1 hour ago, GaWx said:

Hey Charlie,

 I looked and looked at this and still can’t see how this doesn’t have errors. What am I missing? Am I having a brain fart? Is this the # of days within March 1-22, 2026, with highs of 80+?

 I came back and looked again to see if my brain had been missing something. I still don’t see how a good portion of the #s on the map aren’t off. Is this mislabeled?

 

I should have been clearer. The chart I posted is the ranking of the number of days over 80, with #1 being the highest. Below is the number of 80+ days on which the ranking is based.

Days hitting 80F, month to date.

2 minutes ago, paulm said:

Might have been a data artifact - am now seeing populated data for this chart:

Thanks for updating, what I posted must have caught the database at a bad time.

45 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Thanks for posting these. I’ve seen similar charts showing lowered global wx related disaster costs in more recent years. Does anyone know the main reasons? Despite these drops (assuming these charts are accurate and not deceptive/being presented in proper context, which may very well be the case), are they projected to continue dropping as we continue to warm? That’s key to know.

As explained in detail at the link below. Pielke's results have nothing to do with natural disasters. Instead they are an artifact of his analysis method. When the same database is analyzed properly. US disaster costs are increasing as percent of GDP and the number of disasters is increasing.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/334359/1/20251026_fix_roger_pielke_jr.pdf

58 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Yes, an NAO+ is correlated with warmth in the SW. In fact, it is correlated with almost CONUS-wide warmth.

 

That's what we have seen so far this month, CONUS-wide warmth. 

Here's a climate first. The Colorado snowpack is gone 15 days before the typical peak.

Animation showing the records tied or broken in the past 24-hours. Pink are March records. 

15 hours ago, GaWx said:

I read this today from a pro-met. @donsutherland1and others, I’m curious about your thoughts about this:

 

“Many of the radiation absorption bands for CO2 OVERLAP with H2O. H2O is 95% of the planet's greenhouse gas effect(we would be a frozen wasteland without the BENEFICIAL greenhouse effect).  Turns out that in areas with higher dew points, those overlapping absorption bands ARE ALREADY SATURATED by H2O!! In those cases and in those bands, it doesn't matter how much CO2 that you add. When they are already absorbing 100% of the long wave, heat radiation of what they are capable of because of water vapor/H2O, adding CO2 in those bands will have near 0 impact.

Now the kicker. Cold places lack water vapor in the dry air so CO2 will be impacting bands that are NOT saturated from H2O absorbing. We can see that on the graph above. However, DESERTS also lack water vapor, so they too are seeing a greater impact from CO2 than the rest of the planet at the same latitude. Even DESERTS located in already hot places, like Phoenix.

Turns out that DESERTS are warming at a similar, elevated rated to the Arctic.”

Opinions?

A couple of points to add to Don's. The absorption bands of CO2 and H2O are different. There's overlap in some regions, but CO2 also absorbs in regions where H2O doesn't. More importantly H20 has a much higher boiling point than CO2 and is a liquid at atmospheric temperatures while CO2 is a gas. Because of the higher boiling point, the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. As Don points out, CO2 is more important relative to H2O  in the upper atmosphere where heat is radiated to space and it is too cold to hold much water vapor.

Per paper below, CO2 is the earth's thermostat. CO2 controls the amount of H2O in the atmosphere.  If there was less CO2 there would be less water vapor and vice versa. As the paper states: Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO₂ and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190653

7 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

That's fine, except the rest of the world is generally in a different situation than the US.   And the switch to renewables has been painful in many places.   Germany has been the poster child, but their electricity prices have been skyrocketing, and their economy is struggling as a result.    But even with that - most of their energy use is still fossil - well over 70%:

 

So again - what is the scale of those charts you posted?   It's not there, for a reason.   All they show is "up", but they don't show how *much* up, relative to actual fossil usage.

China has indeed been going full-bore to renewables, but they're still mostly fossil:

 

They're at about 10% wind and solar.   Again - low-hanging fruit; not baseline power.   And they generally have zero respect for the environment; doing big projects that just aren't feasible in the US.

With regards to EV sales - apples to oranges situation-wise.   They're still heavily subsidized in most places.   If they're a slam-dunk - then why are they so heavily subsidized?

China's EV sales have been doing great - and that's great - but Chinese workers are paid about 1/3 the salary of the US; they can afford to do everything cheaper.  Low hanging fruit, as they try to catch up with the developed work economy-wise.   If they had our level of prosperity they would not be able to do this.   China is also building tons of new coal power plants BTW, along with their renewables growth.    

 

 

Funny people can take the same data and come to different conclusions. The point you are missing is that energy technologies: solar, wind, batteries, EV etc., are getting better and cheaper on well established technology improvement curves. Until recently these technologies weren't competitive with fossil fuels. However, going forward they are going to have an increasing cost advantage and subsidies will be less and less important. As an example, China is ending their subsidies of electric cars. Yes, China is still building coal plants, but renewable share of electricity generation is still growing rapidly, and coal use in China dropped last year. 

10 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Except that data is old.   And there's no scale.  And it's obviously cumulative, not showing actual new deployments over time.   In short - it's fluff propaganda, not reflecting reality.

E.g. EV sales are now on the decline - e.g. see CA and NY who have detailed trackers on sales, due to their mandate (which will clearly not be met at this point)

 

As I've maintained - much of renewable energy has been "low hanging fruit" so far, in particular in the U.S.   Specifically - nearly all of our wind-based electricity and our solar-based electricity in the US is generated in places that have... lots of wind and lots of sun.   But - not coincidentally - that tends to be places where there aren't as many people living.  The fraction of renewable generation and use that happens in states that don't get as much sun is much smaller.   The problem is that the highest population concentrations in the US live in those areas - in particular the NE population corridor.

No the big difference in my EV chart and yours, is the US vs global. The final numbers aren't in yet, but global EV sales grew by roughly 20% last year, held down by slowing sales in the US. The US is a laggard in both EVs and solar with costs higher than the rest of the world due to tariffs and other factors. Expect the global EV ramp to continue in 2026 spurred by the current oil crisis.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/ev-sales-grew-20-globally-in-2025/

10 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Making a blanket statement like that shows how how much you've been influenced by the propaganda machine, and generally ill-informed.   In general no - renewables are not cheaper in most circumstances, when all factors are considered (inclusion of additional baseline power sources for when the wind and sun don't cooperate, additional transmission infrastructure, higher land use, etc.).   They can be cheaper only in specific circumstances when the stars align; they are not cheaper in a broad-use infrastructure sense.  

If they were cheaper, then power companies wouldn't need the much-higher-level of subsidies to incentivize their use.

Most of the misleading information I see comes from fossil fuel and utility incumbents. For instance, per top link below, the "expense" of additional baseline power to backstop renewables is a fossil fuel fallacy. Renewables are becoming cheaper. Not everywhere and in every application; but, the long term trend is clear. In the future fossil fuels will be less competitive than they are today. Its not only renewables. A number of key energy technologies are on long-term improvement curves: batteries, EV, heat pumps etc. They work together to make energy generation, storage, transmission and use cheaper and more efficient. Meanwhile fossil fuel use is a mature technology; that uses a diminishing resource; and, that carries geopolitical and climate risk that isn't baked into the price. 

https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/renewables-allow-us-to-pay-less-not

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/what-is-electrotech-and-what-will

19 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Presuming that you're talking about nuclear - the problem is that there has always been *too much* talk about the tail risk; i.e. blowing out of proportion.

The other problem for nuclear has been CO2 accounting. We'd have much more nuclear with stronger climate policy. I am bullish on nuclear long term reflecting ongoing technical progress; but, it isn't going to contribute much in the US in the next decade or two.  We should be on a build everything path, with a cost penalty for CO2. 

19 hours ago, csnavywx said:

RE will continue to get more expensive on a PPA basis so long as we continue to ignore the issues plaguing transmission, distribution and direct competition between industrial scale AI/DC buildout and the insane lack of investment in upstream base materials supply (like spinning up mining and refining). I maintain that negative prices on the spot market are a sign of market failure, not something that should be cheered.

These prices certainly are not going to get better this year: 

 

The correct take is that *all energy* will continue to get more expensive in the world we've built for ourselves now. (Disclosure that I am long ICLN -- because yes, most of these companies will try and expand their margins off the backs of the ratepayer and externalizing the grid cost -- my PNL tells me if I'm right or not, so far, so good.)

Yes the grid is a big problem in the US. Link below is a long thread on the US vs China grid. We aren't competitive, as an illustration per chart below, China gets 25x the payback from grid investment dollars. 

The thread doesn't mention batteries, which can mitigate grid investment somewhat. The developing global south, with abundant local solar, may avoid heavy grid investment.

https://x.com/NiyerEnergy/status/2032265048723259781

19 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

 

The physics I was referring to is simply energy density.  Fossil simply has much, much higher energy density than solar, wind, or hydro.   (though a lot less than uranium)

As an example of that - the county that I live in has two interestingly-comparable new power plants:

1.  A natural gas plant that produces 780 MW of power, on 100 acres of land

2.  A solar farm (being built) that will produce 100 MW of power (when the sun peaks), on 800 acres of land

When accounting for base load levels - the solar farm will produce roughly 1/250th the amount as the natural gas plant, on a per-acre basis.

That's what I mean.

(Obviously there's more to it than just acreage-used; that's one example facet)

With regards to India - I don't see any "fast track" in that chart you posted.   It looks like they're behind to me.

They are, however, rapidly catching up in regards to how much CO2 they are emitting, at least compared with the US:

 

 

 

Yes fossil fuels are energy dense, but that is only one aspect of the comparison and its not very important; i.e. renewables are cheaper despite lower energy density. The energy density of solar is higher than the energy density of civilization; i.e., roofs, parking lots, etc could power our cities. 

Your chart of India and China reflects the past not the present, yes CO2 use grew rapidly as both countries industrialized. However, coal use has peaked in both countries. Oil has peaked in China; and, China's CO emissions decreased last year. India is only beginning to use EVs; but, EV use is ramping.

9 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

It was *never* going to be anywhere close to "cheap" to hedge, at any point.   You're fighting not only physics, but politics and human nature.   It would require not only taking a huge hit to our prosperity - but convincing all the other countries in the world to take that same hit.  Good luck with that.  I don't think you understand just *how* much of our prosperity is based on the foundation of fossil fuel use.   It's literally been the basis for the industrial revolution.   The big inflection point was 150 years ago - not 20 years ago.   But if we somehow had managed to avoid that inflection point - we wouldn't have anything close to the prosperity we do today.

We perhaps had a smidgen of a chance decades ago, with the advent of nuclear power.   But then the clueless anti-nuke lobby, led by the likes of Ralph Nader, ensured that wasn't going to happen*.    Even still that would have only gotten us so far; even with all-nuclear electricity we still would have other fossil fuel uses in transportation and industry to deal with.

(*Edit: In his defense - he didn't know about MMGW back then.   He might have a difference stance today if so.   Nevertheless - he and others like him were responsible for the extreme over-reactive risk aversion that killed nuclear.)

Not sure what "physics" you are referring to. Sure fossil fuels easily beat all comers for a long time; but, the day of clear advantage has passed, and fossil fuels continue to slip relative to competition. The combustion of fossil fuels is: inefficient, technically mature, and uses a diminishing natural resource. Meanwhile renewable energy and batteries continue on steady cost improvement curves. 

The current crisis only makes fossil fuels more costly and highlights the geopolitical risk. It isn't easy to replace fossil infrastructure; but, long-term costs are lower without the disruption risk. This will become more apparent as some countries move away from fossil fuels and flourish. Even the US with pro-fossil and anti-renewable policies isn't ramping fossil fuel use, only slowing the transition away. Linked a blog article that discusses India. 

Climate change is only the cherry on the non-fossil cake. 

https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/indias-electrotech-fast-track

17 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

+That bold statement of yours is the very reason the world should be very afraid.   

It still does not resonate enough with people that enormity of raising an entire planetary system, air, sea and air-sea coupled, unilaterally, by a whole degree C, over span of time that is virtually instant in geological scales - but frankly, disturbingly fast even for the single life span of a human being. 

If that can happen without warning and those zero extrapolated expectation, ... good luck

There's no doubt that warming is accelerating. The blue line in the chart below is the warming rate over the previous 30-years using GISS. The 30-year warming rate started to increase at the start of the 2015/16 nino and has been increasing steadily since then. The latest 30-year warming rate includes a little over 10 years of faster warming and roughly 20 years at the slower pre-15/16 nino rate, so the chart is completely consistent with the 0.35/decade rate for the past 10 years estimated in the paper.  Note that it would take until 2045 for the current warming rate to be fully reflected in the 30-year rate, assuming it continues. When warming started to increase in 1970, the 30-year warming rate didn't stabilize until the 1990s.

The red line takes the current 30-year warming rate and extrapolates temperatures in 2050 under the assumption that warming will continue at the same rate as the last 30 years. The projection is conservative as the faster recent warming rate isn't fully reflected in the 30-year rate.  Warming will have to slow down somewhat to hit the latest 2050 number. Of course we don't know the future. The main factor determining 2050 temperatures is our emissions. The recent increase reflects increased man-made forcing as greenhouse gases continue to increase; while, cooling aerosols have dropped. We have agency, but our ability to influence 2050 temperatures decreases with time as more and more of our emission trajectory gets baked in. Our odds of staying under 2C are decreasing.

On 3/6/2026 at 3:39 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

I think the point of the article is to convey the data, not to assess causality - just for clarity. 

They are pretty explicit in saying so.  This last decade's d(warm) was .15 deg C > than the previous fairly stable .2 C increase spanning 45 years. 

I then went on to offer that the climate curve in pure temperature is a 'serrated' course...  2023/2024 may merely have been a particularly sloped year.   The previous delta could certainly return. But ... new accelerations may also take place.  Acceleration  was proven unpredictable leading 2023.  What if this happens over the next year... ?  Keep in mind, the acceleration actually took off prior to that warm ENSO event. 

I don't disagree that 10 years in a vacuum isn't very useful to describe the complexities of an entire planetary system- that's quite intuitive.  However, technically the study was 55 years:  10 years vs the previous 45.   It doesn't refute the fact of the numbers.   As to it's significance, that remains to be seen.

 

Here's a blog article on the "acceleration" paper that you linked above by a climate scientist who wasn't involved. Good discussion of what is known and not known about recent global temperature trends. Bottom line, we already knew that warming was accelerating; but, we don't know why with any precision which makes it difficult to extrapolate forward. Not a good position to be considering the amount of warming we have already experienced. 

 https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2026/03/07/for-a-rainy-day/ 

17 hours ago, GaWx said:

 

TT,

 My apologies for wording that as if those were your own words. That was my bad.

  I have no reason to refute the 0.35C rise of the last decade. 2023 had that sharp rise and that hasn’t come off with a new record likely on the way this year. But that’s just one decade and thus on its own it’s statistical credibility is much lower than that of the 0.2C of the prior 45 years. I assume you agree.

 I’d think that a “correction” of sorts could very well occur later this decade after the upcoming El Niño and would be surprised if the next decade were to warm close to another 0.35C. Reversion to the recent mean decadal increase unless for some unknown reason the true underlying mean increase has suddenly risen.

 

16 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

IMO trying to use/apply a single decade's worth of data is a fool's errand.   There's too much background noise there in the ENSO and solar cycles.   IMO anything meaningful with regards to changes in the rate of increase would need to be over at least a 20-year period, or even 30.

That said "meaningful" here I equate with "strong evidence".   10-year data isn't totally meaningless - it's worth at least eyebrow-furrowing when it indicates something unusual.  I just wouldn't use it to make a statement to the effect of "this shows that the rate of warming is increasing".

 

Yes, If you just used the past 10 years there would be a problem due to the short time period and natural variability; but, that's not what was done. Here's the underlying  journal article and a blog which describes the procedure in layman terms. To summarize they are using:  1) data since 1880, 2) accounting for the predominant sources of natural variation (enso, volcanoes and solar), 3) Applying statistical models that allow the warming rate to change if justified by the data.  Per chart below the acceleration is apparent after enso has been accounted for. 

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/06/08/picking-up-speed/

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL118804

20 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Yeah, Charlie, it looks like also no UHI at those 4 GA locations that were just noted. OTOH, Phoenix (as a great example) has had a significant UHI as we’ve discussed to pile on top of CC’s effects there. So, it’s not always a red herring and it shouldn’t be ignored where it has had a lot of impact. Otherwise, it looks to others like it is purposely being hidden to exaggerate the effects of GW even if that’s not the case. I’m a disclose everything kind of person so that it doesn’t look like there’s something being hidden. That’s why I suggested Blairsville, GA, as a great choice for no UHI to cloud up the analysis. It’s also why I’m glad to see those 4 GA locations being rural.

Let me clarify. I have no problem if someone makes a sound case using data. But often UHI is thrown out without looking at any data. That's when it is usually a red herring.

17 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

9 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Copernicus Marine showed a 76 (!) ZJ jump in OHC in '25. It's a much more volatile data series than the others, but even the smoothed IAP, etc showed ~24ZJ. Just for reference, if you plug 76 ZJ into the top 400m of the global ocean, you get +0.13C. That's oversimplified ofc, but gives you an idea of just how much heat we're dumping into the ocean. IAP's ~24ZJ gives you 0.14C if isolated to the mixing layer +1 y of extension via diffusion. And the implied EEI from that is about +1.5 W/m2. So these temp increases we're seeing at least seem plausible.

We'd better hope these rates slow down, because we're talking pretty extreme rates of ocean surface warming which ofc will translate to even higher land surface temp rates. The fact that we can print a 1.44 W/m2 figure at these already very high temps is giving me some serious pause.

May have been wrong in calling for a new record in March. Only 0.01C off the record ytday.

13 hours ago, csnavywx said:

CERES monthlies have rebounded strongly this year. Much higher than I would have expected. Matches the notable leap in OHC figures. I was thinking this year's potential Nino would have a lesser impact on temperatures, but I am not as sure now:

 

(from Leon Simons on X)

SST trend so far this year is consistent with a nino spike to record temperatures, with the caveat that it is early in the nino cycle.  I took years between 2010 and 2022 off the chart to better isolate 2023 and later at the top of the chart. On the chart, 2023 is the coldest of the 4 recent Jan and Feb, red is this year and orange 2025.

So far this year SST are tracking 2023, but roughly 0.15C higher. The recent spike in SST has brought 2026 above 2025, approaching record SST in 2024. 2023 moved into record SST territory in mid-March. This year is on a similar pace. 

Recent paper on tipping points has good discussion on: our climate trajectory, the tipping point concept, how close we are getting to tipping, and the scientific uncertainty. 

https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(25)00391-4

18 hours ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Charlie. Here’s Mike’s response to your reply:

 

 These people remind me of MAGA, seriously. It's complete fake climate crisis RELIGION.

 CO2 below 1,000 parts per million is a massively beneficial gas. To compare it to when CO2 was numerous times higher that this [sic] is a strawman attack (assigning a position that doesn't exist and attacking that position instead of the REAL one).

 And to keep projected CO2's increase for another 100 years and to keep insisting that the residence time for today's CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds of years lacks critical thinking based just on how we watch it DROP during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season every year.  

 Ignoring the fact that fossils fuels are finite and will be running out well before then and the chances of us ever getting over 900 ppm, the optimal level for life/plants/crops is minuscule.

 So what if CO2 was X thousands of parts per million in the past????

 That is NOT what will be happening from CO2 increasing this time. The highest reasonable projection is still BELOW the optimal level of 900 ppm.

 Regarding all the articles from so called authorities that climate change is already cutting back on food production:

 100% nonsense. It's the exact opposite. With crops, we can't tell how much impact is from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, fertilizers, use of pesticides/herbicides(technology).

 When you change numerous variables at the same time, like we do with crops, it's impossible to separate the impact from each one on the outcome. 

 However, we have 2 ways to address that with OBJECTIVE data which clearly speaks for the impact of photosynthesis by itself and for photosynthesis +climate change.

1. The impact of JUST adding CO2 and not changing anything else:

 Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production. 

 We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting [sic] crops and plants with many thousands of  studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.

 Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants. 

 Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:

http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php

 2. But other human factors impact soybeans, including climate change that we can't separate out. 

 That's ok because we have something that looks almost exclusively at the increase in CO2 and climate change as the main factors.

 Planet earth has been a huge open air experiment the past XX years. The objective results are striking. The impacts have been mostly from changes in photosynthesis and changes in the climate. 
 

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

In addition:

Earth greening mitigates hot temperature extremes despite the effect being dampened by rising CO₂

_{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223005584}

_{++++++++++++++}

_{Importantly, the indisputable science tells us that increasing CO2 allows plants/crops to be more drought tolerant(not the other way around). The reason is that plants open their stomata to get CO2 and while doing so, they transpire(lose water from their roots that get it from the soil) As CO2 increases, the stomata don't need to open as wide and this REDUCES water loss from their roots. It's rock solid agronomy/plant science.} 

CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use Efficiency

https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/co2-increased-water-use-efficiency/

+++++++++++++++=

Despite me just PROVING the points with indisputable science above, this is what the very predictable response will be from people that posted to you previously with the same response they gave the first time:

"Those are denier sources"

   NASA's satellite study showing the greening of the planet obviously can't be put in that category but CO2 Science and Dr. Craig Idso, an elite authority on plants and the impact of CO2/climate change, has been labelled a denier. 

Never mind everything he shows is backed up with empirical data and rock solid scientific principles, which is why I use that source(as an atmospheric scientist for 44 years). If he or anybody else, including me, contradicts the mainstream view on the climate crisis.........they are discredited as deniers no matter us [sic] using 2+2=4  science to prove that 2+2 is not 5. 

Agree with Don's comment.  My problem isn't the facts he is citing, its the things he is leaving out or not aware of. I agree that CO2 is critical for plant growth and that fossil fuel reserves are finite.  However, you need to look at all of the effects of CO2 not just the beneficial ones. Crop yield is one of the most well studied areas of human activity. Its just as easy to perform a controlled experiment on temperature, water, seed variety, fertilizer, etc as CO2. There is also a large amount of real world data on crop yield. To say that we only understand CO2 impacts on agriculture and can't quantify non-CO2 impact indicates a lack of knowledge on his part. The same thing can be said about climate science in general, he doesn't seem aware of the large body of scientific work on CO2 and climate change. The beneficial and harmful impacts of CO2 are well known; as is the balance between harmful and beneficial.

There is also the tone of the response. He has proved his points with "indisputable science" while my response is "predictable" or "fake climate crisis RELIGION".  Doesn't make me look forward to future exchanges.