Earth just had its hottest summer on record, U.N. says, warning "climate breakdown has begun"

[longview]

You know quite well that the "forcing formula" does not include feedback which makes up 75% of the total warming potential

Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing). For example, we know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C. However, this doesn't account for feedbacks, for example ice melting and making the planet less reflective, and the warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor (another greenhouse gas).
Climate sensitivity is the amount the planet will warm when accounting for the various feedbacks affecting the global climate. The relevant formula is:
dT = ?*dF
Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, '?' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W m-2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing, which is discussed in further detail in the Advanced rebuttal to the 'CO2 effect is weak' argument.

https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=358&p=2​

The climate feedbacks cannot tell what caused the warming, so warming from an energy imbalance from increased
absorbed solar radiation, would be the same input as warming from CO2 forcing.
What matters is that the CO2 forcing from that time window is 24 times smaller than the forcing from increased Absorbed Solar
radiation.
As for dT=?*dF, we have the total greenhouse effect as a reference.
NASA Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect

The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C.

In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.

So the total greenhouse effect is 33°C from an imbalance of 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2),
so 33/150=0.22 °C per W m-2 of imbalance.
The 1.2°C is a ratio of 0.3C per W m-2.
I have seen at least one study that implies the 1.2°C already includes the feedback.
The potency of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas

According to this study the commonly applied radiativeforcing (RF) value of 3.7 Wm-2for CO2 concentration of 560ppm includes water feedback.

 

[longview]

What does (22) mean to you? Do you you know how to use references and notes?

We are not talking about the reference study, but what the cited study said.

 

[Buzz]

We are not talking about the reference study, but what the cited study said.

No. From your cited study:

A recent reconstruction
of planetary albedo based on the earthshine
method (22),

The 6.0 Wm-2 came from the earthshine study. You really don’t know how to read studies… do you?

 

[iguanaman]

The climate feedbacks cannot tell what caused the warming, so warming from an energy imbalance from increased
absorbed solar radiation, would be the same input as warming from CO2 forcing.
What matters is that the CO2 forcing from that time window is 24 times smaller than the forcing from increased Absorbed Solar
radiation.
As for dT=?*dF, we have the total greenhouse effect as a reference.
NASA Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect


So the total greenhouse effect is 33°C from an imbalance of 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2),
so 33/150=0.22 °C per W m-2 of imbalance.
The 1.2°C is a ratio of 0.3C per W m-2.
I have seen at least one study that implies the 1.2°C already includes the feedback.
The potency of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas

LOL You are not still beating the increased solar radiation dead horse are you?

 

[Buzz]

The climate feedbacks cannot tell what caused the warming, so warming from an energy imbalance from increased
absorbed solar radiation, would be the same input as warming from CO2 forcing.
What matters is that the CO2 forcing from that time window is 24 times smaller than the forcing from increased Absorbed Solar
radiation.
As for dT=?*dF, we have the total greenhouse effect as a reference.
NASA Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect


So the total greenhouse effect is 33°C from an imbalance of 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2),
so 33/150=0.22 °C per W m-2 of imbalance.
The 1.2°C is a ratio of 0.3C per W m-2.
I have seen at least one study that implies the 1.2°C already includes the feedback.
The potency of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas

And here is longview getting numbers from a “thought experiment” again.

 

[longview]

No. From your cited study:

The 6.0 Wm-2 came from the earthshine study. You really don’t know how to read studies… do you?

Sorry you are wrong, the study I have cited is,
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
and the words earthshine are not in the text anywhere.

 

[longview]

And here is longview getting numbers from a “thought experiment” again.

So do you deny that Earth is 33°C warmer because of a 150 W m-2 energy imbalance?

 

[longview]

LOL You are not still beating the increased solar radiation dead horse are you?

TSI Total Solar Irradiance, is the energy at the top of the atmosphere,
Surface insolation is the amount of available sunlight that makes it to the surface.
TSI has been declining, but in order to have a positive trend in absorbed solar radiation, the amount of solar radiation
reaching the surface has to be increasing.

 

[Mircea]

Understand that I am talking more about Africa or Asia, in which farming is more local. A few years of failed crops would see hunger and mass migration.

Why would crops fail?

In Earth's entire history, the climate is warmer and wetter or cooler and drier. Earth's climate has never been warmer and drier or cooler and wetter.

And there's a very good reason why that is true. Check out a map of the Earth to learn why.

Bangladesh is a country that could see huge amounts of its territory lost to rising sea levels.

Yeah? So what?

In every Inter-Glacial Period, Bangladesh turns into swampland.

The sea levels are going to rise another 3 meters to 14 meters and there ain't a damn thing you or anyone else can do to stop it.

If you wanna slit your throat in a failed attempt to stop something that neither you nor anyone on Earth can possibly stop, then go right ahead, but leave the restivus out of it.

Huge parts of the the equator could become generally unlivable due to increased temperatures

That's amusing since hominids proliferated during Inter-Glacial Periods with, um, increased temperatures at the equator.

In the previous Inter-Glacial Period, average global temperatures were about 11°F warmer. Well, 10.8°F but who's counting?

Mass migration could occur as a result, impacting the countries the people go to

Not on this planet.

Sea level rise is so slow as to be imperceptible by humans. Back in November on NPR, one of the Klan members said sea level would 12" higher by 2050 after the failed predictions of a 10 meter rise, and a 6 meter rise and a 3 meter rise and a 1 meter rise.

At least the Klan member had the integrity to admit that 6" would be caused by continental subsidence, so only 6" would be due to global warming.

However, you do realize that sea level rise is not uniform, right? If sea level rises 6" in the Atlantic that could result in a 12" rise the Gulf or Mexico, and perhaps a 12" rise in the Bay of Bengal, or not.

Regardless, there will be no mass migrations.

Take Florida. All you need is the Free Market. Problem solved. As soon as the government ends its Command Market interference, and FEMA stops wasting tax-dollars, things will change.

In the absence of tax-payer subsidies, those wealthy people living on beachfront properties will have to pay the Free Market cost of flood insurance. If they own their home, they can drop it or opt for a lower amount of reimbursement, and the same for commercial properties. If they have a mortgage, they'll have to pay the higher cost and if they can't then they can sell, and if they can't then they can abandon the property.

That would halt all new residential and commercial development. Mortgage lenders and other financers will not grant mortgages or loans unless there's a demonstrated ability to pay the Free Market cost of flood insurance.

What happens is people trickle out, not mass migrate. Either the State of Florida, or the counties/cities can enact statutes or ordinances requiring any property not occupied for more than 7 years to have any structures razed and the land restored to its original natural state and all at the owner's expense instead of tax-payer expense. If tax-payers agree to use tax-payer money to purchase that property (now worth practically nothing) and use tax-payer monies to restore the land to its natural state, then okay.

In Bangladesh, they'll migrate inland in trickles, not mass exoduses, and if the border countries are too damn stupid to develop some plan with other countries in the region then double dumbass on them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL You are not still beating the increased solar radiation dead horse are you?

Surface Isolation varies more than the TSI does.

 

[iguanaman]

TSI Total Solar Irradiance, is the energy at the top of the atmosphere,
Surface insolation is the amount of available sunlight that makes it to the surface.
TSI has been declining, but in order to have a positive trend in absorbed solar radiation, the amount of solar radiation
reaching the surface has to be increasing.

Right. Increased absorbed solar radiation is yet another feedback from global warming. You are finally getting somewhere.

As the Earth's average temperature rises, snow and ice cover decreases, increasing the amount sunlight being absorbed, further contributing to global warming. Shortwave solar radiation that's absorbed by Earth's surface or atmosphere is re-radiated it as longwave, infrared radiation, also known as heat.

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/reflection-absorption-sunlight/#:~:text=As%20the%20Earth's%20average%20temperature,radiation%2C%20also%20known%20as%20heat.

 

[longview]

Right. Increased absorbed solar radiation is yet another feedback from global warming. You are finally getting somewhere.

As the Earth's average temperature rises, snow and ice cover decreases, increasing the amount sunlight being absorbed, further contributing to global warming. Shortwave solar radiation that's absorbed by Earth's surface or atmosphere is re-radiated it as longwave, infrared radiation, also known as heat.

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/reflection-absorption-sunlight/#:~:text=As%20the%20Earth's%20average%20temperature,radiation%2C%20also%20known%20as%20heat.

Or a direct response to clearing aerosols from the skies!
Since 1985 more solar radiation has been making it to the surface, even as the TSI declined.
Yes less might have been reflected, but the primary energy source is what makes it to the surface.

 

[Buzz]

Sorry you are wrong, the study I have cited is,
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface
and the words earthshine are not in the text anywhere.

Nope. It’s right there in the sentence right before the one you keep quoting over and over. How could you possibly have missed it?

Oh… that’s right… you have a selective memory to go along with that extraordinary ability to cherry-pick data.

 

[Buzz]

So do you deny that Earth is 33°C warmer because of a 150 W m-2 energy imbalance?

The only thing I deny is that anyone really knows what those numbers should be. I certainly wouldn’t trust a self described “thought experiment”.

 

[longview]

Nope. It’s right there in the sentence right before the one you keep quoting over and over. How could you possibly have missed it?

Oh… that’s right… you have a selective memory to go along with that extraordinary ability to cherry-pick data.

Nope, likely fat fingered the search, but it is not talking about the BSRN data but the
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).

 

[longview]

The only thing I deny is that anyone really knows what those numbers should be. I certainly wouldn’t trust a self described “thought experiment”.

So when the WMO World Meteorological Organization says,
World Meteorological Organization

Greenhouse gases​

Some atmospheric gases absorb and re-emit infrared energy from the atmosphere down to the Earth’s surface. This process, the greenhouse effect, leads to a mean surface temperature that is 33 °C greater than it would be in its absence.

they are just engaging in a thought experiment?

 

[iguanaman]

Or a direct response to clearing aerosols from the skies!
Since 1985 more solar radiation has been making it to the surface, even as the TSI declined.
Yes less might have been reflected, but the primary energy source is what makes it to the surface.

Yet there were aerosol anomalies in the summer of 2023 that far exceeded any reduction in man-made aerosols and it was still the hottest summer on record. I'm pretty sure there is little impact on warming from aerosol reductions.

Impact of aerosols in the 2023 record-breaking North Atlantic heatwave​

Reviewing the record North Atlantic Sea surface temperatures in June 2023, a preliminary analysis from CAMS scientists found a significant negative anomaly in Saharan dust aerosol transport over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, and an increased anomaly in biomass burning aerosol over the North Atlantic, coming from the massive Canadian wildfires. These aerosol anomalies are much bigger than the sulphate change from shipping emission reductions. This makes the estimation of the impact of reduced sulphate aerosol emissions on the sea surface temperatures very challenging.

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Why would crops fail?

In Earth's entire history, the climate is warmer and wetter or cooler and drier. Earth's climate has never been warmer and drier or cooler and wetter.

And there's a very good reason why that is true. Check out a map of the Earth to learn why.

Yeah? So what?

In every Inter-Glacial Period, Bangladesh turns into swampland.

The sea levels are going to rise another 3 meters to 14 meters and there ain't a damn thing you or anyone else can do to stop it.

If you wanna slit your throat in a failed attempt to stop something that neither you nor anyone on Earth can possibly stop, then go right ahead, but leave the restivus out of it.



That's amusing since hominids proliferated during Inter-Glacial Periods with, um, increased temperatures at the equator.

In the previous Inter-Glacial Period, average global temperatures were about 11°F warmer. Well, 10.8°F but who's counting?


Not on this planet.

Sea level rise is so slow as to be imperceptible by humans. Back in November on NPR, one of the Klan members said sea level would 12" higher by 2050 after the failed predictions of a 10 meter rise, and a 6 meter rise and a 3 meter rise and a 1 meter rise.

At least the Klan member had the integrity to admit that 6" would be caused by continental subsidence, so only 6" would be due to global warming.

However, you do realize that sea level rise is not uniform, right? If sea level rises 6" in the Atlantic that could result in a 12" rise the Gulf or Mexico, and perhaps a 12" rise in the Bay of Bengal, or not.

Regardless, there will be no mass migrations.

Take Florida. All you need is the Free Market. Problem solved. As soon as the government ends its Command Market interference, and FEMA stops wasting tax-dollars, things will change.

In the absence of tax-payer subsidies, those wealthy people living on beachfront properties will have to pay the Free Market cost of flood insurance. If they own their home, they can drop it or opt for a lower amount of reimbursement, and the same for commercial properties. If they have a mortgage, they'll have to pay the higher cost and if they can't then they can sell, and if they can't then they can abandon the property.

That would halt all new residential and commercial development. Mortgage lenders and other financers will not grant mortgages or loans unless there's a demonstrated ability to pay the Free Market cost of flood insurance.

What happens is people trickle out, not mass migrate. Either the State of Florida, or the counties/cities can enact statutes or ordinances requiring any property not occupied for more than 7 years to have any structures razed and the land restored to its original natural state and all at the owner's expense instead of tax-payer expense. If tax-payers agree to use tax-payer money to purchase that property (now worth practically nothing) and use tax-payer monies to restore the land to its natural state, then okay.

In Bangladesh, they'll migrate inland in trickles, not mass exoduses, and if the border countries are too damn stupid to develop some plan with other countries in the region then double dumbass on them.

Crops fail for drought, flooding, insects, fungus, hail, etc

With climate change it will be drought or flooding causing most crop failure. Much of Alberta declared agricultural disasters this year due to drought. Alberta is bigger than most countries in the world.

As for humanity, there has never been more people on earth than ever before. We ship food across the globe. The Ukraine war has led to very high prices globally for certain crops, India has restricted certain rice exports.

Look at the political impact of mass migrations currently into the US or Europe. Imagine if it increases by 200 % which is not unrealistic how will the politics if the US or Europe change from that.

The earth will be fine, it died not care either way, humanity however has developed over the last 100 years based on the climate we have had which has been relatively predictable and stable enough to reliably grow enough crops to support the world's population. If that is not possible, then political instability will occur globally

 

[Buzz]

Nope, likely fat fingered the search,

Really? Looks like you're just going to outright lie about it.

Well... here is a screenshot of the article with the two sentences highlighted:


The first sentence is what longview is claiming isn't in the study and the second sentence is the one he has quoted possibly hundreds of times.

but it is not talking about the BSRN data but the
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).

So what. This doesn't change the fact that you have been caught lying again.

This is just more proof that nobody should take anything you say seriously.

 

[Buzz]

So when the WMO World Meteorological Organization says,
World Meteorological Organization

they are just engaging in a thought experiment?

I don't know where they got the one number. So I don't know if it is based on some peer-reviewed study, a thought experiment, or somebody's SWAG.

And your cited page also says this:

In the absence of the natural greenhouse effect the surface of the Earth would be approximately 33 °C cooler.

I boldened the important word for you.

 

[watsup]

Modulating a weak trace gas like CO2 is analagous to a thermostat !

I've heard it all now

All this means is that you haven’t a clue about AGW and you have no intent to educate yourself.

 

[longview]

Yet there were aerosol anomalies in the summer of 2023 that far exceeded any reduction in man-made aerosols and it was still the hottest summer on record. I'm pretty sure there is little impact on warming from aerosol reductions.

Impact of aerosols in the 2023 record-breaking North Atlantic heatwave​

Reviewing the record North Atlantic Sea surface temperatures in June 2023, a preliminary analysis from CAMS scientists found a significant negative anomaly in Saharan dust aerosol transport over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, and an increased anomaly in biomass burning aerosol over the North Atlantic, coming from the massive Canadian wildfires. These aerosol anomalies are much bigger than the sulphate change from shipping emission reductions. This makes the estimation of the impact of reduced sulphate aerosol emissions on the sea surface temperatures very challenging.

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/aerosols-are-so2-emissions-reductions-contributing-global-warming

What aerosols in 2023 far exceeded the reduction in man made aerosols since 1985?
We dimmed between 1950 and 1985, and have largely been brightening since 1985.
You study is looking at a single event reduction, but the aerosol reduction has been ongoing for
over 40 years, and has had an impact. The amount of available sunlight reaching the surface is back
to near the 1950 level. We do not have much information earlier than 1950, so do not know what zero is.

 

[longview]

Really? Looks like you're just going to outright lie about it.

Well... here is a screenshot of the article with the two sentences highlighted:

View attachment 67468745
The first sentence is what longview is claiming isn't in the study and the second sentence is the one he has quoted possibly hundreds of times.


So what. This doesn't change the fact that you have been caught lying again.

This is just more proof that nobody should take anything you say seriously.

Buzz, notice the period between sentences?
I did a word search and it came up empty, but likely mistyped the search.

 

[longview]

I don't know where they got the one number. So I don't know if it is based on some peer-reviewed study, a thought experiment, or somebody's SWAG.

And your cited page also says this:

I boldened the important word for you.

What is strange is that in his own peer reviewed publication on the topic,
Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect
Schmidt does not say the 33°C is a thought experiment!

We quantify the impact of each individual absorber in
the total effect by examining the net amount of long‐wave
radiation absorbed in the atmosphere (G, global annual mean
surface upwelling LW minus the TOA LW upwelling flux)
[Raval and Ramanathan, 1989; Stephens and Greenwald,
1991]. This is zero in the absence of any long‐wave absor-
bers, and around 155 W/m 2 in the present‐day atmosphere
[Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997]. This reduction in outgoing LW
flux drives the 33°C greenhouse effect defined above, and
is an easier diagnostic to work with. We therefore use the
percentage change in the LW flux reduction as our metric
for the greenhouse effect throughout this paper. All per-
centages can easily be converted to W/m 2 by multiplying
by 155.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Or a direct response to clearing aerosols from the skies!
Since 1985 more solar radiation has been making it to the surface, even as the TSI declined.
Yes less might have been reflected, but the primary energy source is what makes it to the surface.

It sure is satisfying seeing the recognized observations of science catching up to what I have been saying for several years about surface insolation and aerosols.