Climate deniers often forget that we have direct experimental evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect from man-made carbon emissions
#ClimateBrawl
https://t.co/H6rYvyxsHs
@1000Frolly How do you explain the drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that GHGs absorb energy as shown in Harries 2001 for the period '70-'96? Consistent with theoretical expectations. Confirmed by subsequent papers. Direct experimental evidence of GHG effect.
#ClimateBrawl
@ChrisMartzWX Here are the changes in global average heatwave, river flood and drought risk e.g average chance of river flood currently expected in 2% of years increases to 2.4% at 1.5°C, and doubles to 4% at 3°C.
Still not concerned?
Source: https://t.co/lTNeRcNzsM
@ChrisMartzWX The only way you think going above 600ppm (~3.3⁰C) is ok is if you ignore every single decent climate model. But then what are you basing your lack of concern on? Very little of scientific worth I'm guessing...
@ronstumpfjr @ChrisMartzWX@JustWordsBro A frenzy in the media maybe but not among the experts.
But feel free to provide any evidence to back up your claim 😆
@NassimKhadem@abcnews@ABCaustralia@IGCC_Update@cleannrgcouncil@Solargain@ENGIEgroup what do you mean by "with memories of Labor's Pink Batts Scheme disaster still fresh in many people's minds"? Disaster? I think you're confusing what the right wing media & politicians called it with what it actually was - a very successful energy efficiency scheme.
@NassimKhadem what do you mean by "with memories of Labor's Pink Batts Scheme disaster still fresh in many people's minds"? Disaster? I think you're confusing what the right wing media & politicians called it with what it actually was - a very successful energy efficiency scheme.
@ChrisMartzWX Here are the 234 authors of IPCC AR6 WG1:
https://t.co/POE0yNi9Ho
Who on that list doesn't have a degree or formal training in the appropriate climate science field?
Whenever I post about climate, skeptical folks inevitable respond with this graph. So I decided to do something radical: actually read the underling scientific paper and ask the authors.
As it turns out, it actually says the opposite of what skeptics claim.
@woolworths please reduce the font size of the "You saved $XX.XX" on your receipts to be at or below the font size of the purchase amount. You wouldn't want to give your shoppers a false sense of their savings now would you?
@ChrisMartzWX So are you finally going to admit that temperature measurements from Glaisher stands and Stevenson screens can't be compared without accounting for a warming bias?
Or are you going to keep spreading propaganda with Heller?
https://t.co/Jjz1OoRdco
@TonyClimate@BOM_au Debunked !
You choose to completely ignore the warming bias of Glaisher stands compared to Stevenson screens as well as other well known issues with 19th century measurements:
https://t.co/v4R8UerDEE.
#ClimateBrawl
@ChrisMartzWX Wow Chris you've completely misunderstood how rooftop PV works. Day to day it can help power:
✅ HVAC (e.g. reserve-cycle AC)
✅ elec ovens and stoves (e.g. induction)
✅ Water heater (e.g. heat pump)
✅ Fridges
And it will significantly reduce your electricity bills.
@PeterDClack Peter, you're a retired journalist who doesn't understand the physics involved.
The drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that GHGs absorb E was confirmed by satellite measurements spanning decades in Harries 2001 i.e. direct experimental evidence of the GHG effect.
@ChrisMartzWX Looks like it's Chris' baseless fears & anxieties vs the real world example of Sweden, which has had a carbon tax since 1991!
Results are in...Sweden's doing great! They haven't lost their freedoms and their property hasn't been "seized" by their gov, so you can stop worrying! 🤣
@ChrisMartzWX Funny that "14 out of the 17 model projections [were] indistinguishable from what [...] occurred" (Hausfather et al '19) yet no scientist you refer to (Happer, Curry, Christy) when dismissing the risk of catastrophic AGW has bothered to develop a climate model of their own 🧐🤔🤣
@ChrisMartzWX What's your source for saying there's more crime today than 4 years ago?
Could it be, like with man-made climate change, that you ignore evidence when it disagrees with your worldview?