Dear Professor, sorry to see you giving up to the pressure. One thing you could have stated with safety concerns the reflected ~200 W/m^2. This figure is defined mostly by the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth and then reflected into the space around our planet. Estimating amount of solar radiation received by the globe is a very difficult thing and it's accuracy is much less that +/- 1%. Estimating the reflected amount of heat (as defined by reflective coefficient of the Earth surfaces) is not more accurate , likely even less so. Here we are talking about heating/cooling of the globe in absolute temperature terms and thus this uncertainty of these measurement exceeds the discussed effects of human activities as per current most advanced models. So your assumption of 50/50 is not well based and seems like an effort to make peace with the oil-free energy enthusiasts.
Glad to see Koonin slowly, sloooowly come around to understanding what he fought against for decades. "“We often hear that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.” Um, yes, there was useful consensus, there was less uncertainty than you claimed. Humans are responsible for more than 50% of warming, but baby steps with someone like Koonin. Sadly we get to hear the benefits of warming from someone still trying to remain relevant.
Dear Professor, sorry to see you giving up to the pressure. One thing you could have stated with safety concerns the reflected ~200 W/m^2. This figure is defined mostly by the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth and then reflected into the space around our planet. Estimating amount of solar radiation received by the globe is a very difficult thing and it's accuracy is much less that +/- 1%. Estimating the reflected amount of heat (as defined by reflective coefficient of the Earth surfaces) is not more accurate , likely even less so. Here we are talking about heating/cooling of the globe in absolute temperature terms and thus this uncertainty of these measurement exceeds the discussed effects of human activities as per current most advanced models. So your assumption of 50/50 is not well based and seems like an effort to make peace with the oil-free energy enthusiasts.
Glad to see Koonin slowly, sloooowly come around to understanding what he fought against for decades. "“We often hear that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.”
Um, yes, there was useful consensus, there was less uncertainty than you claimed. Humans are responsible for more than 50% of warming, but baby steps with someone like Koonin.
Sadly we get to hear the benefits of warming from someone still trying to remain relevant.
"Humans are responsible for more than 50% of warming.." Have any data to back this up?