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 28 • 26 tweets • 12 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1/25. The leading organization promoting the Climate Industry's "climate emergency" PR campaign is the IPCC. It has severe credibility issues. Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise explains some of them in this lecture about the IPCC's 2007 AR4 Report:


(It's 31 minutes but she speaks very clearly, so she's perfectly understandable at 2x speed.)


(Caveat: I've been an IPCC Expert Reviewer on a couple of their assessment reports.)
2/25. It's only gotten worse since then. The IPCC's 2022 AR6 Report explicitly promotes what I call "homeopathic climatology" (TCRE/RCB), which represents an overt rejection of science.
3/25. The TCRE ("Transient Climate Response to cumulative CO2 Emissions") and RCB ("Remaining Carbon Budget") concepts are homeopathy applied to climatology: the belief that the mere memory of a substance is all that's necessary for it to have its effect.

4/25. It's as if they think The Ghost of CO2 Past haunts the atmosphere, continuing to warm the Earth long after the CO2 has been removed from the air and sequestered in other carbon reservoirs.

(Art by Dave Rheaume @DaveRheaume)fineartamerica.com/featured/the-g…

Image
5/25. Of course, only GHGs still in the air actually have a warming effect. So a scientist who valued real science more than the IPCC's political agenda would denounce that TCRE & RCB pseudoscience. But I know of no climate alarmists who've done so.

sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
6/25. The evidence is compelling that CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful. Here are some relevant papers about it:

sealevel.info/negative_socia…
sealevel.info/negative_socia…
@DaveRheaume 7/25. You can learn much more about CO2 and it's effects, from a very fine scientific organization called The CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition. I'm honored to be a Member. This is their website:


co2coalition.org

Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 8/25. The supposed major harms from CO2 emissions are all merely hypothetical, and mostly implausible. None of them are actually happening.

For instance, the coral of the Great Barrier Reef are doing fine:

thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-rec…
thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-rec…
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 9/25. "Extreme weather" is not getting worse. Hurricanes, tornadoes, nor'easters &droughts, are not worsening. In fact, tornadoes & droughts have become much less destructive.


Here're the facts on hurricanes, from an expert:

rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/2023-update-…
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 10/25. Droughts have showed a slight decreasing trend, but they're substantially less destructive now, because elevated CO2 levels make plants more water-efficient and drought-resilient.

Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 11/25. Strong tornadoes have decreased markedly (though nobody is sure why).

sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
12/25

🎜 🎝 Do you see what I see? ♪ ♬

♩ A line, a line, running through the years
A linear rise of the sea ♪

🟢 🔴 🟢 🔴 🟢 🔴🟢 🔴 🟢 🔴 🟢 🔴

The tide gauge at Harlingen has a continuous sea-level measurement record all the way back to 1865. If it looks worrisome to you, counseling might help.
13/25. I also have many resources about CO2 and climate change here:


This resource list has:
● accurate intro 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 sidessealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 14/25. Since the Little Ice Age, the Earth is generally estimated to have warmed by a grand total of 1.0 to 1.3°C, on average. (Nobody really knows.) NCA4 and the WMO estimate 1.02 to 1.27 °C.
public.wmo.int/en/media/press…
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 15/25. That's a little less than the hysteresis (a/k/a "dead band" or "dead zone") in a typical home thermostat, which is the amount that your indoor  temperatures go up and down, all day long, without you even noticing it.

sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 16/25. 1°C is the temperature change you get from an elevation change of about 500 feet (calculated from an average tropospheric lapse rate of 6.5°C/km).
sealevel.info/VerticalStruct…
Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 17/25. At mid-latitudes, 1°C is about the temperature change you get from a latitude change of around 60 miles.
sealevel.info/2015_zones_hig…
Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 18/25. In the American Midwest, farmers can fully compensate for a 1°C temperature change by adjusting planting dates by about six days. Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 19/25. Do you recognize how crazy it is for the climate industry to pretend that such a tiny temperature change is an "emergency?"
20/25. Actually, that's not what they pretend. They pretend less than half of that is a dire threat!

What they call "1.5°C warming" is actually just 0.35°C warmer than present. That's because their baseline is an estimate of late Little Ice Age "pre-industrial" average temperature.
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 21/25. They obviously do that to reduce the sniggering which would result if they called a prospective temperature change of 0.35°C an "emergency."
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 22/25. There's a broad consensus among historians and scientists that the Little Ice Age climate was worse  than our current, warmer climate. Nevertheless, that neo-boreal (cold) climate is what the "net zero" campaigners are trying to return us to.
sealevel.info/CIA1974Climate…
Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 23/25. Many climate activists seem to be meeting some sort of irrational emotional need to find something to be alarmed about.
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition 24/25. But it's clear that most of the people who write the checks for the "climate emergency" propaganda campaign don't really care about the global temperature. They're just selling products. Example:

theguardian.com/environment/20…
theguardian.com/environment/20…
25/25. That's why they aren't worried about China's & India's massive coal power plant buildout. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.



Image
@DaveRheaume @CO2Coalition Compilation:


@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unroll
@reSeeIt save threadtwitter-thread.com/t/171833501347…

• • •

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 30
1/4. We've been over this, Willard.



According to NOAA's AGGI chart, over the last 1/3 century CH4 has accounted for just 8.6% of the radiative forcing increase from anthropogenic GHGs. Not 18% or 25%.

That's about 1/10ᵗʰ of the contribution which we get from the ongoing rise in CO2. If that tiny contribution to modest and benign warming worries you, perhaps counseling would help.
2/4. Here's the CH4 graph:



Despite the modest uptick in CH4 level over the last 15 years, the rate of rise in CH4's radiative forcing is still much slower than it was 50-60 years ago.

In the 1960s and 1970s the CH4 level rose relatively fast, and consequently CH4 was a larger contributor to radiative forcing increase.sealevel.info/CH4.html
sealevel.info/CH4_2012-2022_…

Image
3/4. The relatively sharp rise in CH4 level in the 1960s & 1970s was insufficient to reverse the worrisome 1950s-70s cooling trend.

Here's a clip from CBS TV, in which Walter Cronkite, The Most Trusted Man in America™, reporting:


Hubert Lamb (source for that CBS story) was the founding director of the UEA Climate Research Unit.

Here's a 1974 CIA report, based on the best current science, about the worrisome cooling trend:


Here's an excerpt, from the Summary:

"The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change… during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century… The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal climate of agricultural-optimum is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal era. The climate change began in 1960…"

The grim climate to which we were thought to be returning was the Little Ice Age. "Boreal" means cold:

boreal. adj. Relating to or characteristic of the climatic zone south of the Arctic, especially the cold temperate region dominated by taiga and forests of birch, poplar, and conifers…
‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍
The global cooling scare was one of the main reasons for the shiny new anti-air-pollution laws governing power plants, in the 1970s. The other main reason was "acid rain." (Note: Unlike "acidified" oceans, which are actually alkaline, acid rain really is acidic.)
Read 5 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 26
1/17》Climate change is not making hurricanes more destructive.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…

Image
2/17》Nor is it making tornadoes more destructive.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
3/17》Nor is it making wildfires worse.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
Read 18 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 25
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 1.1/13》
@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…
Read 15 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 25
1/4.
Re: the two definitions of "heat"

Joe wrote, "a body does not contain heat"

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.


Read 5 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 23
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:
Image
Read 4 tweets
✝️ 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 Dave Burton Profile picture
Oct 23
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…

Image
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.

Image
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.
Read 11 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!

:(