Dave Burton@ncdave4life
Dave BurtonMay 26, 2024
19 tweets
1/19› This is the source of those graphs:
climatlas.com/tropical/
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:
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
2/19› Storms are NOT increasing. I JUST explained that; have you already forgotten?
x.com/ncdave4life/st
Learn more about it here:
andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/12/22/glo
Dave Burton@ncdave4life
Dave BurtonMay 24 24
View on Twitter
〔1/7〕Storms:
Do you understand graphs?
twitter.com/ncdave4life/st
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."
- Ronald Reagan
3/19› Neither hurricanes and nor'easters have worsened, and strong tornadoes have declined in frequency:
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
sealevel.info/EF3_to_EF5_tor
4/19› The decline in hurricane & tropical cyclone destructiveness is less striking than the decline in tornadoes. It might be merely due to random variation, but here's a paper about it:
nature.com/articles/ncomm
Lin & Chan (2015), Recent decrease in typhoon destructive potential and global warming implications. Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms8182.
5/19› Contrary to what climate activists would have you believe, a warming climate is generally net-beneficial. That's why scientists call the periods of warmest climate, including periods warmer than our current climate, "climate optimums."
archive.ph/E03QZ
6/19› "Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.."
Source:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/
Reference:
Gasparrini et al, (2015), Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, Vol 386, no. 9991, pp.369-375. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0
thelancet.com/journals/lance
7/19› Contrary to what you apparently believe, Alimonti et al (2022) was an excellent paper, and its politically-motivated retraction is a scandal. You can learn about it here:
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-alimonti
8/19› and here:
wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/25/the
and here:
wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/03/med
9/19› Alimonti & Mariani also have a newer paper out, which is also excellent:
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108
Alimonti, G., & Mariani, L. (2024). Is the number of global natural disasters increasing? Environmental Hazards, 23(2), 186–202. doi:10.1080/17477891.2023.2239807.
10/19› I noticed only 2 weaknesses in the earlier (retracted) Alimonti et al (2022) paper:
Ⅰ. When discussing droughts they didn't mention that elevated CO2 mitigates drought impacts.
twitter.com/ncdave4life/st
Dave Burton@ncdave4life
Dave BurtonMar 23 24
View on Twitter
AG wrote, "CO2… won't help crops [with] not enough water"
That's wrong.
twitter.com/ncdave4life/st
I've been explaining this to climate alarmists for years, but it doesn't seem to sink in. So I asked ChatGPT 3.5 to try. It said:
“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.”
That's exactly correct.
Do you understand that "improved water use efficiency" means crops need less water?
"Advances in [agricultural] practices and technology" have helped, but rising CO2 levels are also a major factor improving crop yields, and reducing drought impacts.
sealevel.info/OurWorldInData
That's a Very Big Deal. Consider:
● Covid-19 killed ≈0.1% of world population
● The 1918 flu killed ≈2%
● WWII killed ≈2.7%
● The near-global drought & famine of 1876-78 (when CO2 levels averaged ≈290 ppmv) is believed to have killed about 3.7% of world population
The higher CO2 level is one of the major reasons those catastrophic drought-triggered famines don't happen anymore, even though we have about 6× as many mouths to feed, now, compared to 1876-78.
When I was a child, horrific famines were often in the news, in places like Bangladesh. But Bangladesh and India now have food surpluses, every year. The rising CO2 level is one of the reasons for that.
ourworldindata.org/famines
"The precious air fertilizer" (which is what Scientific American called additional CO2 in 1920) benefits nearly all crops, under nearly all circumstances.
For example, here's a paper about how elevated CO2 helps pine forests withstand bark beetles:
academic.oup.com/treephys/artic
If you think rising CO2 levels are bad for crops, instead of very good for them, you've been lied to. To understand a commercialized & politicized topic like #ClimateChange, you need balanced, accurate information. I'm here to help:
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
That resource list has:
● accurate introductory climatology information
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● information about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides
11/19›
Ⅱ. They uncritically mentioned "the widely cited 'hockey-stick' trend for temperatures" without mentioning that it has been debunked.
Refs:
Wegman E, Scott D & Said Y. (2006). Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Reconstruction. sealevel.info/WegmanReport.p
McShane B and Wyner A. (2011). A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? Ann. Appl. Stat. 5(1) 5-44. doi.org/10.1214/10-AOA
12/19› Contrary to the complaints of the four critics of Alimonti et al (2022), who bullied Springer into retracting it, it's indisputable that extreme weather events have not significantly worsened as CO2 levels have risen.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
In fact, one very important category of extreme weather events, severe tornadoes, has substantially improved (declined).
13/19› The four critics of Alimonti et al (2022) who successfully bullied Springer into retracting it are all activists, not impartial scientists. All four of them make their livings in the "Climate Biz," and have careers which are dependent on climate alarmism. When the fake "climate crisis" collapses, all 4 will need to find new jobs.
14/19› Rahmstorf is particularly notorious for deeply flawed "studies" promoting the climate scare. Here's an excerpt from one of the published critiques of his work:
science.org/doi/abs/10.112
"…this statistical analysis (Rahmstorf, 2007) is based on an application of statistics… violating basic assumptions of the statistical methods used."
Schmith et al (2007), Comment on "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise." Science, 317(5846), p.1866. doi:10.1126/science.1143286
15/19› Ouch! That's gotta smart!
See also:
tinyurl.com/rahmstuff
16/19› CO2 emissions have only a slight warming effect, but they're nevertheless extremely beneficial for agriculture.
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
CO2 benefits crops in 2 important ways: CO2 fertilization (which increases crop yields in all conditions), and improved water use efficiency and drought resilience.
17/19› It's conservativly estimated that 15-20% of current crop yields are a direct result of the beneficial effects of elevated CO2. If we didn't have those improvements in crop yields we might be able to make up the deficit by using ALL of Earth's rainforests for agriculture. Maybe.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/agricu
ourworldindata.org/land-use
18/19› Climate change is a highly politicized topic, so (as is the case for any politicized topic) if you want to understand it you need to read balanced information. I have a list of resources which can help:
sealevel.info/learnmore.html
It has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● information about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the issue
Anymouse @zzr.bsky.social@Anymous84861064
May 26 24
View on Twitter
Retracted article.
They got it all wrong. Storms are increasing. Their intensity is increasing.
19/19› I'll conclude with the wisdom of the late Prof. Freeman Dyson:
"…non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial… possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and… the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage."
When he wrote these words he was, by general consensus, America's most distinguished living scientist. He was the man who took over Einstein's position, when Einstein died.
Prof. Dyson knew that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful.
Dave Burton
Dave Burton@ncdave4life
My preferred pronoun is "harmless data drudge." https://t.co/YTkK6vaHGs Tel: +1 919-481-0098.
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .