Captain Climate Action

Please remember that downplaying the danger of climate change only helps the climate deniers. That’s why they’ve all jumped on this. Please now spread the truth that 3C by 2100, what we’re facing, is catastrophic & just a step to more heating w/out fossil phaseout and net zero

@4RealClimate @TruthHurtsDemz @Electroversenet Have you been reading Nikolov again (Volokin is his clever acronym for his moon temperature theory)? If the atmosphere was fully transparent, the heat would all leave. There wouldn't be much convection if water was all frozen.

@CaptainAdvance1 @TruthHurtsDemz @Electroversenet The atmopshere slows cooling to space regardless of the content of that atmopshere.

A new Science Advances study shows offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Spikes near as much as one degree Celsius, which is as large as natural summer variability. Turbines slow the wind, explains the study. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling, and in turn traps heat at the surface. The warming appears within days and spreads tens of kilometers from the wind farm. These warm waters then heat the air above, creating extra upward heat flux and a more unstable boundary layer. Stack this onto bird kills, sediment disruption, underwater noise and microplastic shedding, and the picture is clear: Offshore wind isn't solving an environmental problem, it's becoming one.

@4RealClimate @TruthHurtsDemz @Electroversenet This blog does good takes on the physics. In this case, the interconnections between latent & sensible heat & radiative heating. scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/09/sen…

@CaptainAdvance1 @TruthHurtsDemz @Electroversenet Well I could explain it but you ignore the correct physics based on real climate science. So...you'll have to ask with 'pretty please'.

@4RealClimate @TruthHurtsDemz @Electroversenet You'll hate this study on the dependence of condensable greenhouse gases on non condensable ones, of which CO2 dominates by quantity & atmospheric longevity. sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/…

@WormsofWrath @WeiZhangAtmos @ChrisGloninger Yes & no. Research suggests the photosynthetic response to higher CO2 does provide some protections for plant survival during heat stress. This study compared wheat grown at normal & elevated levels to heat stress. The high CO2 crop still reduced yield. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC68…

"The impact of higher cuticular and stomatal water loss under anomalously high temperature are not considered in contemporary ESMs, but have the potential to largely affect Et at high temperature and threaten plant survival during extreme heat (Brodribb et al., 2020)." NO. Photosynthesis ceases when CO2 pressure is too low >104F.* Stomata close. THAT is why it's not in the literature. Higher CO2 increases the upper thermal limit of photosynthesis. Higher thermal tolerance. The global warming science industry doesn't want to point that out. It's not doom and gloom so it's bad for funding. *That's leaf temperature ~+20F of air temperature in full sun.

She said do your research. I have the degree. Let's fact-check.  Biggers cited a political scientist as a climate expert. Showed ice core data and called it reassuring… leaving out that today's CO2 rises 100x faster than anything in that record. That's her own chart working against her. A chart is not a conclusion. A TV background is not a credential. I have both the degree and the receipts. #climatechange #bigoil

@robbenson1979 @icarus62 @BjornLomborg The UN IPCC provided a range of scenarios. The goal is to stay below 2C. The 8.5 scenario should never have been described as business as usual. It assumed no price 'learning.' Had China not mass produced solar, prices would be 2-3x as high. It wasn't so unlikely back in 2010.

@icarus62 @CaptainAdvance1 @BjornLomborg All the UN numbers were BS.

Climate sanity, finally The extreme climate scenario that gave huge, scary, and unrealistic results (RCP8.5) is officially dead rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-off… Threads&refs: x.com/BjornLomborg/s…

@robbenson1979 Yes, a President who ignores the scientific advice & insists that agencies act on his ideological beliefs is terrible for the US & other nations. RCP8.5 was the extreme but the others still see us exceeding 2C. We're headed for 3C by 2100.

Reversing the onus of proof. A few times, nature released stored carbon rapidly & boosted temperatures disastrously. The deliberate release of stored carbon is new. We know it causes climate harms, with a risk of extreme harms. What study with empirical data proves it is safe?

@WormsofWrath @WeiZhangAtmos @ChrisGloninger The drying effect will cause incremental not instant change & interacts with other changes to air masses due to warming. More rain forests like in Australia are already becoming carbon sources rather than sinks. Deforestation worsens it. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…

@CaptainAdvance1 @WeiZhangAtmos @ChrisGloninger Where's the dying rainforests? They all look greener to me - southeast Asia/Oceana, Amazon, Congo. Deforestation efforts in Bolivia, Argentina, the Congo, and Madagascar don't count. Even if they did it doesn't outweigh the totals.

@WormsofWrath @WeiZhangAtmos @Knipetang @ChrisGloninger There is a CO2 fertilisation effect for many plants but it doesn't cause warming. That is due to the greenhouse effect of the same molecules. More plants should reduce CO2 levels & so cool.

@WeiZhangAtmos @CaptainAdvance1 @Knipetang @ChrisGloninger

@1000Frolly Net Zero means death? No, it just means decreasing how fast we warm.

Net Zero will be dumped soon, I would say within a few months. Labor will be forced to dump it even before the next election. They must dump it. One Nation have already overtaken Labor in the polls. Just wait until you see what happens in the Victorian election. If they continue like they are, then Labor are DONE, PERIOD. . The people here will not stand for what has been done to folk the UK, where tens of thousands of pensioners froze to death from so-called climate 'action', and others are in jail just for for speaking out. If you want reality; Net Zero means DEATH for us all.

ENERGY RENEWAL COSTS COMPARED;

@WeiZhangAtmos @WormsofWrath @Knipetang @ChrisGloninger It means more floods & droughts. Sydney maximum rainfall intensity increased by 40%.

That’s interesting and meets my criteria of “observational data”. Count me skeptical however. This statement was interesting… “Past studies of the observational record either focused on long-term average rain, which is not systematically changing globally, or rainfall extremes where changes are hard to measure accurately. This study looks solely at variability, which refers to uneven timing and amount of rainfall.” in other words, the rainfall is pretty much the same every way we look so we finally found a new way to massage the data to finally give us away to back up our claims of “more extreme” Maybe there’s some truth to it but it’s hardly a crisis even if there is. This is one study that shows rainfall is more variable versus many that show it is not.

@NickdeCusa @PeterDClack Save us from what? National energy independence? Civilisation needs reliable energy, such as renewables plus storage. We don't need fossil fuel energy except until we replace it. Why slow that moment that ME wars create a crisis?

@PeterDClack This is the most important message to save civilisation, as all brains have been washed “fossil fuels bad” (whereas the opposite is true)

As of 2026, 81% of the world's primary power is still provided by coal, oil and gas. Wind and solar give just 6.5% across all transport, heating and industry, despite the massive scale-up of renewables since 1988. Global primary energy consumption is still rusted on to fossil fuels, and probably always will. The story gets worse. Renewables are not a viable energy source without substantial backup from fossil fuels. How did this disastrous mismatch happen? According to recent data from the Energy Institute Statistical Review and the IEA, decades of government incentives, feed-in tariffs and tax credits have heavily driven the deployment of wind and solar. But get this? The energy is fundamentally incompatible with the existing world power grids. This wasn't about changing the climate. It was, and is, an economic pivot. Wealthier Western nations have subsidised two generations of wind and solar power, yet they failed utterly to recognise the incompatibility of renewable power with existing grid networks. They have drastically underinvested in the infrastructure for the grid upgrades or the battery storage required to handle the volatile, intermittent nature of renewable energy. Traditional grids rely on synchronous generation (large spinning turbines in coal, gas or hydro plants). These provide natural inertia and keep the grid frequency stable at 50 or 60 Hz. Wind and solar use inverter-based technology, which cannot provide this essential stability. It's not that no thought was given to battery storage, but the sheer scale required was vastly underestimated. Now we're falling behind. Building grid-scale battery systems capable of backing up a nation for days of low wind and sun (known as a Dunkelflaute) faces massive physical constraints - specifically in mineral mining for lithium, cobalt, copper, plus the staggering costs. You cannot mine the quartz, smelt the silicon, forge the steel or transport the massive blades of a wind turbine without high-density heat and power. This is only provided by coal, oil, and gas. Furthermore, because wind and solar are intermittent, they require rapid-start gas peaker plants or spinning coal reserves to idle in the background, ready to jump in the second the weather shifts. The grid struggles to handle this thermodynamic mismatch. We are trying to plug intermittent, weather-dependent sources into an industrial grid that demands absolute, second-by-second equilibrium. We have had more than a century to refine grid efficiency. Rebuilding the world's power grids to handle this incompatible energy isn't just difficult - it is a fresh financial black hole. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, achieving net zero will require a staggering $275 trillion in cumulative capital spending by 2050 - a massive portion of which must be diverted just to overhaul and rebuild these incompatible power grids and storage systems. The renewable supply chain won't rescue us either. It's firmly anchored in the fossil fuel economy. After 40 years of guilt, heavy subsidies and political momentum, fossil fuels still carry the heavy cross of sustaining human civilisation.

@PeterDClack Half of the transport side of that energy is just generating waste heat. 40% of shipping is just transporting FFs. We can basically half current demand when we electrify transport. Why don't critics like @PeterDClack note that? 🤷🤔

@stewart39801213 @Peter_Fitz You can delete this. It hasn't had many views yet. Yes, she is a daunting intellect.

@Peter_Fitz Totally true and correct.....Oh and one other thing. She is just so beautiful ..... Fact No Sexism

My Q & A She sued the Pope, defended Julian Assange and just won the Sydney Peace Prize. Is Jennifer Robinson our most fascinating lawyer? smh.com.au/national/she-s…

@hausfath The "TRUTH, SCIENCE & FACT" claims are spurious when the Trump DoE invited only Sceptics, most of them from the CO2 Coalition propaganda unit, to write a report to provide a fig leaf for removing the regulation of GHGs. Not only did external critics find 100s of flaws, so did DoE

Thats certainly a take. Here is what the new paper introducing the emissions scenarios we are using in the upcoming IPCC 7th Assessment Report actually says:

@robbenson1979 @grok @WormsofWrath @WeiZhangAtmos @ChrisGloninger ? More bad links...

@CaptainAdvance1 @grok @WormsofWrath @WeiZhangAtmos @ChrisGloninger More good news. energynewsbeat.co/enb-publisher-…

@rubiconjay @cjblack2 @mazemoore @TheDemocrats Are you so science illiterate you think that was a take down?

@cjblack2 @CaptainAdvance1 @mazemoore @TheDemocrats Well said CJ! Thank you for educating the sheep 💯💪

2016. Guy McPherson (a climate change expert, scientist, and professor from the University of Arizona) says that there will not be any humans on the planet by 2026 due to the effects of climate change. Trust the scientists. 😜🤣

@cjblack2 @rubiconjay @mazemoore @TheDemocrats "High info" sounds intriguing. Do greenhouse gas molecules not really have a quantum effect? What did the ExxonMobil scientists get wrong in the 1980s when-despite inherent bias-they confirmed CO2 causes warming? Is this "high" info that fossil fuel companies are good?

@CaptainAdvance1 @rubiconjay @mazemoore @TheDemocrats Well first, that is just one study by authors funded by inherently biased sources. And second, correlation is NOT causation. That paper proves nothing and is only convincing to low info people duped buy the climate change scam.

@rubiconjay @mazemoore @TheDemocrats If I was an elite who wanted to grab world power I would start by innoculating citizens against science. If I was an oil tycoon, I would see your meme & clap my hands like a seal. The red pill is actually pretty boring. Fossil fuels do cause warming & life gets more challenging.

@CaptainAdvance1 @mazemoore @TheDemocrats

@MarkJan08409037 @Climatehope2 I am no fan of authoritarian regimes. Yergin's thoughts on the energy crisis Trump created by indulging Israel's regional agendas would be interesting. That showed how dependent we are on oil currently. Opposite conclusions can be drawn from that.

@CaptainAdvance1 @Climatehope2 and other authoritarian regimes and is no friend of the west. please educate yourself on this topic before tweeting on it again, you are spreading misinformation. Daniel Yergin has a good book on this if you wish to function above an elementary school level on this topic.

How desperate is it to find some right wing 20 year old who thinks he knows more about science than scientists do? It's a terrible indictment of his education.