Did climate change cause the flooding in Tennessee and Henri?

[ding]

Q&A: did the climate crisis fuel Henri and the Tennessee flooding?

Climate scientists say while it’s difficult to give a precise attribution, the fingerprints of the climate crisis are undoubtedly present to some degree

www.theguardian.com

Remember, the term "climate change" was not even allowed to be spoken during the trump Regime. We will all regret the day trump was elected and set up back years with his "cult pleasing" climate change denials.

Why do you want the planet to be colder in the middle of an ice age?

 

[ding]

I bet you were one of the people, mostly repubs, who for years denied that nicotine was addictive. I remember the battle I had back in the 80's with those people.

You know, what is sad, you won't pay for the ignorance of the climate change deniers. Your grandchildren and great grandchildren will. But you don't care, do you?

Nicotine is addictive but CO2 has never driven climate change on earth before.

That's not say man can't affect the climate through urbanization and deforestation. But CO2, naw. That's a fairy tale.

 

[ding]

If you have any evidence the input is bad, you should present it.

That people who don't understand statistics should not claim that using statistics correctly is a conspiracy. I propose that they not do that.

yes.

 

[mamooth]

Nicotine is addictive but CO2 has never driven climate change on earth before.

That's the exact opposite of reality. It's impossible to explain earth's past climate without considering the effects of CO2.

For example, in the delusional world where CO2 has no effect, there's no way earth could have broken out of the snowball earth phase 500 million years ago. There wasn't anything there to initiate warming.

In the sane, world, the gradually increasing CO2 from volcanoes eventually warmed the climate enough to end snowball earth.

Every ice age ends with orbital factors causing a burp of CO2 from the oceans, and then the CO2 takes over and drives the warming.

 

[mamooth]

The UN has published AGENDA, after AGENDA. . .

No, they haven't. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

If you want to sit here and continue to push your bullshit, don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone that has any once of sense in their head.

I get it. Thinking you know the great secret makes you feel so very special. That's how cults draw in the weak-minded, by appealing to their feelings.

 

[mamooth]

yes.

So what are you claiming your chart shows? Because to normal people, it doesn't appear to be backing up your claims in any way.

 

[ding]

That's the exact opposite of reality. It's impossible to explain earth's past climate without considering the effects of CO2.

For example, in the delusional world where CO2 has no effect, there's no way earth could have broken out of the snowball earth phase 500 million years ago. There wasn't anything there to initiate warming.

In the sane, world, the gradually increasing CO2 from volcanoes eventually warmed the climate enough to end snowball earth.

Every ice age ends with orbital factors causing a burp of CO2 from the oceans, and then the CO2 takes over and drives the warming.

I never said CO2 has no effect. It's greatest effect is at low concentrations. It's the presence of an atmosphere which provides a greenhouse effect that slows the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. But CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is and it's not even close.

There's no evidence that a gradual increase of CO2 led to the thawing of snowball earth. It is more likely that temperature preceded CO2. The gradual increase of CO2 was from CO2 being released by the ocean and the climate warmed and that the warming of the climate was driven by plate tectonics just as snowball earth was caused by plate tectonics.

 

[ding]

The configuration of earth's landmasses have way more to do with the earth's climate than atmospheric CO2.

 

[ding]

So what are you claiming your chart shows? Because to normal people, it doesn't appear to be backing up your claims in any way.

So what are you claiming your chart shows? Because to normal people, it doesn't appear to be backing up your claims in any way.

That there was a major change in the earth's climate 2.7 million years ago; from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet. And that the conditions which led to the planet rapidly cooling still exist today and are responsible for the dramatic and frequent temperature changes.

 

[mamooth]

That there was a major change in the earth's climate 2.7 million years ago; from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet.

And that shows CO2 has no effect on climate ... how? Nobody said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate.

And that the conditions which led to the planet rapidly cooling still exist today and are responsible for the dramatic and frequent temperature changes.

But it's not cooling now. It's warming strongly. That should clue you in that something isn't natural.

 

[ding]

And that shows CO2 has no effect on climate ... how? Nobody said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate.


But it's not cooling now. It's warming strongly. That should clue you in that something isn't natural.

The conditions are how the landmasses are configured and the different glaciation thresholds at the poles. The period we are in is characterized by frequent 8C temperature swings which are driven by northern hemisphere glaciation.

Temperature can rise or fall during glacial and interglacial cycles. And these rises and falls can last for decades. So we can be in an interglacial cycle and cool and then warm up. Just like we can be in a glacial cycle and it will warm up and then cool.

The geologic record is full of examples like this.

Lastly, we know that the earth warming is natural because we are still below the peak temperatures of past interglacial cycles. So warming another 2C would be expected.

 

[mamooth]

But CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is and it's not even close.

That's like saying "rent is my dominant expense, so all other expenses don't matter at all."

There's no evidence that a gradual increase of CO2 led to the thawing of snowball earth.

That's not what the prevailing theory says. The problem with yout theory is that it gives no reason for the warming to get out of snowball earth. You just say "it happened" without explaining how.

The earth went through many Milankovitch Cycles during that period, and they had no effect, so it wasn't orbital factors.

Continental Drift? Not really. That was more like what caused the snowball earth, since separate continents means more silicate weathering which take CO2 out of the atmosphere. It doesn't do anything to end it, except cause more volcanoes, which belch CO2.

 

[mamooth]

The conditions are how the landmasses are configured and the different glaciation thresholds at the poles. The period we are in is characterized by frequent 8C temperature swings which are driven by northern hemisphere glaciation.

And that doesn't show that CO2 has no effect on temperature.

Temperature can rise or fall during glacial and interglacial cycles. And these rises and falls can last for decades. So we can be in an interglacial cycle and cool and then warm up. Just like we can be in a glacial cycle and it will warm up and then cool.

And that doesn't show that CO2 has no effect on temperature. You're basically giving us the "It happened naturally before, so humans can't change it!" fallacy.

Lastly, we know that the earth warming is natural because we are still below the peak temperatures of past interglacial cycles.

Your conclusion there in no way follows from your premise. They're just not connected at all.

 

[ding]

And that doesn't show that CO2 has no effect on temperature.

The geologic record shows that co2 lags temperature. 94% of earth's CO2 is in the ocean. When it warms up CO2 is released by the ocean. When it cools down CO2 is sequestered by the ocean. Like I said before... I never said CO2 has no effect. It's greatest effect is at low concentrations. It's the presence of an atmosphere which provides a greenhouse effect that slows the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is and it's not even close.

And that doesn't show that CO2 has no effect on temperature. You're basically giving us the "It happened naturally before, so humans can't change it!" fallacy.

Like I said before... I never said CO2 has no effect. It's greatest effect is at low concentrations, it isn't the dominant greenhouse gas, and the geologic record has established that the normal peak temperature of interglacial cycles is 2C higher than our present temperature. So I can absolutely say that any warming that is occurring now is part of a natural process. We are 0.7C higher than the peak temperature of the past 1000 years. I'd say we are pretty normal.

Your conclusion there in no way follows from your premise. They're just not connected at all.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to show how it is disconnected rather than waving your arms and claiming it is.

 

[Crick]

The geologic record shows that co2 lags temperature. 94% of earth's CO2 is in the ocean. When it warms up CO2 is released by the ocean. When it cools down CO2 is sequestered by the ocean. Like I said before... I never said CO2 has no effect. It's greatest effect is at low concentrations. It's the presence of an atmosphere which provides a greenhouse effect that slows the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is and it's not even close.

1) The solubility of gases in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Thus, if temperature increases, CO2 will come out of solution and increase its fraction in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 absorbs some of the Earth's IR radiation that is not absorbed by water vapor and thus its presence in the atmosphere drives the greenhouse effect which warms the planet.

BOTH OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE. ALL THE TIME. Pull you head out of your ass and try to wrap it around the fact that CO2 can lead AND lag a temperature change. It can cause AND be caused by a temperature change. And the records indicate that it HAS DONE BOTH in geologic history and THAT IT IS CURRENTLY WARMING THE PLANET. Shakun and Marcotte produced two studies demonstrating CO2 warming during the Holocene and several other authors have verified and added to their work.

Like I said before... I never said CO2 has no effect. It's greatest effect is at low concentrations, it isn't the dominant greenhouse gas, and the geologic record has established that the normal peak temperature of interglacial cycles is 2C higher than our present temperature. So I can absolutely say that any warming that is occurring now is part of a natural process. We are 0.7C higher than the peak temperature of the past 1000 years. I'd say we are pretty normal.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to show how it is disconnected rather than waving your arms and claiming it is.

He doesn't have to because you never gave the slightest bit of evidence that it WAS. YOU are the one with the wild claim that flies in the face of the position of 99+% of the world's scientists. YOU are the one responsible for providing some evidence and thus far you haven't shown us diddly shit.

 

[ding]

1) The solubility of gases in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Thus, if temperature increases, CO2 will come out of solution and increase its fraction in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 absorbs some of the Earth's IR radiation that is not absorbed by water vapor and thus its presence in the atmosphere drives the greenhouse effect which warms the planet.

BOTH OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE. ALL THE TIME. Pull you head out of your ass and try to wrap it around the fact that CO2 can lead AND lag a temperature change. It can cause AND be caused by a temperature change. And the records indicate that it HAS DONE BOTH in geologic history and THAT IT IS CURRENTLY WARMING THE PLANET. Shakun and Marcotte produced two studies demonstrating CO2 warming during the Holocene and several other authors have verified and added to their work.



He doesn't have to because you never gave the slightest bit of evidence that it WAS. YOU are the one with the wild claim that flies in the face of the position of 99+% of the world's scientists. YOU are the one responsible for providing some evidence and thus far you haven't shown us diddly shit.

Dude, do you know what dominant means?

Can you not see how water vapor dominates the total atmosphere when it comes to absorption?

 

[Crick]

Can you not see that water vapor levels are essentially constant?

 

[ding]

1) The solubility of gases in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Thus, if temperature increases, CO2 will come out of solution and increase its fraction in the atmosphere.

And vice versa. 94% of all CO2 is in solution in the ocean. The ocean is absorbing and releasing CO2 at all times. When the planet is warming the result is a net release of CO2. When the planet is cooling the result is a net sequestration of CO2.

It is this relationship that shows throughout the geologic record CO2 has never driven a climate change because the data OVERWHELMINGLY shows that CO2 lags temperature.

 

[ding]

Can you not see that water vapor levels are essentially constant?

I would be shocked if the amount of water in the atmosphere remained constant. You yourself have already acknowledged that solubility is a function of temperature.

 

[Crick]

I would be shocked if the amount of water in the atmosphere remained constant. You yourself have already acknowledged that solubility is a function of temperature.

You need to think a little more before you post. The issue here is water vapor in the atmosphere. That is not a process of dissolution, it is one of evaporation -- phase change. Here is water vapor at the surface, at 3 km and at 9 km, from 1943 to the present. Does this match the temperature curves you've seen a million times? No.