@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey [1️⃣ of 1️⃣6️⃣] @hausfath's study is nothing but spin. To excuse EXTREME inaccuracies of modeled projections that failed to anticipate negative feedbacks would mitigate GHG emissions, he substituted GHG level increases AFTER the effects of negative feedbacks, in place of emissions.
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [2️⃣] The studies which @hausfath claims were accurate were actually wildly INACCURATE, in part because they failed to anticipate how negative CO2 feedbacks like terrestrial greening and ocean processes would remove much of the anthropogenic CO2, mitigating its effect on climate.
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [3️⃣] Here's Hansen et al 1988, reporting the results of GISS Model II. They projected +0.5°C/decade for their "Scenario A." (Oddly, their own graph showed only 0.37°C/decade, but the reviewers & editors apparently overlooked that inconsistency.)
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [4️⃣] Note that in their discussion (shown in the previous tweet), Hansen & his seven coauthors implied that +0.5°C/decade was likely, referring to that rate as "the computed temperature changes."
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [5️⃣] Here's Hansen 1988's Fig 3 graph, showing 0.37°C/decade for Scenario A, rather than the 0.5°C that they claimed in the text. (You have to measure the graph slope to see that it's only 0.37°C.) I added the red & orange lines, showing the inconsistency: sealevel.info/hansen88_fig3_…
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [6️⃣] Hansen told Congress that Scenario A was the "business as usual" scenario. (His purpose was to worry the politicians enough to get them to support creation of the IPCC, and it worked.) Here's the transcript: sealevel.info/1988_Hansen_Se…
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [7️⃣] Hansen 1988 (published eight weeks after his Congressional testimony) spun it to sound like Scenario A was conservative, until "resource constraints" eventually slow emissions growth, and Scenario B would become more plausible. sealevel.info/hansen88_descr…
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [8️⃣] Under Hansen's scenario A, emissions would have increased by 1.5% per year, totaling 47% in 26 years. Actual CO2 emissions increased even faster: by an average of 1.97% per year, totaling 66% in 26 years. Here's the data: cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/glo…
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath [9️⃣] @ClimateAudit discovered that in Hansen's Scenario A, in the long term most of the forcing was from CFCs, rather than from CO2. That result was not useful for supporting a campaign to curb CO2 emissions, so it was not mentioned in Hansen's paper.
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath@ClimateAudit [1️⃣0️⃣] Hansen had told Congress Scenario A was "business as usual," yet it preposterously & dishonestly projected exponential increases in CFCs, even though the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer & the 1997 Montreal Protocol promised to phase out CFCs.
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath@ClimateAudit [1️⃣1️⃣] @hausfath wants you to think Scenario B was supposed to be the realistic one. That's obviously nonsense. Scenario B was “decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level.”
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath@ClimateAudit [1️⃣2️⃣] Obviously we didn't have decreasing GHG emissions (except CFCs, per the Vienna Convention & Montreal Protocol, of course). Emissions of the major GHG, CO2, soared even faster than Scenario A. So Scenario B's assumptions obviously did not resemble what really happened.
@MayaEarls@chelseaeharvey@hausfath@ClimateAudit [1️⃣3️⃣] (Also, decreasing GHG growth rates OBVIOUSLY would cause DECREASING "annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing," not an "approximately constant" annual increase. It is hard to imagine how an error THAT obvious made it through peer review!)
"scenario A goes approximately through the middle of the range of likely climate forcing estimated for the year 2030 by Ramanathan… scenario B is near the lower limit of their estimated range."
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: