1/13》I remember when @SciAm was a highly respected scientific periodical, rather than a political tabloid that reprinted disinformation like this, from other publications, written by nonscientists.
@sciam 2/13》Back when @SciAm was trustworthy, you could read it to learn about what real scientific research was discovering about a wide variety of topics, including CO2. Here's an excellent Scientific American report — from a century ago: sealevel.info/ScientificAmer…
3/13》The best evidence shows manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 emissions & global warming have caused neither extinctions nor any other significant harm. In fact, they're saving thousands of human lives each year.
Articles:
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)00081-4
4/13》Have you noticed how little fur you have? Humans are a tropical species, and most of the Earth is much too cold.
Studies show that even in tropical countries cold kills far more people than heat does.
5/13》One of the reasons that global warming is saving lives is that it isn't very "global." It's disproportionately at chilly high latitudes, where it makes frigid winters slightly less harsh.
The tropics are affected less, which is nice, because they're warm enough already.
6/13》Rising CO2 levels greatly improve global food security, by increasing crop yields, through "CO2 fertilization," and thanks to crops' improved water use efficiency and drought resilience. That's helping make famines rare for the first time in history. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
7/13》Throughout human history, until the latter 20th century, famine was a Damoclean sword hanging over mankind: the "Third Horseman of the Apocalypse." If you're too young to remember catastrophic drought-triggered famines, count yourself blessed. sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
8/13》To put it in perspective:
● Covid-19 killed 0.1% of world population.
● 1918 flu killed about 2%.
● WWII killed 2.7%.
● The near-global drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the world population. journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/…
9/13》Natural ecosystems benefit from CO2 emissions, too. In fact, CO2 emissions are greening the Earth.
13/13》To understand #ClimateChange (or any other politicized or contentious topic), you need balanced information. Sadly, you won't get it at Scientific American, anymore. But I'm here to help:
Are you sure about that, Joe? Then riddle me this:
A. What does "heat capacity" mean?
B. What does "heat content" mean? (E.g., "ocean heat content" [OHC].)
Those are "open book" questions. Feel free to use a dictionary, or search google scholar, etc. In fact, I'll help you get started:
Heat capacity:
●
●
Ocean heat content (OHC):
●
●
Heat content (other than OHC):
●
●
2/4.
Re: lapse rate, and what the air absorbs
Joe wrote, "The atmosphere has different T’s based on what it absorbs from above or below."
That's correct, in part. †
But Joe also wrote, "lapse rate is not enhanced by CO2."
Here's the thing: CO2 in the air affects "what [the atmosphere] absorbs from above and below."
This is Earth's emission spectrum (measured from orbit, over the tropical Pacific). The big notch which I've annotated in green is due to CO2 in the air absorbing radiation from below (and also emitting radiation from air at colder temperatures):
(† However, asking what causes the zip-zag lapse rate shape was kind of a trick question, because there are several causes, and thermodynamic expansion/ compression of air is another, and condensation/ evaporation of moisture is a third.)
3/4.
CO2 (and other GHGs) are colorants. They tint the atmosphere (though in the far infrared, rather than visible part of the spectrum). That causes the air to absorb radiation that otherwise would have passed through. Absorbing radiation warms the air.
It doesn't take much "colorant" to have a substantial effect on absorption of radiation.
1/3》 No reefs are dying due to climate change. Climate Industry agitprop CLAIMS coral reefs WILL die due to climate change. But they stubbornly refuse to comply.
A web search finds lots of Climate Industry propagandists frantically "spinning" that news: google.com/search?q=recor…
2/3》 There are coral reefs which have been damaged by storms, starfish, water pollutants, dragging anchors, dredging, silt, etc. But not climate change.
With an El Niño coming on, the Pacific will probably "slosh east," lowering water levels at the GBR. So there'll probably be more frequent bleaching events there, pretty soon. But that's normal.
3/3》 In other words, as you can see for yourself, the sources you've been trusting on the topic of climate change lied to you.
But the takeaway point is less about climate than about epistemology. This is the important lesson:
1/10. That Grauniad article is disinformation. I'll see you their "11,000 scientists" and raise you over 30,000 scientists who know better.
The best scientific evidence shows that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful. Over 30,000 American scientists signed a petition attesting to those facts. I'm one of them.quora.com/Did-30-000-sci…
2/10. Climate change does not threaten coral reefs. In fact, most coral thrive best in the warmest water. Even the very warm southern Red Sea is dotted with healthy coral reefs (unlike the cooler Mediterranean).
If you look at a map of coral reef locations, you'll see that they're clustered around the equator.
3/10. Some coral inhabit temperate zones, but most prefer tropics. In fact, where there are seasons, corals grow fastest in summer.
At 7:20 in this BBC video you can hear how wonderfully healthy the coral are in warmest part of the very warm southern Red Sea, off Eritrea.
1/5. If you learn about agronomy from climate-activist journalists, instead of agronomists, you're sure to be misled. Author Eleanor McCrary @ellie_mccrary apparently started from a 2018 disinformation piece by freelance journalist Annie Sneed @aisneed.
The Sneed article is entitled "Ask the Experts…" and the McCrary article is entitled "…Experts Say." Yet both of those journalists are so clueless about their topic that neither of them even knew who the "experts" were to ask! For their articles about agronomy, neither author spoke to a single agronomist!!
3/5. Agronomists have conducted THOUSANDS of rigorous studies, measuring the benefits of elevated CO2 (eCO2) for crops. All major crops benefit from eCO2, most of them dramatically.
It's long-settled science. In fact, the benefits of eCO2 for crops have been known to science for >100 yrs.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
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…