Did climate change cause the flooding in Tennessee and Henri?

[ding]

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.

I did address that. You were even a part of that conversation

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.

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

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.

 

[Crick]

I find it interesting that the article you're trying to use to backup your arguments itself assumes as fact that elevated CO2 levels warm the planet.

 

[ding]

I find it interesting that the article you're trying to use to backup your arguments itself assumes as fact that elevated CO2 levels warm the planet.

All in due time. They will realize their error when your apocalypse never materializes. That's when they will connect the dots that CO levels in the past are proxies for temperature. Which by inspection they should already know as CO2 lags temperature by 800 years.

How long before the thermal expansion of water causes the sea level rise to accelerate? Even a modest acceleration (mm/yr/yr) will result in a significant change in sea level rise (m/yr) over a ten year period. You can't hide the truth. Sea level rise won't let you.

 

[ding]

I find it interesting that the article you're trying to use to backup your arguments itself assumes as fact that elevated CO2 levels warm the planet.

The only thing I an using from that article is that the poles have different glaciation thresholds.

I can prove the same thing with D-O events. See?

Temperature proxy from four ice cores for the last 140,000 years, clearly indicating the greater magnitude of the D-O effect in the northern hemisphere.

 

[Crick]

The only thing you're using from that article? That's about the most amazing confession of intellectual dishonesty I think I've ever heard.

 

[ding]

The only thing you're using from that article? That's about the most amazing confession of intellectual dishonesty I think I've ever heard.

And you still don't get that the poles have different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation despite the overwhelming evidence and logical explanation for it.

 

[ding]

The poles having different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation is what drives the earth's climate and can be seen in the comparison of northern and southern ice cores.

Temperature proxy from four ice cores for the last 140,000 years, clearly indicating the greater magnitude of the D-O effect in the northern hemisphere.

 

[ding]

This curve clearly shows that our present climate is significantly cooler than the peak temperature of the last interglacial cycle. This means that CO2 is not necessarily responsible for the minuscule rise in temperature that is being attributed to CO2. Which is an unsubstantiated correlation. A more substantiated correlation is that the minuscule rise in temperature is due to natural affects that occur in all interglacial cycles.

Absent laboratory experiments, natural causes cannot be ruled out for the minuscule rise in temperature.

 

[Crick]

1) Homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago. More than a million years after the peak you think relevant. It is not.
2) Your peak took roughly 14,000 years to develop. Yet you claim such things have happened in decades as part of normal glaciation cycles.
2) Your plot is of isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen. You do not have CO2 there and you do not show the rise of the last 150 years.
3) "CO2 is not necessarily responsible for the minuscule [sic] rise in temperature". I really hope you can see the logical flaws you've committed here.

There have been terrestrial climates in Earth's past that humans would not survive. But they took place on this planet. You (and others) seem to argue that we should not be concerned about the return of such conditions. Such a position is obviously wrong.

Your "not necessarily responsible" comment is asinine. It is close relative to the comment that the Earth went billions of years during which it suffered millions of forest fires, none of which were caused by humans. Therefore, humans don't start forest fires.

So, contemporary heating is taking place orders of magnitude more quickly that heating during glacial cycles and anthropogenic CO2 is quite certainly the primary cause. You have yet to produce a single argument that casts the slightest doubt on that contention.

 

[ding]

1) Homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago. More than a million years after the peak you think relevant. It is not.
2) Your peak took roughly 14,000 years to develop. Yet you claim such things have happened in decades as part of normal glaciation cycles.
2) Your plot is of isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen. You do not have CO2 there and you do not show the rise of the last 150 years.
3) "CO2 is not necessarily responsible for the minuscule [sic] rise in temperature". I really hope you can see the logical flaws you've committed here.

There have been terrestrial climates in Earth's past that humans would not survive. But they took place on this planet. You (and others) seem to argue that we should not be concerned about the return of such conditions. Such a position is obviously wrong.

Your "not necessarily responsible" comment is asinine. It is close relative to the comment that the Earth went billions of years during which it suffered millions of forest fires, none of which were caused by humans. Therefore, humans don't start forest fires.

So, contemporary heating is taking place orders of magnitude more quickly that heating during glacial cycles and anthropogenic CO2 is quite certainly the primary cause. You have yet to produce a single argument that casts the slightest doubt on that contention.

Dude, you need to study the actual climate and stop making correlations that don't exist.

The correlation between CO2, temperature and sea level is broken because CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and never had driven climate change.

 

[Crick]

You need to identify the "correlations" you keep talking about.

The three GHGs with the largest effect are water vapor, CO2 and methane. Water vapor is not changing. Methane is increasing rapidly and is more potent than CO2 on a molar basis at absorbing IR. It is typically included in discussions of this topic though the total amount of IR absorbed by it is still far less than that absorbed by CO2. It also has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2, Just calling it "minor" does not refute ANYTHING we know about CO2 in the atmosphere. Try harder... a lot harder.

 

[mamooth]

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

CO2 and H2O cover different spectral windows. You can increase H2O to crazy high levels, and some spectral windows will still be open.

Now, increase the CO2 a little, some of those open windows get covered more. More heat is held in, so you get warming.

Thus, you screaming "But H2O dominates" is irrelevant.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Tennessee has never had a problem with flooding before

TSLA::“Disasters in Tennessee"

sharetngov.tnsosfiles.com

Well, once when I was about 5 or 6, the beaver creek overflowed and flooded the whole town pretty bad.

Turned out it was record rainfall.

The whole town had to move up to higher ground.

I was on one of those amphibious vehicles.

I kept yelling for the guy to blow the horn and he yelled back somebody shut that damned kid up.

That was back in the 70s.

https://www.weather.gov/media/rlx/April1977FloodsinAppalachianRegion.pdf

 

[mamooth]

CO2 does not play a role in driving climate change.

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, the decrease in OLR in the GHG bands, and the increase in backradiation demonstrates you're wrong. There are no explanations for that data besides increased greenhouse gases.

Your theory fails to explain the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. It really is that simple. You being upset because your theory is wrong does not make it any less wrong.

 

[ding]

You need to identify the "correlations" you keep talking about.

The three GHGs with the largest effect are water vapor, CO2 and methane. Water vapor is not changing. Methane is increasing rapidly and is more potent than CO2 on a molar basis at absorbing IR. It is typically included in discussions of this topic though the total amount of IR absorbed by it is still far less than that absorbed by CO2. It also has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2, Just calling it "minor" does not refute ANYTHING we know about CO2 in the atmosphere. Try harder... a lot harder.

So you believe water vapor is always constant?

With respect to the total atmosphere CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. You can see why with your own eyes.

 

[ding]

CO2 and H2O cover different spectral windows. You can increase H2O to crazy high levels, and some spectral windows will still be open.

Now, increase the CO2 a little, some of those open windows get covered more. More heat is held in, so you get warming.

Thus, you screaming "But H2O dominates" is irrelevant.

Sure but it's nothing compared to water vapor. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water.

 

[ding]

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, the decrease in OLR in the GHG bands, and the increase in backradiation demonstrates you're wrong. There are no explanations for that data besides increased greenhouse gases.

Your theory fails to explain the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. It really is that simple. You being upset because your theory is wrong does not make it any less wrong.

And yet CO2 has never been demonstrated to drive climate change.

 

[mamooth]

Sure but it's nothing compared to water vapor. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water.

This is like speaking to a chimp. It seems kind of human, but it's not actually grasping the conversation, no matter how far you dumb it down.

 

[ding]

This is like speaking to a chimp. It seems kind of human, but it's not actually grasping the conversation, no matter how far you dumb it down.

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

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

No, wind and rain have been going on for billions of years, sometimes less and sometimes even worse. But we have an element of idiots looking at the last 150 years and blaming mankind.