Al White

5.2K posts

Al White banner
Al White

Al White

@bootcanyon

Amature cook with a black belt in pie making. Intolerably liberal climate heretic. Pronoun: Generalíssimo. Mature discussions only please. Thank you.

San Antonio, TX Katılım Şubat 2012
888 Takip Edilen393 Takipçiler
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
If your argument is that the current warming is unprecedented, the data is against you. I can show you data that refutes that argument. Here is one example. The peak of the Eemian, a period very analogous to the present, routinely experienced temperature changes of 1-2° C per century. Here’s a graph of Dome C with the temperature data points ~32 years apart. This also shows that temperature led CO2 into the peak, then declined sharply while CO2 remained elevated. Closer to the present there was a rise of ~1.4C in just 6 years from 1816-1822. This link is a paper from Richard Alley on abrupt temperature changes. The graphic is mine. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
Al White tweet media
English
1
0
0
22
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥@TheGlobalWarmer·
@bootcanyon At some point you have to stop pretending this needs a spreadsheet. This is common sense: events that obliterate records across half a continent don’t come from a ‘normal’ climate.
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥 tweet media
English
3
0
2
98
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥@TheGlobalWarmer·
This is staggering. Monthly temperature records aren’t just falling — they’re being obliterated across huge swaths of the U.S. Dots everywhere = stations tying or breaking records. 
The cluster in pink = MONTHLY records going down en masse. This isn’t normal variability. This is a signal.
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥 tweet media
English
8
48
163
15.6K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
This is the peak of the Eemian. The T datapoints are ~32 years apart. Changes of 1-2° per century are common. Also note that temperature peaks, then CO2 peaks, then temperature drops precipitously while CO2 remains elevated. The science behind why this occurs in this order is well understood and it is part of a mountain of evidence demonstrating that CO2 has no meaningful affect on temperature but temperature (the sun) is the principal controller of CO2.
Al White tweet media
English
2
0
0
24
AadCense.bsky.social
The limitations of proxies to determine the (speed of) warming are visible in confidence intervals, but this cheater prefers to seed doubt for reasons only he knows. Question is do you want to be fooled and pay the vast amount of money needed for adaptation (if possible) later?
AadCense.bsky.social tweet mediaAadCense.bsky.social tweet mediaAadCense.bsky.social tweet media
Peter Clack@PeterDClack

A common climate myth is that modern CO₂ is rising faster than anything in 800,000 years. The truth is, no one can ever know. And this is where the science rubber really hits the road. There's no way to measure the speed of previous warming episodes. This means no one can say modern warming is 'unprecedented'. The truth comes from science, the laws of physics and ice core studies for more than a century. Before snow turns into solid ice, it exists in what is known as the 'firn'. This refers to the porous, packed layer of snow that eventually settles into glacial ice. But this doesn't happen overnight. These ice bubbles are not sealed from the surrounding air. So the air moves freely through this layer for decades or even centuries before the weight of new snow finally crushes the pores shut. This gas-age/ice-age difference is why a single slice of ice contains air that is significantly younger than the ice surrounding it. Because the air can circulate during those 50 to 200 years (depending on the site’s snowfall rate), a single bubble doesn't represent a year. It can represent a rolling average of a century. If a massive CO₂ spike occurred 10,000 years ago but only lasted 40 years, the ice core would smooth it out. The spike would be averaged into the surrounding centuries of lower data, making it appear as a tiny, invisible bump. Comparing a 20-year satellite trend to a 200-year ice core average is like comparing a high-definition photograph to a smudge of charcoal.

English
5
2
7
489
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene@ryankatzrosene·
The global population 'pyramid' is expected to become a population 'dome' by the end of this century.
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene tweet media
English
5
1
21
1.1K
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥@TheGlobalWarmer·
Climate deniers keep posting ice-age graphs as if they weaken the case for CO2. They do the opposite. If tiny orbital changes can help flip the planet when amplified by feedbacks, that’s evidence of a high-gain climate system — not a low-sensitivity one. CO2 is part of the amplifier stack.
The Global Warmer🔥🌏 🔥 tweet media
English
86
39
186
8.1K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
Just east of Bishop, CA
Al White tweet media
English
0
0
1
118
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@ryankatzrosene @ByfsBrenda You’re saying that if you put a pot of water on the stove, set the heat to a point below boiling, say 150F, and leave it, it will reach that temperature, then continue to increase due to an as yet unknown property of the pan/water dynamic quantum feedback loop?
English
0
0
0
40
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene@ryankatzrosene·
Perhaps it's helpful for people to know that even if the Absorbed Solar Radiation anomaly was 'stable' (say, flat at 1.6 W/m2) it is likely that Earth would still continue to warm for some time, because it implies a temporary imbalance between the amount of energy arriving at Top of Atmosphere and the amount being rejected back to Space. Earth responds by warming up... it tries to shed this added energy back to space to reach equilibrium, but it takes a long time (decades or more) due to thermal inertia. So a consistently increasing Absorbed Solar Radiation - especially at the rate we are seeing - is indeed concerning.
Leon Simons 🌍@LeonSimons8

Anyone denying accelerated global warming should start by explaining how +2 W/m² of increased Absorbed Solar Radiation (from decreased Earth reflectivity) doesn't lead to much faster warming. I just had to extend my y-axis again, with a new month of NASA CERES satellite data:

English
9
12
67
2.6K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@ProfBillMcGuire Complete rubbish. This is the peak of the Eemian. Temperature peaks, then CO2 peaks, then temperature plunges and CO2 stays the same.
Al White tweet mediaAl White tweet media
English
0
1
1
191
Bill McGuire
Bill McGuire@ProfBillMcGuire·
Undoubtedly very scary But we mustn't forget that this is just the beginning Even if we stopped emissions today, the global average temperature would still be elevated for thousands of years theguardian.com/us-news/2026/m…
English
39
258
663
17.1K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@2r_eirik @Gilles_Borghese Even ice cores show that 1-2 °C changes in 100+/- years are common. This is a Dome C comparison I did to illustrate the CO2 lag at the interglacial peak. The T data points are ~32 years apart.
Al White tweet media
English
0
0
2
11
Tor Eirik
Tor Eirik@2r_eirik·
En vanlig klimamyte er at moderne CO₂ stiger raskere enn noe annet på 800 000 år. Sannheten er at ingen noen gang kan vite det. Det finnes ingen måte å måle hastigheten på tidligere oppvarmingsepisoder. Dette betyr at ingen kan si at moderne oppvarming er «enestående».
Peter Clack@PeterDClack

A common climate myth is that modern CO₂ is rising faster than anything in 800,000 years. The truth is, no one can ever know. And this is where the science rubber really hits the road. There's no way to measure the speed of previous warming episodes. This means no one can say modern warming is 'unprecedented'. The truth comes from science, the laws of physics and ice core studies for more than a century. Before snow turns into solid ice, it exists in what is known as the 'firn'. This refers to the porous, packed layer of snow that eventually settles into glacial ice. But this doesn't happen overnight. These ice bubbles are not sealed from the surrounding air. So the air moves freely through this layer for decades or even centuries before the weight of new snow finally crushes the pores shut. This gas-age/ice-age difference is why a single slice of ice contains air that is significantly younger than the ice surrounding it. Because the air can circulate during those 50 to 200 years (depending on the site’s snowfall rate), a single bubble doesn't represent a year. It can represent a rolling average of a century. If a massive CO₂ spike occurred 10,000 years ago but only lasted 40 years, the ice core would smooth it out. The spike would be averaged into the surrounding centuries of lower data, making it appear as a tiny, invisible bump. Comparing a 20-year satellite trend to a 200-year ice core average is like comparing a high-definition photograph to a smudge of charcoal.

Norsk
2
3
10
111
Peter Clack
Peter Clack@PeterDClack·
When the Nature papers on ice age cooling refers to 'small nudges' driving the oceans, they are describing the precision of the Milankovitch Cycles. These aren't massive shifts in heat but subtle changes in distribution. They come from slight shifts in Earth's tilt (obliquity) or the shape of its orbit (eccentricity). They change where sunlight hits. A slightly cooler summer in the Northern Hemisphere means the winter snow doesn't fully melt. Leftover snow then reflects more sunlight back into space. This is a nudge in reflectivity (albedo) that starves the system of energy. As the surface cools, the deep ocean 'flywheel' begins to shift. Cold, dense water sinks more aggressively, altering the global conveyor belt (Thermohaline Circulation). Only after the ocean has cooled by that 2C to 2.5C (as seen in the Allan Hills noble gases) does it begin to re-absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The atmosphere isn't the driver; it’s a passenger in the process. The code red narrative treats the passenger as the driver, while ignoring the 1,000-year momentum of the ocean beneath them.
Peter Clack tweet media
Bega, New South Wales 🇦🇺 English
30
252
661
7.5K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
All of the paleoclimate data available provides unequivocal proof that CO2 has no meaningful effect on temperature. If you’re interested in discussing, here is one example. After temperature peaked during the Eemian, it dropped to glacial levels while CO2 remained at almost “pre-industrial” levels.
Al White tweet media
English
0
0
0
25
Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡
BREAKING: Qatar’s Prime Minister stood at a podium today and delivered one sentence that will fracture Gulf alliance architecture for a generation: “Everyone knows who the main beneficiary of this war is.” He did not name the country. He did not need to. The Arab diplomatic vocabulary has a grammar for this. When a Gulf leader says “everyone knows” without naming, the audience fills the blank. The X discourse filled it within minutes. The interpretation was dominant and immediate across Arabic-language accounts, with Gulf analysts and Arab media converging on the same reading. Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, who also serves as Foreign Minister, called for an immediate halt. His full statement: “This war needs to stop immediately. The aggression needs to stop immediately. Because everyone knows who the main beneficiary of this war is, and dragging the whole region into this conflict is dangerous.” He described Iranian strikes on Qatar as a “dangerous miscalculation” and “betrayal.” He urged restraint from all sides. Consider the position this man occupies. Qatar hosts Al Udeid Air Base, CENTCOM’s forward headquarters, the nerve centre of Operation Epic Fury. American bombers launched from Qatari soil. Iran retaliated against the LNG facility down the road. The same government that provided the runway for the war is now absorbing the economic consequences. QatarEnergy declared force majeure. Ras Laffan sustained extensive damage. Seventeen percent of Qatar’s 77 million tonne capacity is structurally impaired. CEO Saad al-Kaabi told Reuters repairs could take three to five years. Twenty billion dollars in annual revenue is offline. The Prime Minister of a country that enabled the operation is publicly questioning who benefits from it while his national energy company faces half a decade of impaired production. That is not ambiguity. That is a fracture. The fracture runs through the entire Gulf alliance system. Saudi Arabia hosts Prince Sultan Air Base and absorbed Iranian missiles on Riyadh. The UAE hosts Al Dhafra and lost Shah and Habshan to zero. Bahrain hosts the Fifth Fleet and declared partial force majeure. Kuwait hosts Camp Arifjan and is watching two refineries burn. Every host provided the military infrastructure. Every host is absorbing economic retaliation. And the most outspoken just asked, on camera, whether the country benefiting from degrading Iran at zero direct cost is the same country whose allies are paying the full price. The market implications are immediate. If Qatar’s political establishment is signalling frustration with the cost-benefit distribution of this war, the assumption that Gulf states will indefinitely absorb strikes while providing bases becomes fragile. A frustrated host is a conditional host. Conditional basing changes the calculus for every military planner who assumed Al Udeid was permanent. The LNG implications are structural. A multi-year force majeure on contracts to Italy, Belgium, South Korea, and China is not a delivery delay. It is a repricing of the global gas map. JERA’s CEO said there is no spare bridge capacity. Asian spot LNG doubled to $24 to $25 per MMBtu. European TTF surged 68 to 85 percent. BASF and Yara are cutting fertiliser output. The facility that feeds them may not fully recover until 2029 or later. The diplomatic signal and the infrastructure damage are now the same story. Qatar’s PM is not merely commenting on the war. He is repricing Qatar’s willingness to absorb its consequences. The country that houses the command centre and the country that exports 20 percent of the world’s LNG are the same country. And its leader just told the world, in one sentence, that the arrangement may no longer be worth the cost. Full analysis: open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…
Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ tweet media
Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡@shanaka86

BREAKING: The world thought Hormuz was an oil story. Then it became an LNG story. If the damage assessment holds, it becomes a civilisation-input story that lasts half a decade. There is a difference between a shipping shock and a capacity shock that the market has not yet priced. A shipping shock traps molecules. The oil exists, the gas exists, the tankers are anchored, and when the strait reopens the molecules flow again. A capacity shock destroys molecules. The liquefaction trains that convert gas into LNG are physically damaged. The molecules cannot be produced even if every ship in the world is available to carry them. QatarEnergy’s CEO Saad al-Kaabi told Reuters that damage to Ras Laffan is severe. Repairs to impaired liquefaction capacity could take three to five years. Force majeure was declared on March 4 and has since escalated as the damage assessment worsened through March 18 and 19. Long-term contract buyers including Italy, Belgium, South Korea, and China face multi-year delivery disruptions. Shell declared force majeure on cargoes it resells from QatarEnergy. The market must now confront a possibility it has refused to model: that roughly 17 percent of Qatar’s 77 million tonne per annum capacity is not delayed but structurally impaired. JERA’s CEO stated that the global LNG market does not have the spare capacity to bridge the gap if Hormuz-linked supply is meaningfully lost. That single sentence reprices everything. If the replacement molecules do not exist in sufficient volume, the adjustment mechanism is not alternative supply. It is fuel switching, demand destruction, and rationing by balance-sheet strength. Rich buyers can pay more. Poor buyers cannot. The poor buyers are already breaking. Vietnam’s diesel is up 40 to 59 percent. Australia’s petrol is up 70 cents per litre. Sri Lanka is rationing fuel with QR codes at 15 litres per car per week, a four-day workweek, and Wednesday school closures. India raised LPG prices while importing 85 percent of its crude through a strait that is 90 percent shut. Gulf air cargo collapsed 79 percent. Jet fuel surged 58 percent. IndiGo and Akasa imposed surcharges. Vietnam Airlines warned of shortages from April. Ninety-five countries have reported petrol price increases since February 28. Ras Laffan is not just LNG. It is helium, urea, methanol, polyethylene, and sulfur. The downstream cascade from a multi-year Qatari impairment runs through semiconductor fabrication, pharmaceutical synthesis, phosphate fertiliser production, food packaging, and desalination. The facility that is damaged produces the molecules that four billion people depend on for chips, medicine, fertiliser, plastic, and drinking water. Europe’s post-2022 gas security was built on Qatari LNG replacing Russian pipelines. A structural impairment does not merely make gas expensive. It makes gas unavailable to industry. That is how an LNG shock becomes a deindustrialisation shock. BASF and Yara are already cutting fertiliser output. Russian LNG fills the gap at 18 to 22 percent of European imports. The country Europe sanctioned is the country Europe now depends on because the country Europe trusted was struck in a war Europe refused to join. Anyone arguing this resolves quickly now carries the burden of proof. They must explain where the replacement molecules come from when the world’s largest LNG hub is physically impaired, the strait is commercially closed, and the CEO of Asia’s biggest power buyer says there is no bridge. The market priced a shipping delay. The evidence demands a capacity repricing. The difference between those two words is measured in years, in trillions of dollars, and in whether the lights stay on. Full analysis: open.substack.com/pub/shanakaans…

English
183
833
3.5K
1.5M
Al White retweetledi
Daniel Gross
Daniel Gross@grossdm·
Pretty astonishing. In Texas, between 10:00 am and 4:00 p.m., 80-90% of electricity comes from carbon free sources. And storage is already a significant contributor in the early morning and evening
Daniel Gross tweet media
English
167
748
3.8K
289.8K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@Dodders75 @northseaweather Exactly. They’re completely puzzled by the fact that the data doesn’t match their models. They need to heed Feynman’s lesson…”If an experiment disagrees with your theory or guess, the theory is wrong.”
English
0
0
3
15
John Dodders
John Dodders@Dodders75·
The pre-determined conclusion that atmospheric CO2 controls climate through geological history is, inconveniently, falsified by the data (again). Gavin Schmidt is unhappy and left floundering for ideas. realclimate.org/index.php/arch…
English
3
1
4
130
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@NdabaningiMoyo @PaulSchleifer “I referred you to Judd…” And I replied. According to the way discussions normally work is, now you either refute my response or bow out. And if you’re here just to parrot ‘climate scientists’, I think we can save you some effort…we already know what they say.
English
2
0
0
18
Robert Hugh Peters
Robert Hugh Peters@NdabaningiMoyo·
@bootcanyon @PaulSchleifer I referred you to Judd et al (2024). You are welcome to tell others where they were wrong. You don't have to listen to my 'opinion'. I simply repeat what the consensus of climate scientists is. If you think they're wrong publish your own paper.
English
1
0
0
10
Paul Schleifer
Paul Schleifer@PaulSchleifer·
This Nature paper, which is clearly a big hit with the usual suspects in the fossil fool community, finds that over the past ~3 million years, climate shifts weren’t always tightly coupled to CO₂, with oceans and ice sheets doing plenty of the work. Deniers immediately declare CO₂ irrelevant. Scientists note two awkward details: today's CO₂ spike is far faster and higher than anything in that record, and in past cycles temperature often rose first because warming oceans released CO₂, which then amplified and sustained the heat. This time we're doing the outgassing ourselves. Discovering that past climate was complicated is not proof that present climate change is imaginary, just that feedbacks exist, and we're currently pulling the biggest lever. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Paul Schleifer tweet media
English
34
44
138
4.6K
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@NdabaningiMoyo @PaulSchleifer I have. Please either correct an error I’ve made or move on. This is a serious discussion and so far you’ve only contributed an unfounded opinion.
English
1
0
0
14
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@aaronshem @PaulSchleifer 😬Actually it works the other way around. CO2 hangs around for 1000s of years after temperature has plunged to glacial levels which is also unequivocal proof that CO2 does not control temperature😎
Al White tweet media
English
1
0
0
49
aaronshem
aaronshem@aaronshem·
@PaulSchleifer @bootcanyon The increased outgassing from warming is overwhelmed by increased uptake long before warming stops. Concentrations flatten and fall before we stop warming after initial deglaciation.
English
2
0
1
50
Al White
Al White@bootcanyon·
@PaulSchleifer PS…”a strong positive correlation” is not a proof of causation.
English
0
0
0
18
Paul Schleifer
Paul Schleifer@PaulSchleifer·
Citing Judd et al. (2024) for alleged CO₂-temperature decoupling over millions of years overlooks the study's actual finding: a strong positive correlation, with CO₂ identified as the primary control on Earth's surface temperatures throughout the Phanerozoic. Your annotation of 800k-year ice core graph I posted simply as an illustration shows natural cycles (where Milankovitch orbital changes started warming and oceans released CO₂ as feedback). But it stops before modern data; current global temperatures are now projected to rise above previous interglacial peaks and at an unprecedented rate. According to Milankovitch cycles, Earth's current orbital configuration should be driving gradual cooling toward the next ice age. Instead, we're seeing rapid heating because human emissions have reversed the natural order and overridden orbital forcing.
Paul Schleifer tweet media
English
5
1
20
251