Report: Earth's energy imbalance removes almost all doubt from human-made climate change

This study appears to quell the arguments by climate non-alarmists.

I do not know who is right, I feel that I must play devil's advocate, but I invite counter arguments to any of the points raised in the study. I do hope the alarmists are wrong, however.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/env...most-doubt-human-made-climate-change-rcna1562

For decades, Earth’s energy system has been out of whack.

Stability in Earth's climate hinges on a delicate balance between the amount of energy the planet absorbs from the sun and the amount of energy Earth emits back into space. But that equilibrium has been thrown off in recent years — and the imbalance is growing, according to a paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature Communications.

The changes to Earth's energy system have major ramifications for the planet's future climate and humanity's understanding of climate change. The Princeton University researchers behind the paper found that there's a less than 1 percent probability that the changes occurred naturally.

The findings undercut a key argument used by people who do not believe human activity is responsible for the bulk of climate change to explain trends in global warming, demonstrating that the planet's energy imbalance cannot be explained just by Earth's own natural variations.

The research also offers important insights into how greenhouse gas emissions and other consequences of human-caused climate change are upsetting the planet's equilibrium and driving global warming, sea-level rise and extreme weather events.

The study is here ( I think, I clicked on a link in the article, and it took me here
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

Another link, this might be the one they were referring to:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24544-4

 

"Stability in Earth's climate hinges on" nothing. Earth's climate is not, nor ever has been 'stable.' There are many things that cause the climate to change, and its possible that human activity is one of those things. But its just as possible that human activity is but a fart in the wind of climate change. We could drastically alter our industry and save the planet ...or have no meaningful effect at all. FTR I'm not opposed to having the debate of 'maybe we should try'... the problem is that the people making that argument are doing it from the standpoint that 'it will work' and 'we're doomed if we don't' and neither of those things are provable or even demonstrably likely. That means to me that it is driven by an alternate agenda, and no agenda that requires deception will bear good fruits.

 

Is not the climate fairly stable in many regions insofar as shorter terms ( within human lifetimes ), though it is become less stable in recent years, for example, in America. And, by 'stable' I mean not an existential threat to human life.

From the standpoint of policy makers, they might look at it this way: Since we, as laypersons, do not know which group, the alarmists or the non alarmists, are right, we approach it as 'On which side would it be prudent to err, if err we must?

Do we go with alarmists, and try and do something about it, and if we err, all we have wasted is money and effort?

Or do we go with the non alarmists, do nothing about it, but if we err, we could potentially wind up with an inhabitable or a highly inhospitable planet headed for extinction of human species?

one of the two groups is going to be wrong, so from a policy maker's vantage point, which is the more prudent past if we must err: on which side should we err on, if err we must ?

Seems to me the prudent path is to go with the alarmists. It's less risky. Not to mention a sizable group of climate scientists are telling us that we should try and do something about it.

Your thoughts?

 

Well, if it's "human activity" that's gonna spell doom for the poor planet then the answer is obvious....humans have gotta go!

 

From the last link:

Whenever you see that I suggest caution in belief.

 

The key phrase in the paper's abstract: "Using climate model simulations . . . "
In other words, this is just modeling speculation, not data. Release was no doubt timed to coincide with the recent IPCC report and the upcoming COP26. It's a political project, not science, and it can "quell" nothing.

 

For the policy makers, what other options are there?

 

I think this article posits a tipping point for the ice-temperature feedback phenomena.

 

I started a thread on this paper (first link) previously. It is a paper published in the Geophysical Research letters By Norman Loeb and others, titled
"Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth's Heating Rate." None of this data depends on climate models. Two observational
methods revealed similar results of a marked increase in Earth's surface heating rate but much of that increase was due to a change in the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation Index (PDO) from negative to positive. The radiation imbalance is around 0.5 watts per square meter at the beginning of the
time frame, 2005, and it rises to almost 1.0 watts per square meter at the end of the time frame, 2019. +1.0 watts per square meter is a huge energy imbalance.

Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth's Heating Rate | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics


Here is another report which is based entirely on observational evidence that found a positive instantaneous energy imbalance
of 0.53 +/- 0.11 watts per square meter from 2003 to 2018. This is measure of instantaneous radiative forcing which uses a mathematical technique
called radiative kernals to subtract out all of the feedbacks that occur following an instantaneous change in radiative forcing such
as a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. This number should be smaller than the other results that don't employ this
technique because they are not instantaneous forcings and include the effects of feedbacks.

Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing - Kramer - 2021 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Part of Abstract:
We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all-sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 from 2003 to 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.

There isn't any doubt that there is a significant positive energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere that has existed for many decades. There are other
studies that have come up with similar results. This is why the planet is warming and the oceans have shown massive gains in energy absorbed.

 

That is always your response. There is another option, humans have to change their ways of living.

 

If one averages weather over the entire surface of the earth for 30 years are more it is stable unless there is something causing an instability.
There isn't anything causing the Earth's climate to be unstable and it has been stable during the Holocene. There is something that is causing
the Earth's global mean temperature to rise rapidly over the past 50 years and that is human's burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Humans have
caused all of the warming since 1950 and probably all of the warming since 1850. That is discussed in the IPCC AR6 report and is supported
by many studies. The Earth's global mean surface temperature doesn't
change by about 0.9 degree Celsius over a 50 year period without there
being some change in radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere.

 

Of course we refuse to discuss the role worldwide mass immigration has played in all of this, another topic.

Those people will use far more energy after they end up moving to developed countries than if they stayed in their underdeveloped country.
In many of these underdeveloped countries, everything is within walking distance, more consumer items come from farms so things are more sustainable.

 

A NASA study published in 2011 found the the Earth's energy imbalance was +0.59 +/- 0.15 watts per square meter between 2005 and 2010.
No climate models were involved. The energy absorbed by the oceans, ice, atmosphere, and land surfaces were estimated over that time frame
and the result was calculated from those estimates. The study was done during a prolonged solar minimum.

Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications

20110826_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf (columbia.edu)

Abstract. Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 ± 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change

 

Models are not data, and much of the new IPCC report is devoted to their shortcomings.

 

Speaking to you as one human to the other.

Do your own thing.

I will do my own thing.

Kind of simple actually.

 

Can you cite a credible source predicting carbon emissions leading to an uninhabitable planet and extinction of human species?

 

Eons back, I bet this is what happened to Earth.

Ice was all over. Some Aliens, being animals, came to Earth. Warmed up the planet which caused the great lakes to form and glaciers to NY City to melt.

Seeing the damage, they departed Earth.

 

What is your personal plan of action?

I say, live and let live. My plan is this is none of my business what other cretins do.

 

Since you became WOKE, what have you done? Give us tips you use.

How can you save this planet?

 

This is kind off topic but I actually found an interesting study a while back that showed, in areas where recycling facilities were available, conservatives were much more likely to recycle than progressives.
Even though progressives were more likely to claim they cared about recycling or that it was a serious priority to them.

It was probably due to a sense of duty and civic responsibility, and trying to collect the 5 cent rebate per can.

 

I can support the claim they are progressives. I will not support (and you did not) that they are Liberal in any fashion.
There are some issues with recycling. There are fees levied on purchases. To get that back, one turns in the aluminum cans for a fee we did not agree on, but was established by the clowns in Government. In CA, I always turned in the aluminum cans. Got 5 cents for each. I had prepaid it. I did it to ensure a better supply of aluminum. (Transportation costs are our problem)

What annoys me most about progressives is their ideas of progress is they manage my life. I do not wish to manage their lives but dammit , they have no right to manage my life.

 

So, humans change their ways of living and the sea levels still rise another 4 meters to 13 meters and global temperatures still rise another 7.5°F to 15.3°F because that is what has happened in every single Inter-Glacial Period.

Then what?

What was accomplished?

Well, other than the control-freaks achieving orgasm for having played people and suckered them into doing what they want them to do, absolutely nothing happened very slowly and coastal areas still get inundated.

 

What you said about what happened in every interglacial period isn't true. There is no natural physical mechanism that would cause sea levels to rise 4 to 13 meters or temperatures to rise another 7.5 to 15 degrees F. Both the temperature and sea level during the current interglacial period have already exceeded or equaled the maximum level that they would obtain without humans influencing the climate. During previous interglacial periods the temperature anomaly has been between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius and our interglacial peak temperature is at 1 degree C. That level is not the same for every interglacial because the physical
mechanisms causing that peak are going to be different for every interglacial. The sea level rise during this interglacial period is similar to those of preceeding
interglacial periods.

The Earth's axis of rotation's tilt is slowly straightening up which reduces insolation of the Northern Hemisphere and this causes the formation
of ice sheets in the N. Hemsiphere. The Earth's axis of rotation tilt is now at 23.5 degrees and it will reach its minimum tilt of 22.1 degrees in 8000 years.
This will gradually cause the global mean surface temperature to drop and sea levels to fall if humans weren't altering the atmosphere.

Where are you getting your information? What is the source for your claims?

 

Sorry to repeat....

For the policy makers' considerations, what options are there ?

 

Not talking about me and you, it's all about the policy the nation should follow, and that is determined by poicy makers the result of elections and the democratic process.