All Authors Working on Flagship U.S. Climate Report Are Dismissed (1 Viewer)

[longview]

Thats ridiculous inspiration crap.

How so?
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

Satellite observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System show that Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

The way that added greenhouse gases were theorized to work, is that they would increase Earth's longwave
energy imbalance by DECREASING OLR, but between 2000 and 2024 as the greenhouse gases increased, SO did the OLR.

Everything in the concept that added greenhouse gases cause warming is theoretical, there is
NO empirical data that shows added greenhouse gases doing much of anything besides CO2 causing more greening.
The greenhouse effect, described as Earth being 33C warmer than it should be were the atmosphere completely transparent,
is correct, but my not relate greenhouse gas levels, or may only relate at much lower levels.
What we can observe is that since 2000, the added greenhouse gases have not contributed to any energy imbalance, or any warming.
One could say that all the greening is a type of warming, because the green biomass does absorb shortwave solar energy,
but that would not cause warming directly.

 

[NolanVoyd]

How so?
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

The way that added greenhouse gases were theorized to work, is that they would increase Earth's longwave
energy imbalance by DECREASING OLR, but between 2000 and 2024 as the greenhouse gases increased, SO did the OLR.

Everything in the concept that added greenhouse gases cause warming is theoretical, there is
NO empirical data that shows added greenhouse gases doing much of anything besides CO2 causing more greening.
The greenhouse effect, described as Earth being 33C warmer than it should be were the atmosphere completely transparent,
is correct, but my not relate greenhouse gas levels, or may only relate at much lower levels.
What we can observe is that since 2000, the added greenhouse gases have not contributed to any energy imbalance, or any warming.
One could say that all the greening is a type of warming, because the green biomass does absorb shortwave solar energy,
but that would not cause warming directly.

All these groups are part of the conspiracy huh?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

Here is your hat

tin foil hat - Google Search

 

[longview]

All these groups are part of the conspiracy huh?

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

science.nasa.gov

Here is your hat

View attachment 67567547

tin foil hat - Google Search

Did you read the consensus statement from NASA, I will quote it for you, from your own citation.

With that said, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Note that they said Human activity, not the Human activity of greenhouse gas emissions?
What is so difficult to understand that Clearing air pollution (That we also caused) is a Human activity, and IS part of the
scientific consensus?
By the way the idea of Human caused dimming and brightening is also in the peer reviewed literature.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds
to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)

It should also be worth noting that the changes in Energy from brightening are much greater on the same time period
as the theorized changes from added greenhouse gases.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Did you read the consensus statement from NASA, I will quote it for you, from your own citation.

Note that they said Human activity, not the Human activity of greenhouse gas emissions?
What is so difficult to understand that Clearing air pollution (That we also caused) is a Human activity, and IS part of the
scientific consensus?
By the way the idea of Human caused dimming and brightening is also in the peer reviewed literature.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

It should also be worth noting that the changes in Energy from brightening are much greater on the same time period
as the theorized changes from added greenhouse gases.

Wow.

 

[longview]

Wow.

What's the matter, cannot follow the science.
Try this, between 1992 and 2002 the time period covered by the Wild paper, stating they MEASURED
a 6 W m-2 energy increase in the energy imbalance.
NOAA has a site where they track the ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
NOAA AGGI
Between 1992 and 2001, the CO2-eq level for most of the greenhouse gases increased from
433 ppm to 456 ppm.
The IPCC's formula for CO2 forcing is 5.35 ln(CO2_new/CO2_old) or 5.35 X ln(456/433) = 0.276 W m-2,
but this number and formula is only theoretical, it is not based on observed data.
The point is that the theoretical increase from added greenhouse gases is 0.276 W m-2,
but the measured increase in the Absorbed Solar radiation (Shortwave spectrum) was 6 W m-2, over 20 times greater.
Greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases because they are largely transparent in the shortwave spectrum,
but absorb in the longwave spectrum, like the glass in a greenhouse.

 

[SavannahMann]

National Climate Assessment Authors Are Dismissed by Trump Administration

The Trump administration told researchers it was “releasing” them from their roles. It puts the future of the assessment, which is required by Congress, in doubt.

www.nytimes.com

The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country.

The move puts the future of the report, which is required by Congress and is known as the National Climate Assessment, into serious jeopardy, experts said.

Since 2000, the federal government has published a comprehensive look every few years at how rising temperatures will affect human health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last climate assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and local governments as well as private companies to help prepare for the effects of heat waves, floods, droughts and other climate-related calamities.

On Monday, researchers around the country who had begun work on the sixth national climate assessment, planned for early 2028, received an email informing them that the scope of the report “is currently being re-evaluated” and that all contributors were being dismissed....

“This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment,” said Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University who specializes in climate adaptation and was a co-author on the last climate assessment. “If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward.”...

Hey shooting the messenger is a great way to deal with problems.

 

[longview]

Hey shooting the messenger is a great way to deal with problems.

When the messenger is fabricating the story out of thin air, perhaps it is a good start!

 

[SavannahMann]

When the messenger is fabricating the story out of thin air, perhaps it is a good start!

Climate on the Flat Earth is determined by God regardless of what happens because of us. Got it.

 

[longview]

Climate on the Flat Earth is determined by God regardless of what happens because of us. Got it.

No the climate is determined by how much energy enters and leaves earth!

 

[Lycanthrope]

Much like COVID, one day ecological devastation will disappear, like a miracle.

COVFEFE!

 

[longview]

Much like COVID, one day ecological devastation will disappear, like a miracle.

COVFEFE!

No miracles, but some side effects.
The ecological disaster would have been causing another ice age, combined with acid rain.
The fix was limiting air pollution, the side effect was the warming we have observed since about 1985.

 

[Sweden]

Actually Trump's position on the climate is not accurate ether, but moves like this and getting out of the Paris Accord are still correct moves.
The difference is with actual science. The Paris Accord and the national Climate assessment, are all about controlling CO2 emissions.
The belief is that if we achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions, it will alter the trajectory of the climate.
This belief is at odds with the observed data. Starting in year 2000 the CERES interments on satellites have been measuring
the energy paths in an out of the earth. The goal was to finally have some observed evidence that added greenhouse gases
were increasing Earth's longwave energy imbalance. The problem is that we now have 25 years of data, showing
that as the greenhouse gas levels increased, Earth's longwave energy imbalance...Decreased!
Overall Earth was still gaining energy, because more of the available shortwave sunlight was reaching the surface,
but that is not something driven by greenhouse gases. The Human activity that would increase the amount of sunlight
reaching the surface, is clearing air pollution from the skies, something that has been happening since about 1980.
So we are warming, and Human activity is causing it, but NOT added greenhouse gases.
The aims of the Paris accord and the predictions of the National Climate assessment, will not alter our future climate.

Another clear informative post. Thank you.

 

[Steve Case]

I respectfully disagree. Climate change is largely man made, and a result of the growing population and disregard to the needs of this planet NOT blaming scientists for doing what they've been trained to do...

Look out of your window

 

[phoenix2020]

We've already lost the game at this point. I strongly encourage those with means to begin securing land in areas that will prove verdant in a world with runaway mankind-initiated climate change, which at this point is inevitable. A couple hundred million people cannot sway the opinions and habits of over 8 billion who frankly do not care, and won't care until it's too late.

 

[Steve Case]

Hey shooting the messenger is a great way to deal with problems.

The messenger is a propaganda mill.

 

[Jessie C]

Look out of your window

Why?

 

[SavannahMann]

The messenger is a propaganda mill.

Propaganda was the nonsense that Horse Dewormer would prevent or cure Covid. Propaganda is the nonsense that Vaccines cause Autism. Propaganda is where you ignore the actual experts and instead believe a loon.

 

[longview]

We've already lost the game at this point. I strongly encourage those with means to begin securing land in areas that will prove verdant in a world with runaway mankind-initiated climate change, which at this point is inevitable. A couple hundred million people cannot sway the opinions and habits of over 8 billion who frankly do not care, and won't care until it's too late.

I find it almost funny that you still think a warming climate tipping point exists?
We are nearing the top of the range in our climate cycle between Glacial and interglacial periods.
Average temperatures could go a few degrees warmer, but the real potential is cooling, nearly -8C, below current levels.
Nothing Humans have done would affect the top end, what we did was to delay the peak with air pollution, and then
released the earlier warming quickly, by clearing the air pollution.

In any case there is no warming tipping point in our future.

 

[Volunteer]

.What we can observe is that since 2000, the added greenhouse gases have not contributed to any energy imbalance, or any warming..

Scientists have studied global warming for more than 100 years. Thousands of experts have tested hypotheses, gathered evidence, constructed models, debated results, and reviewed one another’s work. Thousands of papers are written every year, produced from nearly every leading university and research institution on Earth—from Harvard to NASA and the US Department of Defense.
The consensus couldn’t be clearer. Climate change is happening. It’s caused primarily by the burning of oil, gas, and coal.

 

[longview]

Scientists have studied global warming for more than 100 years. Thousands of experts have tested hypotheses, gathered evidence, constructed models, debated results, and reviewed one another’s work. Thousands of papers are written every year, produced from nearly every leading university and research institution on Earth—from Harvard to NASA and the US Department of Defense.
The consensus couldn’t be clearer. Climate change is happening. It’s caused primarily by the burning of oil, gas, and coal.

And all that work comes back to simple assumption, that added greenhouse gases reduce the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
As assumption that the observed data now shows is invalid.
It pays to remember the Richard Feynman quote

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

The CERES instruments were put up in 2000, because we did not have any observed data to validate the century plus assumption.
That was the experiment, and the result does not agree with the theory!
By the way, the vast majority of the studies published are not IF the assumption that added greenhouse gases cause warming is correct,
but assuming it is correct, THEN this is what the result would be.

Let me be clear, there is NO observed data that shows added greenhouse gases cause warming, it is all hypothetical.
It is not a bad hypothesis, it seem plausible, CO2 does absorb longwave radiation, which then passes energy to surrounding
atoms and molecules via vibrational transfer, but the atmosphere is complex. We have no way of creating a simulation
that accounts for all the variables. What we do have is the ability to measure the Shortwave and longwave spectrum in and out of the
top of the atmosphere. The portion of the spectrum that added greenhouse gases could affect, has a negative energy imbalance, (cooling).
The longwave portion of the spectrum is offsetting some of the energy gains in the shortwave spectrum.
CO2 can do some energy transfers in the longwave spectrum, what it cannot do is change the amount of available
shortwave radiation that reaches the surface, which is where our energy imbalance is happening.

 

[Deuce]

The continued existence of the world is not dependent on the USA or its *National Climate Assessment' boondoggle.

We're not concerned about the world exploding. We're concerned about making it harder for humans to live on it.

...very weird you didn't understand that.

 

[Deuce]

How so?
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

The way that added greenhouse gases were theorized to work, is that they would increase Earth's longwave
energy imbalance by DECREASING OLR, but between 2000 and 2024 as the greenhouse gases increased, SO did the OLR.

Everything in the concept that added greenhouse gases cause warming is theoretical, there is
NO empirical data that shows added greenhouse gases doing much of anything besides CO2 causing more greening.
The greenhouse effect, described as Earth being 33C warmer than it should be were the atmosphere completely transparent,
is correct, but my not relate greenhouse gas levels, or may only relate at much lower levels.
What we can observe is that since 2000, the added greenhouse gases have not contributed to any energy imbalance, or any warming.
One could say that all the greening is a type of warming, because the green biomass does absorb shortwave solar energy,
but that would not cause warming directly.

You literally just posted a link showing an increase in the energy imbalance, my six year old nephew is better at lying than you.

 

[phoenix2020]

I find it almost funny that you still think

I likewise find it amusing that you still claim to think.

 

[longview]

You literally just posted a link showing an increase in the energy imbalance, my six year old nephew is better at lying than you.

Deuce for Earth's energy imbalance to increase from added greenhouse gases, the increase could only be caused
by decreasing the Outbound longwave Radiation, (OLR). That is the definition of what added greenhouse gases are supposed
to do, be transparent to shortwave radiation, but absorb longwave radiation. This in theory would reduce the OLR, but
the observed data shows that as the greenhouse gas levels rose, the OLR also increased.

 

[longview]

I likewise find it amusing that you still claim to think.

By all means cite a study that shows the physics mechanism that validates a warming tipping point exists?
You cannot say "look at Venus!" because Venus is VERY different from Earth.
For one thing Venus has a 5,832 hour day, Imagine how warm Earth would be if there were 1,458 hours between sunrise and mid day?