@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 1/7」That's simply untrue, Gabriel. Ice core records indicate that reversals in CO2 concentration trend followed reversals in temperature trend by at least several hundred years over ONE particular period of time. But that's no longer the case, and it hasn't been for >100 years.
@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 2/7」Earth only got ≈90 ppmv of CO2 level change over a complete glaciation/deglaciation cycle, accompanied by at least 5-6°C global temperature change.
In contrast, we've gotten a 140 ppmv CO2 increase since 1780, accompanied by a small fraction of that much temperature change.
So adding 7.8 Gt CO2 to the air raises CO2 level by 1 ppmv.
@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 4/7」Since we have good economic data for the production of coal, oil, natural gas and cement, we can calculate anthropogenic emissions to within less than ±10%. (It's about 11.11 PgC/year averaged over the 5-year period 2017 thru 2021, = 5.22 ppmv CO2/yr) sealevel.info/carbon/
@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 6/7」Those two pieces of information are sufficient for us to deduce that "Nature" (the net sum of all natural sources and sinks) is removing CO2 from the air, currently a little over half as fast as mankind is adding it.
@SchneidGabriel@cptndemocracy64@davidcharlesuk1@EcoSenseNow 7/7」Subtracting the 2 figures above yields 5.22 - 2.36 = 2.86 ppmv CO2 / year, REMOVED by natural processes.
Similarly, AR6 WG1 Table 5.1 estimates that from 2010-2019 Nature removed an avg of 5.9 PgC/year (= 2.77 ppmv CO2 / yr).
@HenrikHindby@JimFish56837379@EcoSenseNow@DGWilkinson 1/4」This might be the study: nber.org/papers/w29320
EXCERPT:
"We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively.
…CO2 was the dominant driver of yield growth…"
@HenrikHindby@JimFish56837379@EcoSenseNow@DGWilkinson 2/4」Fossil CO2 (from fossil fuels & cement) is certainly a major contributor to the huge improvement in crop yields. I'm not convinced that it accounts for a majority of the improvement, but might well have been the largest single contributor.
@Badumtish97 ⟦2/7⟧ It's because the benefits are real, and the harms are not.
Thousands of rigorous peer-reviewed studies have confirmed the benefits. (You'll find them mostly in the agronomy literature, not the heavily politicized "climate science" literature.) sealevel.info/negative_socia…
@Badumtish97 ⟦3/7⟧ All major crops have been studied. They ALL benefit from more CO2.
The benefits of CO2 for crops are long-settled science. That's why commercial greenhouses use CO2 generators to drastically raise daytime CO2 levels in greenhouses. co2science.org/data/plant_gro…
Given the constraints of limited fossil fuels, negative carbon feedbacks (which remove CO2 from the air), and logarithmically diminishing warming effect, we might eventually get as much as 1°C of additional warming from CO2. Probably less.
@MisinformNoMore@WeiZhangAtmos 2/ 1°C is the temperature change ("climate change") you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet.
@MisinformNoMore@WeiZhangAtmos 3/ At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of just 60 miles.
How different are the flora and fauna 60 miles from where you live?
1/12》Many climate activists just PRETEND to be worried about #ClimateChange. They LIKE being alarmed.
The proof is in their reactions. When a "worse than we thought" story hits the press, they're gleeful. But when you show them good news, they're angry. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
2/12》If the good news comes from a conservative source, they disparage it, regardless of the strength of the evidence. If it's from "their side," like this NASA article & video, they pretend it away. nasa.gov/feature/goddar…
Either way they're angry.
3/12》They LIKE believing their dark delusions, and they actively avoid learning anything that might offer hope. If you try to show them balanced information, or balanced debates between experts on both sides of the issue, they won't even look at it. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…