Robert Fagan

If the preferred global mean temperature for the Earth is considered to be 15 degrees centigrade , why has this temperature only very rarely been achieved in the last one billion years (see red dots in chart below), and only then when when entering or emerging from ice ages.

The best definition of what is a "women", is anyone who was not born a "man".

@HetabK @PeterDClack CO2 is being continually depleated because CO2 is more soluble in the ocean as bicarbonate than stable in the atmosphere as CO2. The early atmosphere was over 90% CO2 in the Early Archaean & will eventually be becompletely converted to limestones (50% CO2 by weight).

@PeterDClack Agree with UN hoax. But. 1. tell me who generated that much carbon before ? 2. Even after population explosion + industrial waste. Why co2 levels are low?

Carbon dioxide doesn't set weather patterns or control climate. This is the UN's crooked money grabbing climate scam. CO2 won't cause 'global boiling' either. It's the foundation for life, photosynthesis, food production & oxygen renewal. We should worry about net zero & the UN!

@goaliecoach @Robert_Cr59 What about the dramatic climate change twice a day?

@Dog4Running @PrezLives2022 Quite right. Something so complicated involving so many compliant people would almost inevitably come adrift & be discovered. The result would be serious reputational damage & jail time. Who would risk this?

Ok, let’s play this conspiracy theory out. That would mean Trump had inside help from the Secret Service and therefore from Cheatle. Cheatle is a close friend of Jill Biden. There’s your first Red Flag. But let’s go on. It would also mean Trump was willing to have live rounds fired near and around his head just to stage a kind of psyop. There goes the ‘Trump is coward’ bit since that would take serious balls. If not a death wish. Finally, the whole charade would stand a good chance of being blown up by a whistleblower. Trump would be sent to prison. Except this time, it would be for a *legitimate* reason.

FBI finds around 700 social media posts that seem to be from Trumps shooter. It appears they were anti Semitic and anti immigration. They also espoused political violence. If this is true then why would a far right extremist want to assassinate Trump. I maintain that Trump was never the target and as evidenced by Souza’s photograph he was never hit by a bullet, but rather smacked his ear on the podium or got hit by some tiny piece of shrapnel. I’m still convinced Crooks was a patsy used to create an assassination appearance and make Trump a victim once again. To give him some type of Tupac mystique to get more votes. Just another transactional day at a rally. rawstory.com/thomas-matthew…

@jemmm85517813 @ChrisMartzWX The stable form of carbon is CO2 or cabonates in oxidising conditions, elemental carbon in neutral conditions, methane in reducing conditions, & organic forms of carbon in living organisms. Depending on the local environment carbon will convert to the appropriate stable form.

@ChrisMartzWX But as a scientist it is important to keep an open mind. I havn't decided either way but fact that oil arises far deeper in earth than fossils have been found & floats so rises to the surface is interesting. Pressure could technically cause the necessary reactions to occur.

When people say “fossil fuels,” no one is saying it is “dinosaur juice.” This sort of non-sequitur I see from individuals promoting the abiotic oil nonsense is no different than climate alarmist debate tactics. Coal and oil come from ancient, decaying organic matter from swamps, such as plants and algae. Natural gas can in fact form abiotically — but doesn’t have to since it has been found on Saturn’s moon, Titan. But, they have not found coal or oil there. So, until they do, coal and oil are indeed “fossil fuels.” No serious scientist has ever said that they come from dinosaurs. Junk science from the right is just as bad as junk science from the left. And, I’m not going to entertain any of it.

@Ceist8 @TWTThisIsNow @catandman The two CO2 charts depicted below are virtually the same for the same time interval depicted. If Nasif Nahle is a crank with zero expertise then he is doing a remarkable job.

@TWTThisIsNow @catandman That fake graph from non-scientist Nasif Nahle's crank blog is debunked here: x.com/Ceist8/status/…

Why CO2 levels below 1,000ppm are bad, now at 420, up from 180 in last glacial phase. If they go below 150ppm, photosynthesis stops and we all die. Primates evolved at c.1,000 ppm but sequestration of CO2 in rocks nearly CCS'd us extinct. We need more CO2. dr-robert-fagan.com/shorter-posts/

@cookin_bakin @goddek Much higher CO2 levels in the geological past accommodated the evolution of all life (animal & vegetable).

@fagandr1 @goddek You are the ignorant one thanks anyway. Higher CO2 means death to mammals, what let the plants rule?!?!?

This 2009 experiment clearly demonstrates that the more CO2, the better plants grow. The "carbon neutral" agenda is a scam, just like Covid. Celebrate CO2 – it's the essential gas of life!

@cookin_bakin What would make you think that?

@fagandr1 so the question is do you hate trees?

Here are my preliminary findings of how trees actually work (that no one seems to know)? In summer, at night cool trees (maple, oak) condensate when the sun comes out and perspires for dew while breaking down CO2 to release fresh H and O. Boreal forest do this in winter for us.

@cookin_bakin @goddek Then you are destined to remainignorant. No loss.

@fagandr1 @goddek Get lost with your graphs they mean nothing to me

@cookin_bakin @goddek 1000 ppm CO2 was normal & optimum for plants until the inevitable drain of CO2 into the ocean dropped below 1000 ppm. The industrial revolution put more back into the atmosphere. Ultimately it will all disappear into the ocean as HCO3- then as limestone CaCO3 (44% CO2 by weight).

@goddek Except when the plants and trees grow too fast their cells become compromised and they die from not being able to hold their weight as was in normal growing conditions before adding extra CO2. That is why there are so many new recalls for listeriosis and salmonella.

@RepRickShepherd @goddek 1. The main nutrient that plants provide is carbon. 2. The ocean pH is 8.1 which is alkaline. Acid is when pH drops below 7. There is no carbonic acid in the ocean as if there was the pH would be under 7. 3. Rain at pH of 5, acidifies the ocean more than CO2. Ban rainfall.

@goddek Two overlooked details: 1. Increased CO2 makes plants grow faster. True. It also makes the resulting plant lower in nutrients because of the accelerated growth rate. 2. CO2 dissolves into the oceans becoming Carbonic Acid which is harmful to some marine life.

@fishinoz @wideawake_media The rate of temp change is reflected in the slope of the lines. These tend to look remarkably similar. There is no dramatic change in the speed.

@wideawake_media Yes.. all well documented, Milankovic cycles and all that, pretty basic Oceanography 101 but it's the SPEED of the change that is unprecedented.

"As soon as someone tells you it's warming, the reply you give is: Since when?" Australian geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer: "We have been cooling down for the last 4000 years. It's all about when you start the measurements." "If you take measurements from the Medieval Warming... we've cooled about five degrees since then. If you take measurements from the Roman Warming, we've cooled about five degrees."

@Vecktooor @wideawake_media The rate of the temp change on these charts is reflected in the slope of the lines. The warming & cooling rates look remarkably similar.

@wideawake_media Am i reading this graph correctly? The last data point was 95 years before 1950? So…1855?

@humanbeingawk For most of Earth atmospheric CO2 has been much higher than today & life on Earth thrived & will do so again.

@MooYar345 @sjyellehS @humanbeingawk Soil carbon is also eventually oxidised back to CO2 & returned to the atmosphere because the stable form of carbon at the Earth's surface is CO2, carbonate ions or living life.

@sjyellehS @humanbeingawk Depends on the soil. Soil is the most crucial part.

@sjyellehS @humanbeingawk Trees do absorb & store atmospheric CO2 as they grow. However when they die that CO2 is largely returned to the atmosphere as the decaying organic carbon is oxidised back to CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 storage is only temporary.

@humanbeingawk Does planting more vegetation help to release CO2?

@DaddyWri @ChrisMartzWX This chart of sea level rise shows there has been very little warming resulting in significant polar ice melting in the last 6,000 yr. Assuming 6 m in last 6,000 yr equals 1 mm/yr. In the last 2,000 yrs this seems to have slowed even further & stabilised.

The last ice age ended about 12,800 years ago. There was a brief period of resurgence about 11,000 years ago called the "Younger Dryas". 125,000 years ago, Chris, marks the last interglacial. So what these people are really saying, in code, is "yes, the last interglacial was substantially warmer than this one." These are people who really think ice ages are great for the planet.

If Earth is hotter now than it has been at any point in the last 125,000-years, as “experts” suggest, then do climate alarmists care to explain how ancient boreal forests, <10,000-years old, are emerging from beneath receding glacial ice? How did those trees get there? bioone.org/journals/tree-…

@ChrisMartzWX Global sealevel rise over the last 16,000 yr some 120 m. But only a few metres over the last 6,000 yr.

Sea levels have been rising for more than 20,000-years, during most of which time it was occurring at a faster rate than what it is at present. Current SLR rates are on the order of 2-3 mm / year, less than the thickness of two pennies stacked atop each other.

@Alexum1000 @ChrisMartzWX Sydney Harbour used to be a river valley extending out to the edge of the continental shelf (an extension of the Paramatta River). Sea level has risen over 100 metres on the last 10, 000 years, but only a few metres in the last 6,000 years.

@ChrisMartzWX And the effect on the Sydney harbor has been devastating due the ice melting, oh nevermind no change in the last 100 years!

Hi again Mike. 👋 The Greenland ice sheet is estimated to contain 2.9 million gigatons (Gt) of ice, or 2.9 million billion tons. 🧊 If the ice sheet is losing 30 million tons of ice per hour, that works out to 720 million tons of ice per day and 262.8 billion tons of ice per year. 🫠 That sounds pretty scary until you do the math and find that it would take a little over 11,035 years for the entire ice sheet to melt at current melt rates. But, we will likely be well on our way into the next glacial maxima by then, so the ice sheet isn’t going anywhere. Has global warming melted your vanilla ice cream any? 🍦

@ssrok @ChrisMartzWX There is no perfect temperature for Earth. The longer term average temperature is some 5 degrees C warmer than now & last achieved some 30 million yr ago. See dashed red line. Waming by 2-3 degrees should take us to ideal conditions prior to the onset of the present glaciation.

@ChrisMartzWX Also, maybe you know. What is the perfect temperature for the earth?

Hi Mike. The Antarctic ice sheet contains ~26.5 million km³ of ice, which works out to ~24.3 million gigatons (Gt) of ice, using the conversion factor that the mass of 1.0 Gt of ice = 1.091 km³ of ice. Now, given that 1.0 Gt of ice = 1.0 billion tons and the ice sheet contains 24.3 million billion tons of ice. So, if the ice sheet is losing ~150 billion tons of ice per year, then it would take roughly 162 THOUSAND years for the entire ice sheet to melt. In other words, I'm not concerned about the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, and you shouldn't be worried either. 🧊