@BerkeleyEarth [1/11] BEST's figures imply MUCH LOWER climate sensitivity than IPCC claims.

You show, "About 2.3°C of warming per doubling of CO2 (ignoring the role of other greenhouse gases and forcings)."

But to deduce climate sensitivity (to CO2), you CANNOT ignore other GHGs.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [2/11] Even if we assume that none of the warming is natural, if 30% of the warming is due to increases in minor GHGs like O3, CH4, N2O & CFCs, then "climate sensitivity" from a doubling of CO2, according to BEST's figures, is only 0.7 × 2.3 = 1.6°C.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [3/11] That's a "practical estimate" of climate sensitivity, from surface station measurements. However, if the best satellite data were used, instead of BEST's surface temperatures, sensitivity would be almost 30% lower:
woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from…
sealevel.info/BEST_vs_UAH_20…
[cont'd] Image
@BerkeleyEarth [4/11] That makes climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 only 1.23°C.

Since that's based on real-world forcing (instead of the faster rise used for the TCR definition), the 1.6°C or 1.23°C per doubling is "between TCR & ECS" (probably about an average of TCR & ECS).
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [5/11] ECS is usually estimated at 1.25× to 1.6× TCR. So:

If 1.6°C is avg of TCR & ECS, it means TCR is 1.23 to 1.42°C, and ECS is 1.77 to 1.97°C.

If 1.23°C is avg of TCR & ECS, it means TCR is 0.95 to 1.09°C, and ECS is 1.37 to 1.51°C.

See: sealevel.info/BEST_vs_UAH_20…
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [6/11] That gives an overall TCR range of 0.95 to 1.42°C, and an overall ECS range of 1.37 to 1.97°C.

Those sensitivities are obviously FAR BELOW the assumptions baked into most CMIP6 models and IPCC reports, which means their warming projections are much too large.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [7/11] You say, "About 1.1°C of warming has already occurred," and "if carbon dioxide concentrations keep rising at historical rates, global warming could more than triple this century."

That's wrong, for two reasons.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [8/11] 1. It assumes WILDLY accelerated warming, from an approx linear continuation of forcing, for which there's no basis. Even BEST's 0.192°C/decade yields only 1.536°C of add'l warming by 2100. UAH6's 0.134°C/decade yields only 1.072°C by 2100.
sealevel.info/co2.html?co2sc…
[cont'd] ImageImage
@BerkeleyEarth [9/11] 2. It assumes an implausible continuation of exponentially increasing CO2 level growth (necessary for continuation of the linear trend in forcing). But resource constraints ensure the forcing trend will fall below linear long before 2100.
researchgate.net/publication/30…
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [10/11] Also, negative feedbacks (mainly terrestrial "greening," and oceans) are removing CO2 from the air at an accelerating rate.
sealevel.info/feedbacks#gree…
So (unfortunately!) it's unlikely that mankind's use of fossil fuels can ever drive CO2 level above 700 ppmv.
[cont'd]
@BerkeleyEarth [11/11] Since CO2 forcing trend log(level) is almost certain to fall below linear later this century, rate of temperature increase, which is already too slow to reach the temperatures you project, should slow BELOW even the current slow 0.134°C to 0.192°C/decade linear trend.
###
@BerkeleyEarth @BerkeleyEarth, do you not have have any comment on the fact that your data implies a much lower climate sensitivity to rising CO2 levels than the IPCC claims?
@BerkeleyEarth @RichardAMuller @stevenmosher @RARohde @hausfath @JudithSissener @BerkeleyPhysics @BerkeleyEarth, will you please reply?

The temperature measurements imply TCR between 0.95 & 1.42°C, and ECS between 1.37 & 1.97°C. Will you at least acknowledge that your measurements imply climate sensitivity well below IPCC estimates?
sealevel.info/twitter_Berkel… Image
@BerkeleyEarth @RichardAMuller @stevenmosher @RARohde @hausfath @JudithSissener @BerkeleyPhysics @BerkeleyEarth team: @RichardAMuller, @stevenmosher, @RARohde, @hausfath, @JudithSissener

Will you please acknowledge that your data shows ECS climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is <2°C, and TCR is <1.5°C?

@BerkeleyPhysics, how about a response?

sealevel.info/learnmore.html Image
@BerkeleyEarth @RichardAMuller @stevenmosher @RARohde @hausfath @JudithSissener @BerkeleyPhysics This tweetstorm is also manually unrolled here:
wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/24/cro…

@BerkeleyEarth team: @RichardAMuller, @stevenmosher, @RARohde, @hausfath, @JudithSissener — please acknowledge that your own data show ECS climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is <2°C, and TCR is <1.5°C. Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with ✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton

✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton 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 @ncdave4life

Apr 22
@Willard1951 @MarcEHJones @GillesnFio @AGW_is_bad @Devonian1342 @Rabs1958 @Anvndarnamn5 @jpgcrowley @mikeshearn49 @Anymous84861064 @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @S_D_Mannix @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 1/7. That's nonsense, Willard. We've discussed this topic and that graph before, have you forgotten?
2/7. The improvement in agricultural productivity in Africa is not "very, very modest." It is real, and it is spectacular.
@Willard1951 @MarcEHJones @GillesnFio @AGW_is_bad @Devonian1342 @Rabs1958 @Anvndarnamn5 @jpgcrowley @mikeshearn49 @Anymous84861064 @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @S_D_Mannix @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 3/7. Even in West Africa, crop yields have doubled since 1961 (104 ppmv ago).
Read 7 tweets
Apr 21
@ChrisBBacon3 @MarcEHJones @LottRan @Anymous84861064 @GillesnFio @Rabs1958 @S_D_Mannix @mikeshearn49 @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @Veritatem2021 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @Willard1951 @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @3GHtweets @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 1/6. Skrable (2022) is 100% nonsense. Read some of the "comment on" responses to it, to understand why.

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.Image
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…Image
Read 6 tweets
Apr 20
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…Image
@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…
Read 5 tweets
Apr 15
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:

sealevel.info/Radiative_Forc…
Read 6 tweets
Apr 11
1/7》GCP emission data shows 185.58 ppmv of fossil carbon emissions from 1959-2021 (plus a poorly constrained amt of non-fossil "land use change emissions"). Only about 5.56 ppmv (3%) was CO2 released from limestone [CaCO3] as it's baked to make cement.
@Piyush__Tank @JessePeltan 2/7》It's estimated that, on average, as concrete weathers it absorbs roughly half as much CO2 as was released from the limestone when it was made. That halves the 3% (5.56 ppmv) figure to 1.5%. The process is akin to natural rock weathering:
sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…
Image
3/7》It's often claimed that cement manufacturing causes "up to 8%" of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but that figure includes estimated emissions from the fossil fuels burned to heat the kilns, typically accounting about half the total (though it varies according to how the kilns are fired).
cfdflowengineering.com/cfd-modeling-o…Image
Read 8 tweets
Apr 10
1/5. Willard, why do you ask questions that were answered at links I just gave you—that you refused to read?

I linked to a 7-part tweetstorm about the discredited Shakun/Marcott/Pages2K/Hagelaars "wheelchair" graph, which goes back 22K years. It completely erased D-O event #1, every last trace of it.
2/5. That wheelchair graph also erased all but ¼℃ of D-O event #0, a/k/a the Younger Dryas termination, a/k/a the start of the Holocene.
3/5. It also shows the middle of the Dark Ages Cold Period as slightly warmer than the middle of the Medieval Warm Period.

Read 6 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!

:(