@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.
@SchneidGabriel @cptndemocracy64 @davidcharlesuk1 @EcoSenseNow 3/7」I do not understand how anyone can think that adding something to the atmosphere does not increase then amount of it in the atmosphere. That's just silly.

1 ppmv CO2 = 7.8024 Gt CO2 = 2.12940 PgC

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 5/7」We also know the amount of CO2 in the air, and from that we can tell by how much the amount of CO2 in the air increases each year (an average of 5.03 PgC/year over the 5-year interval 2017-2022, = 2.36 ppmv CO2/year).
sealevel.info/co2.html
@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).

@threadreaderapp @rattibha @threaddotblue unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with ✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton

✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ncdave4life

May 26
@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.
@HenrikHindby @JimFish56837379 @EcoSenseNow @DGWilkinson 3/4」What's more, most nitrogen fertilizer is made using fossil fuel (mostly natural gas), via the Haber-Bosch process.

Nitrogen fertilizer made using fossil fuels, plus CO2 fertilization, probably account for a majority of the improvement in crop yields.
Read 5 tweets
May 25
@Badumtish97 ⟦1/7⟧ "In less than a lifetime," eh?

Have you ever wondered why all the harms from climate change are promised for the distant future, but the benefits are measurable, right now?


sealevel.info/Africans_go_ba… Image
@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… Image
Read 7 tweets
May 23
@MisinformNoMore @WeiZhangAtmos 1/ That's complete nonsense.

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?
Read 11 tweets
May 23
Read 15 tweets
May 22
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…
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(