@DavidRouxel1@RoctexterNY@IPCC_CH Global sea-level rise is so slow that in many places it's dwarfed by local factors, like erosion, sedimentation, and vertical land motion. That's why some places have sea-level trends like this:
@DavidRouxel1@RoctexterNY@IPCC_CH Some people mistakenly suppose AGW must accelerate sea-level rise, because it causes thermal expansion & melts ice. But they ignore the fact that AGW also increases snowfall on ice sheets & glaciers (an offsetting effect, lowering SL).
It does so through 2 distinct mechanisms:
@DavidRouxel1@RoctexterNY@IPCC_CH 1. Warmer air carries more moisture. Below freezing, it's 8-12% more moisture per 1°C of warming. (That's why heaviest blizzards occur when temperatures are only moderately below freezing.)
@DavidRouxel1@RoctexterNY@IPCC_CH The importance of LOES is illustrated by the story of Glacier Girl, a P-38 which made a forced landing on the Greenland Ice Sheet during WWII. It was buried by snowfall which averaged ≈70 ft/yr, and recovered 50 yrs later.
2/17. That DeSmogBlog article about Will Happer is a brazen, despicable smear.
DeSmogBlog claimed that "Peabody Energy paid [Happer] $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition."
That's a LIE. Prof. Happer was not paid, because he asked that his entire fee be donated to charity.
3/17. DeSmog also falsely claimed, "Happer told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources could be similarly concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition."
That's ANOTHER LIE.
Happer did no such thing. Rather, he was asked to produce a white paper (which is not "research") explaining the best scientific evidence about the costs and benefits of fossil fuel use—and he generously asked that the fee for that work be donated to charity.
The CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition is a 501(c)(3) educational charity. Happer didn't "route" anything "through" them. He very generously donated the fees to which he was entitled, to that very worthy charity.
I have the paper, and the five responses, and Skrable's responses to the responses, on my site, here: sealevel.info/Skrable2022/
2/6. The 14C bomb spike decay reflects 3 main processes:
1. Removal of CO2 from the air, into other "reservoirs" (ocean & terrestrial biosphere).
2. Exchanges of carbon between atmosphere & other reservoirs.
3. "Suess effect" dilution: the addition of fossil CO2 with no 14C.
3/6. The bomb spike decay follows a beautiful logarithmic decay curve, with an 11 year half-life, so an 11 / ln(2) = 16 year apparent lifetime. But that fails to take into account Suess effect dilution. sealevel.info/logc14_two_hal…
1/5. Anymous84861064 & Lynas (2021) are bludgeoning a strawman. They pretend the climate debate is whether anthropogenic climate change is real, so they can claim there's a scientific consensus - while slyly avoiding saying what the consensus is about. sealevel.info/consensus_defi…
@Rabs1958 @LottRan @Anymous84861064 @GillesnFio @S_D_Mannix @mikeshearn49 @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @Veritatem2021 @Devonian1342 @MarcEHJones @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @Willard1951 @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @3GHtweets @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 2/5. Most skeptics of climate alarmism agree with that "consensus" view, including me. So what? That's not what the debate is about! quora.com/It-is-claimed-…
3/5. Of course AGW is "real." The climate industry's problem is that the best evidence shows that CO2 & manmade climate change are beneficial, not harmful. The "social cost of carbon" is negative. sealevel.info/negative_socia…
1/5. Stoichastich wrote, "He says quite clearly that the hothouse is warm because the glass absorbs dark rays from the ground (IR), which is clearly not why the hothouse is hot."
That's not what Arrhenius wrote. This is the paper:
This is the excerpt to which I think you must be referring:
"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot-house, because it lets through the light-rays of the Sun, but retains the dark-rays from the ground."
You've mistaken his meaning. In the first place, Arrhenius was summarizing what another scientist said. In the second place, the word "it" clearly refers back to "the atmosphere," not to the hot-house, as you've apparently supposed.
The main way that greenhouses retain heat is by preventing convective and evaporative cooling. That's why greenhouses made of plastic which is transparent to LW IR work just fine. (Glass greenhouses do get a small amount of additional warming effect by blocking outgoing LW IR.)iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
2/5. Stoichastich asked, "Where has anyone said that [Arrhenius] did use that term?"
You retweeted Dale Cloudman pointing out that "the greenhouse effect is a misnomer," in your tweet saying that Arrhenius' paper was "fundamentally flawed." So I thought that's what you meant.
3/5. Stoichastich asked, "Estimating it sounds interesting, but has it ever been measured?"
There've been some attempts both to calculate and to measure the "radiative forcing." I summarize them here: