100% consensus light travels 186,000 mph
⤷ because we can measure it
100% consensus that 𝑔 = 6.67...x10⁻¹¹ Nm²/kg²
⤷ because we can measure it
97% consensus that ↑CO₂ changes climate
...because CO₂ radiative forcing isn't measured
Measurement supersedes a consensus.
I'm ~not~ saying the climate consensus is wrong. I'm explaining why we even ~talk~ about a consensus.
With no direct CO₂ forcing measurement, climatologists study indirect effects like 🌡️ ocean heat content or 📉 stratosphere instead.
The effect of aerosols, ozone, ⛅️ & 🌋 are all accounted for, then what's left over is then attributed to increased CO₂, even though CO₂ radiative forcing wasn't directly measured (it was modeled w/computers).
When an effect is attributed to something that wasn't measured, probabilities show up. For example, atmospheric scientist Ben Santer estimates the probability of these collective indirect effects being of natural causes instead of CO₂ is "infinitesimally small."
Ben's judgement is then compared to everyone else's judgement. Most agree, so there's consensus.
But once a measurement is made, the entire need for consensus vanishes. So is anyone empirically measuring CO₂ radiative forcing? Glad you asked.
This project has taken far too much of my time, but here is: nearly two decades of satellite measurements, filtered for clear-sky observations, trended & integrated to give the longwave forcing of +37 ppm CO₂ compared to the IPCC F=5.35*ln(C/C₀) equation.
Yes, it will be published someday.
No, I don't know when.
Yes, I've heard of Feldman-2015. Surface measurements don't help here; to affect the temperature of a planet, you have to change the energy balance at top of atmosphere (TOA) which is where IPCC defines radiative forcing:
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.