seven stats on climate change

[RealDave]

Remember when the left ran around screaming the sky is falling because the ozone was disappearing.....

Yeah lol, I do.

SSDD indeed

You God damn stupid fuck. Action was taken to abate the problem by banning things like certain aerosols.

How stupid are you people?

Not as dumb as you apparently since you seem to think banning hairspray led to the problem being solved.

That was part of it.

Facts are your friend. You should learn some.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'll give you links...if the citations are that important to you, you will handle that yourself...

--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …
--> Error - Cookies Turned Off
This paper deals with coral atolls, which are living organisms ... does not support your claim of "growing" ... FAIL ... to be fair, partially ...
--> Origin of spatial variation in US East Coast sea-level trends during 1900–2017
Please clarify which of your claims this letter is attached to ... otherwise ... FAIL ...
--> Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa
This article does not support your claim of 74% ... they found only 8% increase ... FAIL ...
--> Changing available energy for extratropical cyclones and associated convection in Northern Hemisphere summer
--> Changing available energy for extratropical cyclones and associated convection in Northern Hemisphere summer
Verified weaking of cyclones ... I can see why you posted this link twice ... TRUE ...
--> Vegetation and Climate of the New Siberian Islands for the Past 15,000 Years
Using bird remains as a proxy for temperatures ... limited success, but ... TRUE ...
--> Pronounced summer warming in northwest Greenland during the Holocene and Last Interglacial
Does not support your claim Greenland's glaciers are growing ... FAIL ...
--> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
This article claims several warm periods in the Arctic, one as recent as 900 years ago ... FAIL ...
--> Error - Cookies Turned Off
This article quite clearly states ocean pH is falling ... FAIL ...
--> Relative sea-level highstands in Thailand since the Mid-Holocene based on 14C rock oyster chronology - ScienceDirect
Yeah, 8 feet or better higher sea levels ... TRUE ...
--> https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/
Neither experiment discussed here support your claim the Sun is driving warming, opposite in fact ... FAIL ...
--> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.729.6404&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Whereas this paper does connect solar activity to warming .. TRUE ...
--> An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change
Paywall ... seems to support your claim ... TRUE ...

You should read the articles before you use them as citations ... only 5 supported your claims, 8 disputed your claims ... that's an awful record ...
If we look at your post #201 again, you're doing a bit better ... 5 claims confirmed, 4 claims failed, with 21 claims still to be addressed ... as good as coin-flipping ...

You're just randomly posting links without coordinating them to the claims in post #201 ... that's bad form and leads one to suspect you're trying to confuse the issue ... let's get that problem cleaned up before you post anymore links ... I'll take the time to read the links, you should take the time to connect the link to the claim ...

Overall, though, GREAT READS ... thank you for yarding these up and posting links ... these past two hours were well spent on my end ... I am looking forward to the rest ...

 

[ReinyDays]

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. That is why we need to starty now to cut emissions.

We know how much fossil fuel we burn every year ... and the Alarmists claim we produce 35 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year ... the problem is we're only measuring an increase of 18 gigatons in our atmosphere per year ... fully HALF our emissions are removed by the Earth every year ... do the math yourself, it's easy unless you're a liberal ...

I think Alarmists are lying ... exaggerating to get attention ... deflect folks from the data coming in now that disputes their agenda ...

Months ... not decades ...

 

[RealDave]

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. That is why we need to starty now to cut emissions.

We know how much fossil fuel we burn every year ... and the Alarmists claim we produce 35 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year ... the problem is we're only measuring an increase of 18 gigatons in our atmosphere per year ... fully HALF our emissions are removed by the Earth every year ... do the math yourself, it's easy unless you're a liberal ...

I think Alarmists are lying ... exaggerating to get attention ... deflect folks from the data coming in now that disputes their agenda ...

Months ... not decades ...

WTF?

18 gigatons removed. 35 emitted. = 17 gigatons increase.

That is assuming that 18 gigatons removed is just the fossil fuel emissions & not all emissions.

That is mathematics. I don't what that bullshit you posted was.

 

[ReinyDays]

English as a second language? ... "we're only measuring an increase of 18 gigatons in our atmosphere per year" ... try reading that with comprehension, and post your math, 2.3 ppmv is how many tons? ...

 

[SSDD]

I'll give you links...if the citations are that important to you, you will handle that yourself...

--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …

The claims are supported....

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The fail is all yours...

--> Error - Cookies Turned Off
This paper deals with coral atolls, which are living organisms ... does not support your claim of "growing" ... FAIL ... to be fair, partially ...

“This review first confirms that over the past decades to century, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization by sea level rise. The global sample considered in this paper, which includes 30 atolls and 709 islands, reveals that atolls did not lose land area, and that 73.1% of islands were stable in land area, including most settled islands, while 15.5% of islands increased and 11.4% decreased in size. Atoll and island areal stability can therefore be considered as a global trend.”

“Importantly, islands located in ocean regions affected by rapid sea-level rise showed neither contraction nor marked shoreline retreat, which indicates that they may not be affected yet by the presumably negative, that is, erosive, impact of sea-level rise.”
“It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size, making this value a relevant threshold to define atoll island areal stability.”

--> Origin of spatial variation in US East Coast sea-level trends during 1900–2017
Please clarify which of your claims this letter is attached to ... otherwise ... FAIL ...

Just more evidence that sea level rise is not the threat to coastal areas that is claimed..

“Here we analyse instrumental data and proxy reconstructions using probabilistic methods to show that vertical motions of Earth’s crust exerted the dominant control on regional spatial differences in relative sea-level trends along the US East Coast during 1900–2017, explaining most of the large-scale spatial variance. … Rates of coastal subsidence caused by ongoing relaxation of the peripheral forebulge associated with the last deglaciation are strongest near North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia [locations where the sea level rise rates are highest]. Our results indicate that the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries. … We note that negative VLM [vertical land motion] reflects subsidence and hence contributes to sea-level rise. Correspondingly, the most negative VLM [vertical land motion] rate (−2.5 ± 0.6 mm yr−1) is likely (P = 0.75) to occur in the states that host the maximum sea-level rise, North Carolina or Virginia, whereas the most positive rate of VLM (0.7 ± 0.8 mm yr−1) is very likely (P = 0.90) to occur in Maine.” (Piecuch et al., 2018)

--> Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa
This article does not support your claim of 74% ... they found only 8% increase ... FAIL ...

The statement this link refers to is that the sahara is shrinking....read for comprehension. The sahara is shrinking.

--> Pronounced summer warming in northwest Greenland during the Holocene and Last Interglacial
Does not support your claim Greenland's glaciers are growing ... FAIL ...

This link refers to the statement that it is cooler in the arctic now than it has been form most of the past 10,000 years.

--> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
This article claims several warm periods in the Arctic, one as recent as 900 years ago ... FAIL ...

Sorry guy, there are numerous papers finding that the arctic is warmer now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...

--> Error - Cookies Turned Off
This article quite clearly states ocean pH is falling ... FAIL ...

A modest long-term (1800s-present) declining trend in ocean pH values predominantly occurred prior to 1930, or before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising precipitously. Since 1930, seawater pH trends have risen slightly, meaning sharply rising CO2 has been coincident with less, not more, ocean “acidification”.

--> https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/
Neither experiment discussed here support your claim the Sun is driving warming, opposite in fact ... FAIL ...

Scafetta and Willson, 2019
I. The PMOD is based on proxy modeled predictions, “questionable” modifications, and degraded, “misinterpreted” and “erroneously corrected” results
• “The PMOD rationale for using models to alter the Nimbus7/ERB data was to compensate for the sparsity of the ERBS/ERBE data and conform their gap results more closely to the proxy predictions of solar emission line models of TSI behavior.”
• “PMOD’s modifications of the published ACRIM and ERB TSI records are questionable because they are based on conforming satellite observational data to proxy model predictions.”
• “The PMOD trend during 1986 to 1996 is biased downward by scaling ERB results to the rapidly degrading ERBE results during the ACRIM-Gap using the questionable justification of agreement with some TSI proxy predictions first proposed by Lee III et al.(1995).”
• “PMOD misinterpreted and erroneously corrected ERB results for an instrument power down event.”
• “PMOD used overlapping comparisons of ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 with ERBE observations and proxy models to construct their first composite. Other PMOD composites [17, 18] used different models of the ERBE-ACRIM-Gap degradation. The result of these various modifications during the ACRIM-Gap was that PMOD introduced a downward trend in the Nimbus7/ERB TSI data that decreased results by 0.8 to 0.9 W/m2 (cf. [18, 20]).”

II. The PMOD TSI composite “flawed” results were an “unwarranted manipulation” of data intended to support AGW, but are “contraindicated”
• “The dangers of utilizing ex-post-facto corrections by those who did not participate in the original science teams of satellite experiments are that erroneous interpretations of the data can occur because of a lack of detailed knowledge of the experiment and unwarranted manipulation of the data can be made based on a desire to support a particular solar model or some other nonempirical bias. We contend that the PMOD TSI composite construction is compromised in both these ways.”
• “[O]ur scientific knowledge could be improved by excluding the more flawed record from the composite. This was the logic applied by the ACRIM team. In point of fact PMOD failed to do this, instead selecting the ERBE results that were known to be degraded and sparse, because that made the solar cycle 21–22 trend agrees with TSI proxy models and the CAGW explanation of CO2 as the driver of the global warming trend of the late 20th century.”
• “The use of unverified modified data has fundamentally flawed the PMOD TSI satellite composite construction.”
• “The consistent downward trending of the PMOD TSI composite is negatively correlated with the global mean temperature anomaly during 1980–2000. This has been viewed with favor by those supporting the CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis since it would minimize TSI variation as a competitive climate change driver to CO2, the featured driver of the hypothesis during the period (cf.: [IPCC, 2013, Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2008]).”
• “Our summary conclusion is that the objective evidence produced by all of the independent TSI composites [3,5, 6, 9] agrees better with the cycle-by-cycle trending of the original ACRIM science team’s composite TSI that shows an increasing trend from 1980 to 2000 and a decreasing trend thereafter. The continuously downward trending of the PMOD composite and TSI proxy models is contraindicated.”

III. The ACRIM TSI supports the conclusion that “a significant percentage” of climate change in recent decades was driven by TSI variation

Graph Source: Soon et al., 2015
• “ACRIM shows a 0.46 W/m2 increase between 1986 and 1996 followed by a decrease of 0.30 W/m2 between 1996 and 2009. PMOD shows a continuous, increasing downward trend with a 1986 to 1996 decrease of 0.05 W/m2 followed by a decrease of 0.14 W/m2 between 1996 and 2009. The RMIB composite agrees qualitatively with the ACRIM trend by increasing between the 1986 and 1996 minima and decreasing slightly between 1996 and 2009.”
• “ACRIM composite trending is well correlated with the record of global mean temperature anomaly over the entire range of satellite observations (1980–2018) [Scafetta. 2009]. The climate warming hiatus observed since 2000 is inconsistent with CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) climate models [Scafetta, 2013, Scafetta, 2017]. This points to a significant percentage of the observed 1980–2000 warming being driven by TSI variation [Scafetta, 2009, Willson, 2014, Scafetta. 2009]. A number of other studies have pointed out that climate change and TSI variability are strongly correlated throughout the Holocene including the recent decades (e.g., Scafetta, 2009, Scafetta and Willson, 2014, Scafetta, 2013, Kerr, 2001, Bond et al., 2001, Kirkby, 2007, Shaviv, 2008, Shapiro et al., 2011, Soon and Legates, 2013, Steinhilber et al., 2012, Soon et al., 2014).”
• “The global surface temperature of the Earth increased from 1970 to 2000 and remained nearly stable from 2000 and 2018. This pattern is not reproduced by CO2AGW climate models but correlates with a TSI evolution with the trending characteristics of the ACRIM TSI composite as explained in Scafetta [6,12, 27] and Willson [7].”

V. The Mechanism: Higher solar activity on decadal-scales limits the seeding of clouds, which means more solar radiation is absorbed by the surface, warming the Earth

You should read the articles before you use them as citations ... only 5 supported your claims, 8 disputed your claims ... that's an awful record ...
If we look at your post #201 again, you're doing a bit better ... 5 claims confirmed, 4 claims failed, with 21 claims still to be addressed ... as good as coin-flipping ...

I do...clearly you don't. The linked papers support my statements...

You're just randomly posting links without coordinating them to the claims in post #201 ... that's bad form and leads one to suspect you're trying to confuse the issue ... let's get that problem cleaned up before you post anymore links ... I'll take the time to read the links, you should take the time to connect the link to the claim ...

Maybe if you tried a bit harder to read for comprehension, you would not be so far off the mark...the fails you tallied up were not fails at all, unless you are indicating your inability to understand what was there.

Overall, though, GREAT READS ... thank you for yarding these up and posting links ... these past two hours were well spent on my end ... I am looking forward to the rest ...

I think providing more for you would just be pearls before swine....I will post up some more as time allows...of course, pointing out that your claims of fail...and bringing forward items to make that evident take up a good deal of the time I might otherwise have had to provide more links...

 

[SSDD]

Predictions on climate change were based on the rapidly increasing emissions. Action was taken.

Predictions were based on us continuing to emit a certain amount of CO2...the fact is that we, as a species, emitted 25% more CO2 than was anticipated....add to that, not one, but two very strong el nino events...had they anticipated those el nino events, the predictions would have been even more dire, and therefore even further from reality...

I realize that you have probably had very little exposure to actual science and get your information from people who are perfectly willing to lie to you...but the fact is that in this past year, peer reviewed, published science said that polar ice is stable, sea level rise continues at the normal level it has for centuries, the snow cover in the northern hemisphere is growing, there are fewer tropical storms and tornadoes, deserts are shrinking, the globe is greening, climate models are terribly flawed, the climate is driven by the sun and ocean cycles, and it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. That is what peer reviewed, published science has said.

In this past year, peer reviewed, published science has pointed out that:

• The globe's islands are growing...not sinking as predicted by climate science
• The Sahara desert is shrinking
• The consensus...isn't, as more than 500 papers were published that question it
• Storm energy is declining,
• The arctic is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years
• Oceans are less acidic with rising CO2
• Sea level was over 8 feet higher 6000 years ago
• The polar vortex warming link was disproven
• The predictions made in 2000 were wrong
• The sun has been driving the warming of the past few decades
• Electric cars are worse than diesel when it comes to CO2
• Grain production has quadrupled as the population has doubled
• Great swaths of the globe have seen no warming for the past quarter century
• The pause is real
• Greenland's glaciers are mostly stable or growing
• The world's tide gages show no unusual sea level rise
• There is no gulf stream collapse as was predicted
• Arctic ice has grown over the past 13 years
• The Medieval warm period was warmer than the present and global in nature
• Renewable energy is creating energy poverty
• 400% coral recovery since 2014
• Global weather has become less extreme
• Cold weather deaths are rising (due in part to increased energy cost...ie renewables
• Biodiversity is more harmed by cooling than warming
• The warming since 1979 is entirely natural
• 74% of the globe has greened since 1981
• The equatorial sea level has fallen since the 1600's
• There is no empirical evidence demonstrating a human / climate link
• CO2 is a negligible factor in climate
• The arctic was 4.6C warmer in the 1930's

I will gladly provide you with links to the peer reviewed, published papers that make the above statements...while i doubt that you can provide a link to any peer reviewed, published paper disputing any of them.. So much for your consensus...actual science is winning out...

The arctic was 4.6C warmer in the 1930s.

Why yes, it was...

A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day

In approximately the last 140 years, there have been two periods of significant temperature increases in the Arctic. The first began in around 1918–1920 and lasted until 1938 and has been called the ‘1930s warming’ (Bengtsson et al. 2004). Other works have referred to this period as the ‘Early Twentieth Century Warming’ (ETCW, Brönnimann 2009) or the ‘Early Twentieth Century Arctic Warming’ (ETCAW, Wegmann et al. 2017, 2018). Our results confirm the observations for the last expedition from the historical study period in 1930/1931. These years covered the warmest part of the ETCW (Table 3, Fig. 4). In turn, the second increased warming of the Arctic began around 1980(Johannessen et al. 2004) or according to Przybylak (2007) in about the mid-1990s. Changes in overall atmospheric circulation have long been believed to have been the cause of the ETCW (e.g. Scherhag 1937). As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors (Bengtsson et al. 2004; Semenov and Latif 2012). It would appear that the greatest differences of opinion on the causes of the ETCW are to be found in works presenting climate models (see, e.g. Shiogama et al. 2006; Suo et al. 2013), which is an excellent illustration of the still insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms governing the Arctic Climate System.”

…during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010.”

Direct measurements vs your heavily infilled, homogenized, manipulated chart? I'll go with the direct measurements and peer reviewed literature over government, un reviewed charts...

 

[SSDD]

Considering it takes decades to put it in, balance.

assuming its out of balance now, which it is not.

We are spewing more than the Earth can remove you stupid shit. That is why the levels are climbing.

simply not true. you have been brainwashed. and hurling juvenile insults is further confirmation of that.

It is simple logic. Evidently you hase no logic.

Logic? What do you know about logic? You can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and yet, you believe in the AGW hypothesis...what exactly does belief in a hypothesis without a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports it over natural variability have to do with logic?

 

[SSDD]

Remember when the left ran around screaming the sky is falling because the ozone was disappearing.....

Yeah lol, I do.

SSDD indeed

You God damn stupid fuck. Action was taken to abate the problem by banning things like certain aerosols.

How stupid are you people?

There is not, and never has been an ozone crisis... It was just pseudoscience aimed at people who are prone to panic. You claim to be logical...so apply some logic to this and answer the question...

CFC molecules are found in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION...that is billion with a B...NO is a naturally occurring catalyst for ozone and just as reactive to ozone as any CFC molecule and it is found in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 5 to 7 parts per million...Nitrogen, is a natural reactant to ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 750,000 parts per million.

Now combine those facts with the fact that at an altitude of 20Km, the life span of an ozone molecule is about 1000 seconds...and at 32Km, the life span of an ozone molecule is about 4200 seconds.

OK...you have a CFC molecule present at a concentration of 3 parts per billion, which can react with ozone in the same way as naturally occurring NO...and any given ozone molecule is going to have a life span of between 16 and 70 minutes....what are the chances of a CFC molecule which is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION, encountering a single ozone molecule (much less wantonly destroying them in their millions as the pseudoscience would lead you to believe) which is present at a concentration of about 10 parts per million in the 16 to 70 minute span that any given ozone molecule exists before it naturally breaks apart?

Apply your logic to those facts and tell me how you believe CFC's ever represented a threat to the ozone layer...

 

[SSDD]

We are spewing more than the Earth can remove you stupid shit. That is why the levels are climbing.

simply not true. you have been brainwashed. and hurling juvenile insults is further confirmation of that.

It is simple logic. Evidently you hase no logic.

no its not logic, or science. its left wing propaganda aimed at making us all slaves to the world elites, I see that its already worked on you.

windmills kill innocent birds and there is no way to dispose of those huge blades when they wear out. solar panels require huge amounts of fossil fuel consumption in their manufacturing processes, electric car batteries are toxic when used up.

the only real answer is to find ways to use oil, coal and gas with less emissions,

You cl;aimed the CO2 levels were in balance. If they were in balance, the levels would not be increasing. That is logic. You are an idiot.

Oil & Gas kills more birds, Transportation kills more birds, Building kill more birds, cats kill more birds.

You are a slave to the fossil fuel industry.

car batteries are toxic

Prior to the onset of the ice age that the earth is in the process of warming out of (we hope) atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...relative to earth history, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2...

 

[SSDD]

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. That is why we need to starty now to cut emissions.

We know how much fossil fuel we burn every year ... and the Alarmists claim we produce 35 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year ... the problem is we're only measuring an increase of 18 gigatons in our atmosphere per year ... fully HALF our emissions are removed by the Earth every year ... do the math yourself, it's easy unless you're a liberal ...

I think Alarmists are lying ... exaggerating to get attention ... deflect folks from the data coming in now that disputes their agenda ...

Months ... not decades ...

WTF?

18 gigatons removed. 35 emitted. = 17 gigatons increase.

That is assuming that 18 gigatons removed is just the fossil fuel emissions & not all emissions.

That is mathematics. I don't what that bullshit you posted was.

Our 35GT is not even enough CO2 to outweigh the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year...

 

[ReinyDays]

--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …

The claims are supported....

[image deleted by me]

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The fail is all yours...

Let's see if we have this straight ... there was a GAIN of 115,000 km^2 of water area and a GAIN of 173,000 km^2 of land area ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

What a moron ... did we LOSE 288,000 km^2 of air area or something ... the article is about something else, you're just going to have to pay the $9 and read it yourself ...

The rest is much of the same ... go on with the other links ... I'm waiting ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Our 35GT is not even enough CO2 to outweigh the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year...

And what is this weight of carbon dioxide and where does it go? ... it ain't showing up in the atmosphere, that's my point in case you missed it ...

 

[SSDD]

--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …

The claims are supported....

[image deleted by me]

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The fail is all yours...

Let's see if we have this straight ... there was a GAIN of 115,000 km^2 of water area and a GAIN of 173,000 km^2 of land area ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

What a moron ... did we LOSE 288,000 km^2 of air area or something ... the article is about something else, you're just going to have to pay the $9 and read it yourself ...

The rest is much of the same ... go on with the other links ... I'm waiting ...

Not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about this...but lets see if we can make it even more clear for you although I don't see how much more clear it could be than one of the authors of the paper saying "We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world...

I made the claim that the globe's islands are growing.....my statement is supported...if coastal areas, islands included are gaining more land than they are losing to water....then they are growing..how difficult is that?

The evidence hardly stops there though...I hate to repeat, but since you didn't get it the first time, maybe a second look might help.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Physical modelling of the response of reef islands to sea-level rise | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

While this is based on a model, there are observations to back up the findings....

“Here, we present evidence from physical model experiments of a reef island that demonstrates islands have the capability to morphodynamically respond to rising sea level through island accretion. Challenging outputs from existing models based on the assumption that islands are geomorphologically inert, results demonstrate that islands not only move laterally on reef platforms, but overwash processes provide a mechanism to build and maintain the freeboard of islands above sea level. Implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding. Future predictive models must include the morphodynamic behavior of islands to better resolve flood impacts and future island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0080

“Coral reef islands are unconsolidated deposits of reef-derived sand and gravel that are considered vulnerable to the impacts of global sea-level rise because of their low elevation (< 3 m) and exposure oceanic wave energy. Previous research has shown that sea-level rise will drive an increase in wave overtopping on reef island shorelines, which will be an increasing hazard for atoll island communities. Here, we show that wave overtopping on reef islands is a geomorphically important process that facilitates sediment deposition on the island surface and vertical building. Field evidence from 26 overwash deposits show that vertical island accretion can be driven by king tides, long-period swell, local storms, tropical cyclones and tsunami. Deposit depths ranged between 0.06–1.93 m and increased island elevations by between 4–400%. Recognition that overwash processes can contribute to vertical island building is instructive in considering the potential for islands to adjust to future increases in sea-level and to incorporate this critical morphodynamic response in future flood risk modelling for low islands.”


Physical modelling of reef island topographic response to rising sea levels - ScienceDirect

“[R]esults show that the rate and magnitude of physical adjustment is strongly dependent on the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise and wave conditions. Results challenge existing models of future island susceptibility to wave driven flooding, demonstrating that washover processes can provide a mechanism to build and potentially maintain island freeboard above sea level. These insights highlight an urgent need to incorporate island morphodynamics into flood risk models in order to produce accurate assessments of future wave-driven flood risks and better resolve island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0088

“Low-lying coral reef islands are considered extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. However, future island morphodynamic adjustments in response to anticipated sea level rise and changing wave conditions are currently poorly resolved. Assertions of island vulnerability are based on outputs from flood risk models that simulate sea level rise on present day island topography despite evidence that many reef islands are highly dynamic landforms. Utilizing a physical modelling methodology, three experiment programs were undertaken to model gravel island morphodynamics in response to increasing sea level and changing wave conditions. Modelling outputs present new insights into the modes and styles of island change, primarily the first experimental evidence that reef islands can keep pace with sea level rise through island building driven by washover processes. Results suggest that many islands are less vulnerable to inundation than currently perceived and may endure on reef platforms despite sea level rise.”


Remote sensing of unhelpful resilience to sea level rise caused by mangrove expansion: A case study of islands in Florida Bay, USA - ScienceDirect

“To estimate the resilience influences on 15 islands in Florida Bay (Florida, U.S.), our study used indicators (areas of the 15 islands and their mangrove forests) by analyzing 61-yr high-resolution historical aerial photographs and a 27-yr time-series of Landsat images.”

“Comparative spatial analysis of the historical aerial images showed that the island area significantly increased from 1953 to 2014. For example, Joe Kemp Key had the largest area increase from 0.34 km2 to 0.37 km2. Moreover, the similar increased patterns of island area were found for annual total areas of the 15 islands from 1984 to 2011 by analysis of Landsat images. The total areas showed a significant increasing pattern with time. Therefore, results from the analysis of both aerial and satellite images revealed increases in island area, which indicate the island resilience to inundation caused by SLR. However, three islands […] decreased in area.”

“The long-term island area increases estimated by our analysis supported the resilience of Florida Bay islands to SLR inundation. Moreover, both the positive relationship between the increases of island area and mangrove expansion, and previous field studies in the Florida Bay and nearby Caribbean mangroves suggested the contribution of the mangrove expansion were at the expense of non-mangrove habitats.”

The fact is, and the studies show that overall, the globe's islands, are in fact growing.

 

[SSDD]

Our 35GT is not even enough CO2 to outweigh the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year...

And what is this weight of carbon dioxide and where does it go? ... it ain't showing up in the atmosphere, that's my point in case you missed it ...

You seem to be unable, or unwilling to grasp the larger point....that being that the CO2 we produce is not even enough to upset the yearly natural variation in the earth's own CO2 producing machinery...The amount of CO2 we produce is not enough to overcome the noise in the system..

 

[Redfish]

We are spewing more than the Earth can remove you stupid shit. That is why the levels are climbing.

simply not true. you have been brainwashed. and hurling juvenile insults is further confirmation of that.

It is simple logic. Evidently you hase no logic.

no its not logic, or science. its left wing propaganda aimed at making us all slaves to the world elites, I see that its already worked on you.

windmills kill innocent birds and there is no way to dispose of those huge blades when they wear out. solar panels require huge amounts of fossil fuel consumption in their manufacturing processes, electric car batteries are toxic when used up.

the only real answer is to find ways to use oil, coal and gas with less emissions,

You cl;aimed the CO2 levels were in balance. If they were in balance, the levels would not be increasing. That is logic. You are an idiot.

Oil & Gas kills more birds, Transportation kills more birds, Building kill more birds, cats kill more birds.

You are a slave to the fossil fuel industry.

car batteries are toxic

the CO2 in our atmosphere is not increasing, it fluctuates with the seasons like it has for hundreds of millions of years before man ever appeared on earth.

You remind me of the pathetic little girl from scandinavia, full of talking points and BS be devoid of any facts or logic.

Have you done away with your car? stopped heating your house? started eating grass the twigs? Like all liberals, I am quite sure you live like a normal person but demand that everyone else comply with the lords of AGW.

 

[Redfish]

--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …

The claims are supported....

[image deleted by me]

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The fail is all yours...

Let's see if we have this straight ... there was a GAIN of 115,000 km^2 of water area and a GAIN of 173,000 km^2 of land area ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

What a moron ... did we LOSE 288,000 km^2 of air area or something ... the article is about something else, you're just going to have to pay the $9 and read it yourself ...

The rest is much of the same ... go on with the other links ... I'm waiting ...

Not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about this...but lets see if we can make it even more clear for you although I don't see how much more clear it could be than one of the authors of the paper saying "We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world...

I made the claim that the globe's islands are growing.....my statement is supported...if coastal areas, islands included are gaining more land than they are losing to water....then they are growing..how difficult is that?

The evidence hardly stops there though...I hate to repeat, but since you didn't get it the first time, maybe a second look might help.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Physical modelling of the response of reef islands to sea-level rise | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

While this is based on a model, there are observations to back up the findings....

“Here, we present evidence from physical model experiments of a reef island that demonstrates islands have the capability to morphodynamically respond to rising sea level through island accretion. Challenging outputs from existing models based on the assumption that islands are geomorphologically inert, results demonstrate that islands not only move laterally on reef platforms, but overwash processes provide a mechanism to build and maintain the freeboard of islands above sea level. Implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding. Future predictive models must include the morphodynamic behavior of islands to better resolve flood impacts and future island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0080

“Coral reef islands are unconsolidated deposits of reef-derived sand and gravel that are considered vulnerable to the impacts of global sea-level rise because of their low elevation (< 3 m) and exposure oceanic wave energy. Previous research has shown that sea-level rise will drive an increase in wave overtopping on reef island shorelines, which will be an increasing hazard for atoll island communities. Here, we show that wave overtopping on reef islands is a geomorphically important process that facilitates sediment deposition on the island surface and vertical building. Field evidence from 26 overwash deposits show that vertical island accretion can be driven by king tides, long-period swell, local storms, tropical cyclones and tsunami. Deposit depths ranged between 0.06–1.93 m and increased island elevations by between 4–400%. Recognition that overwash processes can contribute to vertical island building is instructive in considering the potential for islands to adjust to future increases in sea-level and to incorporate this critical morphodynamic response in future flood risk modelling for low islands.”


Physical modelling of reef island topographic response to rising sea levels - ScienceDirect

“[R]esults show that the rate and magnitude of physical adjustment is strongly dependent on the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise and wave conditions. Results challenge existing models of future island susceptibility to wave driven flooding, demonstrating that washover processes can provide a mechanism to build and potentially maintain island freeboard above sea level. These insights highlight an urgent need to incorporate island morphodynamics into flood risk models in order to produce accurate assessments of future wave-driven flood risks and better resolve island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0088

“Low-lying coral reef islands are considered extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. However, future island morphodynamic adjustments in response to anticipated sea level rise and changing wave conditions are currently poorly resolved. Assertions of island vulnerability are based on outputs from flood risk models that simulate sea level rise on present day island topography despite evidence that many reef islands are highly dynamic landforms. Utilizing a physical modelling methodology, three experiment programs were undertaken to model gravel island morphodynamics in response to increasing sea level and changing wave conditions. Modelling outputs present new insights into the modes and styles of island change, primarily the first experimental evidence that reef islands can keep pace with sea level rise through island building driven by washover processes. Results suggest that many islands are less vulnerable to inundation than currently perceived and may endure on reef platforms despite sea level rise.”


Remote sensing of unhelpful resilience to sea level rise caused by mangrove expansion: A case study of islands in Florida Bay, USA - ScienceDirect

“To estimate the resilience influences on 15 islands in Florida Bay (Florida, U.S.), our study used indicators (areas of the 15 islands and their mangrove forests) by analyzing 61-yr high-resolution historical aerial photographs and a 27-yr time-series of Landsat images.”

“Comparative spatial analysis of the historical aerial images showed that the island area significantly increased from 1953 to 2014. For example, Joe Kemp Key had the largest area increase from 0.34 km2 to 0.37 km2. Moreover, the similar increased patterns of island area were found for annual total areas of the 15 islands from 1984 to 2011 by analysis of Landsat images. The total areas showed a significant increasing pattern with time. Therefore, results from the analysis of both aerial and satellite images revealed increases in island area, which indicate the island resilience to inundation caused by SLR. However, three islands […] decreased in area.”

“The long-term island area increases estimated by our analysis supported the resilience of Florida Bay islands to SLR inundation. Moreover, both the positive relationship between the increases of island area and mangrove expansion, and previous field studies in the Florida Bay and nearby Caribbean mangroves suggested the contribution of the mangrove expansion were at the expense of non-mangrove habitats.”

The fact is, and the studies show that overall, the globe's islands, are in fact growing.

your post just caused several liberal heads to implode

 

[SSDD]

--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …

The claims are supported....

[image deleted by me]

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The fail is all yours...

Let's see if we have this straight ... there was a GAIN of 115,000 km^2 of water area and a GAIN of 173,000 km^2 of land area ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

What a moron ... did we LOSE 288,000 km^2 of air area or something ... the article is about something else, you're just going to have to pay the $9 and read it yourself ...

The rest is much of the same ... go on with the other links ... I'm waiting ...

Not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about this...but lets see if we can make it even more clear for you although I don't see how much more clear it could be than one of the authors of the paper saying "We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world...

I made the claim that the globe's islands are growing.....my statement is supported...if coastal areas, islands included are gaining more land than they are losing to water....then they are growing..how difficult is that?

The evidence hardly stops there though...I hate to repeat, but since you didn't get it the first time, maybe a second look might help.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Physical modelling of the response of reef islands to sea-level rise | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

While this is based on a model, there are observations to back up the findings....

“Here, we present evidence from physical model experiments of a reef island that demonstrates islands have the capability to morphodynamically respond to rising sea level through island accretion. Challenging outputs from existing models based on the assumption that islands are geomorphologically inert, results demonstrate that islands not only move laterally on reef platforms, but overwash processes provide a mechanism to build and maintain the freeboard of islands above sea level. Implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding. Future predictive models must include the morphodynamic behavior of islands to better resolve flood impacts and future island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0080

“Coral reef islands are unconsolidated deposits of reef-derived sand and gravel that are considered vulnerable to the impacts of global sea-level rise because of their low elevation (< 3 m) and exposure oceanic wave energy. Previous research has shown that sea-level rise will drive an increase in wave overtopping on reef island shorelines, which will be an increasing hazard for atoll island communities. Here, we show that wave overtopping on reef islands is a geomorphically important process that facilitates sediment deposition on the island surface and vertical building. Field evidence from 26 overwash deposits show that vertical island accretion can be driven by king tides, long-period swell, local storms, tropical cyclones and tsunami. Deposit depths ranged between 0.06–1.93 m and increased island elevations by between 4–400%. Recognition that overwash processes can contribute to vertical island building is instructive in considering the potential for islands to adjust to future increases in sea-level and to incorporate this critical morphodynamic response in future flood risk modelling for low islands.”


Physical modelling of reef island topographic response to rising sea levels - ScienceDirect

“[R]esults show that the rate and magnitude of physical adjustment is strongly dependent on the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise and wave conditions. Results challenge existing models of future island susceptibility to wave driven flooding, demonstrating that washover processes can provide a mechanism to build and potentially maintain island freeboard above sea level. These insights highlight an urgent need to incorporate island morphodynamics into flood risk models in order to produce accurate assessments of future wave-driven flood risks and better resolve island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0088

“Low-lying coral reef islands are considered extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. However, future island morphodynamic adjustments in response to anticipated sea level rise and changing wave conditions are currently poorly resolved. Assertions of island vulnerability are based on outputs from flood risk models that simulate sea level rise on present day island topography despite evidence that many reef islands are highly dynamic landforms. Utilizing a physical modelling methodology, three experiment programs were undertaken to model gravel island morphodynamics in response to increasing sea level and changing wave conditions. Modelling outputs present new insights into the modes and styles of island change, primarily the first experimental evidence that reef islands can keep pace with sea level rise through island building driven by washover processes. Results suggest that many islands are less vulnerable to inundation than currently perceived and may endure on reef platforms despite sea level rise.”


Remote sensing of unhelpful resilience to sea level rise caused by mangrove expansion: A case study of islands in Florida Bay, USA - ScienceDirect

“To estimate the resilience influences on 15 islands in Florida Bay (Florida, U.S.), our study used indicators (areas of the 15 islands and their mangrove forests) by analyzing 61-yr high-resolution historical aerial photographs and a 27-yr time-series of Landsat images.”

“Comparative spatial analysis of the historical aerial images showed that the island area significantly increased from 1953 to 2014. For example, Joe Kemp Key had the largest area increase from 0.34 km2 to 0.37 km2. Moreover, the similar increased patterns of island area were found for annual total areas of the 15 islands from 1984 to 2011 by analysis of Landsat images. The total areas showed a significant increasing pattern with time. Therefore, results from the analysis of both aerial and satellite images revealed increases in island area, which indicate the island resilience to inundation caused by SLR. However, three islands […] decreased in area.”

“The long-term island area increases estimated by our analysis supported the resilience of Florida Bay islands to SLR inundation. Moreover, both the positive relationship between the increases of island area and mangrove expansion, and previous field studies in the Florida Bay and nearby Caribbean mangroves suggested the contribution of the mangrove expansion were at the expense of non-mangrove habitats.”

The fact is, and the studies show that overall, the globe's islands, are in fact growing.

your post just caused several liberal heads to implode

Doubtful...liberals aren't moved by facts...they respond to how a thing makes them feel.

 

[Kosh]

Most important stat on "Global Warming":

But the magnetic field has more to do with climate than CO2..

 

[georgephillip]

How would you explain this?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet