Timothy J Dunkerton
@tim_dunkerton
Followers
1,793
Following
597
Media
439
Statuses
57,777
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
#JISOOxDiorSS25
• 335537 Tweets
APO WITH DIOR IN PFW
• 263274 Tweets
ブロック
• 226115 Tweets
#ข้ามฟ้าเคียงเธอQ6
• 98384 Tweets
The Next Prince Q6
• 92207 Tweets
イナズマイレブン
• 28399 Tweets
GANNI GIRL YUNA
• 26251 Tweets
引退試合
• 20121 Tweets
#REET_विज्ञप्ति_जारी_करो
• 17009 Tweets
#alikocisitifa
• 16211 Tweets
Ryan Coogler
• 15087 Tweets
引退セレモニー
• 11996 Tweets
レイトン
• 11246 Tweets
妖怪ウォッチ
• 11230 Tweets
イナイレ
• 10926 Tweets
岡田選手
• 10081 Tweets
Is this a joke? My advanced degree in atmospheric dynamics & climate tells me that the relevant thermal bands of CO2 are saturated above 360 ppm, & the only thing left to worry about is a greener Earth, as observed. I'm funded exclusively by NASA, NSF, AFOSR, & NOAA, since 1976.
@ChrisMartzWX
That is false - as every expert in the field is telling us practically daily. More CO2 = more heat. More heat will lead to more floods, droughts, wildfires, tropical storms.... I don't know who is filling you with such nonsense, but I suspect they are funded by fossil fuel ind.
251
3
35
87
470
2K
In March 2022 I recommended formally to the American Meteorological Society that Mann be expelled & stripped of his Fellow status for violation of their anti-bullying policy. Inter alia, he refers to Curry Canards routinely on Twitter/X.
All professional societies and universities have codes of conduct. AGU even has an anti-bullying policy. Michael Mann calling other scientists 'denier' violates all codes of professional conduct. Like Trump, he somehow gets away with bad behavior . . . because politics
95
204
697
9
36
141
Basic physics.
CO2 is done. Nothing more to do above 360 ppm, the thermal bands saturated, other than a greener Earth.
Methane is utterly irrelevant to climate. But it keeps me warm in the cold season.
@bkheywood
Basic chemistry.
When you burn hydrocarbons, you produce CO2, a global warming gas.
Natural gas is mostly methane, also a global warming gas. It also leaks into the atmosphere...
The thing about science, as you get more information, how you approach the problem often changes. 1/2
19
1
4
29
23
136
@KanekoaTheGreat
@barnes_law
As a result of mandatory vaccination poll in October 2021, USA, I (a classic libertarian) have nothing but vitriolic hatred for 82% of Democrats. My relationship with NWRA was terminated as a result.
2
1
92
Climate doesn’t cause anything. Climate is nothing more, & nothing less, than a cumulative metric of weather states & boundary conditions. Climate has no objective definition apart from external forcing(s). Carbon dioxide is NOT one of them (Mann).
@ChrisMartzWX
"A key finding emerging both from this new research in BAMS & elsewhere in the scientific literature is that extreme heat events are increasingly far outside the historical record because of climate change...” Stephanie Herring, NOAA climate scientist & one of the report editors.
4
1
2
7
28
82
@ChrisGloninger
Sea level has no significant association with carbon dioxide, Chris. Nor hurricanes. To my Iowa friends: Dunkerton is on the map. Literally. Follow me, & turn off the TV.
4
7
77
Climate science is where arrogance & ignorance intersect. -TJD on Nelson, July 2022.
The delusional self-importance of climatologists is amazing. They think they know so much, yet they don’t even have a basic understanding of anything outside of their niche “expertise”
19
41
208
3
16
78
I’m funded entirely by NASA, NSF, AFOSR, & NOAA, since 1976, for original research in atmospheric dynamics & climate, & also had the pleasure to destroy you & your stale narrative ~6 hours ago.
@HuppenthalJohn
Said the guy that quotes paid fossil fuel industry shills like John Shewchuk and CO2 Coalition
The hypocrisy here is ridiculous, not to mention nonsensical since climate science is separate from the green energy industry and the research is global.
2
0
0
6
9
65
Climate change doesn’t cause anything. Climate is nothing more, & nothing less, than a cumulative metric of weather states & boundary conditions. Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide. What’s the plan, bro?
The potential for extreme cold down the lee of the Rockies is very high. Climate change reduces such events. Seeing it is a demonstration of just how big atmospheric internal variability is.
0
1
7
3
13
53
We call it the Adjustocene in honor of those, such as NASA GISS, who prefer to alter the temperature data to rid themselves of something their models can’t explain.
2
12
53
That’s because (a) the half-life of CH4 is too short to be relevant to climate, & (b) the infrared bands of CO2 are saturated already. As a result of (b) it is impossible to detect or to simulate the impacts of delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm, save for our greener flora-sphere.
Live now: The meat + dairy industries account for around 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but very few articles about the climate crisis make the connection, according to
@Sentient_Media
.
Join us w/
@joefassler
+
@voxdotcom
@KennyTorrella
.
4
11
13
8
9
51
Climate change doesn't change anything. Climate is nothing more & nothing less than a metric of weather states & boundary conditions. Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernable nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide. Please care for Nature, Notion.
"Climate change has fuelled the growth of explosive wildfires across the globe with rising temperatures and drought"
#ClimateEmergency
#ChileWildfires
15
0
0
3
11
47
Cats & ducks & dogs are more important than humans in their make believe world. The message is louder & clearer than anyone might have imagined yesterday.
Outside of being shot, the Springfield Haitians was the best thing to happen for Trump. No American town is safe so long as the Libtard Regime is in charge.
11
71
1K
154
1
48
You came on the scene too late. The Arctic ice is doing much better than predicted by anyone prior to your arrival. Polar bears likewise. I suggest you leave journalism & acquire an advanced degree in atmospheric dynamics & climate, as I have.
When I started reporting on climate change, the prediction was the Arctic could be sea-ice-free in summer by the 2070s. Now? By the 2030s.
962
3K
5K
5
11
44
The more common deception is to simply repeat a phrase. ECS = “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”. Today, assumed to refer to carbon dioxide. In fact there is no mathematical basis for this notion - much less, any physical basis. We have no mathematical/dynamical theory of climate.
3
13
42
Judy is co-author of the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, 6 volumes, organized by my graduate mentor Jim Holton.
2
17
37
There’s no climate crisis, but a real energy crisis caused by those who accept the narrative that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause global warming when, in fact, the sun warm the surface of ocean & land. In the meantime, CERES absolves CO2. Nuclear & natural gas, let’s go!
What we need at the Africa Climate Summit are climate solutions designed by Africans, for Africa on African terms.
Decolonization is key. We must move beyond climate action coloniality to address the climate crisis in Africa.
#ACS23
#ACS
#JustTransition23
22
71
176
6
10
36
@ClimatePower
@JoeBiden
He'll be gone in two years, if not sooner. Meanwhile, CO2 will continue to nourish plants, and the extra warmth and water, small though the anomaly be, won't hurt either. Happy plants = happy humans... and Happy New Year to everyone!
2
2
29
I have an advanced degree in atmospheric dynamics & climate. As a scientist, having a brain, I harbor no beliefs, no emotions, no feelings, no regrets. CERES absolves CO2, & I work 24/7/365 to learn why. To be precise, 2/3 of those numbers. After all, sleep is important to brain.
@american_wx
Tell me you’ve never taken a meteorology class without telling me you’ve never taken a meteorology class.
2
0
1
4
4
40
Unfortunately the human contribution to climate change cannot be quantified. It’s tiny at most. Not a robust foundation for policy at all. What do you advocate, if anything?
@ChrisMartzWX
It’s hard to say something is true when it’s a value judgment. You can’t prove that there is a climate crisis, because that is based on someone’s opinion. But you can prove that humans releasing greenhouse gasses trap heat into the atmosphere, and that it is affecting the climate
10
0
0
3
8
39
Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide. Climate is nothing more, & nothing less, than a cumulative metric of weather states & boundary conditions. What is your point, Max? V/r, TJD
@DawnTJ90
Do you understand the difference between one day of weather in one city and a broader change in temperature patterns? I'm guessing not.
13
0
0
2
5
37
I'm not a Nobel Laureate yet, but we must draw a distinction between IPCC reports (encyclopedia of knowledge) & summaries (opinion poll by increasingly desperate volunteers chasing their increasingly irrelevant careers).
3
9
37
Norman, the null hypothesis is that delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm has a negligible effect on climate change. No one has been able to reject it: not IPCC, not the Royal Society, nor the QJRMS nor any Chief Editor thereof, including Lesley Gray, my first summer visitor to NWRA. Nor you.
@tan123
I do know what I am talking about. Chartered Meteorologist and Past Vice-President of the Royal Meteorological Society.
10
0
1
3
6
36
We call the 97% the Bill Nye Fallacy. No one, to this day, has rejected the null hypothesis that delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm has a negligible effect on climate change. Not IPCC (opinion poll), nor models (lack simulated clouds), nor any observation (statistics are useless). V/r, TJD
5
10
33
It’s remarkable that alarmists promote this graphic when it destroys their narrative instantly.
Two days ago I attended a climate talk where the Physicist used this graph while emphasizing the VICIOUS "temperature/CO2" relationship and its VICIOUS positive feedback loops. When asked to point out where the "viscous" part was on his graph, he just pointed to the CO2 spike.
95
88
417
5
4
33
Physics says that the central thermal bands of CO2 are saturated already.
@IrishLady0071
@PeterJungX
@ChrisMartzWX
It's man made, but not fake. Humans are driving CO2 into the atmosphere at a faster rate than plants can take it back out. Everything else is following as per the physics.
2
0
0
3
7
35
What risk is posed by a slightly warmer, wetter, & obviously greener Earth? FYI, CO2 doesn’t control temperature, humans don’t control CO2, ergo, humans don’t control temperature. Are you a blond?
2
3
30
I don’t need a source. You do. (1) Models don’t simulate clouds. (2) There’s no statistical law that governs dynamics apart from ideal gas & radiative transfer. Your narrative destroyed in two sentences. My, that was easy. Next Q?
4
9
33
How can there be a solution to a problem that exists only in your imagination? CO2 doesn’t control temperature. Humans don’t control CO2. Ergo, humans don’t control temperature. Even a dumb blond figured that out years ago! We invite you to join the ranks of the more enlightened.
@Nunyabiznis74
@Artist_is_in
@MatthewWielicki
@antonioguterres
@UN
@wef
I agree. The solutions to climate change, biodiversity, desertification, etc., are well known technologically. The root cause of the GHGs is well known. The implementation of the solutions is prevented by the very wealthy leaders resisting moving away from highly lucrative FFs.
6
0
4
4
6
32
Models don’t prove anything. They have been calibrated to try to reproduce a single scalar, while failing to reproduce anything else. It’s a common problem we in the industry have. Impossible to tune all the tunable climate-control knobs. Ugly.
@gtown615
@twit4thot
@Anvesaka88
@cmcateer3
@ScienceNotDogma
@tim_dunkerton
@gargantuandwarf
@JoAmsel
You're just making up statistics.
Models predicted warming temperatures and rising sea levels. They are getting it right, so far.
3
0
1
4
15
29
Climate doesn’t cause anything. Ergo climate *change* doesn’t cause anything. Climate is nothing more than a cumulative metric of weather states & boundary conditions. Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide.
@gargantuandwarf
@Anvesaka88
@gtown615
@omotforest
@JoAmsel
@cmcateer3
@tim_dunkerton
I'm not exploiting anything. Just observing the very real impacts of climate change.
2
0
0
1
12
29
Follow the evolution of terminology: “cooling” then “warming” now “changing”. In the final analysis, the climate is changing in all possible directions & humans are entirely to blame no matter what. Obviously we just can’t keep up. Prepare to die, everyone. & file by April 15th.
3
10
30
@andrewp109
@ChrisMartzWX
Linus namesake, I had Sunday dinner at the Oxford home of John Houghton in March 1979, while visiting there as a graduate student, to present my classic work on the Lagrangian mean meridional circulation of the middle atmosphere, D’78 JAS. What are your credentials, if any? Why
6
0
30
One day I was having lunch at the Canadian Space Agency with Susan Solomon, chair of IPCC, when she disclosed to me that she had decided to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. Most of our conversation was about the fate of a typical penguin in Antarctica. Where is the cemetery?
@tim_dunkerton
Can you imagine thinking that the Medieval Warming Period is a conspiracy theory!!!
1
0
4
5
5
30
We can live quite happily with a degree Celsius of warming but not a degree Celsius of cooling. Beware: there is no mathematical, dynamical, nor physical science basis for the concept of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity with respect to carbon dioxide.
4
9
30
I specialize in atmospheric dynamics & climate, appear on Nelson, & with all humility, I’m the first to destroy the narrative in two sentences. Statistical attribution is rubbish, & models cannot simulate clouds. Two birds (Manabe & Klaus H) killed with two stones, figuratively
@tan123
So someone with a degree in electrical engineering knows better than thousands of scientists with PHDs and years of actual primary research in the actual science of climate change? Ok.
21
0
1
2
8
31
To inform you that weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible (in observations) nor demonstrable (by models) dependence on delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm. That is all.
@TonyClimate
And what oh what is the connection with your hashtag and with what intention do you keep repeating this?
4
0
1
1
13
29
@PaxBiggs
Your imagination is out of control. For the third time, it’s over. Open up & ventilate. Outdoor air is pristine, it’ll un-wash your brain too.
4
1
26
Imagine where we’d be today if a half century of money wasted on climate models had been invested in flux measurements of quantities relevant to the climate system. You know, of heat, momentum, vorticity, short- & long-wave radiation, air-sea exchange, deep ocean carbon…
1
12
26
I'm beyond Happer: CO2 above 360 ppm has absolutely no discernable (in observations) nor demonstrable (by models) role in climate change presently. The relevant bands are saturated already, & weak wings are lost entirely in the noise of our cloudy atmosphere.
@ChrisMartzWX
@Martin_Durkin
@TomANelson
So who are you going to go with- Happer CO2 has no effect?
Lindzen- CO2 is a ghg but clouds self regulate?
Spencer- CO2 is a GHG, it's warming, it won't be bad?
Soon- CO2 is limited, it's the sun ?
Clauser- its all a hoax?
they cannot all be right can they?
19
8
33
4
13
29
I'm sorry. Can you name one?
@tim_dunkerton
Many experts state that the increase in frequency of extreme events (flooding, heatwaves, drought, severe storms, tropical cyclones …) is a direct effect of man’s influence on the climate.
3
1
0
12
4
30
What solution is needed when no problem exists? More CO2 implies a greener Earth. There’s literally nothing else for CO2 to do above 360 ppm. The relevant spectral bands are saturated, & its weak wings lost in the noise of our cloudy atmosphere. You know, the clouds on your line.
@ChrisMartzWX
Climate change doesn't mean day after tomorrow type overnight scenarios. We should come up with solutions now so we don't have bigger problems for our species in the future. Nothing wrong having a long term vision for our species that will benefit us and save the environment.
28
1
11
2
5
28
The extinction of Homo Alarmist Patheticus is assured. You can relax now.
‘I am starting to panic about my child’s future’: climate scientists wary of starting families
5
14
29
2
6
29
What about me? I have degrees in physics, atmospheric dynamics, & climate. From experience, I know that physicists are infinitely more intelligent than meteorologists, & that mathematicians are infinitely more intelligent than physicists. We have no mathematics of climate, yet!
@gargantuandwarf
@_HannahRitchie
Thanks, when Clauser posts about Quantum Mechanics I'll listen.
He's just objectively *not* qualified to speak on Climate change and environmental science. And so are the vast majority of signatories of this bullshit paper.
9
0
0
10
3
26
Climate models are junk science of the worst sort. They can’t even simulate a cloud! Ted I’m curious to know how many clear-sky extreme events you’ve witnessed. Hurricanes? Tornadoes? Bomb cyclones? Floods? Snowstorms? As for heat waves, they require clear sky & cloudy Vorticity.
Climate change is intensifying extreme events in climate models. In the real world, hazard intensification is difficult to detect, normalized cost of disasters are flat, and human mortality is falling. Interested in how various friends square this circle.
@hausfath
@dwallacewells
16
7
42
2
8
27
“Minecraft has better clouds than any climate model.” -TJD
@CColose
@MasterC19470576
@PFriedling
@JayTCullen
@tim_dunkerton
What exactly are those false things being said about clouds? What is the correct thing about clouds?
1
1
4
0
6
27
You seem not to realize that climate models are junk science of the worst sort: they can’t even simulate a cloud! As for your statistical attribution, it’s rubbish. There is no statistical law that governs dynamics apart from ideal gas & radiative transfer. Isaac Held knows. You?
The Fed seems to think we can quantify the future probabilities of North Atlantic hurricane activity. That’s hard to do and the modeling uncertainties are huge.
The total hurricane count may decrease even as the strongest hurricanes increase in number (and become more intense).
2
1
9
0
12
26
Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide.
@ChrisMartzWX
What is even more egregious is that idea that every extreme weather event is as a result of climate change. Every drought, storm, flood is treated by activists as being caused by climate change as if these things never happened before.
0
5
7
0
11
27
Nobody denies the important role of CO2 in reducing atmospheric transmittance of thermal radiation. But above 360 ppm any further benefit is tiny, lost in the noise of our cloudy atmosphere. Denial of CO2 saturation is a symptom of mental retardation.
@MartinDn1001
@Veritatem2021
@3GHtweets
@MarcEHJones
@Anymous84861064
@tonyjsargeant
@Willard1951
@ammocrypta
@Rabs1958
@ncdave4life
@JohnWil12363553
@DenisDaly
@AristotleMrs
@S_D_Mannix
@Camburnclimate
@ozzorro1
@GillesnFio
@SpudNielsen
@bomac_macbo
@BenKoby1911
@Devonian1342
@GAJAJW
@Jaisans
@bulkbiker
@Climatehope2
@Data79504085
@Mark_A_Lunn
@Anvndarnamn5
@Michael_D_Crow
@Hji45519156
@waxliberty
@priscian
@SuperFoxyLoxy
@ChrisBBacon3
@JaapTitulaer
@wjack76995
@Rocky35418823
@NobaconEgbert
@balls95652097
@BointonGiles
@SeekerTheGreat1
@ubique60
@EthonRaptor
@RMcgillss
@paligap17
@TheDisproof
@MaggieL
@Willy1000
@AuroriaTwittori
CO2 is a major cause of Earth's greenhouse effect. Denial of it is a symptom of mental retardation.
5
0
4
7
6
28
In fact, as a professional in atmospheric dynamics & climate, 1976-present, we say with complete confidence: “no one, to this day, has rejected the null hypothesis that delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm has a negligible effect on climate change.” Pity you don’t know me.
@tim_dunkerton
Scientists absolutely take clouds into account. But water vapor and cloud cover don't account for the rising temperatures. Greenhouse gases do.
3
0
1
5
3
27
Richard Lindzen quit the society 20 years ago after Spengler retired. Now we fight them tooth & nail. Clown Mann is the trump card. Stay tuned, everyone.
The foundation of the Am. Met. Soc. (AMS) was once based on the advancement of the scientific method, but now its advancement includes non-science methods often embraced by
#ClimateScam
narratives.
0
3
9
1
8
27
Imagine the BS that turbulence is affected by carbon dioxide emissions!
Our atmospheric turbulence research is creating a more climate-resilient future, as highlighted in this compelling video that is being shown at COP27 this week.
6
2
17
4
3
26
I once was having lunch with Susan Solomon, head of IPCC, at the Canadian Space Agency when she decided to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. Our conversation, however, focused mainly on her penguin 🐧 friends in Antarctica.
Apparently Glen didn't get the memo. Michael Mann erased the Little Ice Age over 20 years ago.
#ClimateScam
10
17
122
1
9
26
Fortunately for those in the know: weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide.
Oh noes. Climate change causes California to burn up and also to fill up with water. There’s simply nothing that evil/fickle CO2 won’t do!😱
“Experts warn California of a disaster 'larger than any in world history.' It's not an earthquake.” by
@USATODAY
0
0
8
1
7
26
I don't know about you, but frankly, I'd be pleased to suffer the accusation of making Earth a little warmer, a little wetter, & a whole lot greener.
1
2
27
Peer review is two people in a world of eight billion. My voice is loud enough in this forum. No one has rejected the null hypothesis that delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm has a negligible effect on climate change. Not you, not IPCC, no one. We applaud your courage, not your silliness.
@tim_dunkerton
If you have any grown-up scientific thoughts about my work, Tim, feel free to use the peer-reviewed literature to voice them.
5
0
0
2
12
26
Lindzen never needed to negate a hypothesis, since nobody ever succeeded in rejecting the null. To this day. Basic science.
Kutney 1:05:59 says Lindzen "has not 1 paper that's PROVEN that climate change was wrong".
Me: "which paper has PROVEN that there's a climate crisis?".
Kutney: "You don't understand how science works. Science does not prove its theories. Science has never proven its theories"
5
12
38
1
7
26
Kudos to my friend & colleague Tiffany. The way forward is to end modeling altogether. Since we cannot & never will simulate a cloud, why not measure them instead? Their electro-radiometric properties defy current understanding, yet we are told, our climate hangs in the balance!
New paper! Tiffany Shaw et al. Regional climate change: consensus, discrepancies, and ways forward Part of the
@WCRP_climate
collection on the future of climate research.
#OpenAccess
@RockSea
2
20
44
2
5
26
We reject climate models categorically. None simulate clouds. All disagree as to cloud cover.
3
8
26
Donner Pass has a reputation… so many ppm CO2 ago… people spent the winter there… eating each other, one by one.
Worst blizzard conditions I’ve ever experienced in my life at Donner Summit, California.
262
1K
8K
0
7
23
We don’t observe a jet stream nor shears thereof in situ, nor globally at all, Paul. You seem to rely on assimilation, not measurements. Your airplane? Shear? Surely you jest. As for the future, climate models are junk science of the worst sort: they can’t even simulate a cloud!
@JunkScience
The jet steam is now 15% more strongly sheared than when satellites began observing it. That's not a computer modelling result. And as for the future, if you've got a better way of forecasting turbulence than using computer simulations, please do let me know.
13
0
18
1
6
26
Natural gas & nuclear are clean & green as per EU, infinitely renewable or practically so. Solar & wind destroy ecosystems, are ugly, unreliable, with no large-scale future whatsoever. Lindzen calls it the Age of Silliness, a subsidy of stupidity. Michael Moore has a comedy film.
More than half of the electricity generated in Portugal this year came from renewable energies, with only Norway, Austria and Denmark producing more.
#renewables
#climate
#energy
18
43
116
1
8
25
@davidrvetter
Natural gas & nuclear are clean & green, infinitely renewable or practically so. No amount of stupidity can obscure the fact. Uranium in oceans & methane clathrates below, what a way to go!
1
6
22
My recent conversation with Happer establishes that a CO2 molecule excited by a photon is thermalized immediately between the stratopause (10^6 collisions per second there) & surface (10^9 per second). Emission requires ~1 second. Calibration of CO2 lasers requires this info.
@DavidDibbell
Yep. Warmers say there's a GHE and effect and they're right. But they're clueless about its magnitude and about how it exponentially drops off with concentration.
They're also clueless about how much of the IR absorbed by CO2 is thermalized instead of reradiated.
2
0
7
7
7
25
More CO2 is the best way to improve Earth.
0
3
25
The only accomplishment of alarmism to date is the creation of a generation of mentally ill youth. Our flora love CO2, & so should you, Peter. Relax. Rest in peace.
1
8
23
Dear Tim,
The answer to Stephen Janitor's question is very simple. 100% of CO2 molecules that collide with photons convert the newly acquired rotation and vibrational energy to heat, mainly in collisions with N2, O2. There is essentially no scattering of thermal photons.
The
Unfortunately we lack operational airborne measurements of spectra in all-sky conditions. (The ARM program has failed us.) I’ll forward your Q to Will Happer. Note that radiative transfer occurs in the atmospheric column, but is one of several processes that determine lapse rate.
0
0
6
4
8
25
We don’t measure temperature before NIST, & never globally, not even now. If you insist on CET, it demonstrates that CO2 lags temperature, as suggested by paleo proxies - although we have no clue what delta 18 O measures, besides the oxygen isotope itself. CERES absolves CO2.
Decade-average temperature anomalies. Every decade is and will be warmer than the last moving forward (does anyone know of a nice cmip5/6 summary showing this?), despite many sources of atmospheric & ocean dynamics that cause year-to-year variability.
9
19
44
4
7
22
Zeke, if you're serious about anything, then respond to me. (1) Climate models don't simulate clouds. (2) There is no statistical law that governs dynamics other than ideal gas & radiative transfer. Ergo, there's absolutely no basis for any of your claims, alarmist or otherwise.
1
6
22
Laura, I’m pleased to inform you that CERES absolves CO2. Do you know why? The answer is so simple that even a simpleton can understand. As for climate models, they cannot, & never will, simulate a cloud. Ed Lorenz notes that weather has no useful analogues. Dynamics is King.
Our new article about Model Hierarchies for the Climate System is out now! With a special focus on the influence of machine learning/artificial intelligence and climate change impacts
#climate
#ML
#AI
#ClimateModels
#ClimateChangeImpacts
1
10
47
4
7
23
Is this a joke? Parody is difficult to discern. In any event, you can relax. Warmer is better than colder, CO2 has nothing further to give to the upside.
@tim_dunkerton
Well... it is getting warmer, fast. According to satellite measurements. According to station measurements. According to ocean heat measurement. According to heat records... Fast and furious warming.
2
0
4
2
1
24
Simple physics tells us that CO2 spectral lines are mostly saturated today. Simple observations inform us that clouds are orders of magnitude ten more important than delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm. Camus is not an idiot, but he’s a good reporter of climate idiocy.
John Kerry: this year.. was the hottest year in human history that we measured... If we can't hear Mother Nature and can't judge with our own eyes what the science is telling us, this is not about politics, is no ideology is no pejorative against any one bussiness or any
1K
95
273
7
10
24
No one, to this day, has rejected the null hypothesis that delta CO2 above 360 ppm has absolutely no discernible or demonstrable role in climate change. Neither observations (statistical attribution is rubbish) nor models (cannot simulate a cloud) nor IPCC (opinion poll) nor you.
2
9
24
I’m told Judy & Peter live near Tahoe. Nevada court, anyone?
@RogerPielkeJr
One thing that Mann has overlooked in his "win" was that he has opened the door for himself to be sued based on the defamation he has done to other scientists.
6
7
38
1
4
23
@marceelias
That’s odd to suggest we ignore 292k votes lacking chain of custody. Heather Honey nailed the case.
5
0
21
CERES absolves CO2. NASA Langley. Straight outta Hampton! The best observations we have, but do you know they’re reliant on MODIS on Terra & Aqua? Do you know why? Do you know that more can be learned about clouds? Do you realize that when it comes to consensus, clouds wreck all?
@_ClimateCraze
Climate science is based on evidence not consensus
That evidence led to the consensus
4
0
4
4
11
23
Andy it’s ridiculous to claim that climate causes anything! It’s nothing more, & nothing less than a cumulative metric of weather & boundary conditions. Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide. Clouds matter.
@ChrisMartzWX
You can’t measure storm damage purely on strength and category. Rainfall and storm surge count too. They have been impacted by climate change.
4
0
0
1
5
23
@JeffRoushPoetry
@tan123
Jeff, no one has been able to reject the null hypothesis that “changing levels of CO2 have no significant effects on the climate system.” Not IPCC. No one.
0
9
23
@dtemkin
@MaxPyziur
Russia has freedom of speech surpassing the US and China. Think about it.
60
0
17
@nickwabraham
Nick, if your goal is to control Earth temperature, you’re wasting our time & yours. We expect a slightly warmer, wetter, greener Earth 🌎, with ideal CO2 450-1200 ppm for several centuries.
15
3
21
Someone said recently on Tom Nelson that “climate science is where arrogance & ignorance meet.”
‘Arrogance’ in Penny Wong’s ‘mocking response’ to net zero question | Sky News Australia
9
4
26
0
6
22
Before retirement, scientists must conform to the narrative to be paid. Payment requires publications. Papers are approved by editorial boards. After they retire, they speak freely. Joanne Simpson makes the point, explicitly. She is our 1st female PhD, & TRMM Project Scientist.
@WHUT
@tim_dunkerton
All controlled by people that are not scientists and are looking to profit.
1
1
2
1
10
22
As noted by Palmer & Stevens 2019 PNAS, the absolute error of global surface temperature is larger than the tiny trend they seek to replicate. Anomalies, defined with respect to each model individually, hide this embarrassing defect.
@WEschenbach
Models produce consistent hindcasts because the parameters for WV/clouds, which can't be modeled, are tuned and tweaked to force a correlation. Why they then produce wild spaghetti when sent off into the future is a mystery to me.
0
0
6
2
8
21
You’ve lost my vote. There’s no crisis in climate, but a very real crisis in energy caused by climate idiocy.
Combatting the climate crisis is one of my top priorities in Congress. I met with
@citizensclimate
last week to discuss their environmental priorities and how we can work together to advance a sustainable future that promotes the health of our communities and our planet.
18
8
23
2
6
18
CO2 doesn’t control temperature. Humans don’t control CO2. Nor clouds. Thankfully, CERES absolves CO2. Your narrative isn’t just stale; it’s officially dead. Speaking of dead… Extinction of Homo Alarmist Patheticus is certain, but when? 2050? 2030? 2025?
7
7
21
Speaking of nullius in verba... no one, to this day, has rejected the null hypothesis that CO2 above 360 ppm has a negligible impact on climate. Neither observations (statistical attribution is rubbish) nor models (cannot simulate clouds) nor IPCC (opinion poll).
Besides, the foundation of science is nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it.
0
0
2
0
2
22
Climate models are junk science of the worst sort: they can’t even simulate a cloud! Matt, the confidence levels you cite are nothing but an illusion to create the impression that progress has been made when none, in fact, has. -Richard Lindzen, personal communication, 2021
Overall, the “likely” range sea-level projections have remained fairly stable between AR5-> SROCC -> AR6. The big news for AR6 is the inclusion of “low confidence” projections that illustrate the potential for much larger rates of rise associated with ice sheet uncertainties..
0
1
5
1
4
20
Is this a joke? CERES absolves CO2. NASA Langley. Straight outta Hampton! Little wonder since the main spectral bands are saturated at present CO2 concentrations & the remaining bands are lost in the noise of our cloudy troposphere. Rentsch & AIRS show the wings as *outgoing* LW.
Editorial: To lessen the climate crisis, we will have to change how we live
6
0
0
7
5
20
No one has been able to reject the null hypothesis that delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm has a negligible effect on climate change. Not IPCC, not clown 🤡, nor any other coward. No one. To this day. So says the specialist in atmospheric dynamics & climate. -TJD
0
7
20
@Dog__Pope
@tan123
Really? I’m an active scientist with specialty in atmospheric dynamics & climate. One of many who advise Tom. Where shall we start the conversation?
1
5
21
So you accuse the reviewers of your ignorance as well? No problem. Peer review is two people in a world of eight billion.
7
3
21
Peer review is two people in a world of eight billion. The null hypothesis needs no proof anyway. It’s always the default in science. As you know.
@tim_dunkerton
@tan123
You're going to have to cite peer-reviewed published material for that...
5
0
1
1
4
19
One thing’s for certain: CO2 has done everything it can, other than to green the planet further. The relevant thermal IR bands are saturated already. Not surprisingly, CERES absolves CO2. NASA Langley. Straight outta Hampton!
Are we entering a new, uncharted, climate era? Spikes in global temperatures last year pose disquieting questions about whether we’re underestimating the changes faced by the planet. I discuss with
@ClimateOfGavin
,
@flimsin
&
@TimOsbornClim
.
10
14
17
2
3
20
I do atmospheric dynamics & climate professionally. Actual research, to this day. My present interest includes cloud radiative forcing, based in part on CERES, fvGFS, GEO imagery & ERA products.
@Con2704
@tim_dunkerton
The attribution is not mine, it belongs to the folks who actually do the research
0
0
0
4
2
18
The current administration & its EO Joe spooked the markets on Day 1 & they never looked back. There’s no climate crisis but a huge energy crisis about to get worse. Will voters ever learn the fundamentals of atmospheric dynamics & climate listening to Dick Lindzen & Will Happer?
1
6
20
Clouds. They’re orders of magnitude ten more important than delta CO2 at 300-450 ppm. CO2 bands are mostly saturated today. “Oh it’s the wings” says Grant Petty. Yes indeed, if we believe Rentsch, those little wings are now detectable in AIRS… showing again that CO2 cools Earth.
The greenhouse gas hypothesis states that carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere traps heat from the sun, causing an increase in the planet's average temperature. To falsify this hypothesis, we need to rigorously understand the real, significant factors affecting temperature.
2
1
8
2
3
20
Weather, including extreme weather, has absolutely no discernible nor demonstrable dependence on carbon dioxide. Climate is nothing more, & nothing less, than a cumulative metric of weather & boundary conditions. Pre-monsoon climate in S Asia is warm, windy, & dry. Then rains…
2
8
19