Did climate change cause the flooding in Tennessee and Henri?

[ding]

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.

Yes, CO2 absorbs some of the Earth's IR radiation that is not absorbed by water vapor and other greenhouse gases.

No, that does not mean its presence in the atmosphere drives the greenhouse effect which warms the planet. It isn't a magical frequency that makes it more special than the other frequencies. With respect to the total atmosphere it's a minor role player when it comes to absorption. So no, the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere does not drive the greenhouse effect. It's a minor role player.

You can see it with your own eyes.

 

[ding]

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.

View attachment 531394

Actually the issue is way more complicated than vapor because there's also clouds to consider.

There's no way to see water vapor from geologic records. Water vapor and clouds are a wild card. But what we are discussing right now is which GHG is the most dominant. And that is by far water.

 

[ding]

BOTH OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE. ALL THE TIME.

But not the statement that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere drives the greenhouse effect which warms the planet.

It isn't a magical frequency that makes it more special than the other frequencies. With respect to the total atmosphere it's a minor role player when it comes to absorption. So no, the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere does not drive the greenhouse effect. It's a minor role player.

 

[ding]

Pull you head out of your ass and try to wrap it around the fact that CO2 can lead AND lag 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.

My head is out of my ass. CO2 has NEVER been shown to lead temperature. The example you provided is of an integlacial which has yet to reach its natural peak temperature and was measured from the coldest point in the last 1,000 years. If anything you are arguing that CO2 prevented an ice age.

 

[ding]

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.

The evidence are the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles. There's your evidence we are still in the normal range of an interglacial cycle.

The evidence is that we are in the middle of an ice age that has lasted 2.7 million years, dummy. Dramatic 8C temperature changes are normal for this ice age due to northern hemisphere glaciation which dominates the climate of the earth.

 

[Crick]

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.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 50% in the last 200 years. That increase has been logarithmic; half of it has taken place in the past 20 years.

God you're thick.

No one is denying that the Earth's atmospheric levels of all water soluble gases are inversely temperature dependent. Got it? Let me repeat that for emphasis. NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERIC LEVELS OF ALL WATER SOLUBLE GASES ARE INVERSELY TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT.

So, orbital dynamics increases the amount of solar energy reaching the planet, the temperature starts to rise. When it does, CO2 and other gases start coming out of solution. When they do, the warming from the greenhouse effect increases, providing a positive feedback to that initial warming. In several instances in Earth's history, greenhouse warming became the dominant factor after initial Milankovich warming. It did not do so before Milankovich warming had taken place because there was no mechanism to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. One those few occasions when there WAS a mechanism to independently increase atmospheric CO2: ex volcanism, methane clathrate events, asteroid impacts, etc, warming was initiated by increased CO2. Now that humans have appeared and learned how to burn fossil fuels, we have become the new clathrate gun.

If you want to see evidence of this, see the studies by Shakun and Marcotte.

 

[ding]

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 50% in the last 200 years. That increase has been logarithmic; half of it has taken place in the past 20 years.

It's a good thing too. We are in the middle of an ice age. You should be thanking CO2 for keeping the northern hemisphere from extensive continental glaciation which would wipe out significant parts of NA, Asia and Europe and displace 250 million people.

God you're thick.

Sometimes. But not nearly as thick as people who insult others for no other reason than they disagree with them that science is never settled. I can't think of a more thick person than someone who shouts down scientific inquiry.

No one is denying that the Earth's atmospheric levels of all water soluble gases are inversely temperature dependent. Got it? Let me repeat that for emphasis. NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERIC LEVELS OF ALL WATER SOLUBLE GASES ARE INVERSELY TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT.

Which explains the 55 million year correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2.

So, orbital dynamics increases the amount of solar energy reaching the planet, the temperature starts to rise. When it does, CO2 and other gases start coming out of solution. When they do, the warming from the greenhouse effect increases, providing a positive feedback to that initial warming. In several instances in Earth's history, greenhouse warming became the dominant factor after initial Milankovich warming. It did not do so before Milankovich warming had taken place because there was no mechanism to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. One those few occasions when there WAS a mechanism to independently increase atmospheric CO2: ex volcanism, methane clathrate events, asteroid impacts, etc, warming was initiated by increased CO2. Now that humans have appeared and learned how to burn fossil fuels, we have become the new clathrate gun.

In every instance CO2 was a response to temperature, dummy.

If you want to see evidence of this, see the studies by Shakun and Marcotte.

You mean the study that blames CO2 for temperatures rising during an interglacial cycle that has not yet reached it's natural peak temperature like every other interglacial cycle before it?

Did they conclude that CO2 saved the planet from a glacial cycle?

 

[Crick]

We are in the middle of an ice age. You should be thanking CO2 for keeping the northern hemisphere from extensive continental glaciation which would wipe out significant parts of NA, Asia and Europe and displace 250 million people.

I am glad we are not in an ice age, but the historical data show that global temperatures had dropped ~0.5C in the prior 1000 years. I don't think we would be in serious jeopardy.

Sometimes. But not nearly as thick as people who insult others for no other reason than they disagree with them that science is never settled. I can't think of a more thick person than someone who shouts down scientific inquiry.

What "scientific inquiry" and when did I "shout it down"?

Which explains the 55 million year correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2.

Several instances during the Holocene show CO2 becoming the dominant warming factor.

In every instance CO2 was a response to temperature, dummy.

Are you insulting me for no reason? CO2 has risen from non-thermal causes: volcanism, asteroid impacts and methane clathrate events.

You mean the study that blames CO2 for temperatures rising during an interglacial cycle that has not yet reached it's natural peak temperature like every other interglacial cycle before it?

Did they conclude that CO2 saved the planet from a glacial cycle?

Why don't you look the studies up and read them? Here are some links: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science and A global perspective on Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene climate change

No paywalls. Just go over the abstracts if you're pressed for time. There are more if you'd like:

Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach - Scientific Data

An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available. We applied five different statistical methods to reconstruct the GMST of...

www.nature.com

And, as long as we're talking about the Holocene, here's an interesting graph. Note the vertical span that includes the total range of temperatures experienced by homo sapiens up until the 20th Century.

 

[ReinyDays]

I see the OP has abandoned this thread ... probably makes no sense for me to chime in ... but I'm bored at the moment ...

Flooding in Tennessee has been greatly reduced in modern times due to man-kind's activities ... the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) did more than electrify the rural Deep South, it also is used to control flooding in the valley bottom itself ... thus reducing losses and greatly enhancing the quality of life in the more populated areas of Tennessee ...

The discovery of hurricanes is generally credited to Christopher Columbus during his first voyage to the New World in 1492 ... he got caught in one and survived to return to Europe and report these types of storms ...

Henri was a Tropical Storm when she flooded Tennessee ... the weakest and least intense of the tropical cyclones ... and had been downgraded to a Tropical Depression before she ravaged New England ... hurricane strength and intensity have a very poor correlation to human suffering ... and that even the smallest of tropical disturbances can produce profuse amounts of rainfall ...

This thread is about weather ... and these individual weather events have only slight bearing on our 100-year climate averages ... climate is what we expect, weather is what we actually get ... and Tennessee should expect an occasional hurricane ... such a weather event is well within Tennessee's current climate, no change is needed ...

 

[ding]

I am glad we are not in an ice age, but the historical data show that global temperatures had dropped ~0.5C in the prior 1000 years. I don't think we would be in serious jeopardy.

We are in an ice age. We are in an interglacial cycle of an ice age that began almost 3 million years ago. You can't seem to fathom the importance of the transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet even though you claim climate is important to you. I would think that understanding the biggest shift in climate over the past 55 million years might be if use in a climate discussion.

We are precariously close to the threshold of a glacial cycle. We are much closer to a glacial cycle than we are to a greenhouse planet.

As for historical data showing a decrease in temperature during an interglacial cycle.... the geologic record is full of examples where it cooled during an interglacial cycle and then resumed warming. The record is littered with them. Just as the record is littered with examples of a glacial cycle warming and then resumed cooling.

What "scientific inquiry" and when did I "shout it down"?

You do believe the science is settled, right? And that everyone should get on board and accept it, right?

Several instances during the Holocene show CO2 becoming the dominant warming factor.

No. They don't. They have mistaken the natural warming trend of an interglacial cycle with increased CO2 emissions.

Are you insulting me for no reason? CO2 has risen from non-thermal causes: volcanism, asteroid impacts and methane clathrate events.

I am insulting you because you are dishonest and stupid. You go back 50 million years ago, mistakenly attribute CO2 for warming and ignore the conditions which led to a transition from a green house planet to an ice house planet a mere 3 million years ago.

Why don't you look the studies up and read them? Here are some links: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years | Science and A global perspective on Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene climate change

No paywalls. Just go over the abstracts if you're pressed for time. There are more if you'd like:

Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach - Scientific Data

An extensive new multi-proxy database of paleo-temperature time series (Temperature 12k) enables a more robust analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) and associated uncertainties than was previously available. We applied five different statistical methods to reconstruct the GMST of...

www.nature.com

And, as long as we're talking about the Holocene, here's an interesting graph. Note the vertical span that includes the total range of temperatures experienced by homo sapiens up until the 20th Century.

I have. You can't tell shit from anything which does not begin 3 million years ago because starting in the middle of an interglacial cycle without the context of all the cycles for the past 3 million years ago is meaningless and results in blaming CO2 for natural interglacial warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

Where, outside of community message boards, is there any evidence anybody cares about climate change?

Answer.........none exists.

 

[Crick]

We are in an ice age. We are in an interglacial cycle of an ice age that began almost 3 million years ago. You can't seem to fathom the importance of the transition from a greenhouse planet to an ice house planet even though you claim climate is important to you. I would think that understanding the biggest shift in climate over the past 55 million years might be if use in a climate discussion.

The pace of global warming over the last 150 years, and particularly the last 50 years is orders of magnitude faster than such changes would occur were it being driven solely by normal glacial cycle forces (ie, Milankovich). Additionally, to lay credit at glacial cycles for warming the planet, you have to explain why the increased CO2 and CH4 have NOT (per your view) warmed the planet.

We are precariously close to the threshold of a glacial cycle. We are much closer to a glacial cycle than we are to a greenhouse planet.

Show us a published climate scientists who believes that to be true.

As for historical data showing a decrease in temperature during an interglacial cycle.... the geologic record is full of examples where it cooled during an interglacial cycle and then resumed warming. The record is littered with them. Just as the record is littered with examples of a glacial cycle warming and then resumed cooling.

What the record does NOT show is warming at the rate we have observed over the last 50 years.

You do believe the science is settled, right? And that everyone should get on board and accept it, right?

Yes and yes.

No. They don't. They have mistaken the natural warming trend of an interglacial cycle with increased CO2 emissions.

As I said before, Milankovich warming could not have raised the Earth's temperature this quickly and you have never explained (to anyone's satisfaction) why the added GHGs are NOT warming the planet.

I am insulting you because you are dishonest and stupid.

Funny, that's precisely why I insulted you.

You go back 50 million years ago, mistakenly attribute CO2 for warming and ignore the conditions which led to a transition from a green house planet to an ice house planet a mere 3 million years ago.

The Holocene only goes back 22,000 years, not 50 million. I find little (not "no") point in looking at the Earth more than 200,000 years back. We are concerned with how the Earth's climate will affect humans. CO2 IS warming the planet. We wouldn't be here if it didn't.

I have. You can't tell shit from anything which does not begin 3 million years ago because starting in the middle of an interglacial cycle without the context of all the cycles for the past 3 million years ago is meaningless and results in blaming CO2 for natural interglacial warming.

If you'd read Shakun and Marcotte, why do you keep accusing me of going back 3 million years or 50 million years? I could be wrong, but I strenuously doubt you've even read the abstracts. Why don't you try again and then see if you can actually explain to me what mistakes you think they made when they determined that there WERE instances in which CO2 led temperature increases.

 

[ding]

The pace of global warming over the last 150 years, and particularly the last 50 years is orders of magnitude faster than such changes would occur were it being driven solely by normal glacial cycle forces (ie, Milankovich). Additionally, to lay credit at glacial cycles for warming the planet, you have to explain why the increased CO2 and CH4 have NOT (per your view) warmed the planet.

25 or so D-O events say otherwise. 8C changes up and down over a matter of decades during the last glacial cycle.

And we are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles. We are still in the middle of an interglacial cycle. You are confusing increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of an icehouse world with man made warming due to CO2. Increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty is a hallmark of a bipolar glaciation planet.

Increased CO2 and CH4 do not drive the climate of the earth. Plate tectonics which distribute land masses and affect ocean circulation and albedo does. The poles are isolated from warm marine currents. The south pole has a continent parked over it and the north pole has an ocean parked over it which is largely isolated by other landmasses. As such the threshold for extensive continental glaciation is lower a the south pole than it is at the north pole. Which is why northern hemisphere climate dominates the climate of the planet and has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty.

Show us a published climate scientists who believes that to be true.

We show that the CO(2) threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere ( approximately 280 p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica ( approximately 750 p.p.m.v.).

(PDF) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

PDF | The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for the first continental-scale glaciation of Antarctica in the earliest... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Yes and yes.

It's a good thing Einstein didn't think like that.

As I said before, Milankovich warming could not have raised the Earth's temperature this quickly and you have never explained (to anyone's satisfaction) why the added GHGs are NOT warming the planet.

Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest they do.

Funny, that's precisely why I insulted you.

Except I don't believe that science is ever settled. You do. The round earth theory must have sent you reeling.

If you'd read Shakun and Marcotte, why do you keep accusing me of going back 3 million years or 50 million years? I could be wrong, but I strenuously doubt you've even read the abstracts. Why don't you try again and then see if you can actually explain to me what mistakes you think they made when they determined that there WERE instances in which CO2 led temperature increases.

Because understanding the reasons and conditions for the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet inform our understanding of what actually drives the climate of the planet and because they are confusing increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty for man made global warming from carbon emissions.

The only way man is affecting the earth's climate is through urbanization and deforestation. CO2 does not play a role in driving climate change. And until we exceed the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles you cannot blame CO2 for natural interglacial warming. No matter how many tomes temps go down and then up. That's all part of the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of a bipolar glaciated world.

 

[Crick]

25 or so D-O events say otherwise. 8C changes up and down over a matter of decades during the last glacial cycle.

You cannot discern an event taking a few decades from a graph scaled from 0 - 10 million years

And we are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles. We are still in the middle of an interglacial cycle. You are confusing increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of an icehouse world with man made warming due to CO2. Increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty is a hallmark of a bipolar glaciation planet.

Not at the time scale we have been experiencing.

Increased CO2 and CH4 do not drive the climate of the earth. Plate tectonics which distribute land masses and affect ocean circulation and albedo does. The poles are isolated from warm marine currents. The south pole has a continent parked over it and the north pole has an ocean parked over it which is largely isolated by other landmasses. As such the threshold for extensive continental glaciation is lower a the south pole than it is at the north pole. Which is why northern hemisphere climate dominates the climate of the planet and has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty.

The most rapid process your linked article mentions - the Oi-1 event - requires "a few hundred thousand years". I repeat, the pace of warming we have observed is orders of magnitude more rapid than anything seen in the glaciation cycle. And, as I have repeatedly told you and others, you would still need to explain why a 50% increase in CO2 would NOT warm the planet.

View attachment 532130
View attachment 532135

We show that the CO(2) threshold below which glaciation occurs in the Northern Hemisphere ( approximately 280 p.p.m.v.) is much lower than that for Antarctica ( approximately 750 p.p.m.v.).

(PDF) Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

PDF | The long-standing view of Earth's Cenozoic glacial history calls for the first continental-scale glaciation of Antarctica in the earliest... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

It's a good thing Einstein didn't think like that. [that AGW theory is settled science]

Because there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest they do.

Except I don't believe that science is ever settled. You do. The round earth theory must have sent you reeling.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't regard any theory as settled science? Treat any theory as if it were true? How about the germ theory of disease? How about the carcinogenicity of various man-made compounds? How about the effectiveness of vaccines against polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, hepatitis B? How about our predictions of hurricanes and tornadoes? Should we make decisions as if we know those to be true or as if they were complete unknowns? When better than 99% of the experts accept a theory, the intelligent thing to do is treat it as if it were a fact.

Because understanding the reasons and conditions for the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet inform our understanding of what actually drives the climate of the planet and because they are confusing increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty for man made global warming from carbon emissions.

The article you've dug up and already misinterpreted concerns differences in the thresholds required for glaciation at the two poles: CO2 levels above which glaciation cannot take place. If you think there's something in this article that provides evidence that CO2 is NOT the cause of the observed warming, I suggest you locate it.

The only way man is affecting the earth's climate is through urbanization and deforestation. CO2 does not play a role in driving climate change. And until we exceed the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles you cannot blame CO2 for natural interglacial warming. No matter how many tomes temps go down and then up. That's all part of the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of a bipolar glaciated world.

You keep saying CO2 is not involved in warming but you've yet to explain why not. I think you ought to concentrate on getting past that step first.

 

[ding]

You cannot discern an event taking a few decades from a graph scaled from 0 - 10 million years

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet increased by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[3] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.

Dansgaard–Oeschger event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

You cannot discern an event taking a few decades from a graph scaled from 0 - 10 million years

One would have to be an idiot if he believed that temperatures only increased during an interglacial cycle and only decreased during a glacial cycle.

It is intellectually dishonest to benchmark today's temperature to the temperature of 1750 which was a cold spell rather than 1000 which was the warmest pre-industrial temperature.

It is intellectually dishonest to argue a temperature increase during an interglacial cycle is attributed to CO2 without empirical test data because you cannot rule out natural causes as the cause. The geologic record is littered with large temperature swings over the past 2.7 million years ago because the nature of a bipolar glaciated planet is more frequent and drastic temperature swings.

 

[ding]

Not at the time scale we have been experiencing.

D-O events say otherwise.

It is intellectually dishonest to argue a temperature increase during an interglacial cycle is attributed to CO2 without empirical test data because you cannot rule out natural causes as the cause. The geologic record is littered with large temperature swings over the past 2.7 million years ago because the nature of a bipolar glaciated planet is more frequent and drastic temperature swings.

 

[ding]

The most rapid process your linked article mentions - the Oi-1 event - requires "a few hundred thousand years". I repeat, the pace of warming we have observed is orders of magnitude more rapid than anything seen in the glaciation cycle. And, as I have repeatedly told you and others, you would still need to explain why a 50% increase in CO2 would NOT warm the planet.

You are missing the point. We are closer to the supposed CO2 threshold of 280 ppm for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than we are to the 750 ppm threshold for ending extensive glaciation in the southern hemisphere.

 

[ding]

Are you suggesting we shouldn't regard any theory as settled science? Treat any theory as if it were true? How about the germ theory of disease? How about the carcinogenicity of various man-made compounds? How about the effectiveness of vaccines against polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, hepatitis B? How about our predictions of hurricanes and tornadoes? Should we make decisions as if we know those to be true or as if they were complete unknowns? When better than 99% of the experts accept a theory, the intelligent thing to do is treat it as if it were a fact.

I am suggesting that idiots like you and your religious fanatics buddies of the cult of global warming are shouting down opposition. That's a bad look.

 

[ding]

The article you've dug up and already misinterpreted concerns differences in the thresholds required for glaciation at the two poles: CO2 levels above which glaciation cannot take place. If you think there's something in this article that provides evidence that CO2 is NOT the cause of the observed warming, I suggest you locate it.

No misinterpretation on my part. Extensive glaciation occurs at different thresholds at the north and south pole. I even explained why that happens.

CO2 today cannot be used because it is no longer a proxy for temperature. In the past, CO2 was a proxy for temperature. But the key point is that each pole has a different threshold for glaciation and we are closer to that point than we are to being a greenhouse planet with no polar glaciation.