Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
@ncdave4life
Oct 12 • 10 tweets • 4 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1/10. You obviously didn't read any of the studies I showed you. None of your claims are true.

Humans have killed off many species, but not even one  has been driven to extinction by manmade climate change. (Not even the Bramble Cay mosaic-tailed rat.)
theatlantic.com/science/archiv…
@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 2/10. Please peruse the resources I showed you:
3/10. The climate industry propagandists who told you that "we're in a mass extinction" demonstrably lied to you. Do you even care?

That Madras photo on the right, taken when CO2 levels averaged <300 ppmv, is the "net zero" goal. Is that what you want?

If you want to learn about the science of climatology, instead of industry propaganda and political spin, here are some resources which can help you:

Image
@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 4/10. The only reason elevated CO2 is more dramatically beneficial in greenhouses than it is outdoors is that higher levels that are possible in greenhouses. If you care at all about the scientific facts, please read some of these papers:
sealevel.info/negative_socia…
Image
@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 5/10. Outdoor CO2 levels have only risen ≈140 ppmv (280→420 ppmv since 1780).

In greenhouses we usually raise daytime CO2 to 1200 or 1500 ppmv. That's a (1200-280)/(420-280) = >6½ larger increase, so of course the benefits are greater in greenhouses.sealevel.info/co2.html
6/10. In greenhouses, factors like moisture can be carefully controlled. Outdoors, not so much. Yet studies show that elevated CO2 is even MORE  beneficial when other factors are suboptimal. The benefits are especially dramatic in drought conditions.

@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 7/10. Even though mankind has raised average CO2 levels only about 140 ppmv, that increase is "greening" the Earth.

Did you watch this NASA video about it, which I showed you?
sealevel.info/greening_earth…
@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 8/10. Thanks in part to more CO2, catastrophic, drought-triggered famines no longer happen. If you're too young to remember them, count yourself blessed.

But the climate industry is working to erase the benefits of elevated CO2. That should trouble you.
@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 9/10. To grok the magnitude of the benefits of CO2, consider:
● Covid-19 has killed about 0.1% of world population
● The 1918 flu killed ≈2%
● WWII killed ≈2.7%
● The global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed an estimated 3.7% of world population

@RealCryoraptor @twit4thot @RARohde @BerkeleyEarth 10/10. To understand a contentious topic like #ClimateChange, you need balanced information. It's obvious that you haven't been getting it, but I'm here to help:


@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unrollsealevel.info/learnmore.html

• • •

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

✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 12
1/7. That's a funny!

I guess you're unfamiliar with the term "climate optimum." Here's a literature search:


Here's a 1974 CIA study about the threat of global cooling:


This graph from that study shows how cooling temperatures threaten food supplies:
scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt…
sealevel.info/CIA1974Climate…

Image
@RealCryoraptor @BerkeleyEarth @hausfath @RARohde @JudithSissener @eamuller --

2/7. The modest benefits of milder temperatures are in addition to the very large direct benefits of rising CO2 levels from "CO2 fertilization," and because elevated CO2 improves water use efficiency and drought resilience in plants.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@RealCryoraptor @BerkeleyEarth @hausfath @RARohde @JudithSissener @eamuller 3/7. Those beneficial effects are helping to make catastrophic famines a distant memory, for the first time in history.

.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
Read 7 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 7
@theresphysics 1/3. So, Ken, which of the facts that I mentioned in my comment on this blog post was so discomforting that it provoked you to delete the entire comment?


This was my comment: sealevel.info/attp_2023-10-0…
Image
2/3. [Part 1 of 2]

It is refreshing to see you mention reductions in anthropogenic aerosol emissions, because most left/alarmist sources just panic,

hyperventilate,

and say we're burning up.

In fact, it is clear that aerosol / particulate air pollution abatement is responsible for some of the recent warming. Here's a paper about it:


Quaas et al (2022), Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 22, 12221–12239. doi:10.5194/acp-2022-295

The significance is obvious: If a higher percentage of observed warming is due to aerosol / particulate air pollution abatement, that means a lower percentage of observed warming is due to GHGs. This is more evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 is generally overestimated.


Here's a article about the paper:


This is Figure 1 from the paper, showing regional trends from 2000 to 2019:


Note the 2019 end date...pedestrian.tv/news/climate-c…
nbcnews.com/science/scienc…


Image
3/3. [Part 2 of 2]

...Note the 2019 end date. Subsequently, the new IMO 2020 international shipping regulations have drastically reduced aerosol emissions from ships.

The widely hyped recent spike in air and ocean temperatures is a predictable consequence.

The new regulations resulted in "an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols," and (because ships are a major contributor), a 10% decrease in total global sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Those are very large air pollution reductions for such a short time interval. If you want to learn more about the effects of the new regulations, you can search for articles with titles like these:

● Global reduction in ship-tracks from sulfur regulations for shipping fuel

● NASA Study Finds Evidence That Fuel Regulation Reduced Air Pollution from Shipping

● Low-sulfur shipping rules are affecting global warming

It's not a problem, it's good news, because it is evidence that the pollution controls are working. It has nothing to do with carbon emissions, and it doesn't mean people need to scrap their SUVs or freeze in the dark to "save the planet."

I do hate it when people use misleading graphs to support their agendas. Now that we finally have another El Niño, plus warming from the aerosol pollution abatement, SkS can, at long last, update this one:

imo.org/en/MediaCentre…

Image
Read 4 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 2
1/10. Dan, my point is that blaming the NYC rainstorm on manmade climate change is wrong.

Mankind had, indeed, caused significant environmental damage — but not via "global warming" or CO2 emissions. Global warming is benign and CO2 is beneficial.


In fact, by diverting resources which could have been used to address real environmental problems, the parasitic climate industry has significantly worsened pollution problems and environmental destruction.sealevel.info/negative_socia…
2/10. You asked whether I "understand how warm the planet is getting."

I do understand how warm the Earth is getting, but I don't think you do. However, you can learn about it here:
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
3/10. You also asked whether I understand "how much sea level rises" (and "how much ice has melted," which is only of concern w/r/t its effect on sea-level).

I do understand how much sea level rises, but I don't think you do. However, you can learn about it here:
Read 11 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Sep 27
1/26》Cornel West @CornelWest, abundant, affordable energy from fossil fuels has been lifting people out of poverty for >200 years, but the Climate Industry is reversing that progress. Do you care how many people suffer to promote the climate scam?
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
2/26》There's no consensus among scientists that manmade climate change is dangerous, nor even that it is harmful at all. The best SCIENTIFIC evidence is that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful.

3/26》Do you care how many people die due to energy poverty, to make climate scammers rich?

This story is from the UK, but it's also happening here. Replacing clean, reliable, affordable fossil fuels with hideously expensive wind & solar KILLS poor people
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
Read 27 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Sep 2
The claim that wind and solar energy are less expensive than electricity from dispatchable sources like fossil fuels is false. It's a product of either economic illiteracy or deliberate deception by the renewable energy marketers, because it confuses price with total cost.

You've probably heard the old saying that there's nothing more expensive than a free puppy, except a free boat. Wind and solar energy are like that: it's not their price which makes them costly.

The reason average wind and solar electricity prices are low is they tend to produce power when it is not needed. Power produced when it isn't needed fetches low prices.

But it's the converse which is the big problem with wind and solar: they very often do not produce power when it is needed.

That unreliability causes enormous spikes in electricity prices.

During those price spikes most of the electricity being produced is generated by fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Wind and solar apologists pretend that means electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear plants is expensive. But the real reason for the high prices is replacement of reliable fossil fuel and nuclear plants with unreliable wind and solar.

Exorbitant electricity prices are an inevitable cost of reliance on wind and solar for electricity.

Fossil fuel and nuclear powered electricity generation is said to be "dispatchable," because their electricity production can be ramped up ("dispatched") to meet demand. Wind & solar output cannot be ramped up to meet demand, so increased reliance on wind and solar means increasingly unreliable electricity production. When demand increases and/or the wind dies, reliance on wind and solar causes enormous spikes in the price of electricity — or, in extreme cases, even brownouts and blackouts.

The inevitable consequences of increasing reliance on wind and solar "renewables" are rising electricity prices and worsening grid reliability — and absolutely no environmental benefit.

That's right: the punch line is that it's all for naught. The rationale for the immensely destructive transition to wind and solar is to "fight climate change." But that's a fool's errand, because the "climate crisis" is a marketing ploy. It's not real, it's just "FUD."

The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial, rather than harmful.

Does that surprise you? If so, it means you're not getting balanced information. But I'm here to help:



That webpage has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● info about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides
@Stephen57908892 Stephen Maloney @Stephen57908892, did you read the article? Did you see WHY Duke Energy is raising our rates?

"closing the final chapters on our reliance on coal-fired generation"

"$3.5 billion investment in clean energy and grid resiliency"

"to achieve our carbon goals"
@Stephen57908892 2/3. Lazard's figures for new nuclear plants are almost entirely speculative. (They're based on only one data point, Vogtle Unit 3!)
eia.gov/todayinenergy/…
Read 5 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Aug 28
@Kenneth72712993 @ScienceBlog3 @RichardLWeiss @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @ammocrypta @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics Tweetstorm compilation:


@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unrolltwitter-thread.com/t/169620519818…
@Veritatem2021 @ScienceBlog3 @Kenneth72712993 @InspirallPE @ammocrypta @Mark_A_Lunn @RichardLWeiss @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @BenKoby1911 @Data79504085 @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Michael_D_Crow @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @C_R_O_M________ @emilio97493490 @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @Anvndarnamn5 @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics V, you've made that accusation against her before:


And I've corrected you before:


Did you forget that?
@Kenneth72712993 @ScienceBlog3 @RichardLWeiss @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @ammocrypta @Data79504085 @BenKoby1911 @emilio97493490 @InspirallPE @Mark_A_Lunn @ChrisBBacon3 @SpiruSensei @DenisDaly @WernerReinhard5 @controscience @Willard1951 @Fynnderella1 @SapientHetero @Veritatem2021 @C_R_O_M________ @balls95652097 @S_D_Mannix @Devonian1342 @AndreGrossza @Climatehope2 @S_Metzeler @priscian @3GHtweets @PvtMcAuslan @EdwardRiffle @AuroriaEn @JusticeTrudeau @judgementalbe1 @AristotleMrs @Coleski14 @wallytoms0 @LesserMegadeath @BillPrecht @DiseaseMatters @CoralReefFish @DavidJSuggett @CoralResearch @SteinhartBart @CoralMorph @ConnTrinity @reefgenomics 2/3. A rapidly increased evaporation rate would mean rapidly accelerated latent heat loss, which doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is that the skin layer doesn't heat up above the temperature of the water below, due to mixing.
Read 41 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!

Send Email!

:(