DOE: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate

[Bullseye]

On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:

John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D

John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.

Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial

Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.

This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.

First off, NONE, repeat NONE of those peopler DENY climate change; they just done buy into the irrational climate panic peddled by some LW "scientists" most of whom are financed by Globalists seeking more power and global control. most climatologists eschew RCP8.5 as too drastic and improbable for scientific purposes.

 

[Bullseye]

97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm......................................
97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Not to mention you had to dive far down and way back to find SOMETHING you could point to................

Published 15 May 2013
examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011
Meanwhile...............
July 7, 2025

What is the Current Consensus on Climate Change? — HOME

More to the point of this post, what is the current scientific consensus on climate change? I’m not going to depend on the version provided by Elbeyi, Jensen et al, as they seem rather biased. However, NASA has compiled over a dozen consensus statements, which are remarkably similar to each other. H

www.exploringtheproblemspace.com

The " 97% support" nonsense has been shot down more often than Snoopy.

Most climatologists not on the government payroll estimate human-caused Co2 contributes 6-9% other total warming.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The " 97% support" nonsense has been shot down more often than Snoopy.

Most climatologists not on the government payroll estimate human-caused Co2 contributes 6-9% other total warming.

Yup, we have heard all the arguments by climate deniers, nothing new there. It's the sources I was mocking yet you didn't really delve into any of the sources I PROVIDED that debunked the sources the OP posted.
Science is science. Skepticism is healthy. But when conclusions about a topic becomes "consensus" and obvious and yet some just to be contrary or because they have been told to believe something else still bury their heads, I don't take those people seriously.
The Earth isn't flat, the 2020 election was not rigged, cigarettes are a leading cause of cancer, and man is contributing in big ways to climate change and it's real.
Believing otherwise is just wackadoodle. Let me repeat - believing otherwise - is just wackadoodle.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

they just done buy into the irrational climate panic peddled by some LW "scientists" most of whom are financed by Globalists seeking more power

OMG, talk about a nutty comment. Everything is a LW conspiracy and everything is the fault of Globalists. You DO know that most rational people would just roll their eyes and laugh their heads off at THAT argument. Sheesh!

 

[longview]

*Yawn*
You want to keep this up until everyone here ABSOLUTELY agrees with your point of view, then keep it up, the Earth is round, not flat, so there is no point in arguing with someone who believes otherwise.

I do not care about people agreeing with me, I can about the scientific method.
The report did not present any false information, but pointed out the areas of uncertainty,
and showed how that uncertainty is presented to the public as if the results were certain.
It really comes down to the CO2 climate sensitivity, how much warming can we expect
if the CO2 level doubles, the way Humans emit CO2. So not an abrupt doubling like ECS simulates,
or even the closer 1% per year doubling that TCR simulates. (1% per year would be a 4.3 ppm per year increase),
the average since 2000 has been about 2.5 ppm per year.
If we extrapolate that out to year 2100, and include some growth in emissions, the CO2 level in 2100 would be about 580 ppm.
The expected warming IF the IPCC's TCR number is correct, 1.65°C per doubling, would be about 0.55°C where we are now.
Because the observed data does not support that added CO2 is doing much of any warming,
We have no idea how much warmer it will be, because we are not studying the actual cause of the warming.

 

[longview]

OMG, talk about a nutty comment. Everything is a LW conspiracy and everything is the fault of Globalists. You DO know that most rational people would just roll their eyes and laugh their heads off at THAT argument. Sheesh!

When the left calls something a crises without any supporting empirical data, that is not a conspiracy, it's just bad science.

 

[Bullseye]

OMG, talk about a nutty comment. Everything is a LW conspiracy and everything is the fault of Globalists. You DO know that most rational people would just roll their eyes and laugh their heads off at THAT argument. Sheesh!

No, the rational ones wouldn't, The LW sheep would and do.

 

[Bullseye]

Yup, we have heard all the arguments by climate deniers, nothing new there. It's the sources I was mocking yet you didn't really delve into any of the sources I PROVIDED that debunked the sources the OP posted.
Science is science. Skepticism is healthy. But when conclusions about a topic becomes "consensus" and obvious and yet some just to be contrary or because they have been told to believe something else still bury their heads, I don't take those people seriously.
The Earth isn't flat, the 2020 election was not rigged, cigarettes are a leading cause of cancer, and man is contributing in big ways to climate change and it's real.
Believing otherwise is just wackadoodle. Let me repeat - believing otherwise - is just wackadoodle.

Apparently you haven't heard much of anything or you wouldn't be using the idiotic "deniers" crap.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

No, the rational ones wouldn't, The LW sheep would and do.

Apparently you haven't heard much of anything or you wouldn't be using the idiotic "deniers" crap.

Someone is upset that I pointed out the falsehoods from outdated sources. Surprise surprise.
Maybe toss me a few insults to soothe your soul

 

[Bullseye]

Someone is upset that I pointed out the falsehoods from outdated sources. Surprise surprise.
Maybe toss me a few insults to soothe your soul

Not upset at all; you have a right to believe in any propaganda you choose. I tend to look at results. I remember in the 1970's scientists were worried about another Ice Age, or Al gore saying we only had ten years to fix the problem, then ten more, then ten more . . . you get the point, hopefully. A whopping 1.5℃ gain in 150 yEARS isn't terrifying to me.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

A whopping 1.5℃ gain in 150 yEARS isn't terrifying to me.

AND THAT folks is what ignorance looks like. Winter storm in Texas also proves that climate change isn't happening.

YET............... AND this is a fact................ ANY highschool study would look at that comment about 1.5 degrees and roll their eyes and wonder if those making those comments ever graduated high school.
AI Overview

A 1.5-degree Celsius increase in global temperature is dangerous because it marks a threshold beyond which the impacts of climate change become significantly more severe and widespread, impacting ecosystems, human health, and infrastructure. While every fraction of a degree matters, 1.5°C represents a point where many climate-related risks escalate, and some impacts become irreversible.


Even a simple mind as myself knows once you reach 1.5°C the next level is higher, not lower. I mean seriously, read a few scientific journals!!

 

[Bullseye]

AND THAT folks is what ignorance looks like. Winter storm in Texas also proves that climate change isn't happening.

YET............... AND this is a fact................ ANY highschool study would look at that comment about 1.5 degrees and roll their eyes and wonder if those making those comments ever graduated high school.

No even CLOSE to fact.

AI Overview

A 1.5-degree Celsius increase in global temperature is dangerous because it marks a threshold beyond which the impacts of climate change become significantly more severe and widespread, impacting ecosystems, human health, and infrastructure. While every fraction of a degree matters, 1.5°C represents a point where many climate-related risks escalate, and some impacts become irreversible.

Nonsense.

Even a simple mind as myself knows once you reach 1.5°C the next level is higher, not lower. I mean seriously, read a few scientific journals!!

That's 1.5 ℃ over 150 years and there are some indications cooling is inshore. The 1.5℃ was, and remains as a wild ass guess in the early 1990's

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

No even CLOSE to fact.

Nonsense.

That's 1.5 ℃ over 150 years and there are some indications cooling is inshore. The 1.5℃ was, and remains as a wild ass guess in the early 1990's

 

[Lord of Planar]

On page x of this study the five members of the writing team are listed. They are:

John Christy,Ph.D. Judith Curry,Ph.D. Steven Koonin,Ph.D. Ross McKitrick,Ph.D. and Roy Spencer,Ph.D

John Raymond Christy for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record, and for his rejection of mainstream climate science.

Judith A. Curry Curry has become known for hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D.He later became known as a skeptic on climate change, publishing the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, which was widely condemned for promoting climate denial

Ross McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying the scientific consensus on climate change,

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Regarding climate change, Spencer is a "lukewarmer", with the view that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that influence is small compared to natural variations in global average cloud cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five out five members of the writing team are climate change deniers to at least a moderate extent and some reject it 100%.

This is a heavily biased study.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who understands how to research.

LOL.

They are among the best qualified climate scientists. they have been ostracized because they refuse to lie in lockstep with the IPCCC. They present the truth as known. Judith Curry is a firm believer in AGW warming. She just will not be part of the lying agenda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Rather than dismissing the report with logical fallacies, at least read the Executive Summary on page ix.

 

[soap box]

This is an interesting report from the DOE.
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate


I am still reading, but it is a different look at how our climate is changing.

You're aware that the current administration has chosen Kennedy to serve in the cabinet, there's an assault on and politicization of medical science over there, wouldn't be happening anywhere else in our government, would it?

 

[longview]

You're aware that the current administration has chosen Kennedy to serve in the cabinet, there's an assault on and politicization of medical science over there, wouldn't be happening anywhere else in our government, would it?

So you don’t think science should ask questions?

 

[Volunteer]

Because the observed data does not support that added CO2 is doing much of any warming,
We have no idea how much warmer it will be, because we are not studying the actual cause of the warming.

Yes, we are studying the causes of warming. Thousands of researchers are studying it every day. The observed, empirical, data shows global land surface and ocean temperatures rising at, seemingly, sudden rates. They are finding that human-caused greenhouse gases are causing Earth to absorb more energy than it radiates back to space.

Can you explain, if it's not greenhouse gases, including carbon emissions, where this sudden warming comes from?

 

[longview]

Yes, we are studying the causes of warming. Thousands of researchers are studying it every day. The observed, empirical, data shows global land surface and ocean temperatures rising at, seemingly, sudden rates. They are finding that human-caused greenhouse gases are causing Earth to absorb more energy than it radiates back to space.

Can you explain, if it's not greenhouse gases, including carbon emissions, where this sudden warming comes from?

It’s clear to me.
There is slow natural warming, that we delayed with actual air pollution like smog. when we started clearing the smog, decades, perhaps centuries of slow warming were revealed in a few decades. The increase in ASR, is much greater than the predicted forcing from added greenhouse gases!

 

[Volunteer]

It’s clear to me.
There is slow natural warming, that we delayed with actual air pollution like smog. when we started clearing the smog, decades, perhaps centuries of slow warming were revealed in a few decades. The increase in ASR, is much greater than the predicted forcing from added greenhouse gases!

Slow natural warming is causing the recent spikes of record heat ? Carbon emissions of 40+ billion tons, annually, don't play a role?

 

[longview]

Slow natural warming is causing the recent spikes of record heat ? Carbon emissions of 40+ billion tons, annually, don't play a role?

Correct!
Added greenhouse gases hypothetically cause warming because decrease the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR),
more than the Planck radiation increases it, causing an energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.
The problem is that the OLR is increasing, meaning that no longwave energy imbalance exists to cause warming.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

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 increase in OLR is coming from brightening following dimming from air pollution.
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)

Think about that for just a second, The IPCC says,

Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 [1.96 to 3.48] W m–2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system.

but brightening from clearing aerosols, caused a measured increase of 6 W m-2 in a single decade!

 

[Volunteer]

Correct!
Added greenhouse gases hypothetically cause warming because decrease the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR),
more than the Planck radiation increases it, causing an energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum.
The problem is that the OLR is increasing, meaning that no longwave energy imbalance exists to cause warming.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000

The increase in OLR is coming from brightening following dimming from air pollution.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

Think about that for just a second, The IPCC says,

but brightening from clearing aerosols, caused a measured increase of 6 W m-2 in a single decade!

The recent spikes in global land and oceans temperatures are dramatic. You are saying that greenhouse gases, including carbon, have little to no relationship with these sudden changes?

 

[longview]

The recent spikes in global land and oceans temperatures are dramatic. You are saying that greenhouse gases, including carbon, have little to no relationship with these sudden changes?

That’s what the observed data is saying!
For added greenhouse gases to cause warming, they have to first cause an energy imbalance, and can only affect the longwave spectrum.
All of the observed warming is coming from the shortwave spectrum. Feedbacks from added greenhouse gases would first be initialized by the non existent forcing warming.
As for the irregular weather, if a small dam built across a stream collapsed, the downstream results would be irregular!

 

[Volunteer]

For added greenhouse gases to cause warming, they have to first cause an energy imbalance, and can only affect the longwave spectrum.
All of the observed warming is coming from the shortwave spectrum. Feedbacks from added greenhouse gases would first be initialized by the non existent forcing warming.

So "slow natural warming" is still your explanation for the recent dramatic spikes in ocean, land, and air temperatures globally? Really?

 

[longview]

So "slow natural warming" is still your explanation for the recent dramatic spikes in ocean, land, and air temperatures globally? Really?

How the slow nature warming was released quickly because of human activity, does explain the recent weather!