Eric Peterson

Weather facts. Global warming does not make most weather more extreme. There are some exceptions, the average hurricane is stronger... See website

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

Well worth watching: https://t.co/c3f72dYjaM It will improve your life. Here's a website with practical suggestions: https://t.co/UvXMjxydnf

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@mzjacobson As Jeremy explained, renewables are cheaper because they unreliable and literally worth less than reliable sources

[Jeremy @PanirL17903]

Melinda, the wholesale price of electric in California reflects the "industrial value" of the intermittent energy being generated.

It tends to zero when intermittent generation reaches a certain limit, I call that the "cannibalization" limit

Industry values intermittent generation at $0

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@SkylineReport "Nights are warming faster than days". Also winter more than summer. Those are good things. Glaciers can be good or bad. They were mostly bad in the neoglacial

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@webberweather If you aren't going to even mention El Chichon, why should I bother reading the paper? It is very well known that's what suppressed global temperature and many other effects in 1982.

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@TheGlobalWarmer Great now do Canada

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@scruztiger @Weather_West Fires are being suppressed. In Canada the worst case is when they put out all the fires in many years like 2020. They burned far less than 0.1% of forest area (i.e. fire once per 1,000 years, not sustainable). That led directly to disastrous years like 2025.

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@scruztiger @Weather_West The science says both fire exclusion and global warming: https://t.co/VVjK4CePMY The enhanced drying from global warming is probably the main effect, not weather changes. Strong winds are mostly decreasing on land areas.

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@scruztiger @Weather_West Wildfire was much more frequent in periods in the past. Check the charcoal record. There's more in some years now due to fire suppression and fire exclusion. For example the some areas in Sequoia National Park were never allowed to burn.

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@elonmusk Why C? Should be using AI to write it in Rust.

[aaronshem @aaronshem]

The RCP8.5 was never plausible. It was never meant to be used the way it has been in the VAST majority of research published using it.

UN-affiliated groups have slightly rolled back misleading practices because enough people understand what they are doing, making it too embarrassing to continue. They are hopefully working out how to roll back other embarrassing, misleading practices that reality will soon disagree with too strongly to deny.

Several big ones are:

TCR is clearly less than 1.8C.

Limited CO2 sink growth models are clearly wrong (though we may push the limits of how fast they can grow).

ECS is not a meaningful concept during the current ice age, with a small biosphere and the anthropogenic emissions regime.

Benefit and damage estimates are not meaningful given the high amount of natural variability, uncertainty, and long timeframes.

Blatant malpractice in assessing statistical risk and tail risk. Tipping point nonsense.

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@Weather_West When we said years ago we weren't going to burn all the coal you called us deniers. Now you are using Hunga Tonga to pretend there are high end mystery feedbacks

[Math Files @Math_files]

A fascinating survey!

[The Babylon Bee @TheBabylonBee]

🥩 🥩 🥩

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@RobinBoardmanUK That's good. Glaciers are bad. Same with summer freezes, crop failures, widespread loss of wildlife, etc.

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@MarkCorbo4 CO2 is 400 ppm
100% of something is 1,000,000 ppm
1% is 10,000 ppm
0.01% is 100 ppm
Thus: 400 ppm is 0.04%

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@shipwreckedcrew There's an assumption in most analysis that economic arrangements are static. I.e. the economy will suffer if we don't revert to whatever it was. But that's not how the economy works

[Eric Peterson @purplesuit]

@MikeTFox5 "while we need about 12-19" of rain to get out of drought completely"

Over what time period? The next three months? Yeah, that would be true. But short term drought would end after the first month of that pattern. We already are well watered with the current 2-3.