Observed warming 1901-2012 from IPCC AR5. Particularly concentrated in high northern latitudes, especially Siberia and Canada, and in a couple of more equatorial regions (Brazil, northwest Africa).pic.twitter.com/pnMVyWlVGO
Show this thread
-
Interesting to contrast the average temperature anomaly with the sea level change. Some correlation, but the sea level change is much more smoothed out. I don't understand why.pic.twitter.com/4Dj4I2QjAQ
Show this thread
I guess the sea level change is likely responsive to local changes in temperature in polar regions. Which may be more smoothed than global temperature anomaly. (But I don't see why. Also: don't have a good model of the relationship between temp change & sea-level rise, anyway)
-
-
Actually, that world energy consumption graph is really fascinating. From Wikipedia: Surprised not to see natural gas rising more. Goes against the common narrative I hear around the rise of fracking / natural gas.pic.twitter.com/MC6BB5Epuy
Show this thread -
Curious to contrast with this paper showing evidence that CO2 emissions have peaked (mostly due to fracking):https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/674738150367993856 …
Show this thread -
TIL: Nitrous oxide - laughing gas - is an important greenhouse gas. (I wish water vapour was on this graph.)pic.twitter.com/Nk2Zaa1fTR
Show this thread -
Interesting that methane is apparently levelling out. I don't know why.
Show this thread -
Also, an estimate I heard in a talk by David Keith: the atmospheric half-life of CO2 is about 1000 years. So without some type of reclamation / sequestration technology, just keeps rising, except over very long time scales.
Show this thread -
This graph is one of the most fascinating I know of, period (and the error bars are outright the most fascinating I know of). It's the IPCC report's estimate of the radiative forcing due to several sources, with 95% CI's.pic.twitter.com/8H8qMhkO1V
Show this thread -
A few comments: total estimated forcing is 2.3 Watts per square meter. That's about 0.17% of the solar constant (about 1367 Watts per square meter), a truly tiny (but nonetheless monumental) change!
Show this thread -
I wish the error bars were discussed a LOT more. A funny thing: in popular writing about climate change, the writer often effectively yells loudly "we KNOW this is going on, anyone who doesn't think so is an anti-science ignoramus." This turns me off.
Show this thread -
Anyone who discusses a complex subject and turns it into simple slogans, and evinces complete certainty & dismissal of opponents, is someone I have a lot of trouble trusting.
Show this thread -
Feynman: "In physics the truth is rarely perfectly clear, and that is certainly universally the case in human affairs. Hence, what is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth.”
Show this thread -
In any case, I find those error bars - and the enormous effort the IPCC has put into really understanding them (and great care in reducing them) - absolutely fascinating.
Show this thread -
I'd be curious to know the effect of the Montreal protocol (banning CFCs) on radiative forcing, since - I believe - CFCs are an aerosol reducing radiative forcing. While banning CFCs was a good thing, did it contribute to global warming?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.