Captain Climate Action

@PeterDClack All the heat in the oceans originally came from the sun. Despite their huge mass & the incredible energy Earth receives from the sun, those oceans would be frozen if that heat just came & left. 700 million yrs ago, CO2 fell & Snowball Earth froze. Oceans too! CO2 also melted it!

The Earth's great ocean currents have carried warm waters up from the tropics to Northern Europe for hundreds of millions of years. They are the eternal thermal engines that drive climate variability around the world. The oceans are key to the world's variable climate. They contain 91-93% of all retained heat energy, which drives the major tropical currents to the world's northern hemisphere. This prevents most of Europe freezing in a climate similar to Greenland. It makes little sense to attribute global climate to a trace gas CO2, which is 420 ppm, or 0.042% of the atmosphere. Water vapour is at least 100 times more influential for heat retention, particularly in tropical areas where it provides up to 75% of regional warming capacity. The major currents are large-scale, continuous movements of seawater driven by wind, tides, and density differences (thermohaline circulation). These are organised into five major subtropical gyres. A round trip for thermohaline circulation takes 1,000 years for a single parcel of water. While the atmosphere changes by the day, the oceans provide the thermal memory of the planet. The two key currents are the Gulf Stream (Atlantic) and the Kuroshio (Pacific) and they transport heat poleward, influencing the global climate. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current moves the largest volume of water.

@2r_eirik @PeterDClack Clack's "hard facts" don't include 'snowball Earth' when the whole planet froze to near the equator a few times 600 & 700 million years ago. But oceans! There's strong evidence it defrosted because of a huge burst of CO2. Lots of hard facts are missing. opengeology.org/historicalgeol…

@PeterDClack Nothing but hard facts!

@bren_geo @PeterDClack Water vapour follows temperature. Each 1C means atmosphere can hold 7% more moisture. Heavier rain. It is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but it condenses into rain so doesn't accumulate. It has doubled warming from CO2 alone. Reducing CO2 reduces it so we can influence it

@PeterDClack Water vapour has always been a factor. & one outside of our control. It’s why climate change is focused on human impact, as we can control that. & the unprecedented rate of temperature acceleration since the industrial revolution tells its own story.

@NickiDotdk @PeterDClack So you have never read an actual UN climate report, then. They left out what?🤷 ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1…

@PeterDClack They also completely ignore the earths progression, the suns activity, biology and physics none of which support their narrative 🤦🏼‍♂️

The UN recently declared the world out of balance, yet it is the UN itself that is losing its equilibrium. For two terms, the current leadership has pivoted from peacekeeping to a global ideological mission, attempting to use climate as a lever to bypass national sovereignty and democratic capitalism. But the architecture is crumbling for several fundamental reasons. The UN’s 'code red' theme reeks of a shallow atmospheric narrative. It has treated a 1.4°C rise since the industrial dawn (175 plus years, after a 600 year little ice age) as a terminal crisis, while ignoring the thermal vault of oceans that average 3,700 metres in depth. It ignores that 10% of the world's land area is covered by glacial ice. We evolved and now live in an ice age, 10 degrees cooler than the Earth's long term mean temperature. The deep Pacific is only now responding to the Little Ice Age from centuries ago. To claim we can control the climate with a carbon ledger is like trying to steer a supertanker with a toothpick. The oceans run the game, and their cycles are measured in millennia not election cycles.

@JackLee16921415 @_ClimateCraze 🙄 Yes, we agree cloud cover is changing. This new research shows that most of the reason is due to us, not natural change. LW "bouncing back" has increased because CERES is seeing a decrease leaving to space. It warms the ground & atmosphere. carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how…

@CaptainAdvance1 @_ClimateCraze MODIS shows cloud cover has reduced, that bouncing back and forth has decreased. Unless of course that warming is all at the surface and very little in the atmosphere but that would not be a ghg effect, would it?

After most of my climate talks, someone will ask, "What about the 97% consensus?" Then I just show them examples of the many failed forecasts from the leadership of that fabricated consensus -- like this one.

@RotaryBloke @LLBiggers Not sure what happened there. Here's the govt program. dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewab…

@CaptainAdvance1 @LLBiggers Gotta love that Google link. It comes with an assessment that the target site is spammy & unsafe. Nothing gained.

Spain’s nationwide blackout was caused by wind and solar losing capacity too fast for the back up generation to turn on. If you think these technologies are the future you’re living in a fantasy world.

@Closing_on_100 @wideawake_media The Egyptian military is emptying both Saharan aquifers that used to feed the oases & Egyptian government coffers to grow export cash crops on sandy soil with no nutrients. Yes, you can do it. At what cost? For how long? theguardian.com/global-develop…

@CaptainAdvance1 @wideawake_media Egypt thru irrigation turned the desert into a garden. Russia could do the same thing. They own land in 10 time zones. Wow....

A new study shows that the average size of trees in the Amazon has been growing by 3.2% each decade, a phenomenon directly linked to rising CO₂ levels. "CO₂ isn't killing the forest—it's feeding it." "The planet overall is greener. More CO₂, more growth, more life." Credit: @Electroversenet

@JackLee16921415 @_ClimateCraze 🤦You are interpreting the data wrong. Less LW LEAVING means more is staying, proving GHG warming.

@CaptainAdvance1 @_ClimateCraze Less cloud cover means more SW energy is absorbed. In addition, CERES observed less LW energy. LW decreasing means GHG is not the dominant factor in the recent 20 years warming.

@Batmanwinskedo1 @LiuFeng_Dao Ukraine sunk several Russian capital warships with small drone motorboats. Iran doesn't need a traditional navy. Would you park an aircraft carrier within artillery and missile range? How much prestige do you want to lose? How'd the UK navy go in the Dardanelles in WW1?

@LiuFeng_Dao the 'toll', if made permanent is a toll on China, and the ASEAN countries, not the US. And the bleeding obvious, the US Navy now controls the entrances to the Strait and the Red Sea, it destroyed the Iranian Navy, it can either stop all shipping, or even impose its own 'toll'.

THE LAST 24 HOURS OF THE IRAN WAR CHANGED EVERYTHING. HERE IS THE TIMELINE. This is not what you're being told. 24 hours ago, Hegseth stood in the White House Cabinet room. He said: "Never in history has a country been defeated as Iran has. We wiped it off the face of the earth." THAT SAME DAY: Iran launched its 80th wave of missile strikes against Israel and US bases. Iran's IRGC announced ALL American military bases in the Middle East have been "ELIMINATED" and they are hunting the remaining US troops. Iran released video claiming they shot down a US F-18 fighter jet near Chabahar. CENTCOM denied both claims. But released no footage. Iran announced the Strait of Hormuz will never be the same. 20+ ships have ALREADY paid the "Tehran Toll Booth" for safe passage. Iran's parliament is drafting a LAW to make the Hormuz toll system permanent. Iran then threatened to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait — the entrance to the Red Sea. That's 12% of all global seaborne oil. On top of the 20% that already flows through the Hormuz they now control. Here's what nobody is telling you: The US spent months bombing Iran. Iran responded by becoming the landlord of the world's most important shipping lanes. That's not a defeat. That's a business model. Bookmark this. Come back in 5 days.

@ryankatzrosene I agree that RCP 8.5 (accelerated emissions) is unlikely but it is unlikely because of Paris Agreement pledges, including to reach Net Zero. We're currently on a RCP 4.5 to 6 path with 2C over-shoot. Ironic that those who say 8.5 is unrealistic advocate abandoning those pledges🤷

Wrong

@derrrrppoi73207 @ryankatzrosene I agree that RCP 8.5 (accelerated emissions) is unlikely but it is unlikely because of Paris Agreement pledges, including to reach Net Zero. We're currently on a RCP 4.5 to 6 path with 2C over-shoot. Ironic that those who say 8.5 is unrealistic advocate abandoning those pledges🤷

@ryankatzrosene Using 8.5 is… just silly. Doing shit like this is why people have doubts to begin with. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that past Measurements don’t have the temporal resolution to even show rapid rises

@aaronshem @JunkScience @Opinion8edGay @capitalweather CO2 fertilisation is real but only just offsets the harms from warming now. As we warm, the scale will reverse. Plants absorb less nutrients but grow faster. Amazon trees are getting taller & growing faster but are dying younger. If you only get half the story, it isn't science.

@JunkScience @Opinion8edGay @capitalweather What we miss is that CO2 also makes plants more resilient, so not only does better weather allow earlier blooms, plants can take more risk of blooming earlier and are less affected by occasional extremes (which become rarer). mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/stat…

Situational global warming: Three weeks ago, WaPo @capitalweather predicted the "latest" cherry blossom peak in years, because winter was "so cold." But March turned out to be 5°F warmer than average, so today's headline is "peak bloom earlier than normal again."🙄 None of this was predicted by Capital Weather or anyone else. In WashDC, it's been running colder than average since last August or so. But March was warmer – so global warming? Just climate hoax. washingtonpost.com/weather/2026/0…

@Object_Zero_ You left out that China has plateaued emissions & is now cutting them! Yes, they should cut deeper & faster but there is no con. Despite still building more coal stations they don't need, they run them less overall.

Global Power Stations This is the distribution of power stations across the world. Lots of people praise China for their green credentials as they make a lot of solar panels and wind turbines. Well those systems are all made by burning coal. We recycle plastic by exporting it to South Asia where they burn it and toss it in the sea. The more plastic you recycle, the more plastic ends up in the sea (and your testicles). We reduce our emissions by shutting down our highly regulated industries and moving our industrial production to the filthiest energy system on the planet, China. We buy "green energy" solutions that are made in the filthiest manner, that have an extremely high carbon footprint. We might as well burn the coal here and cut out the middle man, it would be cleaner overall. Much of the energy strategy that the West is following is well intentioned, but it is utterly self-defeating. The energy industry is a complex system, the fact that it became politicised is a tragedy. It's like voters having strong opinions on what database schema is best, or how organic molecules interact with each other, and making technically challenging design decisions for tech companies or pharmaceutical firms. You are certain to end up with deeply sub-optimal systems, with huge unintended second order consequences, which is exactly what we have created. Western democracies are operating like Lord of the Flies. ... And we are just being exploited. Local emissions are irrelevant, all that matters is global emissions, the planet only has one atmosphere. Moving production away from the gas rich West to the coal rich East is an environmental catastrophe. This was a mistake. We should recognise it as such. People who claim to care about the environment should be the most Sino-hawkish people around, but they are not. They actually drive more industry to China, drive more activity down to the filthiest part of the energy spectrum. It's well intentioned but entirely self-defeating. The entire bi-partisan framework on energy is fundamentally wrong. Objectively, factually wrong. Wrong is a big way. Whatever your position on climate or economics, wherever you are on the political spectrum it should be very easy to agree that we need to move industry West. We need to do it for both economic reasons and we need to do it for environmental reasons. China needs to clean itself up or get out of the WTO. The whole world is now tumbling into an oil crunch. This is going to really accelerate people switching to EVs. The last Iranian crisis in the 70s really shifted car design permanently, this one will too. It's going to really shift infrastructure strategy and the long term thinking around energy security. In the West we have the technology and the tools, but we don't have the collective agreement about what needs to be done, we should start by trying to recognise the true shape of the problem. This is all before we consider that AI and automation are going to weigh heavily on demand, we need a long term strategic direction that offers systemic volume and stability.

@kernchemiker @rahmstorf Ja!

@rahmstorf Danke an dieser Stelle für ihr ungebrochenes Engagement in diesen Zeiten der Wissenschaftsverweigerung. Das ist so wichtig, bitte halten Sie durch!

Re climate change, many here repeat all the old climate myths… Warming caused by urban heat island effect. Global confused with Greenland temperatures. Or tell me (paleoclimate expert) that climate always changed. Hey, we know it all, you find all here: skepticalscience.com

@andytheviking @kpicord @rahmstorf Don't encourage him, Andy. Is being provocative for clicks.

@kpicord @rahmstorf Ah and you’ve worked that out how exactly ?

@kpicord @rahmstorf Potent but short-lived. Water vapour is naturally present from evaporation. Direct human emissions are low. How much the atmosphere holds is determined by temperature (+7%per 1C) so it is a feedback. A thirsty atmosphere sucks it out of soil too.

@rahmstorf The problem is that radiative forcing calculations counts all water vapor as a following agent when human generated water vapor and water vapor from plant transpiration are more of a forcing agent. It’s a major screwup by the so called experts. So embarrassing for them!

@rahmstorf This article is also handy for calling out #ClimateDenial

@RogerPielkeJr Yawn. #ClimateDenial shifted to trying to undermine the solutions because it couldn't seriously challenge the science. Even Exxon Mobil scientists knew in the 1980s. Here's the dirty tactics used (not just by Rogan): yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/11/five-w…

"Renewables" are not Renewable The fossil fuel foundation of wind, solar, and batteries open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielk…

@comical_engr Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change which already costs us heavily. Global investment in new energy nearly all renewables. New coal would be a stranded asset, an expensive folly. To keep energy affordable, we need to build RE with storage faster than retirement

Australia we are one of the most resource-rich nations on Earth yet one of the most vulnerable. We are the world’s largest exporter of coal, yet we are shutting down coal-fired power stations that once provided reliable, affordable baseload energy. We are a top-3 exporter of natural gas, yet we struggle with domestic supply, can’t refine enough of our own fuel, and government revenue from local beer tax rivals that of gas exports. We are #1 in iron ore exports, yet we largely ship it offshore, only to buy back finished metals at a premium. We are a leading uranium exporter, yet we don’t use nuclear power to support our own energy security. We are among the top producers of rare earth minerals, yet we lack the manufacturing capability to turn them into high-value products. The pattern is clear that we export raw materials and import value. Over time, we’ve lost key industries such as automotive, white goods, textiles, oil refining, shipbuilding, electronics. At the same time, rising energy costs, complex taxes, and policy uncertainty have made it harder to invest and build locally. Once, Australia had one of the highest living standards in the world. Today, we still enjoy a great quality of life — but the gap between what we could be and what we’ve become is hard to ignore. We produce enough food to feed over 70 millions people globally, yet many of our farmers are under financial pressure and the sector remains under invested in. We generate enormous resource wealth, yet our supply chains remain vulnerable and dependent on others. This is no longer about nostalgia, it’s about direction. If we want long-term prosperity, resilience, and sovereignty, we need to rebuild our ability to make, refine, and add value here at home. That means thinking differently about energy, industry, and investment. Australia currently sits at or near the highest interest rates in the developed world, despite having a smaller, less diversified economy and heavy reliance on housing and consumption compared to peers like the US or Europe. Economically, this creates a mismatch, higher rates disproportionately hit households, small businesses, and investment, while doing little to address structural drivers of inflation such as energy costs, supply constraints, and government spending. Poor policy is suppressing domestic demand and productive capacity in an economy that already struggles to build, manufacture, and scale making it harder, not easier, to strengthen long-term growth and resilience. Australia has all the ingredients. The question is whether we have the vision, the political leadership and the business savvy to use them.

@zerohedge Completely untrue but #ClimateDenial works by making false claims so often they start to get accepted. Replying also boosts how often the algorithm shows it. So I will share a great article on how posts like this try to trick readers. Please read & share💚 yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/11/five-w…

Net Zero Activists Stumped By Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 & Temperature Over Last Three Million Years zerohedge.com/weather/net-ze…