@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes [2/14] The Dutch, for obvious reasons, have been paying close attention to sea-level for a very long time. Their measurements show that there's been no significant acceleration in rate of sea-level rise in response to rising CO2 levels:
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes [3/14] Venice is one of the very few sites which have measured a statistically significant change in rate of sea-level rise: it DECELERATED slightly (probably because they curtailed groundwater pumping in the 1980s, to reduce subsidence).
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes [4/14] "The secular trend in MSL at venice during the twentieth century was a factor or two greater than at Trieste, which is almost certainly related to local anthropogenic effects including ground water pumping, see for example several publications by P.A.Pirazzoli." -PSMSL
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes [5/14] Trieste, Italy has a typical sea-level trend. As you can see, there's been no significant acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes [6/14] The "global" (i.e. average) sea-level trend is slightly up. But it's so slight that In many places it's dwarfed by local factors, like erosion, sedimentation, and vertical land motion. @GretaThunberg 's town is one such place. There the land rises >3x as fast as the ocean.
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes@GretaThunberg [7/14] The place recording sharpest acceleration is Brest, France. Even there it's nearly negligible, for practical purposes. The trend was 0.0 mm/yr in 1800s, but +1.5 mm/yr since 1900 (six inches/century), & no significant acceleration since 1900 (only 0.00483±0.01121 mm/yr²).
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes@GretaThunberg [9/14] Measuring sea-level is straightforward. It's been done accurately for >200 years, in some places.
It's not driven by AGW. CO2 levels have risen (rapidly) for 70 yrs. Temps have been rising (slowly) for 40 yrs. It has NOT measurably affected coastal sea-level trends.
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes@GretaThunberg [10/14] Wherever you look, the story is the same: regardless of whether the local sea-level trend is positive or negative, it hasn't accelerated significantly since the 1920s, or before.
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes@GretaThunberg [11/14] Local sea-level trends vary, due mostly to varying rates of local vertical land motion (subsidence or uplift). But they all show the same lack of significant acceleration in response to rising CO2 levels:
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes@GretaThunberg [12/14] Even at New York City's Battery Park, where land subsidence approximately doubles the rate of sea-level rise, there's been no significant acceleration in rate:
@ClimateOpp@jdickerson@60Minutes@GretaThunberg [13/14] Where there's no vertical land motion (subsidence or uplift), the trend looks about like this: perfectly linear for at least nine decades, with no detectable effect from rising CO2 levels:
1/5. I trust that it is obvious to you that the most important effects of climate change are on agriculture. Right?
So if you really want to read the best relevant scholarly literature, you should start with agronomy papers. Agronomy is a much older, more rigorous, and less politicized field than "climate science," and it's the field which studies the effects of CO2 and climate change on agriculture.
@JDubbs1982 @Bidenisafacist @ChrisMartzWX 2/5. For instance, here's a paper about wheat:
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric CO2 can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
@JDubbs1982 @Bidenisafacist @ChrisMartzWX 3/5. That doesn't even take into account the direct benefits of fossil fuels.
1/15≫ Dr. Belch (why oh why isn't she a gastroenterologist?) seems not to recognize the significance of the story.
Climate activists predicted that if Earth's average temperature got to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial (late Little Ice Age) baseline it would be a disaster. But they did, and nothing bad happened.
The significance of that is that it means the climate activists were completely wrong.
2/15≫ In case you're wondering, the 4 known factors which caused 2023 to be so mild were:
1. A strong El Niño spike. And
2. IMO 2020 shipping regulations drastically reduced sulfate aerosol air pollution (The IMO says they resulted in "an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols," which equates to a sudden 10% decrease in total global SO2 emissions, which is a large improvement in a short time, with a significant warming effect). And
3. The unusual 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption, which humidified the stratosphere. And
4. Also a little bit of warming from the ongoing slow rise in atmospheric CO2 levels (though only about 25 ppmv/decade).
It's all good, though (unfortunately) #1 & #3 are temporary.
3/15≫
Q: And what was the result of all that warmth?
1/7. Contrary to Prof. Christopher Taylor's claim, global greening is not "maxed out." That outlier Baozhang Chen study he cited is even contradicted by the IPCC:
2/7. Here's a compilation of that thread (because Twitter/𝕏 keeps shadowbanning my tweetstorms):
@elonmusk, @lindayaX, @support, @premium PLEASE end 𝕏's SHADOWBANNING of replies — even replies to one's own tweets (tweetstorms). What good is a tweetstorm if you can't find the 2nd tweet while viewing the 1st?threadreaderapp.com/thread/1719382…
3/7. Xin Chen et al (2024) refutes that outlier Baozhang Chen et al (2022) study:
Chen, Xin et al (2024). The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000. Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 49, 2024, e02791, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02791.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1/10. When climate activists like Prof. Christopher Taylor have the power to block publication and deny tenure to young professors with differing opinions, it corrupts academia and distorts science.
2/10. Scientific consensuses exist about many things, but we don't talk much about them, because we don't disagree about them. If there's a hot debate about the existence of a consensus, it means there's no consensus.
3/10. One of the dishonest tactics used by the parasitic climate industry to promote their products is to pretend there's a scientific consensus that the "climate crisis" is real. That's a plain lie.