David Romps

Direct air capture "makes the planet hotter. The only winners are the recipients of the subsidies and the builders of the boondoggles." thebulletin.org/2023/12/direct…

In heat waves like this, what levels are dangerous? "There’s not really one number that will tell us if this is safe or this is dangerous," cautions David Romps @UCBerkeley washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro… @romps

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 If you are so confident that Earth's water-vapor feedback is imaginary, then this is not going to be a productive conversation, and I will bow out. I am sorry I could not help.

@romps @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Thank you Unfortunately, your claims are "questionable" Can you identify any empirical evidence of any water vapour feedback resulting from CO2 Or any of the other imaginary feedbacks I guess not The fact is that it may well be negative feedback, as in the tropical iris effect

I don’t understand climate change deniers. Like what’s your end game? Surely moving to renewables is a win-win for everyone. It will Save the planet. It’s more efficient. Will cost less. It will make more money. Etc etc. I can’t see any downsides.

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 The numbers are different, yes. ~1.2 K warming from preindustrial, during which CO2 has gone from 280 to 420 ppmv. My estimate of the equilibrium response would be 3*log2(420/280) ~ 1.8 K. But these are not inconsistent. Bear in mind ocean thermal inertia, aerosols, other GHGs.

@romps @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Always happy to learn more - but your proposed calculation is obviously inaccurate when we look at recent historical increases.

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Thanks, that is helpful. I gather you are calculating 4/(4*5.67e-8*288^3) = 0.7 K. That would work for a bare rock, but we have an atmosphere, which introduces important natural feedbacks, e.g., from water vapor.

@romps @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 calculated from warming from absolute zero by TSI

@BurgessPark2 @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Where are you getting 0.7 C of warming for a doubling of CO2? I never said that. Please refer to my earlier tweet, which gave an estimate of the warming.

@romps @PoeBrianL @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Happy that you agree with the rest of the published scientific community Doubling from current levels of 420 to 840 ppm (thats 3 times the emissions since 1880) will result in about 4W/m2 or approx 0.7 C of warming That is insignificant by anyones definition

@PoeBrianL @BurgessPark2 @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 To get an estimate of temperature increments on land in Fahrenheit, divide by Earth's feedback parameter of ~1.2 W/m^2/K, multiply by 9/5 to convert to F, and multiply by ~1.3 for the "land warms more" factor: 280 ppmv --> + 0 F 560 ppmv --> + 7 F 1120 ppmv --> +14 F

@PoeBrianL @BurgessPark2 @Cucamellomusic @AlobarKahn @Tertianship @rompsgroup @takes_by_jake @jedman42 Maybe it would help to talk about some numbers. For example, using 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2: 280 ppmv --> +0.0 W/m^2 (this is preindustrial) 560 ppmv --> +3.7 W/m^2 1120 ppmv --> +7.4 W/m^2 This is the "logarithmic scaling."

@sbassi @fabiomb I think so. Here is my shot of it. It is still flying over the Bay now.

@LionelLion14 It went right over our house in the East Bay. I got this photo on its third loop around. Maybe it is an F-35?

The Blue Angels hold air shows over San Francisco in October, but they might have a commitment someplace else on the West Coast this weekend. If anyone knows, please reply. I’m curious. I’m sure the situation is okay, albeit tough on my plushie nerves. 2/2

A few mins. ago, there was an airplane noise above San Francisco. I looked out the window and saw a plane that didn’t look like a passenger jet. It appeared to be at a normal elevation, but very loud. Maybe a U.S. Navy Blue Angel? If an air show is scheduled, makes sense. 1/

@GCarbin @NickPBassill We've got you covered, Nick! You can download the heat index code here (available in R, Python, and Fortran) and then personalize the weight, height, and walking speed. romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubs-20… @yichuan_lu

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I'm doing NOAA-funded heat work, and I just learned today that the heat index calculation inherently assumes a lot about your body: Specifically, that it's 147 lbs, 5'7, and walking at 3.1 mph. #heat I have some bad news for NOAA about my body😂.

@jesse_kroll Fear not. According to ChatGPT-4, there is no evidence you are dead.

Ok, so I tried this out, and-

@hampus_s In this regard, Nostr is fine for public conversations, but not private ones. Is that right?

@romps All NIP-04 messages leak metadata about the sender and the receiver and is thus not suitable as an email replacement.

I just learned about the existence of Nostr last night. I know very little, and most of that is probably wrong. But I am excited about Nostr and I want to explain why. If I am super lucky, someone like @fiatjaf @jb55 @jack @Snowden @dksf will correct me. Here goes...

@hayek74 @fiatjaf @jb55 @jack @Snowden @dksf That is a good point. Is that flaw inherent to any decentralized communications system? With a centralized system, the host can keep a definitive log of access, allowing for the detection of interlopers.

@romps @fiatjaf @jb55 @jack @Snowden @dksf I am not yet convinced that this is a replacement for email. If your private key is compromised, there is no way to know. Someone can indefinitely view all of your private messages without using you private key to make any posts. It should not be considered secure.

@swaziadam Berkeley's College of Chemistry advertises that it is "generously supported by Chevron"? No photoshopping here? Are there more examples? On the bright side, this is the kind of transparency that @dan_kammen called for in @amywestervelt's Guardian article.

This pic was snapped at UC Berkeley today ... Same day we learn that Berkeley's researchers got at least $130 million from the fossil fuel industry from 2010 to 2020. Would Undergraduate and Student Services be ok if the support was from the Tobacco industry or Smith & Wesson?

@blueicehiggins Bob Stout, former VP of BP, seems to have answered my question about why the fossil-fuel industry funds academia. twitter.com/amywestervelt/…

@romps Seems reasonable!

This new report from @DataProgress identifies more fossil-fuel funding to UC Berkeley than to any other school. It is nearly 3x that of Stanford and nearly 4x that of MIT (!!). UC Berkeley's funders include BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Koch, Chevron, and Conoco.

@blueicehiggins I do not know. But declaring conflicts of interest might be a good start. twitter.com/ucsdgreennewde…

@romps I'm guessing all of these are true, but isn't this just the same for ANY company whose putting $ into Universities? Where do we draw the line?

@ChemCooper @UCBerkeley @UCGreenNewDeal @sunrisebayarea Do we know if the money UC Berkeley received from these fossil-fuel companies was spent on "fake" solutions? It would be interesting to find out what the funding was for nominally, and also why the companies gave the money. I am not aware of any existing summary like that.