@catabreu_@cjmcgowne Reliance on wind and solar energy means freezing in the dark on windless winter nights.
Even Bill Gates understands that.
@catabreu_@cjmcgowne The other main "renewable" energy is biofuels. Vast swaths of Indonesia & Malaysia have been converted from forests and food production into monoculture palm plantations, to make biodiesel, to "fight climate change." It is environmentally catastrophic.
@catabreu_@cjmcgowne Manmade #ClimateChange is benign. Elevated CO2 has increased average global agricultural yields by about 20%, and substantially mitigated drought impacts.
But climate activists are working to reverse those gains. #ClimateAction has enormous human costs:
@catabreu_@cjmcgowne The "climate emergency" is a scam. The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade global warming is real, but modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are very beneficial. Scientists call warm periods, like our current climate, “climate optimums.”
I have the paper, and the five responses, and Skrable's responses to the responses, on my site, here: sealevel.info/Skrable2022/
2/6. The 14C bomb spike decay reflects 3 main processes:
1. Removal of CO2 from the air, into other "reservoirs" (ocean & terrestrial biosphere).
2. Exchanges of carbon between atmosphere & other reservoirs.
3. "Suess effect" dilution: the addition of fossil CO2 with no 14C.
3/6. The bomb spike decay follows a beautiful logarithmic decay curve, with an 11 year half-life, so an 11 / ln(2) = 16 year apparent lifetime. But that fails to take into account Suess effect dilution. sealevel.info/logc14_two_hal…
1/5. Anymous84861064 & Lynas (2021) are bludgeoning a strawman. They pretend the climate debate is whether anthropogenic climate change is real, so they can claim there's a scientific consensus - while slyly avoiding saying what the consensus is about. sealevel.info/consensus_defi…
@Rabs1958 @LottRan @Anymous84861064 @GillesnFio @S_D_Mannix @mikeshearn49 @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @Veritatem2021 @Devonian1342 @MarcEHJones @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @Willard1951 @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @3GHtweets @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 2/5. Most skeptics of climate alarmism agree with that "consensus" view, including me. So what? That's not what the debate is about! quora.com/It-is-claimed-…
3/5. Of course AGW is "real." The climate industry's problem is that the best evidence shows that CO2 & manmade climate change are beneficial, not harmful. The "social cost of carbon" is negative. sealevel.info/negative_socia…
1/5. Stoichastich wrote, "He says quite clearly that the hothouse is warm because the glass absorbs dark rays from the ground (IR), which is clearly not why the hothouse is hot."
That's not what Arrhenius wrote. This is the paper:
This is the excerpt to which I think you must be referring:
"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot-house, because it lets through the light-rays of the Sun, but retains the dark-rays from the ground."
You've mistaken his meaning. In the first place, Arrhenius was summarizing what another scientist said. In the second place, the word "it" clearly refers back to "the atmosphere," not to the hot-house, as you've apparently supposed.
The main way that greenhouses retain heat is by preventing convective and evaporative cooling. That's why greenhouses made of plastic which is transparent to LW IR work just fine. (Glass greenhouses do get a small amount of additional warming effect by blocking outgoing LW IR.)iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
2/5. Stoichastich asked, "Where has anyone said that [Arrhenius] did use that term?"
You retweeted Dale Cloudman pointing out that "the greenhouse effect is a misnomer," in your tweet saying that Arrhenius' paper was "fundamentally flawed." So I thought that's what you meant.
3/5. Stoichastich asked, "Estimating it sounds interesting, but has it ever been measured?"
There've been some attempts both to calculate and to measure the "radiative forcing." I summarize them here:
1/7》GCP emission data shows 185.58 ppmv of fossil carbon emissions from 1959-2021 (plus a poorly constrained amt of non-fossil "land use change emissions"). Only about 5.56 ppmv (3%) was CO2 released from limestone [CaCO3] as it's baked to make cement.
@Piyush__Tank @JessePeltan 2/7》It's estimated that, on average, as concrete weathers it absorbs roughly half as much CO2 as was released from the limestone when it was made. That halves the 3% (5.56 ppmv) figure to 1.5%. The process is akin to natural rock weathering: sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…
3/7》It's often claimed that cement manufacturing causes "up to 8%" of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but that figure includes estimated emissions from the fossil fuels burned to heat the kilns, typically accounting about half the total (though it varies according to how the kilns are fired). cfdflowengineering.com/cfd-modeling-o…
1/5. Willard, why do you ask questions that were answered at links I just gave you—that you refused to read?
I linked to a 7-part tweetstorm about the discredited Shakun/Marcott/Pages2K/Hagelaars "wheelchair" graph, which goes back 22K years. It completely erased D-O event #1, every last trace of it.
2/5. That wheelchair graph also erased all but ¼℃ of D-O event #0, a/k/a the Younger Dryas termination, a/k/a the start of the Holocene.
3/5. It also shows the middle of the Dark Ages Cold Period as slightly warmer than the middle of the Medieval Warm Period.