Wood Romances

Every year I try to think of a way to update my simple calculations for ECS and TCR. My methods don't really change that much; they reflect updated data and become a little more complex. Make no mistake, they are simple calculations based on estimates of forcings, temperature and EEI using the energy balance equation. It doesn't compete with peer-reviewed studies by Sherwood[1] or the assessments of the IPCC. My intent with this is to show that the central estimates of the IPCC (and most climate models) are very consistent with empirical data.   The first step in the calculating ECS and TCR values is assessing the earth's energy imbalance and collecting the relevant forcing data. Earth's Energy Imbalance There are several estimates for EEI to choose from, but I think the most conservative approach is to use an average value for the full time frame between 2005 and 2019, when observations become much  more reliable. One study, Loeb et al 2021[2] estimated EEI to be 0.77 ...

In a previous post , I pointed out that I find the notion of quantifying "consensus" to have limited value, but one value I admit it can have is to show areas of climate science about which practicing scientists no longer in actively debate in the literature. This allows us to understand what debates in popular discourse do not translate into debate among climate scientists. One of the most common objections to AGW I hear in popular circles is that warming is caused by the Sun, rather than human activity. The most common way I see this claim is with reference to solar variability in terms of total solar irradiance (TSI). Variability in TSI can be caused by two things: changes in solar output, like the 11-year solar cycle, or changes in the distance between the earth and the Sun. Variability in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, often referred to as orbital cycles, do not change the total amount of energy the Earth receives in a year, but they can change the distribution of...