Hi Bob. 👋 I understand basic physics, thanks. In fact, I took and passed two calculus-based physics courses. Did you? 📚 There is nothing “basic” about Earth's climate system. You'd know that if you took an atmospheric dynamics course, or at the very least, read one of our textbooks. May I recommend Holton and Hakim? I'll be so kind as to drop ya a link! 🫳 🔗amazon.com/Introduction-Dyna… Now, let's review some of the “basic physics” which determines how much warming results directly from doubling carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations in the atmosphere. Ready for a lesson in radiative transfer? 👂 Because I'm ready to school you. 🫵😎 Oh, and yes, there will be some numbers involved. An appeal to authority won't work here. Not this time, cupcake. 🧁 Let's continue. . . The temperature of anything — a pot of water on the stove (just not one of them gas stoves, remember they are banned to save da Earf!), your car engine, your ribeye (oh wait, can't eat steak either, cows are killing the planet!), your body, etc.) — is simply a function of radiation balance. How much is gained versus lost. It's a budget. If these radiation fluxes are in balance, then thermal equilibrium is achieved, and the temperature remains constant. If these fluxes are out of balance, then the temperature will change. 🌡️ You with me so far? Is any of this confusing? Good? Let's continue. . . In order for Earth to maintain thermal equilibrium, the infrared radiation (IR) flux, 𝐹, to space must match the absorbed solar flux. For ↔️🌡️, then ♨️⬆️🪐 MUST = ♨️⬇️☀️ We can write this radiation budget as the 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑛-𝐵𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑛 law. 𝐹 = ε σ 𝑇⁴ where, • ε = 0.70 is Earth's cloud-free emissivity, • σ ≈ 5.67 × 10⁻⁸ W m² K⁻⁴ is the 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑛-𝐵𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑛 constant, and, • 𝑇 = 288.7K is Earth's mean surface temperature Earth isn't a perfect 𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦. So, it's not a perfect absorber 𝑎𝑛𝑑 emitter of radiation where ε = 1. Rather, the presence of “greenhouse gases” (e.g., water vapor and carbon dioxide) decrease ε slightly to about 0.70. To keep 𝐹 constant (i.e., δ𝐹 = 0), then the change in ε and change in 𝑇 must be related by, 0 = δε σ 𝑇⁴ + ε σ 4𝑇³ δT We can rearrange this to, -δε σ 𝑇⁴ = ε σ 4𝑇³ δT ➡️ - 1/4 [δε / ε] = δ𝑇 / 𝑇 So, to find δT, we can rewrite the equation above as, δ𝑇 = - 𝑇/4 [δε / ε] Doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) level decreases ε by ~1%. So, δε / ε = -1 / 100 = -0.01, which reduces outgoing IR by ~3 W/m² out of 340 W/m². So, the δ𝑇 for 2 × CO₂ is, δ𝑇 = - [288.7K / 4] [-0.01] ≈ +0.72K or +𝟎.𝟕𝟐°𝐂 Seven tenths of a degree Celsius increase in the global mean surface temperature (GMST). That's all! But, this by itself isn't enough to sound the alarm. 🚨 So, climate scientists tack on a bunch of positive feedback mechanisms to amplify warming to produce a 2-4°C equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). They make a guess as to what they think it should be. Now, climate models cannot hindcast past climate at all. They cannot produce natural chaotic fluctuations in GMST that we know exist from sedimentary and ice core proxy reconstructions. 🐚 So, the IPCC et al. assume that all warming since 1850 cannot be explained due to natural forcings or internal variability because their models just produce a flat line with little interannual or multidecadal variation, which is seen in the figure on the left from the IPCC AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM). 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downl… (p. 6) So, climate modelers decide to pre-tune their models to the observational GMST record based on whatever forcing mechanisms are left to consider: aerosols (e.g. sulfur dioxide, or SO₂), greenhouse gases (GHGs) (e.g., CO₂ and methane, CH₄) or possibly cloud parameters. We can see how this is done in Figure 3.8 on top right from IPCC AR6 WG1, Chapter 3. 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downl… (pp. 439-441) The model spread shows a very strong GHG forcing, with an ensemble mean GMST change contribution since 1850 of a net +1.5°C ± 44%. Because the models do not yield correct values (i.e., they're “too hot”), they arbitrarily adjust parameter schemes until the output GMST change comes into the IPCC's target range of +0.9°C to +1.2°C, or whatever ECS value the modeler decides in his or her paper. 🎯 In the diagram I annotated at top right, adapted from IPCC AR6, Chapter 3, we see that because GHGs run “too hot,” the modelers make adjustments to the non-GHGs (e.g., mainly aerosols and also clouds). But, the modelers cannot quantify aerosol contribution to the GMST change since 1850. The ensemble mean suggests that aerosols had a net cooling effect of -0.5°C since 1850. But, the spread is quite large; it ranges from +0.1°C to -0.9°C. In other words, aerosols had a cooling effect of -0.5°C ± 100%. Yes, that's a 100% margin of error, which means that climate scientists have absolutely no clue how much aerosols have affected GMST trends. This means that they also don't know how much warming is explained by GHGs and associated feedbacks! They don't make these adjustments by understanding the physics or laws of radiative transfer. They tweak a parameter here, and tweak a parameter there until the model gives the desired result. This is artificial tuning. It isn't science. It isn't “basic physics.” It is an exercise in circular reasoning. This process isn't secretive either. 🤫 It's documented in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Mauritsen and Roeckner, 2020) with the Max Planck Institute model (also shown in the diagram). 📓 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.… (p. 8) 💬 “𝑊𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑤𝑒 𝒕𝒖𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝑹𝑰-𝑬𝑺𝑴1.2 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔; 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒇𝒖𝒍. 𝐷𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑦 𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒏 𝑬𝑪𝑺 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 3𝑲 𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒖𝒅 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒃𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔, 𝒂𝒔 𝒐𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒍 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒊𝒏𝒈.” This is also admitted in Chapter 9 of IPCC AR5 WG1, 💬“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑎 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒; 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒖𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒆 𝒂 𝒔𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒔𝒖𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒈𝒍𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒍 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒐𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒔.” AR5 also noted that the climate models used in their report produced too much warming, and so there were arbitrary adjustments to cloud parameters in order to constrain the models to a realistic state, 💬 “. . . 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑜𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 (𝑇𝑂𝐴) 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛... 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝒂𝒅𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒖𝒅𝒔 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑓𝑖𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚.” So, in essence, the physics aren't known. The science is far from being “settled” on this matter. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐆𝐇𝐆𝐬 + 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬. Just “estimations” with huge margins of error (i.e., high uncertainty). Do GHGs have impact? Absolutely. The million-dollar question is, how much of that is masked in the noise of natural variability (which models suck moose nutz at handling) and aerosol / cloud-induced cooling? This has yet to be resolved, regardless of whatever climate quacks say. Climate models are 𝒏𝒐𝒕 proof that virtually all global warming since 1850 has been due to mankind's GHG emissions. Scientists at modeling center curve fit models to the data just to conclude that their models are correct and have predictive value because they agree with the GMST data. That's not science in any way, shape or form.