David Romps

Climate physics

[David Romps @romps]

Direct air capture "makes the planet hotter. The only winners are the recipients of the subsidies and the builders of the boondoggles."

https://t.co/PwoF5XcfhP

[Robert Sanders @bobthesciguy]

In heat waves like this, what levels are dangerous?

"There’s not really one number that will tell us if this is safe or this is dangerous," cautions David Romps @UCBerkeley https://t.co/6epLc6dkpC @romps

[David Romps @romps]

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 If you are so confident that Earth's water-vapor feedback is imaginary, then this is not going to be a productive conversation, and I will bow out. I am sorry I could not help.

[David Romps @romps]

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 The numbers are different, yes. ~1.2 K warming from preindustrial, during which CO2 has gone from 280 to 420 ppmv. My estimate of the equilibrium response would be 3*log2(420/280) ~ 1.8 K. But these are not inconsistent. Bear in mind ocean thermal inertia, aerosols, other GHGs.

[David Romps @romps]

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Thanks, that is helpful. I gather you are calculating 4/(4*5.67e-8*288^3) = 0.7 K. That would work for a bare rock, but we have an atmosphere, which introduces important natural feedbacks, e.g., from water vapor.

[David Romps @romps]

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Where are you getting 0.7 C of warming for a doubling of CO2? I never said that. Please refer to my earlier tweet, which gave an estimate of the warming.

[David Romps @romps]

@PoeBrianL @BurgessPark2 @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 To get an estimate of temperature increments on land in Fahrenheit, divide by Earth's feedback parameter of ~1.2 W/m^2/K, multiply by 9/5 to convert to F, and multiply by ~1.3 for the "land warms more" factor:

280 ppmv --> + 0 F
560 ppmv --> + 7 F
1120 ppmv --> +14 F

[David Romps @romps]

@PoeBrianL @BurgessPark2 @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Maybe it would help to talk about some numbers. For example, using 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2:

280 ppmv --> +0.0 W/m^2 (this is preindustrial)
560 ppmv --> +3.7 W/m^2
1120 ppmv --> +7.4 W/m^2

This is the "logarithmic scaling."

[David Romps @romps]

@sbassi @fabiomb I think so. Here is my shot of it. It is still flying over the Bay now.

[David Romps @romps]

@LionelLion14 It went right over our house in the East Bay. I got this photo on its third loop around. Maybe it is an F-35?

[David Romps @romps]

@GCarbin @NickPBassill We've got you covered, Nick! You can download the heat index code here (available in R, Python, and Fortran) and then personalize the weight, height, and walking speed. https://t.co/zMDii7qrON @yichuan_lu

[David Romps @romps]

@jesse_kroll Fear not. According to ChatGPT-4, there is no evidence you are dead.

[David Romps @romps]

@hampus_s In this regard, Nostr is fine for public conversations, but not private ones. Is that right?

[David Romps @romps]

I just learned about the existence of Nostr last night. I know very little, and most of that is probably wrong. But I am excited about Nostr and I want to explain why. If I am super lucky, someone like @fiatjaf @jb55 @jack @Snowden @dksf will correct me. Here goes...

[David Romps @romps]

@hayek74 @fiatjaf @jb55 @jack @Snowden @dksf That is a good point. Is that flaw inherent to any decentralized communications system? With a centralized system, the host can keep a definitive log of access, allowing for the detection of interlopers.

[David Romps @romps]

@swaziadam Berkeley's College of Chemistry advertises that it is "generously supported by Chevron"? No photoshopping here? Are there more examples?

On the bright side, this is the kind of transparency that @dan_kammen called for in @amywestervelt's Guardian article.

[David Romps @romps]

@blueicehiggins Bob Stout, former VP of BP, seems to have answered my question about why the fossil-fuel industry funds academia.
https://t.co/fcZ0kbeTFt

[David Romps @romps]

This new report from @DataProgress identifies more fossil-fuel funding to UC Berkeley than to any other school. It is nearly 3x that of Stanford and nearly 4x that of MIT (!!). UC Berkeley's funders include BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Koch, Chevron, and Conoco.

[Campus Climate Network @cclimatenetwork]

BREAKING: New research by @DataProgress and FFR shows that major oil companies donated or pledged at least $676,032,470 to 27 US universities 2010-2020

Read the report: https://t.co/vASncmfIfW

[David Romps @romps]

@blueicehiggins I do not know. But declaring conflicts of interest might be a good start.

https://t.co/YbxQBrNbOp

[Green New Deal at UC San Diego @ucsdgreennewde1]

When a @GPS_UCSD @Scripps_Ocean faculty member is at the center of a Fossil Fuel Conflict of Interest lawsuit, the solution is clear: we need @FosFreeResearch now!
https://t.co/WcbBJpC7io

[David Romps @romps]

@ChemCooper @UCBerkeley @UCGreenNewDeal @sunrisebayarea Do we know if the money UC Berkeley received from these fossil-fuel companies was spent on "fake" solutions? It would be interesting to find out what the funding was for nominally, and also why the companies gave the money. I am not aware of any existing summary like that.