![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. What is my stance on climate change?
Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! πΏ
First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2Β°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that π πππ of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (COβ) emissions.
Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have πππ πππ people to believe, there are not really any so-called βfingerprintsβ that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.
Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a βfingerprint,β but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer oceanβall else being equalβincreases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).
πhttps://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1β£ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2β£ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.
Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In any case, the ππππ empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic βfingerprintβ on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.
First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as powerβmeasured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)βstandardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/mΒ².
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² back to outer space.
πhttps://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric COβ levels (often noted as RF 2ΓCOβ) is 3.7 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/mΒ², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
πhttps://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)
In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
πhttps://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9
NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.
πhttps://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.
But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of COβ forcing.
So what?
What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to COβ forcing is a lot more nuanced.
Why?
Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than COβ. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2ΓCOβ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1Β°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
πhttps://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world valueβthat is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)βwill be higher (lower) than the ~1Β°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.
So, three critical pieces information are unknown:
1β£ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.
2β£ The exact value of ECS.
3β£ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?
To break it down:
β’ If ECS is <3Β°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
β’ If ECS is β₯3Β°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.
The IPCCβs βbest estimateβ of ECS is 3Β°C with a range of 2-5Β°C.
πhttps://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El ChichΓ³n, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).
Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09Β°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.
πhttps://t.co/S2GEmUftKo
They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096Β°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 Β± 0.26Β°K.
πhttps://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh
Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's βbest estimate.β
πhttps://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
πhttps://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
πhttps://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
πhttps://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury on ECS is still out. π€·ββοΈ
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/mΒ² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
πhttps://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
πhttps://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/mΒ² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 Β± 0.48 W/mΒ².
πhttps://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that πππ π‘ (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .
SO WHAT?
That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.
The big unknown are CLOUDS. βοΈ
Why?
Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does COβ, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to COβ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by COβ. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
π¨οΈ β[π΄]ππ‘βππ’πβ π‘βπ ππποΏ½οΏ½πβππ’π π ππππππ‘ πππ ππ ππβπππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ πΊπ»πΊπ πππ π€ππ‘ππ π£ππππ ππ π‘βπ ππ‘πππ πβπππ, ππ‘ πππ ππ π€πππππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ ππππ’ππ . πΌπ π‘βππ π π‘π€π πππ‘ππππ ππππ ππ‘ πππβ ππ‘βππ, π βπππ‘π’π ππ π‘βπ ππππππ πππππβππ’π π ππππππ‘ π€πππ πππ π’ππ‘.β
πhttps://t.co/NHkmfOc08y
I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.
Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described βclimate scientistsβ who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.
I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution βscienceβ is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.
πhttps://t.co/ETUBune0A8
Conflict of interest much?
It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.
For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.
Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL809qjXUAAq_Fa.png)
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. What is my stance on climate change?
Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! πΏ
First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2Β°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that π πππ of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (COβ) emissions.
Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have πππ πππ people to believe, there are not really any so-called βfingerprintsβ that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.
Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a βfingerprint,β but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer oceanβall else being equalβincreases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).
πhttps://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1β£ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2β£ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.
Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In any case, the ππππ empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic βfingerprintβ on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.
First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as powerβmeasured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)βstandardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/mΒ².
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² back to outer space.
πhttps://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric COβ levels (often noted as RF 2ΓCOβ) is 3.7 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/mΒ², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
πhttps://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)
In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
πhttps://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9
NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.
πhttps://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.
But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of COβ forcing.
So what?
What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to COβ forcing is a lot more nuanced.
Why?
Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than COβ. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2ΓCOβ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1Β°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
πhttps://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world valueβthat is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)βwill be higher (lower) than the ~1Β°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.
So, three critical pieces information are unknown:
1β£ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.
2β£ The exact value of ECS.
3β£ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?
To break it down:
β’ If ECS is <3Β°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
β’ If ECS is β₯3Β°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.
The IPCCβs βbest estimateβ of ECS is 3Β°C with a range of 2-5Β°C.
πhttps://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El ChichΓ³n, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).
Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09Β°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.
πhttps://t.co/S2GEmUftKo
They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096Β°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 Β± 0.26Β°K.
πhttps://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh
Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's βbest estimate.β
πhttps://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
πhttps://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
πhttps://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
πhttps://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury on ECS is still out. π€·ββοΈ
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/mΒ² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
πhttps://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
πhttps://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/mΒ² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 Β± 0.48 W/mΒ².
πhttps://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that πππ π‘ (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .
SO WHAT?
That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.
The big unknown are CLOUDS. βοΈ
Why?
Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does COβ, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to COβ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by COβ. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
π¨οΈ β[π΄]ππ‘βππ’πβ π‘βπ ππποΏ½οΏ½πβππ’π π ππππππ‘ πππ ππ ππβπππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ πΊπ»πΊπ πππ π€ππ‘ππ π£ππππ ππ π‘βπ ππ‘πππ πβπππ, ππ‘ πππ ππ π€πππππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ ππππ’ππ . πΌπ π‘βππ π π‘π€π πππ‘ππππ ππππ ππ‘ πππβ ππ‘βππ, π βπππ‘π’π ππ π‘βπ ππππππ πππππβππ’π π ππππππ‘ π€πππ πππ π’ππ‘.β
πhttps://t.co/NHkmfOc08y
I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.
Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described βclimate scientistsβ who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.
I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution βscienceβ is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.
πhttps://t.co/ETUBune0A8
Conflict of interest much?
It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.
For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.
Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL806YHWwAA3d1U.jpg)
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. What is my stance on climate change?
Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! πΏ
First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2Β°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that π πππ of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (COβ) emissions.
Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have πππ πππ people to believe, there are not really any so-called βfingerprintsβ that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.
Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a βfingerprint,β but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer oceanβall else being equalβincreases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).
πhttps://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1β£ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2β£ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.
Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In any case, the ππππ empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic βfingerprintβ on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.
First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as powerβmeasured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)βstandardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/mΒ².
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² back to outer space.
πhttps://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric COβ levels (often noted as RF 2ΓCOβ) is 3.7 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/mΒ², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
πhttps://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)
In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
πhttps://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9
NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.
πhttps://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.
But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of COβ forcing.
So what?
What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to COβ forcing is a lot more nuanced.
Why?
Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than COβ. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2ΓCOβ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1Β°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
πhttps://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world valueβthat is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)βwill be higher (lower) than the ~1Β°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.
So, three critical pieces information are unknown:
1β£ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.
2β£ The exact value of ECS.
3β£ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?
To break it down:
β’ If ECS is <3Β°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
β’ If ECS is β₯3Β°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.
The IPCCβs βbest estimateβ of ECS is 3Β°C with a range of 2-5Β°C.
πhttps://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El ChichΓ³n, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).
Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09Β°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.
πhttps://t.co/S2GEmUftKo
They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096Β°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 Β± 0.26Β°K.
πhttps://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh
Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's βbest estimate.β
πhttps://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
πhttps://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
πhttps://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
πhttps://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury on ECS is still out. π€·ββοΈ
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/mΒ² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
πhttps://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
πhttps://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/mΒ² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 Β± 0.48 W/mΒ².
πhttps://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that πππ π‘ (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .
SO WHAT?
That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.
The big unknown are CLOUDS. βοΈ
Why?
Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does COβ, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to COβ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by COβ. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
π¨οΈ β[π΄]ππ‘βππ’πβ π‘βπ ππποΏ½οΏ½πβππ’π π ππππππ‘ πππ ππ ππβπππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ πΊπ»πΊπ πππ π€ππ‘ππ π£ππππ ππ π‘βπ ππ‘πππ πβπππ, ππ‘ πππ ππ π€πππππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ ππππ’ππ . πΌπ π‘βππ π π‘π€π πππ‘ππππ ππππ ππ‘ πππβ ππ‘βππ, π βπππ‘π’π ππ π‘βπ ππππππ πππππβππ’π π ππππππ‘ π€πππ πππ π’ππ‘.β
πhttps://t.co/NHkmfOc08y
I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.
Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described βclimate scientistsβ who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.
I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution βscienceβ is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.
πhttps://t.co/ETUBune0A8
Conflict of interest much?
It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.
For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.
Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL80Ld_XQAAI0WK.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Josh
@JoshuaW25464064
Joined September 2021
867 Following
34 Followers
1.2K Posts
1/ π§΅π§΅π§΅
Most of the Jewish texts that survive from antiquity belong to men, or to G-D, or to no one you can name. This one belonged to a woman who kept her paperwork in a leather bag, hid it under a rock in a desert cave, and never came back for it.
Her name was Babatha bat Shimon.
I stood this week in the abandoned Palestinian community of al-Muβarrajat in the Jordan Valley and cried.
A community of 600 people is gone. Homes destroyed. A school and mosque in ruins. Olive trees uprooted. Family after family driven from their land by years of settler violence and intimidation.
I thought of my great-grandparents, who fled persecution in Czarist Russia and made aliyah to Palestine in the 1880s. How can Jews who know so intimately what it means to be driven from our homes stand by while other Jews do this to another people?
Moral outrage is not enough.
Israel must enforce its own laws. If it will not, international courts must act. Those who organize, finance or facilitate forced displacement should be held accountable β sanctioned by the U.S. and other governments or brought before international justice.
If we truly care about Israel, we must confront and defeat this enterprise.
https://t.co/OngEdol294
@MarioNawfal https://t.co/GEJBsgtUlX
@MarioNawfal There are many roads to Qusra. Supporters might also consider motorized paragliders.
@EchoesofWarYT UUCP even more fun.
@academic_la Case by case.
@KainFearis @philainsworth @FunAndFabj5ew The rules are not "skirtable" at any legitimate DZ anywhere in the world.
@FunAndFabj5ew No one is allowed in a jump plane without a rig.
@ColMoeDavis Leury Garcia, who appears in the newspaper article in the lower left was in the White Sox until 2023.
What is my stance on climate change?
Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! πΏ
First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2Β°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that π πππ of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (COβ) emissions.
Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have πππ πππ people to believe, there are not really any so-called βfingerprintsβ that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.
Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a βfingerprint,β but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer oceanβall else being equalβincreases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).
πhttps://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1β£ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2β£ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.
Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In any case, the ππππ empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic βfingerprintβ on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.
First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as powerβmeasured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)βstandardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/mΒ².
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² back to outer space.
πhttps://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric COβ levels (often noted as RF 2ΓCOβ) is 3.7 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/mΒ², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
πhttps://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)
In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
πhttps://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9
NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.
πhttps://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.
But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of COβ forcing.
So what?
What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to COβ forcing is a lot more nuanced.
Why?
Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than COβ. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2ΓCOβ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1Β°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
πhttps://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world valueβthat is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)βwill be higher (lower) than the ~1Β°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.
So, three critical pieces information are unknown:
1β£ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.
2β£ The exact value of ECS.
3β£ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?
To break it down:
β’ If ECS is <3Β°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
β’ If ECS is β₯3Β°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.
The IPCCβs βbest estimateβ of ECS is 3Β°C with a range of 2-5Β°C.
πhttps://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El ChichΓ³n, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).
Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09Β°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.
πhttps://t.co/S2GEmUftKo
They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096Β°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 Β± 0.26Β°K.
πhttps://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh
Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's βbest estimate.β
πhttps://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
πhttps://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
πhttps://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
πhttps://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury on ECS is still out. π€·ββοΈ
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/mΒ² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
πhttps://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
πhttps://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/mΒ² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 Β± 0.48 W/mΒ².
πhttps://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that πππ π‘ (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .
SO WHAT?
That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.
The big unknown are CLOUDS. βοΈ
Why?
Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does COβ, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to COβ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by COβ. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
π¨οΈ β[π΄]ππ‘βππ’πβ π‘βπ ππποΏ½οΏ½πβππ’π π ππππππ‘ πππ ππ ππβπππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ πΊπ»πΊπ πππ π€ππ‘ππ π£ππππ ππ π‘βπ ππ‘πππ πβπππ, ππ‘ πππ ππ π€πππππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ ππππ’ππ . πΌπ π‘βππ π π‘π€π πππ‘ππππ ππππ ππ‘ πππβ ππ‘βππ, π βπππ‘π’π ππ π‘βπ ππππππ πππππβππ’π π ππππππ‘ π€πππ πππ π’ππ‘.β
πhttps://t.co/NHkmfOc08y
I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.
Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described βclimate scientistsβ who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.
I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution βscienceβ is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.
πhttps://t.co/ETUBune0A8
Conflict of interest much?
It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.
For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.
Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. What is my stance on climate change?
Well, I'll lay it out for all of you newcomers. Grab some popcorn! πΏ
First, I do not deny the fact that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2Β°C since 1850. However, nobody knows precisely how much because of data quality issues (e.g., uneven surface station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) that have not been (and likely cannot be) removed from the record.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is [slightly] warmer than it was 175 years ago or that π πππ of that warming might be due to carbon dioxide (COβ) emissions.
Second, contrary to what the online army of alarmist foot soldiers have πππ πππ people to believe, there are not really any so-called βfingerprintsβ that distinguish human-caused global warming from warming caused by other forcings / variability.
Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a βfingerprint,β but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is ππππ ππ π‘πππ‘ π€ππ‘β anthropogenic warming. But these authors fail to mention that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, for instance, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer oceanβall else being equalβincreases the rate of evaporation, which raises the vapor pressure (humidity) contributing to polar amplification and faster land warming than the ocean (e.g., Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2008).
πhttps://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1β£ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2β£ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
This is just basic physics; look up heat capacity.
Also, an increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same material effect, though we can admittedly likely rule that out as the cause of modern trends because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But the sun does affect our climate in ways that have not really been thoroughly researched because little, if any funding, is ever allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF).
In any case, the ππππ empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic βfingerprintβ on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling.
First, you need to understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as powerβmeasured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)βstandardized per square meter of surface area. This is written as W/mΒ².
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order for the Earth's surface to maintain a constant temperature, the surface must emit 239.7 Β± 3.3 W/mΒ² back to outer space.
πhttps://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric COβ levels (often noted as RF 2ΓCOβ) is 3.7 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/mΒ², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
πhttps://t.co/0JkXIQRGDH (p. 357)
In the stratosphere (~13-50 km altitude), this causes a cooling tendency because less infrared radiation (IR) flux is moving upward from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
πhttps://t.co/JNaXP7nUC9
NASA satellite measurements indicate that cooling in the stratosphere has been observed since the late 1970s, although there has been very little cooling over the last 25 years, all the while the troposphere has continued to warm.
πhttps://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, an artifact of particulate aerosol pollution regulations in recent years.
But, yes, I would agree with most scientists that the cooling observed in the stratosphere, at least that from the 1970s to 2000, is most likely a result of COβ forcing.
So what?
What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to COβ forcing is a lot more nuanced.
Why?
Because here in the troposphere, there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the atmospheric radiation budget far more than COβ. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled.
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2ΓCOβ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1Β°C (e.g., Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
πhttps://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world valueβthat is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)βwill be higher (lower) than the ~1Β°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations.
So, three critical pieces information are unknown:
1β£ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, let's say, 1950). We still don't know the answer to this because the coefficients that are used to ascribe anthropogenic versus natural forcings are all estimated from computer modeling, not real physical in-situ measurements.
2β£ The exact value of ECS.
3β£ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization? Is it a crisis? Is it a problem in the slightest?
To break it down:
β’ If ECS is <3Β°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
β’ If ECS is β₯3Β°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.
The IPCCβs βbest estimateβ of ECS is 3Β°C with a range of 2-5Β°C.
πhttps://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, one of my mentors, Dr. John Christy and his co-worker, Dr. Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), calculated climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El ChichΓ³n, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991).
Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09Β°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. I attended a lecture where he talked about this paper in detail.
πhttps://t.co/S2GEmUftKo
They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096Β°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 Β± 0.26Β°K.
πhttps://t.co/zueJLn8V8w / open-access: https://t.co/eLcqeizbRh
Many other recent studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018; Scafetta, 2021; Spencer & Christy, 2023; Lewis, 2025) have all estimated ECS to be far lower than the IPCC AR6's βbest estimate.β
πhttps://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
πhttps://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
πhttps://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
πhttps://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury on ECS is still out. π€·ββοΈ
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/mΒ² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
πhttps://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
πhttps://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 Β± 0.4 W/mΒ², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/mΒ² margin of error, which is 66 times larger than the detection limits. This range of uncertainty remains in newer estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be 1.12 Β± 0.48 W/mΒ².
πhttps://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that πππ π‘ (but not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain (nor would most be humble enough to admit it because the vast majority of academics have high egos). Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made like alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, I'll ask again. . .
SO WHAT?
That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis or urgent problem.
The big unknown are CLOUDS. βοΈ
Why?
Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than does COβ, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to COβ is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El NiΓ±o / La NiΓ±a activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by COβ. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
π¨οΈ β[π΄]ππ‘βππ’πβ π‘βπ ππποΏ½οΏ½πβππ’π π ππππππ‘ πππ ππ ππβπππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ πΊπ»πΊπ πππ π€ππ‘ππ π£ππππ ππ π‘βπ ππ‘πππ πβπππ, ππ‘ πππ ππ π€πππππππ ππ¦ πππππππ πππ ππππ’ππ . πΌπ π‘βππ π π‘π€π πππ‘ππππ ππππ ππ‘ πππβ ππ‘βππ, π βπππ‘π’π ππ π‘βπ ππππππ πππππβππ’π π ππππππ‘ π€πππ πππ π’ππ‘.β
πhttps://t.co/NHkmfOc08y
I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny an anthropogenic influence on it either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from fellow scientists.
Activism is not science and has no place in science. If you are an activist, you cannot call yourself a scientist because you are not dispassionate and objective. This goes for the vast majority of self-described βclimate scientistsβ who actively use social media and are well-known in the debate. Two notable exceptions on the other side of the spectrum from me, in my opinion, are Drs. Robert Rohde and Paul Williams, both of whom I have always had pleasant interactions with.
I also reject the idea that every weather event needs to be blamed on climate change with a rushed, half-baked attribution study (namely the ones done by the clowns at World Weather Attribution that are often not scientifically rigorous, but get plenty of news media attention by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post). Attribution βscienceβ is fraudulent anyway because one of the architects behind it admitted to Politico in 2021 that it was designed with the intention of using it in litigation against oil and gas companies.
πhttps://t.co/ETUBune0A8
Conflict of interest much?
It should also be abundantly clear that climate is just a statistical description of the mean and variability of the climate system, including long-term weather. So, a change in climate is just a change in statistics. That is an outcome, not a force or accelerant that causes an extreme weather event to occur.
For what it's worth, I used to be a climate alarmist well before I got my degree in meteorology.
Now that I know a great deal (but not everything and never will) about atmospheric science, my position has evolved to a cooler heads point of view. Perhaps it is not my judgement that's clouded, but rather that of the alarmist arm-wavers who have high trust in both academic institutions and their government officials who spoon-feed them pre-canned talking points on the daily.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL80_WOWkAAFtJA.png)
@newrepublic Principles have been replaced by partisanship when allegations of dishonesty, intimidation, bad judgement and a nazi tatoo don't matter because "the seat is too important."
1.1 million voters can do better. Platner is a smear on democracy.
@4am_boom_boom @TravelsCharlie In 40 years, Thais have never lied to or cheated me. Ask yourself why?
@SethAbramson False assumptions = incorrect conclusion.
@ajweberman8 Very interesting, A.J. I think Dylan was irritated by proto-wokes (not Commies) and his apology shows he is a better songwriter than essayis
@sciencegirl Why would rainwater need tobe filtered?
@AronFlam "State land" does not mean "not disputed." This is a series of complex rationalizations for stealing other people's homes and livelihoods thanks to the company town's (Israel's) support.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Jack
Seen from Italy
笨θ倧η
Seen from Vietnam
yahahaha
Seen from Singapore
Ω
ΨͺΩ
Ψ±Ψ―β¦..
ΰΈ‘ΰΈ²ΰΈͺΰΈ΄
Seen from Thailand
π§πππ πππ₯ πππ₯π ππ₯ππππ©π
Seen from Japan
gangbang xxx porn
Seen from Turkey
phΖ°Ζ‘g
Seen from Vietnam
syeda Rida
Seen from Saudi Arabia
BARIΕ REUS 
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
118.9M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.6M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.5M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.5M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers