The TCR needs some explanation, but can be estimated from the Stefan-Boltzmann law; the temperature differential to produce a radiative output of 3.7 W/sq m is 3.7 / (4 * sigma * T0^3) which at a T0 of 287 K is 0.69 K. Clearly the Earth is not a perfect black-body so this lower bounds the TCR.
This also allows us to lower bound the anthrogenic climate contribution due to GHG radiative forcing 1850-2020 at 0.48 K.
Thank you! This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. Had to read the post through a few times. The comment section had people asking the same questions I had and more, and with insightful discussion.
Thank you for replying. It’s a 650 page document, and I must say I admire you for having read through the quite wordy prose therein.
I can’t commit to reading it all through to understand how to model whether human action warms earth, and how to understand the accuracy of any such model.
The document appears to be aimed primarily at rulers of states, and to be in a big part about how rulers could create “global equality” and the like. In which of these chapters can I read to learn how to model whether mans industry is warming the earth up or not?
1: Framing and Context
2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development
3: Impacts of 1.5oC Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems
4: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response
5: Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities
Chaos theory. Everything we do can potentially alter the universe in very big ways. So, every human action is potentially affecting the climate. Having said that, nobody can predict what actions will lead to what kind of effects. It's simply not possible to predict that. Whoever is saying that is making it up.
There are pollution concerns when we do things at scale. There have been lots of toxins added to the environment ONLY because of large scale use by humans. This is real.
The main idea behind global warming is the CO2 being a greenhouse gas and hence trapping more heat, leading to more vaporization of ocean and releasing water vapor, which is also another greenhouse gas. This has been repeated forever but it is mostly theoretical. It shouldn't be very difficult to experimentally show how much CO2 traps how much of suns radiation and how it changes as CO2 concentration rises and falls... but this has not been done and is not presented, which leads me to believe that this claim is bogus.
If you forget "climate change" and "global warming" and look at what countries say and do from economic lens, things become much more clearer.
It was the late 90s and it seemed that the oil was running out so something had to be done. There were two sides. One was going to develop new technologies which would make existing technologies like solar and wind more efficient. Another was to attack war-torn parts of the world which have oil reserves and take their oil. You know which idea they went with.
The Cleantech idea was taken to China for manufacturing but China just copied the technology and made it better. Now, it is the biggest producer of wind and solar equipment.
Meanwhile, the U.S. came up with fracking, a new technology that made it possible to get oil that was not considered before. While expensive, it opened up the possibility for the U.S. to become energy independent. So, the Middle East, Europe and China got very concerned because the market prices would drop at best, and U.S. could outcompete them altogether at the worst.
So, the Climate Change narrative is mostly run from outside the U.S. at this time, mostly to get the U.S. to stop fracking.
Denmark is running out of their oil reserves by 2047. If you look at Denmark's economy, it may seem very diversified. Well, it is not. They do a lot of things but everything is indirectly subsidized by their oil money. Norway is in a similar situation. Without oil, they're are worse off than Italy and Spain economically, not to mention the shitty weather. So, they'll do everything to try to avoid that.
