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)
-
Show this thread
-
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
3 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
michael_nielsen Retweeted michael_nielsen
Curious to contrast with this paper showing evidence that CO2 emissions have peaked (mostly due to fracking):https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/674738150367993856 …
michael_nielsen added,
michael_nielsen @michael_nielsenPaper in Nature Climate Change (tentatively) suggests global CO2 emissions may be declining http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2892.epdf?referrer_access_token=s1awyyC-oO6etR336Cj_HNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PZ7Wa610RO0dCDFlIIHZ74qcAiRyRLeTjy1w-5IRtPPSUdHbny_NP43wRzYrSEjYc3Yy3cCrW_6kuwy-8K-e8OQuzShps06O73r4wsofA5E-O-EaT7dZSiSRMkiGRrojMwUaRyzOpRy3ekJ1-825iQFi1DD4m81eHFBKN23yCWMP5KNb0xzqXoDieEXqJ8IqROptfJ-r2JDpgA5iSBDIISsx6p41e_yqf5lm2_P31ZPQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nytimes.com … pic.twitter.com/RPCzAqPVaM3 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
TIL: Nitrous oxide - laughing gas - is an important greenhouse gas. (I wish water vapour was on this graph.)pic.twitter.com/Nk2Zaa1fTR
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Interesting that methane is apparently levelling out. I don't know why.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow 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.
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likesShow 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
1 reply 5 retweets 11 likesShow 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!
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow 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.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow 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.
2 replies 4 retweets 16 likesShow 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.”
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow 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?
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow 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.