Read on Twitter
@BenKoby1911 @Anvndarnamn5 @sandcastle1975 @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @NewNormality20 @ChrisBBacon3 @NolanCarlton2 @EthonRaptor @balls95652097 @4tis @RushhourP @Huroner2 @Willard1951 @Devonian1342 @Mark_A_Lunn @AristotleMrs @Michael_D_Crow @Jaisans @Hji45519156 @S_D_Mannix @JusticeTrudeau @JimBlack48 @glinch72 @DenisDaly @stitchnstab @CarrudoDon @Veritatem2021 @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @priscian @Joeyd87745119 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @JustThi30117912 @SniemN @BointonGiles @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @CDMarshall7 @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 1/6. Feldman measured downwelling longwave IR “backradiation” from CO2, at ground level, under clear sky conditions, for a decade. They reported that a 22 ppmv (+5.946%) increase in CO2 level (= +8.333% forcing) resulted in a 0.2 ±0.06 W/m² increase in downwelling LW IR from CO2.
@BenKoby1911 @Anvndarnamn5 @sandcastle1975 @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @NewNormality20 @ChrisBBacon3 @NolanCarlton2 @EthonRaptor @balls95652097 @4tis @RushhourP @Huroner2 @Willard1951 @Devonian1342 @Mark_A_Lunn @AristotleMrs @Michael_D_Crow @Jaisans @Hji45519156 @S_D_Mannix @JusticeTrudeau @JimBlack48 @glinch72 @DenisDaly @stitchnstab @CarrudoDon @Veritatem2021 @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @priscian @Joeyd87745119 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @JustThi30117912 @SniemN @BointonGiles @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @CDMarshall7 @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 2/6. That's 2.40 ±0.72 W/m² per CO2 doubling.
But ≈22.6% of incoming solar radiation is reflected away, without reaching the surface or being absorbed in the air. So, adjusting for having measured at the surface gives ≈1.29 × (2.40 ±0.72) = 3.10 ±0.93 W/m² per doubling at TOA.
But ≈22.6% of incoming solar radiation is reflected away, without reaching the surface or being absorbed in the air. So, adjusting for having measured at the surface gives ≈1.29 × (2.40 ±0.72) = 3.10 ±0.93 W/m² per doubling at TOA.
@BenKoby1911 @Anvndarnamn5 @sandcastle1975 @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @NewNormality20 @ChrisBBacon3 @NolanCarlton2 @EthonRaptor @balls95652097 @4tis @RushhourP @Huroner2 @Willard1951 @Devonian1342 @Mark_A_Lunn @AristotleMrs @Michael_D_Crow @Jaisans @Hji45519156 @S_D_Mannix @JusticeTrudeau @JimBlack48 @glinch72 @DenisDaly @stitchnstab @CarrudoDon @Veritatem2021 @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @priscian @Joeyd87745119 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @JustThi30117912 @SniemN @BointonGiles @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @CDMarshall7 @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 3/6. That's on the low side of Myhre's 3.7 ±0.4 W/m² estimate, but the uncertainty intervals overlap. It does preclude the very high 4.37 W/m² (𝞪=6.3) figure in the FAR & SAR.
It's nearly identical to van Wijngaarden & Happer (2022)'s 3.0 W/m² figure:
sealevel.info/vanWijngaarden…
It's nearly identical to van Wijngaarden & Happer (2022)'s 3.0 W/m² figure:
sealevel.info/vanWijngaarden…
@BenKoby1911 @Anvndarnamn5 @sandcastle1975 @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @NewNormality20 @ChrisBBacon3 @NolanCarlton2 @EthonRaptor @balls95652097 @4tis @RushhourP @Huroner2 @Willard1951 @Devonian1342 @Mark_A_Lunn @AristotleMrs @Michael_D_Crow @Jaisans @Hji45519156 @S_D_Mannix @JusticeTrudeau @JimBlack48 @glinch72 @DenisDaly @stitchnstab @CarrudoDon @Veritatem2021 @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @priscian @Joeyd87745119 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @JustThi30117912 @SniemN @BointonGiles @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @CDMarshall7 @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 4/6. The 50% increase in CO2 (280 → 420 ppmv) yields a 58.5% forcing increase.
google.com/search?q=log2%…
58.5% of (3.10 ±0.93 W/m²) = 1.813 ±0.544 W/m² from CO2, so far.
google.com/search?q=log2%…
That's a little higher than your 1.3 W/m² figure.
google.com/search?q=log2%…
58.5% of (3.10 ±0.93 W/m²) = 1.813 ±0.544 W/m² from CO2, so far.
google.com/search?q=log2%…
That's a little higher than your 1.3 W/m² figure.
@BenKoby1911 @Anvndarnamn5 @sandcastle1975 @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @NewNormality20 @ChrisBBacon3 @NolanCarlton2 @EthonRaptor @balls95652097 @4tis @RushhourP @Huroner2 @Willard1951 @Devonian1342 @Mark_A_Lunn @AristotleMrs @Michael_D_Crow @Jaisans @Hji45519156 @S_D_Mannix @JusticeTrudeau @JimBlack48 @glinch72 @DenisDaly @stitchnstab @CarrudoDon @Veritatem2021 @LiveLifeBK24 @TheDisproof @priscian @Joeyd87745119 @waxliberty @SuperFoxyLoxy @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @JustThi30117912 @SniemN @BointonGiles @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @CDMarshall7 @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 5/6. Solar radiation reaching the surface is supposedly 184 ±5 W/m².
sealevel.info/NCA4_global_en…
A 7% increase would be 12.88 ±0.35 W/m². That's a lot more than your 5.3 W/m² figure.
Where do your 7% and 5.3 figures come from, Ben?
sealevel.info/NCA4_global_en…
A 7% increase would be 12.88 ±0.35 W/m². That's a lot more than your 5.3 W/m² figure.
Where do your 7% and 5.3 figures come from, Ben?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
