So, "CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since 1859 and we have put 50% more of it into the atmosphere since then" is a false statement? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and saying it is misinformation?. "We" are those with a modicum of scientific knowledge (chemistry and biology degrees) and not having a pseudoscientific partisan agenda.
Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from me. The misinformation is the practice of making a trivial increase in global average temperature into a crisis. It is not a crisis. The co2, by the way, is good for plants as you certainly realize. Is it the cause of the trivial increase in temperature? I don't know. I don't think anybody knows because the temperature rise has been so trivial that it could result from all kinds causes. The more logical conclusion is that it results from normal climatic changes that have occurred throughout history. The crisis alarmists are in it for the money and power. Following them makes no logical sense. IT IS TRIVIAL.
Sorry to hear people have to abandon their island. Also sorry to hear that it was caused by an increase in temperature. The reason I say that is that the temperature rise has been a mere 1 degree C over the past 100 years and there has been none over the past decade. So try to figure out what has changed over the past decade. It isn't temperature.
And it is going to keep coming. Before the interglacial comes to an end and the next ice age starts, sea levels will be approximately 9 meters higher than they are today. Putting up rocks to try and stop it is as stupid as trying to stop it with sand castles. The sea levels are going to rise, that is a fact. They have been rising for over 30 ky, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that is going to stop any time soon. Tell me, should the first Indians to have reached the California Coast where modern day San Francisco tried to have stopped the sea level rise? One reason why we know so damned little about humans in the last 30 kya or so is because a great many of their sites are underwater. When the first people saw what would become San Francisco, it was not a bay. Hell, it was not even on the coast. It was simply a wide river valley and the ocean was another 20 miles to the west. Welcome to Earth, around 20 kya. Oh, and don't get to attached to Florida. Like many other areas, that is going to be almost entirely underwater come the full interglacial.
Sounds more like subsiding land than rising sea levels... You do know that "sea level increase" is normally distributed about a mean very close to zero, don't you? That means some places are rising, others are sinking, but most are pretty stable. Sucks for the places that are sinking, but it has very little to do with CO2 or climate.
Actually, that region is still experiencing tectonic uplift. Because South America is still moving north into North America. But the rate of uplift is in the range of 1-2 mm per year. Where as the annual average rise of sea levels is about 3.4 mm per year. It is not subsiding, it is actually still uplifting. But the sea levels are rising even faster. Three steps forward, two steps back.
The region is not the issue. Tectonic processes can cause a crumpling effect that makes certain local areas subside even as the region is moving upward. Although the fact that it is an island implies it should be rising, the processes are by no means so uniform or predictable.
And ultimately, it does not matter as the sea level rise is more and faster than any uplift in the region. That is actually typical for tectonic uplift. The fastest uplift is not even tectonic, but glacial rebound. Like at Glacier Bay, which has lifted more than 5.5 meters in the last 250 years. That is an uplift of 22 mm (or almost an inch) each year. But Panama is rather interesting, geologically. The Panama Microplate is bordered by five other plates, and is going through some interesting stresses. It is fractured from but still connected to the Caribbean Plate, which is pressing it to the west and south. The East and South parts are mostly bordering on the Cocos and Nazca plates. The Cocos Plate is subducting below the Panama Plate, and subduction almost always results in uplift. And the other major plates are all pushing against it from the south, north, and east.. In general however, the plate is locked but being squeezed from the south. And having spent time there, the terrain is among the worst I have ever experienced. You can hardly find an area of more than around 100 meters that is flat, there are steep hills and gullies everywhere. Almost all of the rock is "recent" limestone, which was forced up about 3 mya when the continents collided and the stress of that broke it away from the Caribbean Plate. What was once the ocean bed pushed up and folded as the plate crumpled. And as a fossil hunter, it was a dream come true as at almost any time I took a break in the jungles there were 3 million year old fossils everywhere. To give an idea, this is the best I could find for an accurate topographic map of the area. Look at the North-Central Part, at the Gatun Quadrant and above to the west of Bahia de Limon. That was all Fort Sherman at one time, and the ruggedness of the terrain is almost impossible to describe. I had trekked all that area, from the point in the NE all the way down to and into the freaking Mojinga Swamp. And even covering 2 or 3 kilometers was an exhausting 4 or 5 hour ordeal. https://stridata-si.opendata.arcgis...cf4/explore?location=8.444979,-80.215380,8.66 And yes, it is indeed still being folded, but even then it is uplifting because the plate itself is not subducting anywhere. Every plate it borders with it is locked against, or is ocean crust so is subducting below it. And this is also rather interesting, as it is really a "young crustal plate". Only 3.5 mya that was part of an ocean plate, that fractured away when it was forced to the surface. And of course in the time since then there has been volcanology which has changed the small plate itself from being an ocean plate to a surface plate. And I for one am interested in what the future will bring. As it is now lighter than the Caribbean Plate, and that may also in the future start to subduct below it. But 3 million years has not been long enough to make a major change in the density, so they continue to be locked. However, some geologists are now believing that the Caribbean Plate has finally started subducting below it, but there is not enough evidence to prove one way or another. You really only get tectonic subsidence if part of the plate is itself subducting below another. Or after a major earthquake as part of the relieving of the stress afterwards. During normal movement, plates like that only go up. Even in the act of folding, it all goes up. Some just goes up faster than other areas.
Maps show how "Tornado Alley" has shifted in the U.S. Kerry Breen Updated Fri, June 7, 2024 at 1:48 PM CDT There's growing evidence that "Tornado Alley," the area of the United States most susceptible to tornadoes, is shifting eastwards, according to a recent study looking at tornado formation patterns. ... CBS News senior weather producer David Parkinson said late May is typically a very busy time for tornadoes, but explained that climate change could be causing severe storms to occur more frequently. "We can't in any way call one tornado something that's attached to climate change, but we can say the pattern of which things are increasing and getting stronger, that likely is related to a warming world," Parkinson said. https://news.yahoo.com/maps-show-tornado-alley-shifted-170711511.html
To be honest, I laughed when in 2013, a lot of the "experts" were screaming that was going to be the worst year for hurricanes ever. And the outcome? Two Cat 1 hurricanes, no significant damage everywhere. And if one pays attention, they largely say that every single year. https://www.redcross.org/about-us/n...ld-set-records-critical-to-get-ready-now.html https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/nhc-noaa-hurricane-outlook-2024 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-2024-hurricane-season-could-be-a-dangerous-one/ Is sad, because they literally do that every single year. Say it will be the "worst ever". And that is the ultimate in sloppy science (if not anti-science), because after all even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. It is in reality nothing but a real life example of the "chicken little syndrome". That if they make the same prediction every year, eventually they will be right.
Mamooth writes From Post 137: Misleading since those models doesn't examine warming/cooling factors at all as they are built on emission scenarios thus not a valid claim on your part.
CO2 is an essential part of the Photosynthesis process.... There is no evidence of CO2 harming the environment heck we are at a low point of CO2 in the air as shown in this chart: LINK
Another person livin' the confirmation bias life-style. Currently CO2 is 422, 50% higher than previous, as I wrote and it is a proven greenhouse gas.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" And next time you hear of a jury convicting an innocent person, you'll know the logic behind it.
edna kawabata writes, It was 280 ppm in 1880 and now 422 as YOU say but according to my chart that means about 95% of the time it was over 500 ppm thus 422 is still a very low value and you seem unaware that most of the warm forcing is in the first 60 ppm and rapidly dropping afterwards. Your chart is garbage since it is based on modeling scenarios and the top two are 8.5 and 6.0 are useless as the rate is far lower and the rapidly diminishing warm forcing rate is well known too thus warm forcing is less and less over time. Here is a simplified chart,
Continued examples of livin' the confirmation bias life-style..... Your 2nd chart is from David Archibald and a chart he made up. https://skepticalscience.com/David_Archibald_arg.htm https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-archibald/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavoisier_Group The first chart (wherever it came from) only proves that yes CO2 is driving Climate Change and a 2 degree Celsius plus increase will cause catastrophic effects on the environment. Thank you for placing your head in the sand.
LOL, You didn't address or countered anything, and the Logarithmic of CO2 warm forcing decline is well established and explained in the IPCC report and basically explained in this LINK from the AMS: Why the Forcing from Carbon Dioxide Scales as the Logarithm of Its Concentration LINK ================= Since most of the built in warm forcing of CO2 was established 600 million years ago as it has always been above 150 ppm since then there is no CO2 driver of temperature to be established as this chart based on the GISP2 data, You show your inability to understand chart 1 because you fail to realize that most of the warm forcing is in the far left edge of the chart in the region between 0-50 ppm then rapidly flatlining towards higher concentrations to a very slow increase at the 390-ppm level and even flatter at the 420 ppm level. The Doubling from 280 to 560 ppm generates approximately 3.8 watts per square metre (W/m2) which is tiny against the 507 W/m2 downwelling rate already in place. It is YOU who is hiding your head in the clay fighting against well-known information.
Thank you for the examples of your confirmation bias. The logarithmic decline in CO2's effect on temperature is established science, not something David Archibald made up. That is nonscience with no basis in either fact or the chart.
Alarmists can be really nasty. Roy Spencer shows how to respond with charity and kindness. David Appell, Awaiting the Death of Climate Skeptics September 4th, 2024 This blog received the following comment from our alarmist friend David Appell, freelance writer: “Roy, nobody who is serious about climate change takes you seriously. You’re a denier who has made too many mistakes. No one who knows anything is going to bother commenting here–they upset you so much that all you can think to do is block them. You long ago left the realm of science. As they say, science advances one funeral at a time. Nobody believes your time series anyway. You did that to yourself.” As many here know, our UAH temperature dataset is used by researchers around the world, including those who believe the more alarmist narrative of anthropogenic climate change. It has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies. And I’m not sure why exactly I am a “denier”; that has always mystified me. I’m even part of the supposed 97% that believes the climate system is warming partly (maybe even mostly) from our CO2 emissions. John Christy and I even published a climate sensitivity paper that assumes ALL recent warming is from CO2 emissions. Also, I routinely allow comments here from people who disagree with me on the science. Very few people have been blocked, and those from bad behavior. So, I think David was just having a bad day. I imagine these are difficult times for freelance writers since everyone with internet access can now be one. He’s again talking about shutting down his pro-climate alarmism, pro-COVID vaccination blog, Quark Soup. Too bad. So, for those who might want to send wishes of moral support, he can be reached at david.appell@gmail.com.
