when I wrote this:

Where are all the thousand of papers with hundreds of authors that nail down the dynamics of latitudinal convective heat transfer in the atmosphere between the equator and the poles? Prove to me first that this isn't some form of an oscillation similar to El Niño but on a longer time scale?

If this is the argument then it is inconsistent that the science of the work supports these assertions that the current average global temperature is already causing fires and droughts and stronger hurricanes and more wicked tornados. How would they know this given that they are only interested in much simpler models that are laser focused on 30+ year predictions of average temperatures?

I think Pielke was trying to convey that the prediction of long term average temperature is subject to the same constraints placed on more detailed meteorological forecasts.

He has spent his entire career working on climate and weather. Connolley worked briefly as a programmer/data analyst and has no formal education in climate other than bringing his skill to the table as a Phd level numerical analyst and programmer. What else does he bring? An extreme loyalty and passion for the Green Party and environmental concerns. RealClimate.org is his baby, although it's not clear to me that he is as active as he once was with that site.

 

Yes, I figured that was where you got the 0.05. It is the supposed variance in the solar constant between 1750 and 2011. Hey, if you want to divide the 2.3 by the .05 and then claim that man has 50 times the influence on the climate as does the sun and then stick by it, that's entirely up to you. I'm not going to argue that any further with you.

I'm not sure what number I provided that you assume I got from AR4, I've never even looked at AR4.

 

This is your response to my pointing out that AR5 was off by 8% on the currently accepted value of TSI overall transmittance? This does not boil down to surface albedo characteristics. The primary reflector I'm guessing is cloud cover. So it is as random and ever changing as the rain.

 

I have rethought my claim and I have modified it.
The number given for the Earth's albedo is usually 0.29 or 0.30. That is an average over the entire surface of the earth. Since the albedo varies over the Earth's
surface, that 240 W/sqm of energy absorbed has to vary with the albedo. You are right about that. It probably varies quite a bit. The distance of the earth from the sun varies so that also affects the 240 W/sqm number. So, the amount of energy absorbed each day is going to vary somewhat but the average amount of energy absorbed over 1 year is equivalent to a constant 240 w/sqm over the entire surface of the earth. The albedo must be an average number that spans maybe a 10 year or slightly greater time frame. The 240 W/sqm number will fluctuate about the mean exactly the same way that the albedo fluctuates about the mean.

It is true that this way of looking at the solar energy absorbed by the earth is not what actually happens - it is approximately equivalent to what happens when we think of how much energy the surface of the earth absorbs over a time span of several years. It is too difficult to imagine what is really
going on. In reality, there is much more solar energy absorbed in the tropics than in the polar regions/higher latitudes, and much of this energy is transported to
the higher latitudes through ocean circulation and cyclones, hurricanes, and tropical storms. I said that this is an abstract way of modelling reality and it should
work over long time spans involving many years.

 

What about this?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

If I were a policy maker, this is what I would read, I do not understand the technical data

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. {2.2, 2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 5.2, 5.3, 6.4, 7.3, 8.3, 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 9.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1} (Figure SPM.1, Figure SPM.2)
[...]
A.1.2 Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature8 in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84- 1.10] °C higher than 1850-19009 . Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011– 2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C). Additionally, methodological advances and new datasets contributed approximately 0.1ºC to the updated estimate of warming in AR610 .

Are you saying they are wrong?

 

Since you responded to the portion of my post where I quoted Pielke Sr., I'll share a reference to what his son has to say about the report:

rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report

Note, Pielke Jr. is also a college prof, so you kinda have to read between the lines a little bit to understand that this is a scathing rebuke of the fear mongering inherent in AR6 and in the way it is being sold.

 

Just kidding around with you with that video, sorry, couldn't resist....

So, interestingly, it's a simple calculation to figure out the variation between the elliptical minimum distance and the maximum distance assuming that the nominal distance represents 240 W/sqm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

So at the minimum distance the value increases to 248 W/sqm and at the maximum distance it decreases to 232 W/sqm.

 

I'll check him out, and (pardon my naiveté) but who is Pielke Jr? He is someone I should pay attention to?

So, good news, then?

He states:
Great News! The Extreme Scenario that IPCC Saw as Most Likely in 2013 is Now Judged Low Likelihood

But all those fires? Why am I still nervous & worried about this, then?

 

You are personally nervous and worried about this? This is a political agenda masquerading as science and it is using a tried and true political technique in pursuit of its agenda: FEAR.

This technique was used effectively by W to win his second term. We had color coded threat levels and as the election approached the levels went up. And then shortly after Jan 20th all of the 1600 Pennsylvania barriers came down and the color coded threat system faded from US policy, attention and finally all consciousness that it had ever been anything other than a gestating GQP led fever dream....

This IPCC "science" is the Al Gore version of the same tactic. What does the newest report that the world has anticipated with baited breath for 10 years have to say? It says, we warned you and it's too late now.

1.5°C IS NOW LOCKED IN! YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO THE SCIENTISTS INSTEAD OF BUYING A NEW SUV. EVERY CHILD THAT DIES FROM A HURRICANE OR A WILDFIRE IS BLOOD ON THE HANDS OF EXXONMOBIL.

And it's too late, baby, now it's too late
Though we really did try to make it (we can't make it)

I have long held the opinion, largely courtesy of Mike Crichton that this is politics disguised as science. And I have held the caveat opinion that it better be, because if it's not, then there is nothing we can do about it. This is what the carbon cycle looks like. Look closely at the relative numbers in it.



It's curious that the two notes about the net uptake are not also shown in red, you know, to make sure they pop as well, or at least the Net ocean uptake, since the death of coral reefs is being blamed on man made CO2 as well.

Look at the estimate of CO2 stored in the ocean and remember my point previously in this thread about the behavior of dissolved CO2 in water and the 2 litre bottle of soda. As the ocean warms that estimated 90/90 balance is incorrect. As the ocean warms it will establish continually shifting new dynamic equilibrium levels of CO2 with the air above it that results in more of those deepwater 37 Tt of dissolved CO2 being released to the atmosphere.

Listening to these idiots drives me nuts. The only comparable experience is when I have to go to a funeral and listen to some idiot talk about the meaning of life, eternal life, blah, blah, blah....

***
I don't think Pielke Jr. is particularly worthy of note to pay attention to, he just happened to have a blog post that was somewhat relevant. In my opinion he buys into far too much of this agenda driven "science".

If you ask me who to pay attention to, I've already told you: pay attention to Mike Crichton.

 

I think that you are conflating what environmental activists say with what climate scientists say. I doubt if any climate scientist would make a statement like this:

"1.5°C IS NOW LOCKED IN! YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO THE SCIENTISTS INSTEAD OF BUYING A NEW SUV. EVERY CHILD THAT DIES FROM A HURRICANE OR A WILDFIRE IS BLOOD ON THE HANDS OF EXXONMOBIL."

Something like that would come from an environmentalist. I listen to what the top climate scientists say and not the politicians, environmentalists, or
ordinary citizens who are climate activists.

I also assume that there are climate scientists dedicated to their profession who study the carbon cycle and know much more about than you, me and
non-experts. It is a complicated subject.

I started reading this article to understand the carbon cycle better.

The Ocean’s Carbon Balance (nasa.gov) This is an old article from 2007 but it is informative.

The proportion of CO2 taken up by the land and ocean carbon sinks decreases with higher emission scenarios according to the recent IPCC AR6 report.
The range is from 70% under the SSP1-1.9 scenario to 38% under the SSp5-8.5 scenario. So, it is very advantageous to reduce our carbon emissions
in order to decrease the atmospheric CO2 and also to reduce the amount of carbonic acid and dissolved CO2 in the oceans.
These numbers were taken from the IPCC AR6 report , Figure SPM 7.

IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

"The cumulative anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions taken up by the land and ocean sinks under the five illustrative scenarios (SSP1-1.9, SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) are simulated from 1850 to 2100 by CMIP6 climate models in the concentration-driven simulations. Land and ocean carbon sinks respond to past, current and future emissions, therefore cumulative sinks from 1850 to 2100 are presented here. During the historical period (1850-2019) the observed land and ocean sink took up 1430 GtCO2 (59% of the emissions)" - from IPCC AR6


I copied the result s from Figure SPM 7
SSp1-1.9 3000 Gt CO2, total CO2 cumulative emissions from 1850 to 2100, 70% of CO2 absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks
SSp1-2.6 3700 Gt CO2, 65%
SSp2-4.5 5500 Gt CO2, 54%
SSP3-7.0 8000 Gt CO2, 44%
SSp5-8.5 10,500 Gt CO2, 38%


From IPCC AR6
B.5 Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level. {Cross-Chapter Box 2.4, 2.3, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 5.3, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, Box 9.4} (Figure SPM. B.5.1 Past GHG emissions since 1750 have committed the global ocean to future warming (high confidence). Over the rest of the 21st century, likely ocean warming ranges from 2–4 (SSP1-2.6) to 4–8 times (SSP5-8.5) the 1971–2018 change. Based on multiple lines of evidence, upper ocean stratification (virtually certain), ocean acidification (virtually certain) and ocean deoxygenation (high confidence) will continue to increase in the 21st century, at rates dependent on future emissions. Changes are irreversible on centennial to millennial time scales in global ocean temperature (very high confidence), deep ocean acidification (very high confidence) and deoxygenation (medium confidence).

 

I think it is immensely ironic that the AGW acolytes call folks who actually know the science the deniers in this case. Perhaps you could edit your title to reflect that.

 

I guess I'd ask you what you're more nervous about? Poor forest management, illegal/criminal arson, or the fact that total wild fires are fewer than they were even 40 years ago? Ask why arsonists burn the forests. It's an intriguing question. Why do you suppose these folks hate the world so much they want to destroy it? I ask the same thing when it was the econazis driving metal spikes in tress within heritage forests...

 

I stated in another post that I have changed my characterizations as 'pro AGW/ACC' and 'anti-AGW/ACC' for your reason given.