![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Oh, I understand “the science.”
You do not. 🫵😉
First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although nobody knows precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) issues that have not been accurately corrected for.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. 🌡️📈
SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
Second, contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe by academics, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming.
That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) from CO₂ to that of either internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low- and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases 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). ✅☁️
🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can probably rule that out as the cause since sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️
However, there are other ways in which solar activity exerts influence on the climate system that remain very poorly understood (e.g., solar wind) because very little research has been funded to investigate it.
In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there probably is at least some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉
First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area.
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature the Earth's surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.
🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
🔗https://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 up from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
🔗https://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. 🛰️
🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, in part an artifact of stricter 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 CO₂ forcing. ✅
Again, SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
What happens in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget a lot more than CO₂. And, just how clouds respond to tropospheric warming, if at all, is not very well understood (and by extension, it is not modeled well).
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂ (RF 2×CO₂) is actually very small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure that you derive from radiative transfer calculations.
Three pieces of critical information remain unknown:
1⃣ 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 computed from computer modeling, not physical measurements.
2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization?
To break it down:
🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2-5°C.
🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) calculated the climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). They found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°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 remain zero.
🔗https://t.co/7LlAeyKTl6
The authors then affirmed their 1994 findings more recently in 2017 (McNider & Christy, 2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.
🔗 https://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 “best estimate”
🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury is still out. 🤷♂️
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² 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 ± 0.48 W/m².
🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, SO WHAT? That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis.
The big unknown here are CLOUDS. ☁️
This is because (a) cloud albedo has far more impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to the CO₂ forcing is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without our assistance for any number of chaotic reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.).
Case in point, even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”
🔗https://t.co/go2kR0xaWN
While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has zero effect on the climate, or (b) that it will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
How's that for some real science? 🧪](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-18YKRWQAAx35F.jpg)
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Oh, I understand “the science.”
You do not. 🫵😉
First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although nobody knows precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) issues that have not been accurately corrected for.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. 🌡️📈
SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
Second, contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe by academics, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming.
That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) from CO₂ to that of either internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low- and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases 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). ✅☁️
🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can probably rule that out as the cause since sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️
However, there are other ways in which solar activity exerts influence on the climate system that remain very poorly understood (e.g., solar wind) because very little research has been funded to investigate it.
In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there probably is at least some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉
First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area.
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature the Earth's surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.
🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
🔗https://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 up from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
🔗https://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. 🛰️
🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, in part an artifact of stricter 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 CO₂ forcing. ✅
Again, SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
What happens in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget a lot more than CO₂. And, just how clouds respond to tropospheric warming, if at all, is not very well understood (and by extension, it is not modeled well).
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂ (RF 2×CO₂) is actually very small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure that you derive from radiative transfer calculations.
Three pieces of critical information remain unknown:
1⃣ 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 computed from computer modeling, not physical measurements.
2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization?
To break it down:
🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2-5°C.
🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) calculated the climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). They found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°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 remain zero.
🔗https://t.co/7LlAeyKTl6
The authors then affirmed their 1994 findings more recently in 2017 (McNider & Christy, 2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.
🔗 https://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 “best estimate”
🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury is still out. 🤷♂️
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² 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 ± 0.48 W/m².
🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, SO WHAT? That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis.
The big unknown here are CLOUDS. ☁️
This is because (a) cloud albedo has far more impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to the CO₂ forcing is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without our assistance for any number of chaotic reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.).
Case in point, even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”
🔗https://t.co/go2kR0xaWN
While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has zero effect on the climate, or (b) that it will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
How's that for some real science? 🧪](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-167G9XIAAvATA.png)
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Oh, I understand “the science.”
You do not. 🫵😉
First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although nobody knows precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) issues that have not been accurately corrected for.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. 🌡️📈
SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
Second, contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe by academics, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming.
That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) from CO₂ to that of either internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low- and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases 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). ✅☁️
🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can probably rule that out as the cause since sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️
However, there are other ways in which solar activity exerts influence on the climate system that remain very poorly understood (e.g., solar wind) because very little research has been funded to investigate it.
In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there probably is at least some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉
First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area.
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature the Earth's surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.
🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
🔗https://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 up from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
🔗https://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. 🛰️
🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, in part an artifact of stricter 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 CO₂ forcing. ✅
Again, SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
What happens in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget a lot more than CO₂. And, just how clouds respond to tropospheric warming, if at all, is not very well understood (and by extension, it is not modeled well).
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂ (RF 2×CO₂) is actually very small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure that you derive from radiative transfer calculations.
Three pieces of critical information remain unknown:
1⃣ 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 computed from computer modeling, not physical measurements.
2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization?
To break it down:
🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2-5°C.
🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) calculated the climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). They found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°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 remain zero.
🔗https://t.co/7LlAeyKTl6
The authors then affirmed their 1994 findings more recently in 2017 (McNider & Christy, 2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.
🔗 https://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 “best estimate”
🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury is still out. 🤷♂️
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² 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 ± 0.48 W/m².
🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, SO WHAT? That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis.
The big unknown here are CLOUDS. ☁️
This is because (a) cloud albedo has far more impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to the CO₂ forcing is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without our assistance for any number of chaotic reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.).
Case in point, even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”
🔗https://t.co/go2kR0xaWN
While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has zero effect on the climate, or (b) that it will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
How's that for some real science? 🧪](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-13826WwAASUMg.png)
Olivia
Online
Tesla Fan
@Tesla__Fan
Schweden
Joined December 2019
309 Following
155 Followers
405 Posts
Beginner video: How to install & use Grok Build (made for non-technical SuperGrok and X Premium+ users)
I got so many questions from friends, so I made this simple step-by-step guide.
You’ll see exactly how to:
• Install Grok Build in seconds with one command
• Create real websites
• Use Grok Imagine to auto-generate images & videos
• Run multiple projects at once in different folders
Grok even runs commands for you. No coding experience needed.
Watch the full walkthrough 👇
FSD Supervised now rolling out to Teslas in Lithuania 🇱🇹!
Making European roads safer, one by one
One man who sacrificed himself to save free speech
In 2022, Elon Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter, walked in carrying a sink, and fired 80% of the staff within a week; yet the company kept running
He renamed it 𝕏, rewrote its content rules, and reinstated 65,000 banned accounts in 30 days
That day was a massive win for humanity
Grok automatically translating and recommending 𝕏 posts from other languages is starting to work
🚨 BOMBSHELL REVELATION: In a jaw-dropping disclosure, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled that "Bill Gates has control of the WHO, so they’ll mandate vaccines all over the world, and the companies that make those vaccines have Gates as a major shareholder." Gates controls big pharma.
Everyone needs to watch this, soak it in, and understand the magnitude of what we are watching play out. Accountability is coming.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard talks in detail about what she found in the newly declassified documents that prove Obama and many in his administration committed treason.
She has made referrals to the Department of Justice.
“I’m referring all of these documents that we have found and uncovered, referring them to the DOJ for further investigation. Accountability and action. Not just investigation, but action.
Accountability has to take place… This accountability is critical to make sure that this never happens again. Exposing the truth and naming those who are responsible should drive that accountability that has to take place.”
Trump put the right pieces in place and it’s all coming together.
Exciting times! 🍿
Dr Mototaka Nakamura has called climate models mere "toys".
They're tuned with guesswork, he says, ignore key drivers like clouds, oceans and the sun, and cannot predict climate.
Dr Nakamura is far from fringe. He earned his doctorate at MIT, worked with NASA and Caltech, and spent 25 years studying climate dynamics.
"Climate models are Mickey Mouse mockeries of the real world," he says, and he argues scientists have falsified records to exaggerate recent warming. Exaggerations that underpin trillion-dollar policies.
Nakamura says meaningful climate forecasting is an impossibility, and that CO2 isn't the control knob.
🚨 BREAKING NEWS!!! STATISTICAL PROOF THE MET OFFICE IS INFLATING UK MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE RECORDS, TO CREATE NET ZERO SUPPORTING CLIMATE ALARM!!!
Conclusive’ statistical proof has emerged over the last year to show the UK Met Office is inflating maximum temperature readings to create Net Zero-supporting climate alarm. Over the last 30 years, the Met Office has produced the vast majority of its data from unnaturally heat-ravaged ‘junk’ sites using newly-installed accurate electronic devices able to record one minute heat spikes. The independent researcher Dr Eric Huxter has taken a year to examine the unnatural sudden rises that supply many daily ‘records’, and compared the overall spike averages with a pristine CIMO Class 1 control station.
He concludes that it “could well explain the step change in rate of temperature change, and the marked increase in the step of new daily maximum records since 1990”.
During his year-long project, Dr Huxter examined 340 daily maximum temperature highs recorded across 96 Met Office stations and discovered that these sites showed average short heat spikes around 1.1°C. Most of these spikes occurred around daily ‘records’ in junk CIMO Class 3, 4 and 5 locations. These sites have internationally recognised ‘uncertainties’ or possible errors of 1°C, 2°C and 5°C respectively. But spikes in temperature can occur naturally, so Huxter consulted a full year of individual minute temperature figures at a pristine Class 1 site in open farmland at Rothamsted. From the purchased records – a total of 525,541 – he was able to compile a baseline probability control.
Here is the kicker – comparing the Rothamsted control with the 360 heat spikes at the largely junk sites, a chi-square test showed a highly significant difference of p <0.0001. This means that if there were truly no difference between the sites, the chances of observing such a large discrepancy in heat spikes would be less than one in 10,000 – in other words, more unlikely than one in 10,000 and quite possibly far smaller – for example, one in 100,000.
Using such obviously flawed data, the Met Office’s Chief Scientist Professor Stephen Belcher calls for Net Zero to “stabilise the climate”, reporting that between 2014-2023 the number of days recording 28°C in the UK had more than doubled, while those over 30°C had tripled compared to 1961-1990. The BBC’s Chief Climate Headbanger Justin Rowlatt adds even more to the gaiety of the nation by reporting a Met Office claim that there has been a 40% increase in “pleasant days”, and these are defined as 20°C and above. “These changes may sound positive, but the UK’s shifting climate represents a dangerous upheaval for our ecosystems as well as our infrastructure”, he extrapolates. Words by Chris Morrison.
Svalbard, a remote arctic archipelago, holds inconvenient secrets about our climate history.
A new study reveals it was up to 9C warmer around 10,000 years ago when CO2 was just 260 PPM.
Despite this warmth though, glaciers didn't vanish. They survived, supported by increased snowfall.
Svalbard then cooled for the next 8,000 years while CO2 kept rising.
Today's climate models project the same 8 to 9 C of warming by the year 2100 and predict widespread glacier loss. But that directly contradicts the historical record.
Even the study's authors admit the future may follow the past. Warmer, wetter conditions could bring more snowfall, stabilizing or even growing glaciers.
The fatal flaw in climate modelling has raised its ugly head once again. It can't replicate history. And when the past contradicts your theory, it's the theory that's broken, not the past.
This is Bill Gates' mosquito factory in Colombia. It’s the largest in the world.
30 million genetically modified mosquitoes are released every week into 11 countries.
Because Bill knows better than nature, what could possibly go wrong...
Yup
Earth's endlessly shifting climate has swung back and forth for millions of years from frigid icehouse to warm interglacial - like today. This process is not driven by carbon dioxide (CO₂), instead it's the other way round. Warming oceans control the release of CO₂ - and CO₂ gives us more oxygen and a greener, more habitable world. It's the basis for all life. Global warming-climate change could be best described as a politically driven ideology, a crisis whipped up by ambitious globalists, asset managers, opportunists and political virtue seekers the world over.
The phenomenon of fake climate hysteria is based on a 1 or 2 degree change. This is absurd when you live in an ice age. Consider the contrasts of today's climate with historical global mean temperatures. We live in a pleasant 15 degrees, and this includes the 1.2 to 1.4 degree rise since the Little Ice Age ended in Europe 170 years ago. Yet the world's long-term global average throughout the Phanerozoic Eon is actually 18-25 degrees - up to 10 degrees hotter.
Humans and their unique symbolism-based culture has evolved and flourished against this backdrop in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which has lasted 34 million years, since the glaciation of Antarctica. We are now in the more severe Quaternary glaciation, lasting 2.6 million years. Civilisation arose in the current Holocene warm interglacial period for 11,700 years. We are an 'ice age adapted' species, in an ice age that had nothing to do with CO₂. All the hysteria about greenhouse gases and global warming is just part of a clever deception on a grand scale and largely based on distortions of science, and fear laden predictions. Mostly, it's about guilt.
Our persistently cooling world is not driven by CO₂. It is almost entirely due to orbital aberrations, identified by Serbian mathematician Milutin Milanković and supported by science. But changeability comes from natural variations in solar radiance, orbital mechanics, ocean currents and storms, shifting landforms and volcanic activity. Over the longer term, it comes from the tectonic movements of the continents.
Ice ages are built around alternating glacial and warm cycles, that mirror the orbital anomalies of earth's journey around the sun (Milanković). Throughout these cycles temperatures fluctuate wildly but predictably by 5–6°C every 100,000 or so years. Most scientists agree these cycles are driven by orbital variations. The world's ocean environment, water vapour and clouds contribute 50-70% of all atmospheric warming in many parts of the world. Only after the oceans—especially the Southern Ocean—have warmed for centuries does the dissolved CO₂ outgas from the deep waters over 5,000–10,000 years.
Trillions of dollars have been poured into this black hole of a wind and solar experiment, demolishing reliable coal, oil and gas while building several hundred thousand turbines and billions of solar panels. But even today, power from coal, oil and gas provide around 81% of the world's primary energy. Net zero is estimated to cost $275 trillion by 2050. Could this appalling failure be the last straw in this 40 years fiasco, which is demolishing modernism and threatening to crush freedom.
🚨 BREAKING: President @JMilei is preparing a formal complaint against WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus before the International Criminal Court.
He accuses the WHO leadership of crimes against humanity during the COVID-19 pandemic — lockdowns, mandates, and policies that caused massive harm to global freedom and health sovereignty.
After already withdrawing Argentina from the WHO (following Trump's lead), Milei is now taking the fight to the international level.
No more globalist overreach.
🚨 GLOBALISM JUST DIED IN DAVOS
Howard Lutnick just walked into the lion’s den — and told the World Economic Forum exactly what they didn’t want to hear.
“Globalism has failed.”
Not whispered.
Not softened.
Declared — on their own stage.
He dismantled the entire WEF doctrine in minutes:
• Offshoring hollowed out the West
• Cheap labor destroyed innovation
• Net Zero made Europe dependent on China
• Sovereignty begins with borders
• Nations must control their industry, energy, and medicine
Then came the line that shook the room:
“Why would Europe agree to Net Zero when they don’t even make a battery?”
That’s the truth globalists can’t answer.
Green agendas without industry.
Climate pledges without sovereignty.
Moral posturing while outsourcing power to Beijing.
America First isn’t isolation.
It’s independence.
And Lutnick made it crystal clear:
The old model is finished.
The globalist experiment has failed.
And the future belongs to nations that put their people first.
Davos just heard the obituary — live.
4 years since Hunga Tonga🌋and we've been on an alternative climate timeline ever since because of the unprecedented insertion of 146 million tons of water vapor into the stratosphere and mesosphere.
Oh, I understand “the science.”
You do not. 🫵😉
First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although nobody knows precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) issues that have not been accurately corrected for.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. 🌡️📈
SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
Second, contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe by academics, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming.
That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) from CO₂ to that of either internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low- and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases 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). ✅☁️
🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can probably rule that out as the cause since sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️
However, there are other ways in which solar activity exerts influence on the climate system that remain very poorly understood (e.g., solar wind) because very little research has been funded to investigate it.
In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there probably is at least some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉
First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area.
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature the Earth's surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.
🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
🔗https://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 up from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
🔗https://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. 🛰️
🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, in part an artifact of stricter 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 CO₂ forcing. ✅
Again, SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
What happens in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget a lot more than CO₂. And, just how clouds respond to tropospheric warming, if at all, is not very well understood (and by extension, it is not modeled well).
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂ (RF 2×CO₂) is actually very small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure that you derive from radiative transfer calculations.
Three pieces of critical information remain unknown:
1⃣ 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 computed from computer modeling, not physical measurements.
2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization?
To break it down:
🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2-5°C.
🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) calculated the climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). They found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°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 remain zero.
🔗https://t.co/7LlAeyKTl6
The authors then affirmed their 1994 findings more recently in 2017 (McNider & Christy, 2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.
🔗 https://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 “best estimate”
🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury is still out. 🤷♂️
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² 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 ± 0.48 W/m².
🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, SO WHAT? That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis.
The big unknown here are CLOUDS. ☁️
This is because (a) cloud albedo has far more impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to the CO₂ forcing is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without our assistance for any number of chaotic reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.).
Case in point, even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”
🔗https://t.co/go2kR0xaWN
While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has zero effect on the climate, or (b) that it will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
How's that for some real science? 🧪
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Oh, I understand “the science.”
You do not. 🫵😉
First, yes, the planet has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850, although nobody knows precisely how much because of poor data quality (e.g., uneven station distribution; fragmented records, especially outside of the United States; station siting changes; and urban heat island contamination) issues that have not been accurately corrected for.
But, I have no doubt that the Earth is slightly warmer than it was 175 years ago or that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 warming is due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. 🌡️📈
SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
Second, contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have been 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 to believe by academics, there are not really any so-called “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming.
That is, there is no meaningful pattern to differentiate warming caused by forcing (i.e., a perturbation that causes Earth’s energy balance to change) from CO₂ to that of either internal variability (e.g., a change, even a very tiny change, in low- and mid-level cloud cover) or a shift in solar forcing.
Numerous peer-reviewed papers claim to have found a human “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly of interest is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming, but they fail to note that said anomaly would also be consistent with natural warming.
A reduction in cloud cover, for example, would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases 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). ✅☁️
🔗https://t.co/sQurHsN80P / open-access: https://t.co/WVKvLrSV7k
All warming, natural or man-made, results in:
1⃣ The higher latitudes warming faster than the mid-latitudes and tropics.
2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans.
An increase in solar forcing would have essentially the same material effect, although we can probably rule that out as the cause since sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. 🚫☀️
However, there are other ways in which solar activity exerts influence on the climate system that remain very poorly understood (e.g., solar wind) because very little research has been funded to investigate it.
In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there probably is at least some anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. 🌡️📉
First, understand that in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as the power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area.
Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Stephens et al., 2012). This means that in order to maintain a constant surface air temperature the Earth's surface must emit 239.7 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space.
🔗https://t.co/5z5iMdazRB / open-access: https://t.co/51Ys5w8BWj
Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That means the net outgoing longwave radiation to space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI) leading to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude).
🔗https://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 up from below. These relationships were first demonstrated in Manabe & Strickler (1964).
🔗https://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. 🛰️
🔗https://t.co/hT0Oxwm2Io
That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely natural OR perhaps caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, in part an artifact of stricter 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 CO₂ forcing. ✅
Again, SO WHAT? 🤷♂️
What happens in the troposphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why? Because in the lower atmosphere, we have feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget a lot more than CO₂. And, just how clouds respond to tropospheric warming, if at all, is not very well understood (and by extension, it is not modeled well).
What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of doubling atmospheric CO₂ (RF 2×CO₂) is actually very small; it is on the order of <1°C (Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020).
🔗https://t.co/y5szlGBmjd
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure that you derive from radiative transfer calculations.
Three pieces of critical information remain unknown:
1⃣ 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 computed from computer modeling, not physical measurements.
2⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3⃣ Even if global warming is entirely man-made, is it really a net drawback to civilization?
To break it down:
🔹If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated.
🔹If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and the warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of Earth's ECS is 3.0°C with a range of 2-5°C.
🔗https://t.co/8Ntgszr1dC (pp. 44-45)
In 1994, using NASA's real-world bulk atmospheric temperature data, Drs. John Christy and Richard McNider from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) calculated the climate sensitivity by removing the effects of El Niño / La Niña and volcanic aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). They found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°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 remain zero.
🔗https://t.co/7LlAeyKTl6
The authors then affirmed their 1994 findings more recently in 2017 (McNider & Christy, 2017). They found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K.
🔗 https://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 “best estimate”
🔗https://t.co/8G0sF8gy2p
🔗https://t.co/5TgNX7c1JN
🔗https://t.co/BxyO1XIbNP
🔗https://t.co/YNQhNajrrO
The jury is still out. 🤷♂️
What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, the EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
🔗https://t.co/T7SKxidZ4N / open-access: https://t.co/GD45cbhxIT
🔗https://t.co/L6vZKVVpXg
However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² 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 ± 0.48 W/m².
🔗https://t.co/ynRTFd3LWZ
This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (not all!) of the observed global warming since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain. Alternatively, warming could be mostly man-made, but, even if that happens to be the case, SO WHAT? That doesn't mean it is an existential crisis.
The big unknown here are CLOUDS. ☁️
This is because (a) cloud albedo has far more impact on the atmospheric radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to the CO₂ forcing is unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without our assistance for any number of chaotic reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.).
Case in point, even a small decrease in global cloud area fraction (CAF) can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that,
🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.”
🔗https://t.co/go2kR0xaWN
While it is politically popular for people to splinter into one of the two tribalistic camps that either (a) increasing CO₂ has zero effect on the climate, or (b) that it will lead to Al Gore's Armageddon, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
How's that for some real science? 🧪](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-1-XwTWYAARkoS.png)
After 25 years of relentless fearmongering about a climate crisis that's supposedly spiraling out of control... rising emissions, record breaking heat, apocalyptic storms, floods, wildfires, and temperature extremes... we now have the hard data from 2025 staring us in the face.
And what does it show?
Global climate-related disasters are NOT increasing. In fact, 2025 clocks in as the LOWEST year in the past quarter century for these events, according to the EM-DAT database. Provisional numbers? Sure, but even those are damning: just ONE reported extreme temperature event for the entire year. One! Let that sink in.
From 2000 to 2025, we've seen emissions skyrocket, and temperatures hit record highs year after year, according to the alarmists. Yet, the number of reported disasters... droughts (blue), extreme temps (orange), floods (green), storms (red), wildfires (purple)... hasn't shot up in some catastrophic trend. It's fluctuated, sure, but no hockey stick of doom. Peaks in the early 2000s and mid 2010s, dips in between, and now 2025 scraping the bottom.
Remember all the headlines? Climate change is fueling monster hurricanes! Heatwaves are the new normal... billions at risk! Wildfires rage because of your carbon footprint! Billions poured into green schemes, economies upended, kids terrified in schools about a burning planet. And for what? The data doesn't back it up. If CO2 is the villain driving these disasters, why aren't we seeing an explosion in events? Why is 2025, after the hottest years on record, quieter?
This destroys the hysteria. It exposes the crisis as a tool for control, funding, and power. If disasters aren't worsening despite the crisis, what's the emergency? Time to question the trillions wasted on policies that hurt the poor while enriching elites.
Wake up, world... the real catastrophe is the fear they've sold you.
What do you think? Is the climate narrative finally collapsing under its own weight? Drop your thoughts below.
🚨SHOCKING: Cholesterol SAVES Lives – It's CALCIUM that's the REAL Killer! Why Are We Still Popping Statins?
You've been lied to. Cholesterol isn't the villain – Dr. Hal Huggins nails it: "Cholesterol Is The Most Important Molecule In The Body...Don't Blame Cholesterol For The Harm That Calcium Causes."
Here's the science-backed truth:
• **Plaque Reality Check**: Arterial plaque is ~90% calcium buildup, with just 1.5% fat (0.5% cholesterol). Unstable plaques are lipid-rich, but calcification stabilizes them – yet docs blame cholesterol? (NEJM, 1997: Davies on plaque composition)
• **Brain Powerhouse**: 60% of your brain is fat; 30% of that is cholesterol – essential for neurons, memory, & mood. Low levels? Linked to depression & dementia. (StatPearls: Cholesterol's role in cell membranes & hormones)
• **Longevity Boost**: Higher LDL (100-189 mg/dL) = LOWER mortality risk in adults 50-89. Elderly with high LDL live LONGER! (BMJ Open, 2016: Inverse association in 92% of cohorts; Nutrients, 2025: 40% lower mortality risk)
• **Inflammation, Not Cholesterol**: Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disease – driven by endothelial damage, not LDL. (NEJM, 1999: Ross's landmark review; Nature, 2022: Chronic inflammation key driver)
Root causes to crush inflammation:
• Low Vit D, Mg, K2 deficiencies
• Seed oils, processed sugars/carbs
• Insulin resistance, obesity, stress
• Toxins, poor sleep, no exercise
Fix with: Low-carb, animal-based whole foods. Aim for TG/HDL ratio <1.5 – ultimate heart health marker!
Total Cholesterol Benefits For Levels Over 200 mg/dL, Which Is 5.2 mmol/L In Other Countries:
-detoxification of chemicals, toxins & heavy metals.
-protection against dementia & cognitive decline.
-produces all steroid hormones & absorption of Vitamins A, D, E & K.
-protects against stroke, heart disease, cancer & all cause mortality.
-immune system protection against infections, bacteria, pathogens & viruses.
-critical for digestion, liver health & production of bile acids.
-important for lung health & airway integrity.
-building block of every cell & mitochondria in the body.
-maintains bone density & prevents osteoporosis.
-lowers risk of depression, suicide, stress, high cortisol & anxiety.
These are the words of the first 16 scientists of 46 that have left the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due to the corruption of science within the organisation.
Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Video Mesum Abg Viral Bokep Indo Film Sex HD ．
Seen from Indonesia
Anh Sơn
Seen from Vietnam
Kusuma Bali
Seen from Indonesia
bunda indah
Seen from Indonesia
Eddy
Seen from Malaysia
past indramayu
Seen from Singapore
Melis
Seen from Turkey
jigola
Seen from Turkey
Salma
Seen from United States
FapHouse Gay
Seen from Saudi Arabia
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.5M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.4M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.5M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.7M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.6M followers