[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Chris Martz [@ChrisMartzWX](/creator/twitter/ChrisMartzWX) on x 140.5K followers Created: 2025-07-21 13:12:34 UTC Okay, I'll answer both of those questions. My position has been made crystal clear many times and it is rather simple. The planet has warmed by about 1.2°C since 1850, although we don’t actually know the precise number because of poor data quality in the early part of the instrumental temperature record. 🌡️📈 Given that—all else being equal—adding more carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the air should cause warming, I think at least some of it has been anthropogenic (i.e., man-made). But, that does 𝑵𝑶𝑻 mean we are going to bake to death or that there will be serious negative impacts because of it. The radiation flux into Earth’s atmosphere is XXXXX ± XXX W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over the course of a year (e.g., Stephens et al., 2012). This means that to maintain a constant temperature, Earth must emit XXXXX W/m² back to space. / open-access: Global warming theory states that the direct radiative forcing (a perturbation that causes the Earth’s energy balance to change) from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (RF 2×CO₂) is XXX ± XXX W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That is, the rate of emission of longwave radiation to space is reduced by XXX W/m². Wijngaarden & Happer (2023) estimated that the direct temperature change resulting from this is <1°C. However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to a change in forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—is higher (lower) than the 1°C figure. Three unknowns remain: 1️⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, say, 1950). 2️⃣ What the exact value of ECS is. 3️⃣ Is global warming a net benefit or drawback to civilization? • If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to greenhouse gases (GHGs), and impacts are exaggerated. • If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3.0°C ± 1.5°C. (pp. 44-45) However, some studies (e.g., Abbott & Marohasy, 2017; Lewis & Curry, 2018) have estimated ECS to be much lower; that is, <2°C. The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷♂️ Also, to reliably detect an anthropogenic influence on the global climate system, Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) must be known to the nearest XXX W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021). / open-access here: However, Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be XXX ± XXX W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a XXX W/m² margin of error, some XX times larger than detection limits. This uncertainty remains in new estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be XXXX ± XXXX W/m². This means that most global warming observed since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain, OR it could be largely anthropogenic. The only robust “evidence” for significant anthropogenic warming are global climate models (GCMs) simulated with different forcings. Most GCMs produce too much warming with known physics from global warming theory, so scientists artificially tune (i.e., force) their GCMs to agree with the surface temperature record and present that as evidence. That is laughable. Regardless of mankind’s contribution to temperature change, the state of human welfare is expected to improve by every measurable metric by 2100 because of our ability to adapt and use technology to become resilient to any adversities nature throws at us. Claims that we are facing an “existential crisis” due to global warming are, at best, a premature declaration, and at worst, outright fraudulent. So, TL;DR, 1⃣ I accept (and never have denied) that humans have contributed to global warming. I think it is very much debatable as to how much, but it could be most of it. 2⃣ Claims that we are going to face severe negative impacts because of it is the weakest part of alarmists' entire argument. The most consequential impact is the slow creep of sea level rise (SLR), but even that is a very manageable problem.  XXXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1947283560328540668)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX on x 140.5K followers
Created: 2025-07-21 13:12:34 UTC
Okay, I'll answer both of those questions.
My position has been made crystal clear many times and it is rather simple.
The planet has warmed by about 1.2°C since 1850, although we don’t actually know the precise number because of poor data quality in the early part of the instrumental temperature record. 🌡️📈
Given that—all else being equal—adding more carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the air should cause warming, I think at least some of it has been anthropogenic (i.e., man-made). But, that does 𝑵𝑶𝑻 mean we are going to bake to death or that there will be serious negative impacts because of it.
The radiation flux into Earth’s atmosphere is XXXXX ± XXX W/m² of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over the course of a year (e.g., Stephens et al., 2012). This means that to maintain a constant temperature, Earth must emit XXXXX W/m² back to space.
/ open-access:
Global warming theory states that the direct radiative forcing (a perturbation that causes the Earth’s energy balance to change) from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (RF 2×CO₂) is XXX ± XXX W/m² (IPCC TAR, 2007). That is, the rate of emission of longwave radiation to space is reduced by XXX W/m². Wijngaarden & Happer (2023) estimated that the direct temperature change resulting from this is <1°C.
However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to a change in forcing mean that the real-world value—the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—is higher (lower) than the 1°C figure.
Three unknowns remain:
1️⃣ Exactly how much warming has been man-made (since, say, 1950).
2️⃣ What the exact value of ECS is.
3️⃣ Is global warming a net benefit or drawback to civilization?
• If ECS is <3°C, the climate system is largely insensitive to greenhouse gases (GHGs), and impacts are exaggerated.
• If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate system is very sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern.
The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3.0°C ± 1.5°C.
(pp. 44-45)
However, some studies (e.g., Abbott & Marohasy, 2017; Lewis & Curry, 2018) have estimated ECS to be much lower; that is, <2°C.
The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷♂️
Also, to reliably detect an anthropogenic influence on the global climate system, Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) must be known to the nearest XXX W/m² (e.g., Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021).
/ open-access here:
However, Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be XXX ± XXX W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And, the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a XXX W/m² margin of error, some XX times larger than detection limits. This uncertainty remains in new estimates, such as Loeb et al. (2021), which estimates EEI to be XXXX ± XXXX W/m².
This means that most global warming observed since 1950 could be natural and scientists would never know for certain, OR it could be largely anthropogenic.
The only robust “evidence” for significant anthropogenic warming are global climate models (GCMs) simulated with different forcings. Most GCMs produce too much warming with known physics from global warming theory, so scientists artificially tune (i.e., force) their GCMs to agree with the surface temperature record and present that as evidence.
That is laughable.
Regardless of mankind’s contribution to temperature change, the state of human welfare is expected to improve by every measurable metric by 2100 because of our ability to adapt and use technology to become resilient to any adversities nature throws at us.
Claims that we are facing an “existential crisis” due to global warming are, at best, a premature declaration, and at worst, outright fraudulent.
So, TL;DR,
1⃣ I accept (and never have denied) that humans have contributed to global warming. I think it is very much debatable as to how much, but it could be most of it.
2⃣ Claims that we are going to face severe negative impacts because of it is the weakest part of alarmists' entire argument. The most consequential impact is the slow creep of sea level rise (SLR), but even that is a very manageable problem.
XXXXXX engagements
