Patrick T. Brown Profile picture
Sep 25, 2019 3 tweets 2 min read Read on X
There are only 3 fundamental ways to change the Earth’s energy budget: 1) Modification of incoming solar radiation, 2) Modification of the fraction of incoming solar radiation reflected back to space, 3) Modification of the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation #SJSU #GlobalWarming
A Radiative forcing is something that causes the Earth’s radiative energy budget to become temporarily unbalanced and thus it causes a change in global average temperature. #SJSU #METR12 #GlobalWarming
A Radiative Feedback is something that changes in response to an initial radiative forcing, either amplifying the initial change or reducing the initial change. Relevant radiative feedbacks for Earth are the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, and the cloud feedback.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Patrick T. Brown

Patrick T. Brown Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PatrickTBrown31

Feb 27
I have a piece out today in The Chronicle of Higher Education on how social and career incentives surrounding researchers cause a good portion of the full story on the climate problem to be left out of the high-impact literature. 🧵
chronicle.com/article/does-c…
I also recently gave a seminar for the Energy Policy and Climate Program at Johns Hopkins University (where I am a lecturer) that covers the same topic:
This piece stems from a frustration I feel about not being able to take the high-impact climate science literature at face value. Image
Read 17 tweets
Oct 20, 2023
Even if temperatures return to the middle of the climate model projection envelope by the late 2020s, we still expect temperatures like those seen in 2023 to be commonplace in the 2030s...



🧵
Thus, any drastic change in weather at the regional level (like in the US) associated with this level of global warmth would be quite concerning when considering climate impacts over the coming decades.
On that front, The New York Times purported to connect the recent spike in global temperatures to a summer of unusually devastating weather in the US in a piece called Why Summers May Never Be the Same. The globe’s warmest months on record redefined summer for many Americans. Image
Read 24 tweets
Sep 5, 2023
Last week, I described our paper on climate change and wildfires:



I am very proud of this research overall. But I want to talk about how molding research presentations for high-profile journals can reduce its usefulness & actually mislead the public.
For climate research, I think the crux of the issue is highlighted here in my thread:

I mentioned that this research looked at the effect of warming in isolation but that warming is just one of many important influences on wildfires with others being changes in human ignition patterns and changes in vegetation/fuels.
Read 32 tweets
Aug 30, 2023
We have a paper out today in @Nature on the role that human-caused climate change is playing in changes in extreme wildfire behavior, at the daily timescale, in California.

nature.com/articles/s4158…
Image
Many previous studies have looked at the influence of climate change on wildfires in California, the US West, and around the world. However, most previous studies have focused on *conditions conducive* to wildfires rather than characteristics of wildfires themselves.
This is exemplified by the relevant statement in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which is an assertion about weather conditions conducive to wildfires. Image
Read 25 tweets
Aug 9, 2023
I have a paper out today highlighting an error in the climate impacts literature that leads to major exaggerations of the influence of climate change on extreme weather impacts.

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
This error originated in the journal Nature, has been endorsed by the IPCC, and it undergirds some of the most attention-grabbing headlines assigning deaths and dollars to climate change. For example, the error provides the foundation for the following headlines:
“Climate crisis to blame for $67bn of Hurricane Harvey damage - study”.

theguardian.com/world/2020/jun…
Read 32 tweets
Apr 15, 2023
When extreme precipitation or a drought occurs, it is often reflexively reported to have been “made worse,” “intensified,” or “driven” by climate change.

But could it have been made less intense by climate change?
How confident are we in the influence of increased greenhouse gasses on changes in extreme precipitation and droughts? It turns out, not very confident.

We use climate models to assess the influence of increased greenhouse gas concentrations on weather events.
There are dozens of models that differ slightly in their construction and, thus their output.

The *range* of output from models serves as a proxy for our uncertainty on how something like extreme precipitation or drought is changing under increased greenhouse gas concentrations
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(