The changes in radiation over time are covered in Chapter 4 of my book, Fig 4.1. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to insert a figure here. It was originally in this article
Trenberth, K. E., and B. L. Otto-Bliesner, 2003: Toward integrated reconstructions of past climates. Science, 300, 589–591.
and in my book:
Trenberth, K. E. 2022: The changing flow of energy through the climate system. Cambridge University Press. 319pp. ISBN 978-1-108-83886-3 (hard cover), ISBN 978-1-108-97246-8 (paper back); . https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108979030
Indeed, solar radiation was increased in northern summer by over 25 W m-2 compared to today.
Many thanks for this. Would the author care to correct the "8,0000" in the first paragraph? It is unintended, I assume, but may erode the reader's confidence.
I loved this article. That photo was taken up on the Beartooth Plateau one of my favorite places in the lower forty eight. I experience great sadness at the melting going on up there and all through the greater Yellowstone including the Wind Rivers. I have been visiting there almost yearly since 1966 and it like time- lapse photography to see the ecosystem changes happening in addition to the melting. Sad sad sad.
Interesting article. Thanks, Professor Katz-Rosene!
I do have a quibble with the introduction.
"Most public debates I get involved with now center on what I call “solution denial” — arguments that claim, for example, that renewable energy can’t support a modern society." I can't speak to the debates Professor Dessler gets involved in. Surely "solution denial" would be significant. It seems to me the more important debate would center on "catastrophe denial." If there's no catastrophe, then solutions aren't particularly important. I'm not aware of any scientific reason to anticipate a catastrophe with warming we can expect in the next century or so. Certainly none of the IPCC reports suggest reasons to expect catastrophic effects.
Some scientists are actually declaring a net benefit from the increase in temperature and CO2 and when this is coupled with technology and the power of Fossil fuels we should just focus on a bit of adaption and the push for prosperity and not bother with the NetZero journey.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Give it up will you... so many facts point to that we have seen periods warmer than now and we flourished….
Stop trying to re-jig the data disaster of the Mann study it was not only a bad lie using poor statistics but had data manipulation and studies since that have tried to replicate a hockey stick have been debunked.
We have many physical global indicators of past warming far more than today…
Even though the media use spot data to try to spread fear we also have no long term current climate impact metrics that show any concerning trends or concern for human flourishing.
These presentations below are solid and only use data from reviewed published sources..
Thanks very much for the detailed analysis. I'm always annoyed, and amused, when climate change deniers jump onto a single observation that they don't fully understand and try to make that the basis for climate change denial. Their time would be better spent trying to understand the science.
I'm always game for a debate. I will take the "climate catastrophe denier" side. I love how the word "denier" is thrown around pejoratively. It's so sweet when the "aha" moment for the audience when they realize the only deniers are those claiming we live in a catastrophic global warming state right now. There is no climate catastrophe. I'm really sorry.
You said, "It often seems like traditional climate denial is on its way out".
Hmmm. That isn't my experience. The only thing on it's way out looks like GISS.
You quoted Gregory Pedersen, a lead author, who stated emphatically, "This study has absolutely no bearing on the fact that today, Global Mean Surface Temperatures are higher than they've been throughout the span of Holocene. That fact is absolutely true."
Hmmm. I'd like to see the "absolutely true" temperature readings from 7,000 years ago that gives Pedersen such profound confidence in. Doesn't that zealous confidence involving differences of tenths of a degree over thousands of years give you at least a little pause thinking about the veracity of his claim?
That part was a bait and switch to me.. I think people say “if trees were growing somewhere that was later covered by ice, it must have been (warm enough for tree growth) (at that specific site) (at that time in the past). It doesn’t say anything about global mean temperature, then or now.
very nice article!
Thanks Andrew! And thanks for the Reposting at ClimateBrink!
The changes in radiation over time are covered in Chapter 4 of my book, Fig 4.1. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to insert a figure here. It was originally in this article
Trenberth, K. E., and B. L. Otto-Bliesner, 2003: Toward integrated reconstructions of past climates. Science, 300, 589–591.
and in my book:
Trenberth, K. E. 2022: The changing flow of energy through the climate system. Cambridge University Press. 319pp. ISBN 978-1-108-83886-3 (hard cover), ISBN 978-1-108-97246-8 (paper back); . https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108979030
Indeed, solar radiation was increased in northern summer by over 25 W m-2 compared to today.
Cool. Just looking at it now (seeing Figure 4.5 with the Variations in solar radiation received at Earth over the last 21K years)
Many thanks for this. Would the author care to correct the "8,0000" in the first paragraph? It is unintended, I assume, but may erode the reader's confidence.
Ugh, I swear I had fixed that one, but I guess it slipped through... thanks for catching it Bo!
Very useful, thanks.
I loved this article. That photo was taken up on the Beartooth Plateau one of my favorite places in the lower forty eight. I experience great sadness at the melting going on up there and all through the greater Yellowstone including the Wind Rivers. I have been visiting there almost yearly since 1966 and it like time- lapse photography to see the ecosystem changes happening in addition to the melting. Sad sad sad.
Ooph... can't 'like' this one! Sad indeed
Great job, Ryan! Was happy to give feedback!
Interesting article. Thanks, Professor Katz-Rosene!
I do have a quibble with the introduction.
"Most public debates I get involved with now center on what I call “solution denial” — arguments that claim, for example, that renewable energy can’t support a modern society." I can't speak to the debates Professor Dessler gets involved in. Surely "solution denial" would be significant. It seems to me the more important debate would center on "catastrophe denial." If there's no catastrophe, then solutions aren't particularly important. I'm not aware of any scientific reason to anticipate a catastrophe with warming we can expect in the next century or so. Certainly none of the IPCC reports suggest reasons to expect catastrophic effects.
I covered that here: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-climate-change-an-emergency. You don't see it as a catastrophe b/c of your values. Obviously, you're welcome to hold whatever values you hold, but don't make it sound like it's a provable point.
Some scientists are actually declaring a net benefit from the increase in temperature and CO2 and when this is coupled with technology and the power of Fossil fuels we should just focus on a bit of adaption and the push for prosperity and not bother with the NetZero journey.
C'est la survie de l'humanité et des espèces animales qui est en jeu. La TERRE en a vu d'autres et continuera avec ou sans nous.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Give it up will you... so many facts point to that we have seen periods warmer than now and we flourished….
Stop trying to re-jig the data disaster of the Mann study it was not only a bad lie using poor statistics but had data manipulation and studies since that have tried to replicate a hockey stick have been debunked.
We have many physical global indicators of past warming far more than today…
Even though the media use spot data to try to spread fear we also have no long term current climate impact metrics that show any concerning trends or concern for human flourishing.
These presentations below are solid and only use data from reviewed published sources..
A Hot Time In The Old Holocene Climatic Optimum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP8nz0cVbzQ&t=7s
Gregory Wrightstone ICCC - 14 Presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffNAUDclmqI
Thanks very much for the detailed analysis. I'm always annoyed, and amused, when climate change deniers jump onto a single observation that they don't fully understand and try to make that the basis for climate change denial. Their time would be better spent trying to understand the science.
I'm always game for a debate. I will take the "climate catastrophe denier" side. I love how the word "denier" is thrown around pejoratively. It's so sweet when the "aha" moment for the audience when they realize the only deniers are those claiming we live in a catastrophic global warming state right now. There is no climate catastrophe. I'm really sorry.
Hi Andrew:
You said, "It often seems like traditional climate denial is on its way out".
Hmmm. That isn't my experience. The only thing on it's way out looks like GISS.
You quoted Gregory Pedersen, a lead author, who stated emphatically, "This study has absolutely no bearing on the fact that today, Global Mean Surface Temperatures are higher than they've been throughout the span of Holocene. That fact is absolutely true."
Hmmm. I'd like to see the "absolutely true" temperature readings from 7,000 years ago that gives Pedersen such profound confidence in. Doesn't that zealous confidence involving differences of tenths of a degree over thousands of years give you at least a little pause thinking about the veracity of his claim?
That part was a bait and switch to me.. I think people say “if trees were growing somewhere that was later covered by ice, it must have been (warm enough for tree growth) (at that specific site) (at that time in the past). It doesn’t say anything about global mean temperature, then or now.