5/7. In the 2nd place, OHC guesstimates are extremely rough.
Since ≈2005 OHC estimates are informed by very sparse temperature measurements.
Before that there were no measurements from which OHC could be estimated globally to anywhere near the accuracy needed to estimate EEI from it.
1/15≫ Dr. Belch (why oh why isn't she a gastroenterologist?) seems not to recognize the significance of the story.
Climate activists predicted that if Earth's average temperature got to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial (late Little Ice Age) baseline it would be a disaster. But they did, and nothing bad happened.
The significance of that is that it means the climate activists were completely wrong.
2/15≫ In case you're wondering, the 4 known factors which caused 2023 to be so mild were:
1. A strong El Niño spike. And
2. IMO 2020 shipping regulations drastically reduced sulfate aerosol air pollution (The IMO says they resulted in "an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols," which equates to a sudden 10% decrease in total global SO2 emissions, which is a large improvement in a short time, with a significant warming effect). And
3. The unusual 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption, which humidified the stratosphere. And
4. Also a little bit of warming from the ongoing slow rise in atmospheric CO2 levels (though only about 25 ppmv/decade).
It's all good, though (unfortunately) #1 & #3 are temporary.
3/15≫
Q: And what was the result of all that warmth?
1/7. Contrary to Prof. Christopher Taylor's claim, global greening is not "maxed out." That outlier Baozhang Chen study he cited is even contradicted by the IPCC:
2/7. Here's a compilation of that thread (because Twitter/𝕏 keeps shadowbanning my tweetstorms):
@elonmusk, @lindayaX, @support, @premium PLEASE end 𝕏's SHADOWBANNING of replies — even replies to one's own tweets (tweetstorms). What good is a tweetstorm if you can't find the 2nd tweet while viewing the 1st?threadreaderapp.com/thread/1719382…
3/7. Xin Chen et al (2024) refutes that outlier Baozhang Chen et al (2022) study:
Chen, Xin et al (2024). The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000. Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 49, 2024, e02791, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02791.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1/10. When climate activists like Prof. Christopher Taylor have the power to block publication and deny tenure to young professors with differing opinions, it corrupts academia and distorts science.
2/10. Scientific consensuses exist about many things, but we don't talk much about them, because we don't disagree about them. If there's a hot debate about the existence of a consensus, it means there's no consensus.
3/10. One of the dishonest tactics used by the parasitic climate industry to promote their products is to pretend there's a scientific consensus that the "climate crisis" is real. That's a plain lie.
1/7. The "nutrition scare" is marketing FUD. Increasing CO2 does not decrease crops' nutritional value, except under contrived circumstances.
I had an impromptu online debate about the nutrition scare with its most prominent promoter, mathematician Irakli_Loladze, in comments on that Quora answer. If you're not a Quora member you can't read it there, so I saved it here:
If you skim it, do not overlook the important fact that since elevated CO2 is especially beneficial for legumes (beans, peas, etc.), which are grown for their high protein content, the rising CO2 level helps mitigate protein shortages in poor countries.
@cosmicfirepeace @a1337sti 2/7. Rising CO2 levels do not increase fires, either. That's climate industry propaganda. Here's what the data show: sealevel.info/learnmore.html…
@cosmicfirepeace @a1337sti 3/7. Rising CO2 levels do not increase droughts, either. That's also climate industry propaganda. Here's what the data show:
1/4. Joe P. wrote, "Averages are meaningless for determining heat"
You mean "confusing" (to you), not "meaningless."
Set your non-Panasonic microwave oven to half-power. It alternates between full power and zero power with a 50% duty cycle. That heats your coffee just as fast as a half-power microwave oven.
2/4. Joe P. wrote, "160w/m2 bb T is -40C, much too low"
You forgot to add roughly 342 W/m² of downwelling LW IR which originates from GHGs in the atmosphere: sealevel.info/NCA4_global_en…
3/4. Joe P. wrote, "It's derived after reducing TSI / 4 unnecessarily"
It accounts for the fact that the average irradiance over a sphere is 1/4th of the peak irradiance at the point where the surface of the sphere is perpendicular to the light source. It is not "unnecessary."
1/7. This PBS piece is extremely misleading. Elevated CO2 greatly improves crop yields, and it mitigates drought impacts, by improving plants' water use efficiency (WUE) and drought resilience. See:
I asked ChatGPT to explain the mechanism by which agronomists have found that elevated CO2 improves crops' WUE and drought resilience. It did a good job:
꧁꧂
In agronomy, the effects of elevated CO2 on plant water use efficiency and drought resilience are extensively studied. One of the key mechanisms through which elevated CO2 levels improve water use efficiency is by reducing stomatal conductance and, consequently, water loss through transpiration.
Stomata are small pores on the surface of plant leaves that regulate gas exchange, including the uptake of CO2 for photosynthesis and the release of water vapor through transpiration. When CO2 levels are elevated, plants can maintain the same or higher rate of photosynthesis while reducing stomatal conductance. This reduction in stomatal conductance leads to a decrease in water loss through transpiration without significantly affecting CO2 uptake, resulting in improved water use efficiency.
Several studies have quantified the effect of elevated CO2 on stomatal conductance and transpiration. For example, a meta-analysis published in 2013 (Kimball et al., 2013) found that under elevated CO2 levels, stomatal conductance decreased by an average of 22%, while transpiration decreased by only 17%. This indicates that plants under elevated CO2 levels were able to reduce water loss more efficiently than they reduced CO2 uptake, leading to an overall improvement in water use efficiency.
Improvements in water use efficiency due to elevated CO2 levels can increase plants' drought resilience by allowing them to maintain adequate hydration during periods of water scarcity. This can be particularly beneficial in arid and semi-arid regions where water availability is limited.
Overall, the literature suggests that elevated CO2 levels can improve water use efficiency in plants by reducing stomatal conductance and water loss through transpiration, which can enhance their resilience to drought conditions.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide…
2/7. Contrary to climate industry propaganda and misinformation from the leftists at PBS, the scientific evidence is compelling that CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels are beneficial. Here are some relevant papers: sealevel.info/negative_socia…
3/7. The beneficial effects of elevated CO2 are helping make famines rare for first time in human history. If you're too young to understand how important that is, count yourself blessed! Famine used to be a scourge comparable to war & disease.