The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Central and North East USA are one of the only places on Earth that are not warmer. Due to the new instability of the Polar Vortex. Makes it hard for Americans and politicians in DC to care or change policy to favor more forward looking agendas.

The U.S.Senate never gave their 2/3rds of members-present advice and consent to the 1969 Vienna Convention:Article 26,Law of Treaties,so it's unlikely that we'll sign onto the Paris Treaty,which would be binding,mandating obligation,monitoring,obeyance,,enforcement.
The President's presidential-executive agreements,court opinion legal authority is being challenged.
And it appears that the Senate is unlikely to give their 2/3rds vote to anything that smells of carbon emissions mitigation.Senator Mitch Mcconnell's millions in campaign finance funds from fossil-fuels seems to impact his cognitive abilities on Capital Hill.

[freebeard]

...so it's unlikely that we'll sign onto the Paris Treaty,which would be binding,mandating obligation,monitoring,obeyance,,enforcement.

I thought it was because the other signatories weren't in obeyance.

www.princeton.edu/news/.../spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle

Morgan Kelly, Princeton Environmental Institute
Jan. 10, 2018 10:32 a.m.

Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the daily cooling effect of clouds, particularly over land. Models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that these inaccuracies did not invalidate climate projections, but did increase the margin of error for understanding how climate change will affect us.

So maybe the ineffectual governance is moot anyway, we're at the mercy of forces beyond our ken.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Money deplatforms speech on Youtube and the social media.



There's your problem, right there. That and the concept of immortal corporate personhood.

Solar dimming? I heard that its radiance is invariant. It's the plasma that surges.

news.slashdot.org/story/.../study-says-weve-already-built-too-many-power-plants-cars-to-meet-paris-climate-targets

Re:Let's not kid ourselves (Score:5, Informative) by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

NASA is interested in the solar flux irradiance falling at ground level,which does vary with time,and particularly ultraviolet,which is transformed to long-wave infrared radiation which greenhouse gases are opaque to.

[freebeard]

See my post from one minute before.

(...article's from 2018)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I thought it was because the other signatories weren't in obeyance.

www.princeton.edu/news/.../spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle



So maybe the ineffectual governance is moot anyway, we're at the mercy of forces beyond our ken.

We don't have any control over what others do.Binding agreements imply oversight and monitoring,and expectations of performance,plus consequences for non-compliance,established long before,and agreed to, by all signatories before anything is set in cement.
Clouds have been factored into models since the 1970s.They were part of the nuclear-winter research.Since then,the models have become better and the computers faster.
By 1998,the scientists were getting good fits between reality and model predictions.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I thought it was because the other signatories weren't in obeyance.

www.princeton.edu/news/.../spotty-coverage-climate-models-underestimate-cooling-effect-daily-cloud-cycle



So maybe the ineffectual governance is moot anyway, we're at the mercy of forces beyond our ken.

Too bad they offered no numerical significance to overall model prediction error.They also didn't mention the effect of atmospheric aerosols which are holding global temperatures well below what they'll be once all coal-fired power-plants are taken off-line;which could explain their entire margin of error.

[freebeard]

Clouds have been factored into models since the 1970s.They were part of the nuclear-winter research.Since then,the models have become better and the computers faster.

2018: More clouds in midafternoon, not the morning. The power of the Fresnel effect.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

2018: More clouds in midafternoon, not the morning. The power of the Fresnel effect.

What's the point?

[freebeard]

You quoted it back to me. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/...ly-cloud-cycle

The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us.

“It’s important to get the right result for the right reason,” said corresponding author Amilcare Porporato, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute. “These errors can trickle down into other changes, such as projecting fewer and weaker storms. We hope that our results are useful for improving how clouds are modeled, which would improve the calibration of climate models and make the results much more reliable.”

Porporato and first author Jun Yin, a postdoctoral research associate in civil and environmental engineering, found that not accurately capturing the daily cloud cycle has models showing the sun bombarding Earth with an extra one or two watts of energy per square meter. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Age is estimated to produce an extra 3.7 watts of energy per square meter. “The error here is half of that, so in that sense it becomes substantial,” Porporato said.
....
Clouds change from hour to hour and from day to day. Climate models do a good job of capturing the average cloud coverage, Yin said, but they miss important peaks in actual cloud coverage. These peaks can have a dramatic effect on daily conditions, such as in the early afternoon during the hottest part of the day.

“Climate scientists have the clouds, but they miss the timing,” Porporato said. “There’s a strong sensitivity between the daily cloud cycle and temperature. It’s like a person putting on a blanket at night or using a parasol during the day. If you miss that, it makes a huge difference.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations

Overview

When light strikes the interface between a medium with refractive index n1 and a second medium with refractive index n2, both reflection and refraction of the light may occur. The Fresnel equations describe the ratios of the reflected and transmitted waves' electric fields to the incident wave's electric field (the waves' magnetic fields can also be related using similar coefficients). Since these are complex ratios, they describe not only the relative amplitude, but phase shifts between the waves.

The equations assume the interface between the media is flat and that the media are homogeneous and isotropic.[1] The incident light is assumed to be a plane wave, which is sufficient to solve any problem since any incident light field can be decomposed into plane waves and polarizations.

Everything has Fresnel.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

You quoted it back to me. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/...ly-cloud-cycle


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations



Everything has Fresnel.

So there's nothing new about clouds since the 1970s.The time-averaged spatial and temporal ground-based solar irradiance below the clouds has changed since then or not? And there's been a change to the infrared radiation since the 1970s or not?
No where do the authors really tell us anything about the overall impact to climate predictions,only that there is a margin of error.A 200% error on a factor that's 1% of global warming?
A 200% error on a factor which constitutes 90% of global warming? They haven't told us a damned thing!
What is the overall implication of the model imprecision? That's what we need to understand.
Do they talk about the order of magnitude difference in accuracy between radiometric data before 1998 and 1998,and up to now? I have no idea what they think they've contributed.Did someone lock them in a dark,moist closet and feed them ---t.They act like mushrooms!