Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Question : ​

~ There was over 4000 ppm Co2 between 400 and 500 million years ago and it did not end the deep freeze ice age lasting millions of years. Why would 400 ppm do it now ? Is there something different about the CO2 now ? '

 

That's puzzling to me because if the property is doomed to join Atlantis after 30 years, that should show up in property values long before then. I assume Obama doesn't want to lose his investment. But maybe he does?

 

I'm open to an alternate explanation of Obama's investment strategy.

 

The northern Canadian and Siberian tundra is going to present some very serious collection problems.

I would consider that politics comes in after analysis, when policy is considered.

 

I own tidal property, because I love it as a destination for when my family gets together, for when we want to relax/vacation, etc.

I have no idea if it is increasing or decreasing in value.

 

So you are prepared to take an economic loss on the property because it provides a benefit now?

OK, well that IS an explanation.

 

Yes, this is true.

I'll point out that many others are taking the same attitude in Florida and other seaside locations.

The mayor of the city of Miami Beach recently stated that people should not buy property there, due to tidal flow. Yet, the city is still trying to exist!

 

IMO, market values won't look out 30 yrs into the future. If sea levels do keep rising, someone will take a loss on that property or technology will protect it?

 

True. And, the decrease won't come all at once.

In fact, property value increases will probably cover any potential down side for a good percentage of that 30 years.

 

It is too tedious to dig through so much willful ignorance.

 

You are probably right about the collection issue. Yes policy is political but so is analysis. That the warming is man made is opinion, for instance. We've been in a warming trend for thousands of years. Predicting more of it isn't much of a stretch. The amount of future warming is also opinion. I've read a treatise that predicts that we will enter an ice age in about 5000 years. Yet another opinion. There is money and politics surrounding these opinions. The science is murky because so much time is involved in the changes and so much mathematics rather than observation. During our escape from the last ice age, there have been several cold spells as well as warm ones. I remember predictions of an imminent ice age as recently as the 1970's. Hysteria sells.

I don't doubt we are in a warming trend. As I said we have been in one for thousands of years. I don't doubt that greenhouse gases can contribute to it. What I oppose is the hysteria and politics surrounding the issue. As I said, taking measurements is trivial. Predicting the future is nearly impossible. I'm fine with making models. I oppose making life more difficult over predictions of the far future. That is about money and politics, not measurements and models.

 

The source of warming is not opinion. It is something that is being measured today.

I like that you recognize that science can measure the ice ages, the cooling and heating spells that have occurred over thousands of years.

Then, one can add in information concerning the rate the heat is arriving and leaving Earth, and what affects that.

If there is hysteria on any side of this issue, responding to that hysteria is a bad idea. We should be responding to actual data.

And, the "making life more difficult" is a matter of what our political response should be.

I would suggest that our rapidly growing clean energy industry is not making life more difficult. In fact, it is creating an additional revenue stream for those living throughout our central region from Texas to Canada. And, it is hiring more people than oil, coal, etc.

Also, our larger cities have real pollution problems due to how transportation is powered. By moving to electric transportation we can clean up our cities and reduce the lung issues people experience.

Let's remember that 2/3 of our oil consumption goes to transportation. If we were to reduce that, we could be improving our balance of trade - while increasing employment!

There isn't any down side to people's lives on these elements.

 

The US is a net energy exporter.

 

I don't believe that matters.

If we use less oil, then whether we are a net importer or exporter, we still gain.

 

Nah. Trade balance doesn't really matter much.
Trade Deficit: Advantages and Disadvantages - Investopedia
https://www.investopedia.com › Economy › Economics

A negative trade balance offers advantages and disadvantages. ... trade deficits are good, bad, or don't matter much for a country and its economy.

 

I don't believe much about climate change policy hinges on that, but I'd point out that in general economists and politicians do get excited about balance of trade.

 

Politicians, yes. Economists, not so much.

 

Where are you on the points, #1 or #2?

 

In the part where I say, leave what one borrows as good as or better than when you borrowed it.

In other words, do what is needed to not destroy the world.
And in response to climate and gases, reduce our needs on fossil fuels. Go with renewable or nuclear energy. If we can handle nuclear waste without destroying the planet.

 

True.

But, we can't handle OIL without destroying the planet, it looks like!

I suspect we do need nuclear - and a LOT more care than we've shown with that at times.

 

If only the alarmists didn't lie so much.
Fact checkers defend activist scientists because they agree with them not because they are right
Posted on February 1, 2022 | Comments Offon Fact checkers defend activist scientists because they agree with them not because they are right
The so-called fact-checkers are out again trying to insist one side of a scientific debate is wrong and another is right because they happen to agree with one side. That’s advocacy, not science.


Here are some facts (check the links provided for additional references):

Continue reading →

 

You have to consider all of the variables affecting climate, not just atmospheric carbon dioxide. The sun was dimmer 500 million year ago and the climate
on earth was much warmer. The earth's volcanoes were more active in the past and when large quantities of sulfur dioxide were released into the stratosphere
from volcanic eruptions that caused more sunlight to be reflected away. That may have happened around 440 million years ago. Volcanic eruptions, changes to the
biosphere, asteroids, plate tectonics and CO2 removal by weathering, and continental drift all have significant effects on the climate.

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2? (skepticalscience.com)



Figure 3: As the sun has brightened, long-term average CO2 levels have reduced as a result of the temperature-sensitive rock weathering thermostat. Redrawn from Foster et al. 2017. Y axis = change in radiative Forcing (watts per meter squared) where 0 = preindustrial. Blue = Forcing by CO2 and LOESS best fit line; black dashed line = least squares linear fit to CO2 forcing; orange= solar forcing; red = linear best fit for combined solar and CO2 forcing



What's the hottest Earth's ever been? | NOAA Climate.gov



Preliminary results from a Smithsonian Institution project led by Scott Wing and Paul Huber, showing Earth's average surface temperature over the past 500 million years. For most of the time, global temperatures appear to have been too warm (red portions of line) for persistent polar ice caps. The most recent 50 million years are an exception. Image adapted from Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.

 

The graph below shows a strong correlation with surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2? (skepticalscience.com)



Figure 1: Temperature (top) and CO2 (bottom) for the last 66 million years, showing preindustrial & 2021 temperature & CO2. Ma = million years ago. Redrawn from Rae et al. 2021, with annotations added: 2021 CO2 per CO2.Earth, preindustrial CO2 per climate.gov, 2021 absolute temperature per NOAA Global Climate Report for June 2021 anomaly above 20th century average of 13.5ºC, preindustrial absolute temperature per Berkeley Earth 2020 anomaly of 1.27 above preindustrial.

 

There is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming exists and high levels of greenhouse gases are to blame.

Little CO2 in our atmosphere ensures livable temperatures around the world, but too much CO2 can turn large parts of the planet into a desert very soon. Countries that have high average temperatures today may be uninhabitable in a few decades if we continue to act as we have up until now.

 

The Wikipedia page on the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction occuring 440-430 million years ago has a section on how the climate changed
during that time. 4400 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide may seem like a lot of warming but one has to consider that the sun's decreased irradiance
almost balances out all of that CO2 warming relative to today. 4400 ppm of CO2 represents almost exactly 4 doublings of the 280 ppm
pre-industrial level of CO2. Each doubling represents 3.7 watts/square meter of radiative forcing or about 15 watts/square meter. The Earth's
albedo has a significant effect on the Earth's climate and that is a factor that must be included in any analysis.

Ordovician–Silurian extinction events - Wikipedia
Volcanism and weathering[edit]
The late Ordovician glaciation was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7,000 ppm to 4,400 ppm).[48][49] The dip is correlated with a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks, which draw CO2 out of the air as they erode. A major role of CO2 is implied by a 2009 paper.[50] Atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels may have fluctuated with the growth and decay of Gondwanan glaciation.[51] Through the Late Ordovician, outgassing from major volcanism was balanced by heavy weathering of the uplifting Appalachian Mountains, which sequestered CO2. In the Hirnantian Stage the volcanism ceased, and the continued weathering caused a significant and rapid draw down of CO2.[49] This coincides with the rapid and short ice age.

The appearance and development of terrestrial plants and microphytoplankton, which consumed atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus, diminishing the greenhouse effect and promoting the transition of the climatic system to the glacial mode, played a unique role in that period.[10] During this extinction event there were also several marked changes in biologically responsive carbon and oxygen isotopes.[8] More recently, in May 2020, a study suggested the first pulse of mass extinction was caused by volcanism which induced global warming and anoxia, rather than cooling and glaciation.[52][34] Higher resolution of species diversity patterns in the Late Ordovician suggest that extinction rates rose significantly in the early or middle Katian stage, several million years earlier than the Hirnantian glaciation. This early phase of extinction is associated with large igneous province (LIP) activity, as well as a warming phase known as the Boda event.[53][54][55]