1/7. Christopher wrote, "Energy balances, not heat, not a flux."

Flux just means flow or movement. "Energy flux" is synonymous with "movement of energy."

Inbound solar radiation is a flux. So is outbound LW IR.

Definitions:
1.
2. ahdictionary.com/word/search.ht…
scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Flux.h… @CDCollins5269 @Willard1951 @jpgcrowley @AdrianC47C @ShroedingerBird @ChrisBBacon3 @Mark_A_Lunn @Rosie45703313 @PvtMcAuslan @EthonRaptor @Anvndarnamn5 @DaleGribble_666 @priscian @Then__And__Now @tim_dunkerton @AristotleMrs @FD2you @BradPKeyes @KCTaz @0Sundance @TheDisproof @BointonGiles @Climatehope2 @Jaisans @S_D_Mannix @TWTThisIsNow @paulp1232 @MartinJBern @Data79504085 @ammocrypta @B_Bolshevik100 @Robert76907841 @EricWil06256732 @ProfMickWilson @FillmoreWhite @TommyLambertOKC @JohnDublin10 @NoTricksZone 2/7. If you call incoming fluxes positive and outgoing fluxes negative, then an "energy imbalance" simply means incoming plus outgoing fluxes do not sum to zero.

Persistent energy imbalance causes temperature change. That gives us clues to estimate EEI.
sealevel.info/radiative_imba…

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.

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:

(Note: accelerated terrestrial carbon uptake = greening.)

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1719382451095535760

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…

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.

sealevel.info/ammocrypta_180…

https://x.com/ammocrypta/status/1808686484867760224

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.

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.

https://x.com/ncdave4life/status/1800278501674652017

sealevel.info/Is_Irakli_Lola… @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…

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…

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…

1️⃣/4️⃣. That graph shows an estimate of a total of about 500 ZJ added to the the upper 2 km of the oceans since 1955.

Aside: Actually, the first 50 years of the graph are nothing but guesses.

OHC is estimated by models, informed by temperature measurements, made by Argo floats. The first Argo float was deployed in 2000. They didn't reach 3000 units (i.e., one float per 120,000 km²) until 2007.

So the part of their graph prior to about 2005 is 100% codswallop. The kindest thing you can say about it is that it's a plausible guess, consistent with (but you can't say based upon!) convenience samples of sea surface temperatures. It is not data, in any sense.

But never mind that, because that graph also has another problem... 2️⃣/4️⃣. Does it seem odd to you that, even though all the measurements are of temperature, rather than heat content, THEY NEVER REPORT TEMPERATURES?

You should calculate what 500 ZJ means in terms normal people can grok: average water temperature change. If you do that simple exercise, it will be obvious why they do not report it.

1/7. Paul, is my very sunny site. If you find errors on it I'll be sincerely grateful if you tell me. (See "About" for contact info.)

But the graph I used is from NOAA.

My caption says, "Illustration omitted from Slangen et al (2016)…"

Is that unclear?
Sealevel.info
sealevel.info/1612340_Honolu… @_PrinceOfMilk @JoeTegerdine @NASAClimate 2/7. I gave you the link to the source for NOAA's graph:

Did you overlook it?

I added the red, green & brown annotation, and bottommost caption, based on Slangen's reported conclusions. tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltre…

@NASAClimate 1/11. When someone talks about a sea-level measurement record starting in 1993 it means they're using low quality satellite altimetry data, and they're ignoring the much higher quality coastal measurements. It's political propaganda, not unbiased science.
sealevel.info/satellite_alti… 2/11. If you use the (much higher quality) coastal measurement data, it becomes clear that there's nothing to worry about.


That's Honolulu, which has the best quality, well-sited, sea-level measurement record in the world. The "straightness" of the blue sea-level trend means that rising CO2 levels haven't had much effect on sea-level.sealevel.info/learnmore.html…

1/9. @NASAClimate is not one of the divisions & departments of NASA that do science. It's the "JPL Earth Science Communications Team" in Pasadena, which is comprised of "communicators," not scientists.

NASAClimate is a frequent source of misinformation and outright political propaganda.sealevel.info/learnmore.html @NASAClimate 2/9. Many other parts of NASA still employ real scientists, who do excellent work.

Here's a NASA video about some of that work.

CO2 emissions are very beneficial for natural ecosystems, and NASA satellites measure the resulting "greening" of the Earth.

@Anymous84861064 @Veritatem2021 @joe51du @JohnWil12363553 @HalBeowa @TheDisproof @SpudNielsen @rln_nelson @GillesnFio @Anvndarnamn5 @MartinDn1001 @3GHtweets @MarcEHJones @tonyjsargeant @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Rabs1958 @DenisDaly @AristotleMrs @S_D_Mannix @Camburnclimate @ozzorro1 @bomac_macbo @BenKoby1911 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @PeterGleick @DeSmog 2/7. I've also already explained to you why the natural sinks which remove CO2 from the air will continue to accelerate as long as CO2 levels continue to rise.

https://x.com/ncdave4life/status/1719382106432733349

3/7. Natural CO2 removal mechanisms, which already remove at least (5.4 Gt CO2 / 2.1294 Gt/ppmv) = 2.5 ppmv/year, accelerate by an additional 1 ppmv/year for every 40-50 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.


That's a very powerful "negative feedback" which limits the rise in CO2 concentration, and ensures that the temperature increase will remain modest and benign.

Refs:

https://x.com/ncdave4life/status/1795586137974579416

ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…
sealevel.info/carbon/carbonf…
sealevel.info/feedbacks.html…

@Mark_A_Lunn @SpudNielsen @joe51du @HalBeowa @JohnWil12363553 @TheDisproof @rln_nelson @Veritatem2021 @GillesnFio @Anvndarnamn5 @MartinDn1001 @3GHtweets @MarcEHJones @Anymous84861064 @tonyjsargeant @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Rabs1958 @DenisDaly @AristotleMrs @S_D_Mannix @Camburnclimate @ozzorro1 @bomac_macbo @BenKoby1911 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 1/4. Science is not fundamentally either Left or Right. But, periodically, the Left goes to war against science.

In the mid-20th century Trofim Lysenko was the communist point man in the Left's war against science.
theatlantic.com/science/archiv… @Mark_A_Lunn @SpudNielsen @joe51du @HalBeowa @JohnWil12363553 @TheDisproof @rln_nelson @Veritatem2021 @GillesnFio @Anvndarnamn5 @MartinDn1001 @3GHtweets @MarcEHJones @Anymous84861064 @tonyjsargeant @Willard1951 @ammocrypta @Rabs1958 @DenisDaly @AristotleMrs @S_D_Mannix @Camburnclimate @ozzorro1 @bomac_macbo @BenKoby1911 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL 2/4. Today the Left is once again openly at war against science.
sealevel.info/intersectional…

1/19› This is the source of those graphs:

They are perfectly accurate.

You seem to have confused the source of the graphs with a paper that cited them. I don't know how you did that, since the source is shown right on each of the graphs.

You can learn more about the topic here:
climatlas.com/tropical/
sealevel.info/learnmore.html… 2/19› Storms are NOT increasing. I JUST explained that; have you already forgotten?


Learn more about it here:

https://x.com/ncdave4life/status/1794086210400322040

andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/12/22/glo…

1/10. Mouse wrote, "Increased CO2 does not increase the yield of maize or corn."

Wrong:


Even though I've seen it over and over, it still seems strange to me that climate activists just make things up  like that. Surely you must realize that the benefits of elevated CO2 for corn/maize have been measured, right? So why do you do that??

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1707074962337444017

@Anymous84861064 @joe51du @Willard1951 @Rabs1958 @HalBeowa @SpudNielsen @TheDisproof @rln_nelson @Veritatem2021 @GillesnFio @Anvndarnamn5 @MartinDn1001 @3GHtweets @MarcEHJones @tonyjsargeant @ammocrypta @JohnWil12363553 @DenisDaly @AristotleMrs @S_D_Mannix @Camburnclimate @ozzorro1 @bomac_macbo @BenKoby1911 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL @PeterGleick 2/10. The "nutrition scare" is also a red herring. I discussed it at length in this thread:


en.rattibha.com/thread/1674312…

https://x.com/ncdave4life/status/1674312716545040384

〔1/7〕Storms:

Do you understand graphs?


"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."
- Ronald Reagan

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1507701656250732548

@Anymous84861064 @Willard1951 @Rabs1958 @HalBeowa @SpudNielsen @joe51du @TheDisproof @rln_nelson @Veritatem2021 @GillesnFio @Anvndarnamn5 @MartinDn1001 @3GHtweets @MarcEHJones @tonyjsargeant @ammocrypta @JohnWil12363553 @DenisDaly @AristotleMrs @S_D_Mannix @Camburnclimate @ozzorro1 @bomac_macbo @BenKoby1911 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @MaggieL @PeterGleick 〔2/7〕Floods:

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1507701872488062979

1/9❯ The Grauniad's Ian Sample called Nobel Laurate Svante Arrhenius "The father of climate change."

Arrhenius said CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels would be highly beneficial.

The evidence confirms that.

But Joe thinks anyone who says it is a "science denying idiot."
sealevel.info/learnmore.html… 2/9❯ Somebody is VERY confused. (And it wasn't Arrhenius!)

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1781777636022186471

1/7❯ Rising CO2 levels are greening India, 3 ways:

1. By helping trees grow through CO2 fertilization.

2. By making plants more water efficient & drought resilient.

3. By improving crop yields, thus reducing the amount of land needed for agriculture.

The top 2 photos are from India.sealevel.info/learnmore.html… @ciais_philippe 2/7❯ The benefits of rising CO2 levels for agriculture are spectacular. CO2 is not the only reason for improving crop yields, but it is one of the major reasons:

sealevel.info/ourworldindata…
ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

1/7》 50 years ago the "climate change" which worried the scientific community was global COOLING, not warming.

I remember it clearly. I was there, you weren't.

One of the symptoms of the rot you speak of is the fact that they lie about things like that.

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1432810945017962505

@AkademiskC 2/7》Here's the Most Trusted Man in America™ (Walter Cronkite) reporting on the threat of Global Cooling, 9/11/1972:


Prof. Hubert Lamb (the source who Cronkite cited) was founding director of the UEA Climate Research Unit.

1/7》Myles Allen, "Net Zero" promoter.🙄

Net Zero is based on fallacies:

Ⅰ. The fallacy that CO2 & a slightly milder climate are harmful.

Actually, the best evidence compellingly shows CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful.


sealevel.info/learnmore.html
co2coalition.org
co2coalition.org 2/7》
Ⅱ. The fallacy that CO2 levels will continue to rise as long as human CO2 emissions continue, even if emissions continue at a reduced rate.

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1708322182177124411

@Rabs1958 @AlchemistNinja2 @MarcEHJones @Veritatem2021 @3GHtweets @LottRan @Anymous84861064 @GillesnFio @S_D_Mannix @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @Devonian1342 @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @Willard1951 @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 1/17. That's false.

https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1591843053287112704

2/17. That DeSmogBlog article about Will Happer is a brazen, despicable smear.

DeSmogBlog claimed that "Peabody Energy paid [Happer] $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition."

That's a LIE. Prof. Happer was not paid, because he asked that his entire fee be donated to charity.