2/11. Fact: Rising CO2 levels have substantially boosted global crop yields, and improved crops' drought resilience.
The Indian subcontinent used to be plagued by periodic catastrophic famines. Now, despite greatly increased population, they have food surpluses every year. Rising CO2 levels are a major reason why.sealevel.info/negative_socia…
3/11. Fact: rising CO2 levels are helping to make famines rare, for the first time in human history. Few places on earth have benefited more than the Indian subcontinent.
When I was a child, horrific famines were often in the news, in places like Africa and the Indian subcontinent. But Bangladesh and India now have food surpluses, every year. Rising CO2 level is one of the major reasons.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
5/11. Fact: even in the tropics, cold kills more people that heat does. Here's a paper:
Zhao et al (2021). Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study. The Lancet 5(7), E415-425, July 2021. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00081-4thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
6/11. The Climate Industry wants you to believe that top scientists like Arrhenius, Koonin, Happer, Dyson & Clauser, and the entire discipline of agronomy, are all part of a vast, secret, right-wing Conspiracy, ongoing for >100 years, to hide the harmful effects of CO2.
"Non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage."
-Freeman Dyson
@tobiaszowi @ProfMarkMaslin @COP28_UAE 7/11. All those unpaid volunteer scientists in the CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition must be part of The Conspiracy, too. Do you think they all just hate the Earth? co2coalition.org
@tobiaszowi @ProfMarkMaslin @COP28_UAE @CO2Coalition 8/11. Of course they don't. They just follow the evidence. The evidence shows that manmade climate change is modest & benign, CO2 emissions are beneficial, and the so-called "climate crisis" is a cynical marketing ploy by the parasitic Climate Industry.
@tobiaszowi @ProfMarkMaslin @COP28_UAE @CO2Coalition 9/11. Nobel Laurate Svante Arrhenius anticipated Nobel Laurate John Clauser by more than a century.
@tobiaszowi @ProfMarkMaslin @COP28_UAE @CO2Coalition 10/11. Climate activists must be terribly frustrated that the vast, right-wing conspiracy, which they imagine has been working for over a century to poison the Earth on behalf of Big Oil, even managed to infiltrate the Obama Administration.
11/11. Fact: if you think CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels are harmful, you've been deceived. To understand #ClimateChange (or any other politicized topic), you need balanced information.
1/6. I agree that that air pollution probably masked the warming effect of GHGs during the 1940s-1970s cooling period. But "measured warming" often uses baselines starting in 1979, because that's the start of satellite-based temperature measurements.
The correlation between temperatures and aerosol/particulate air pollution abatement is not perfect, but it is noticeable.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean…
2/6. The problem is that aerosol/particulate pollution abatement also dates from the 1970s. CO2's forcing has rising monotonically since ≈1945, yet temperatures only started rising (in fits & starts) with the advent of air pollution abatement in the West.
The 1979 baseline temperature, against which warming is compared, was artificially depressed due to aerosol/particulate air pollution. That means subsequent warming due to GHGs is exaggerated.agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
3/6. By the 1990s, the West had made great strides cleaning up aerosol/particulate air pollution, but it was worsening in rapidly industrializing Asia — and (once the super El Nino subsided) we had "The Pause" in global warming.
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:
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.
@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?
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. 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:
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:
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…