Clever Alias

I have never claimed “climate change isn't real.” I challenge you to find one receipt of me claiming that. Just one. One teeny weenie one. Spoiler alert: You won't. 🚫🧾 Now, if you have ten minutes or so to spare, here is my actual position on the climate “issue.” Hands off that keyboard, your eyes open, brain on. Are you ready? Grab some popcorn!! 🍿 I do not deny that the Earth has warmed up by ~1.2°C since 1850. I also have never denied that 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 of that might be due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. That might come as a shock to you, I know. But that's probably because you just read all the crap that anonymous ass wipes like “The Disproof” say about me instead of what I have actually written. This is also the same problem that I had with the handful of arrogant pricks I went to college with. You see, most of my peers that run their mouths about me have never had an in-person, face-to-face conversation with me about this topic (or any other for that matter). Instead, they just parrot whatever others have concocted in their heads. Most peers that disagree with me whom I had the chance to talk to typically like me personally and/or are good friends of mine. However, having been around weather geeks nonstop for four years in college, there is nothing that most like to do more than beat off to a hook echo or spin webs about people they don't like to start drama. I had enough of that by junior year and parted ways to spend time with normal people that act like civilized adults. Ooh, that one's gonna sting. 🐝 Sizzle, sizzle. 🌶️ If any of them read this, they'll probably fester about it on Snapchat and seethe. Hehe! 👻 And then you have all of the professional jerks in the climate community who spend most of their time harassing people online they disagree with instead of contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. Most are anonymous trolls who don't have any balls to say what they think with their names attached, but others like Michael Mann and Chris Colose just have no shame and do it on their personal accounts instead of burners. Anyways, I'm getting off topic. Let me correct course. So, yeah, I acknowledge that there is probably some anthropogenic global warming. But contrary to what the army of alarmist foot soldiers have 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑙𝑒𝑑 people to believe, there are not really any “fingerprints” to distinguish human-caused warming from warming caused by other natural forcings / variability. Numerous scientific papers claim to have found such a “fingerprint,” but the only evidence that they have presented is that the anomaly identified is 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ anthropogenic warming. But the authors always fail to mention that said anomaly would be consistent with natural warming too. Case in point, a reduction in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover would allow more sunlight into the climate system, which would warm the oceans. A warmer ocean—all else being equal—increases 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). 🔗link.springer.com/article/10.100… / open-access: psl.noaa.gov/people/gilbert… All warming, natural or man-made, results in: 1⃣ Higher latitudes warming faster than both the mid-latitudes and tropics. 2⃣ Land heating up faster than the oceans. This is just basic physics; specifically, heat capacity. But wait, there's more! An increase in, say, solar forcing would have the same effect, though we can likely rule that out as a cause of modern warming because sunspot activity has been declining in recent decades. But I cannot jump the gun here, Jason; the sun does affect the climate in ways that have not been thoroughly researched because, well, let's be honest, little money has been allocated for such projects by the funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). In any case, the 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 empirical evidence that I have seen to suggest that there is probably [at least some] anthropogenic “fingerprint” on recent temperature increases is stratospheric cooling. First, as you know, in atmospheric physics, heat flux is measured as power—measured in Watts (that is, Joules per second)—standardized per square meter of surface area. This is, of course, written as W/m². Next, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ± 3.3 W/m² 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 ± 3.3 W/m² back to outer space. 🔗nature.com/articles/ngeo1… / open-access: researchgate.net/publication/26… Global warming theory maintains the direct radiative forcing from doubling atmospheric CO₂ levels (often noted as RF 2×CO₂) is 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m² (e.g., IPCC TAR, 2007). That means that the net outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to outer space is reduced by 3.7 W/m², which creates an Earth energy imbalance (EEI), which leads to a slight warming tendency in the troposphere (surface to ~13 km altitude). 🔗ipcc.ch/site/assets/up… (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). 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/… 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. 🔗nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/… That means that most of the warming observed since 2000 is likely due to a natural reduction in global cloud area fraction (CAF) OR perhaps partly caused by a reduction in stratospheric sulfate aerosol concentrations, which is an effect of the particulate aerosol pollution regulations adopted 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 CO₂ forcing. So what? What happens down here in the lower atmosphere in response to CO₂ forcing is a lot more nuanced. Why, you ask? Well, because down here in the troposphere (where we live), there are feedbacks (largely cloud-related) and precipitation processes that affect the radiation budget far more than CO₂. And how exactly clouds respond to warming in the troposphere, if at all, is not very well understood, and by extension, not well-modeled. These uncertain processes present some major problems in climate models because they are parameterized, often arbitrarily. For instance, in Figure 3.8 from IPCC AR6, you can see that the model spread in the estimated aerosol forcing contribution to global warming since 1850 has a 100% margin of error. That means that it is virtually unknown just how much aerosols have masked warming (or even contributed to it, as one model shows a net 0.1°C warming). The estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing contribution also has a 45% margin of error in the CMIP6 suite. And you're going to tell me that “the science is settled,” really? What we do know, theoretically speaking, is that the direct warming effect of RF 2×CO₂ is actually very small. Specifically, it is on the order of ~1°C (please see Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020 for details). This is from basic radiative transfer calculations. 🔗arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098 However, amplifying (or dampening) feedbacks that kick in as a response to radiative forcing mean that the real-world value—that is, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—will be higher (lower) than the ~1°C figure derived from radiative transfer calculations. So, three critical pieces information are unknown: 1⃣ 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. 2⃣ The exact value of ECS. 3⃣ 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: • If ECS is <3°C, the climate is insensitive to GHGs, and impacts are exaggerated. • If ECS is ≥3°C, the climate is sensitive to GHGs, and warming could be a concern. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of ECS is 3°C with a range of 2-5°C. 🔗ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1… (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 Niño / La Niña and volcanic stratospheric aerosol injection (e.g., El Chichón, 1982; Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). Christy and McNider found that the human-induced warming rate is about 0.09°C / decade (lower than observations of actual temperature increase). This, by the way, came with the stipulation that any unknown mechanisms of internal variability or external forcing are assumed to be zero. 🔗nature.com/articles/36732… They then validated their 1994 findings in McNider & Christy (2017). Specifically, they found a near-identical anthropogenic warming rate of only 0.096°C / decade and a transient climate response (TCR) of 1.10 ± 0.26°K. 🔗link.springer.com/article/10.100… / open-access: sealevel.info/christymcnider… 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 “best estimate.” 🔗journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/… 🔗mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11… 🔗link.springer.com/article/10.100… 🔗acp.copernicus.org/articles/25/88… The jury on ECS is still out. 🤷‍♂️ What's more, in order to reliably detect anthropogenic influence on the climate system, EEI must be known to the nearest 0.1 W/m² (Von Schuckmann et al., 2016; Gebbie, 2021). 🔗nature.com/articles/nclim… / open-access: nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/5127… 🔗annualreviews.org/content/journa… However, the aforementioned Stephens et al. (2012) estimates the EEI to be 0.6 ± 0.4 W/m², which is eight times larger than the anthropogenic detection limits. And the natural top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux has a 6.6 W/m² 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 ± 0.48 W/m². 🔗agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20… This means that 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 (but not all!) of the observed global warming since, say, 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 the climate alarmists claim, but, even if that is the case, once again, so what? That in no way, shape or form, automatically means that it is an urgent problem. The big unknown are CLOUDS. ☁️ Why? Because (a) cloud albedo has a far greater impact on the radiation budget than CO₂, and (b) how clouds change in response, if at all, to CO₂ forcing remains an unknown. What's more, cloud cover can (and does) change naturally without mankind's assistance for any number of reasons (e.g., El Niño / La Niña activity; ocean circulation changes; cosmic ray flux; etc.). Even a small 1% decrease in CAF can more than offset any temperature rise caused by CO₂. Song et al. (2016), for instance, found that, 🗨️ “[𝐴]𝑙𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑠. 𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑎 ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡.” 🔗nature.com/articles/srep3… I don't deny that global warming is occurring. I never have. I don't even deny anthropogenic influence either. I never have. What I do reject, however, is unchecked alarmism and climate activism, particularly from 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 “climate scientists.” 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 charlatans at World Weather Attribution). Attribution “science” is fraudulent anyways because one of the main architects behind them admitted to Politico in April 2021 that they were designed with the intention of being used to prop litigation against oil and gas companies. 🔗eenews.net/articles/scien… Conflict of interest much? For what it's worth, I was on your side of this before I got my degree in meteorology. Perhaps my judgment is not clouded, but rather it's yours and Zeke's that are. I look forward to a point-by-point rebuttal to all of my points above. But you cannot use ChatGPT, Grok, or any other LLM to do it (I can always tell when AI is used). You cannot defer to any scientists, tagging them to help you. And finally, you cannot use any logical fallacies. You need to think for yourself and show me where I'm wrong point-by-point. Or you need to concede that I have made valid points and that there is a lot more to this climate story than you are admitting. Thanks.

Climate deniers take note—this smoke is the result of your indifference. Gift link: nytimes.com/2026/07/16/wea…