![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).
οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½https://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 πππππβππ’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).
οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½https://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 πππππβππ’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).
οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½https://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 πππππβππ’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
Emily Johnson
@sameEmilyasb4
Kentucky, USA
Joined March 2024
139 Following
34 Followers
387 Posts
@REMASCULATE I had to put a band-aid on my arm after hitting a box of Reeses big cups at the grocery store.
@PecanC8 Does a layover in the airport count?
@StraightFlorida And that's why I4 between Tampa and Orlando is referred to as "Thunderdome"
@StraightFlorida Not quite the same level, but I'm working at Walmart until it closes so you can send a delivery driver for more beer.
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).
οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½https://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 πππππβππ’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).
οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½οΏ½https://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 πππππβππ’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)
@BskiMike22802 It seems a lot of people really don't understand that money and wealth are not the same.
@ZitoSalena @dogwoodblooms Illinois should be pronounced "eel-lee-nwa" according to a person I met at a business meeting in France.
@MattWalshBlog Giving your children gifts during your lifetime can have tax consequences for them. Better to let them inherit with a stepped-up basis.
@CynicalPublius Bombing again is not going to work. The only way to change Iran's leadership will be to take out the twelvers one by one. I can't condone this, but l would not be outraged if it happened.
@politico I hope so. For starters, how did a guy with a 970 SAT get to be governor of California?
βElon Musk is a trillionaire.β
As a securities law attorney, please allow me to explain how anyone who says this is basically lying to you:
1. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a myriad of laws that prevent founders and other large stockholders of publicly traded companies from dumping their shares. There are substantial holding period requirements, volume of sales limitations and public reporting obligations for stock sales. Basically, Elon holds largely illiquid shares, he is a βtrillionaireβ on paper only, and the best analogy is when people peg your net worth based on your homeβs market price. Thatβs not money in your pocket, thatβs the house you live in.
2. All that money raised in the IPO? Thatβs not going into Elonβs pocket like the lying socialist idiots want you to believe. Itβs a capital influx that will be used to make more rockets and get more payloads into orbit. Itβs a CAPITAL investmentβthat money is like a business loan, itβs not your money to keep, itβs your money to grow the business.
3. If it WERE legal for Elon to dump his shares, the share price would crash basically instantly and the company could very well fail.
If you bought SpaceX shares in the IPO, congrats. You just bought a lottery ticket, just like Elon. May the odds ever be in your favor.
So the next time someone screeches about how unfair it is that Elon Musk creates wealth that benefits all of humanity, throw the truth back in their faces.
βWhat is the evidence of voter fraud in LA?β
Imagine I tell you letβs play a game. Weβre going to flip a coin. If itβs tails, Iβll give you $100. If itβs heads, you owe me $100.
Then I walk into the next room. When I return, I tell you βIt was headsβ.
Maybe Iβm telling the truth. Maybe Iβm a well intentioned and honest person, and the fact that this seems incredibly shady is just a total coincidence. Or maybe I scammed you. The point is you have no way of knowing. You may claim that I just scammed youβ¦ but thereβs βNO EVIDENCEβ that I did!
And THAT is our election process.
For years now in our elections, we have seen irregularity after irregularity, numbers that donβt make sense, math that doesnβt add up, statistical impossibilities β all of which always seems to exclusively benefit one party.
In our legal system, REASONABLE SUSPICION is the standard in which law enforcement can investigate a possible crime. Why is that not the same standard for our elections?
Every American deserves to have faith in our electoral process. And there is just no objective way that anybody can have faith in the current system. If our elections were clean, there would be transparency, and investigations would be welcomed.
School children are told βShow your workβ when it comes to math homework. Thatβs all most of us are saying when it comes to the corrupt bastards handling these ballots:
Show your work. π€
@JeremyWingert79 I loved The Gamage Cup when I was that age.
@AntiLeftMemes Hold the pickle, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us.
USA. I bumped a man's cart with mine. A small thing. I bowed and began to apologize, properly.
He said, "No worries."
I stopped.
No worries. He had taken my worry β my fault, my debt, my small dishonor β lifted it off me, set it upon himself, and told me to carry it no more. A stranger. In a cereal aisle. Just like that.
In my country, a wrong is carried until it is repaid. Here, a man simply takes it from you, for free, and tells you to go in peace.
I could not let such a gift go unanswered.
So I followed him, at a respectful distance, searching for a worry of his own that I might lift in return. I returned a can to a high shelf he had eyed. I warned him, gently, of a wet-floor sign. When his phone slipped, I caught it before it landed.
He turned. "...are you following me?"
"I am repaying you," I said, bowing. "You took my worries. Allow me to carry some of yours."
He looked at me a long moment. Then he smiled. "Honestly? That's the nicest weird thing anybody's done for me all week."
We parted as two men who had each, quietly, carried something for the other.
So tell me, America.
You say "no worries" and forget it in a single breath.
I heard it as a vow, and I will pass this kindness to my children's children.
The aisle was only cereal.
The exchange was everything.
@StraightFlorida I have taken overnight canoe trips on the Suwannee, Withlachoochee, Peace, and Myakka rivers in Florida. It would never occur to me to feed an alligator while doing so. We saw many. We camped as far from the bank as we could.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
ΰΈͺΰΈ‘ΰΈͺΰΈ΅ ΰΈ‘ΰΈ΅ΰΈ£ΰΈ§ΰΈ’
Seen from Thailand
PaNickππ
Enfes TΓΌrk PaylaΕΔ±mlar (Kaan)
Seen from Turkey
TrfantazifΕa
Seen from Switzerland
ΰΈ£ΰΈΰΈ ΰΈΰΈ§ΰΈ²ΰΈ‘ΰΈ₯ΰΈ±ΰΈΰΈ₯ΰΈΉΰΈΰΈΰΈΉΰΉΰΈΰΈ²ΰΈ’
Seen from Thailand
Γmer Orhan
Seen from Turkey
η«ηζθεΈ 
Seen from Malaysia
ιhx
LIJIAO
Seen from Vietnam
Jyn
Seen from Thailand
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.9M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.7M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.9M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.1M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.2M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.1M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.1M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.2M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.7M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.3M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers