Shocking satellite image shows Alaska’s formerly frozen Yukon Delta is completely green

Mamooth writes at post 32, my reply in bold.

1) Somewhere's around 405 ppm.

Incorrect! Incorrect!

Is was 413 ppm NOAA LINK

2) Higher. Why do you think that's relevant?

A LOT higher, about 7,000 ppm is a far better answer



3) A little lower than it is now, being that the world has been getting less green lately. Oh, did your cult not mention that to you?

Incorrect! Incorrect!

Already showed you wrong about the Earth greening status in post 225

Plant Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate)
Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment

CO2 science LINK

The link shows via a lot of published science research that plants grow a LOT better at levels far above 413 ppm level of today.

Greenhouse growers know this first hand by using CO2 generators in their Greenhouse buildings and often set around the 1200-1500 ppm level.

US Global Resources LINK

JOHNSON CO2 GENERATOR
Johnson CO2 Enrichment – the Nutrient of the 90’s Improve plant quality – Increase Production

Excerpt:

Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth, and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses . CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or 4 times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant quality.

4) Way, way below what it is now, making that also an irrelevant question.

Bzzzt!

You failed to adequately answer his question.

5) Your turn now. What was the point of those questions? Try to act like a liberal now, which means to state your point clearly and directly, instead of playing sleazy question games. According to my experience, you won't be able to, because your type is helpless if you have to go off-script.

Then you get typically snotty which means you have failed once again to make any sense and that your chronic errors go on and on.

 

It is all about money for some and power for others. One person benefitting from all of this is Elon Musk. How many politicians have scared campaign donations from people with the hyperbole of a crisis.

Yes they have.

Yes moving people affects climate in no way. It could well be an adaptation to it.

Nor should we. Government should not subsidize the effects of climate or people's choice of living areas.

Government is doing what it wants to do and is using fear mongering to bring people along. You must have noticed that with the covid response, no? That has been the same thing. Government grabs more power and uses fear to get people to accept it. At least some people.

There hasn't been any reason yet to adapt. When it is necessary for people to adapt, they will do so.

 

Are we at 440 to 460 ppm of co2? Now, when the dinosaurs were alive, I believe the co2 was about 2,500 ppm. So how come they survived (until a big rock hit them), yet we have a group that believe we are going to evaporate in a big fireball in a few decades if I don't change my car?

 

At the end of the day, after all the charts, etc., it all boils down to this; Earth's temperature is a sensitive balance between how much energy comes in and how much energy is reflected out. Any increase in heat-trapping, including very small amounts, is nonetheless more heat-trapping which means Earth's surface is getting hotter. Without natural CO2 levels in the early days Earth would not have warmed to become more habitable...we know that even these very low levels had huge impact on Earth's climate...higher and higher levels of CO2 are going to exacerbate warming...

 

Tectonic plate moves away from pole.

Ice melts.

Co2 gets blamed.

North America was in full ice age 1 million years ago. And 1 million years ago, Greenland was all green. So, according to the warmer religion, co2 thawed NA and froze Greenland at the same time...

 

CO2 doesn't "trap" heat since it isn't a molecular cage.

You apparently didn't understand the chart since the total increase of warm forcing since 1750 to around 2040 when CO2 level is doubled is tiny which means it doesn't add much warm forcing anymore that is generally agreed by most scientists both skeptical and warmists.

CO2 by itself doesn't add much warming to the system, that isn't disputable either.

It is the POSITIVE feedback (which isn't happening after 30 years of looking) is what was conjectured to drive significant warming. The Troposphere "hot spot" has failed to show up which was supposed to be one of the signs of a large Positive Feedback kicking in and generate a big warming run.

The AGW is a 50% failed conjecture which is obvious for anyone who to bothers to add it up.

I showed you the MODTRAN results which shows the CO2 has little very additional warm forcing to add by 430 ppm, it is getting smaller as time goes by.

 

In 2005, both the satellites and the balloons, the two and only two measures we have of atmospheric temps, both showed no warming in the atmosphere. What did the climate "scientists" do? They fudged both with uncorrellated "corrections" so that there is now "warming" in the atmosphere that never existed in the raw data....

 

Here is the data we have for the region of the Tropospheric atmosphere HADAT hasn't been updated on their website since 2012:

Climate4you.com


Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above).

Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis.

LINK

 

Increasing co2 in the atmosphere does nothing.

That is the truth of the data.

Global warming is a $2 trillion fraud on the American taxpayer.

 

It is the lack of the Positive feedback loop part of the AGW conjecture that failed, which is why it should be dropped and get back to new climate related research on other interesting weather/climate developments.

CO2 by itself has no force to change the weather and climate processes on the planet.

 

Here is a paper from Live Science

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
By Ker Than July 05, 2007

Excerpt:



The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago,....

LINK

 

That "last ice age" was the NORTH AMERICAN ice age (notice it is CONTINENT SPECIFIC).

During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed.

Ice ages are continent specific. Greenland and Antarctica and Ellesmere Island (top of northern Canada) are ice ages.

Continent specific ice ages happen when land moves to within 600 miles of an earth pole. Ice ages end when land moves away from the pole. It is those continent specific ice ages which dictate ocean levels and climate. Earth from the top of the surface to the top of the atmosphere is like a room with two AC units - Arctic and Antarctic, each with settings 0 = off and 10 = max cool. Right now, arctic is set at 1 and Antarctic is set at 9.

 

I see it a little differently because the planets Ice age began 2.6 Million years ago, while Antarctica was already glaciated for about 32 Million years at the time the North joined into the Ice age epoch we have been in ever since.

Greenland and Iceland have glaciers year around now because it is cold enough for it, but not cold enough for Canada and Alaska to be covered over year around.

We are in an INTERGLACIAL phase which is WHY Glaciers are mostly confined to high mountains in Canada and USA at this time. When GLACIATION starts in full the Glaciers will start their long march down the mountain sides into the valleys.

Since the planet has been in over all cooling trend since the Minoan time, Glacier's are already rebounding or restarted in areas that were once glaciated when the last Glaciation phase was in place.

 

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

 

The noise about INTERGLACIALS is 100% blown away by the fact of the data


During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of co2 in the atmosphere...

Co2 does nothing.

Birdbrains who parrot "interglacials" are completely without credibility....

 

Actually, we are still in an ice age. The biggest main measurement has been the presence of an ice cap at both poles. And we unquestionably do still have that.

And the largest connection to the Antarctic being covered seems to be that it is surrounded by ocean. That was certainly not always the case, as lots of dinosaurs and later mammals evolved to live in the strange environment in the past. Including having larger eyes, and heavier brow ridges. To allow their eyes to collect more light in the long winter nights, and brows for shade during the long summer days. And many believe that this was how early mammals like the various marsupials migrated from South America to Australia. This was during the early Cenozoic, when Gondwana was in its final stages of breaking up into the continents we know today.

This was roughly 60 mya, as marsupials had already advanced and started to spread from South America, Which helps us date when that break-up happened, because Africa and South America had already broken from each other at the end of Cretaceous, and there are no marsupials in Africa. The only fossil record of those animals is in South America, and the three continents that at one time connected to it. North America, Antarctica, and Australia. However, not long after that time (geologically speaking) did Australia and South America break away, which radically changed ocean currents and started the process that put Antarctica into a "deep freeze". One that has remained ever since.

But Antarctica is not melting and going away, at least not yet. Future models on continental drift are still being tested, but at some time in the next 50-120 million years, either South America or Australia will likely collide with Antarctica again. Which will cause a change in ocean currents, and once again radically change the climate. Allowing the continent to warm out of it's permanent ice age for the first time in almost 50 million years. And I wonder what future intelligent species may marvel at when they see what is hidden under that ice.

But "Ice Ages" appear to go back to as soon as Oxygen and water were major parts of the planet's environment. In fact, many now believe the "Boring Billion" of the Proterozoic was largely caused by a global ice age that lasted from 1.8 to .8 bya. And now many geologists believe the planet went through at least two, and maybe as many as four such global ice ages.

But we will not really enter into an interglacial until the Arctic Ice Sheet vanishes. The last time that happened was around 2 mya, and they know the climate was radically different than today. Northern Alaska had a similar climate to Oregon-Washington today, and that semi-tropical plants lived in South Alaska because fossils of palm trees have been found there from that era. The last 2 million years of almost constant ice age are also an aberration during the history of the earth, with only a separate Antarctica (with ground insulating the bottom of the ice pack and surrounded by free flowing oceans) has allowed Antarctica to remain for so long.

And the main thing that seems to kick them off was actually North and South America colliding around 3 mya. This would have disrupted the then ocean currents, and the hypothetical equatorial current from Asia to Africa. Another interesting time, as during the Messinian the Mediterranean had vanished, and the ocean currents were vastly different. Then in a relatively short time (once again geologically speaking) the Strait of Gibraltar opened up, and North and South America collided and changed not only ocean currents, but also ocean salinity. And the last 3-5 million years since those events have been full of radical swings back and forth between extreme warm and cold periods.

As I tend to look at such things with that eye in spans of millions of years and longer, I find the short term changes (like the "Little Ice Age and "Medieval Warm Period") as interesting short term changes. And the hysteria about such in recent decades to be a fascinating look at the arrogance of some people.

Oh, and the main reason why the last several ice ages were confined to just three continents (North America, Europe, and Asia) is because of the location of those continents in relation to an ocean with no major currents entering or exiting it. Yet South America, Africa, and Australia did not go through similar cycles because of their location in relation to ocean currents. But another continent colliding with South America or more widening between Asia-North America and-or North America-Europe will likely see the Northern Hemisphere warm even more. As that will allow more water to flow into the Arctic Ocean, and warm half the planet.

 

Because the "scientists" are not following the data. They are doing it all wrong, and have already reached a conclusion for the cause, and are fudging data to match their models.

I have yet to find any that can really explain the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period with their models based on CO2. I challenge them over and over again on these two periods, and they normally just sputter then throw out conflicting facts that can explain one or the other, but not both. Or how radically the climate of the planet went from one extreme to the other. Then throw in things like volcanology, and how massive eruptions that throw out huge amounts of CO2 actually see global cooling at the same time.

Once again, facts that break their models, but they just spin again and make other silly claims.

Now, do I see increased CO2 as a problem? Yes, but not for the reason the "climatologists" do. And I do not see it as being caused by the engines of people, but because of the massive deforestation that has been going on the last several hundred years. If we want to stop that, we need to stop worrying about cars and instead concentrate on the loss of places like the Amazon, which has shrunk by around 15% in just the last 50 years. Stop that and restore the region back to rainforest, and I bet within a century we would see those levels drop. And the "greening" of the Northern Hemisphere will also aid this, as plants once again gain a strong foothold in North America, Norther Europe, and Northern Asia. Areas now covered by tundra and permafrost once again becoming plains and forests, and locking more CO2 out of the atmosphere.

 

All misdiagnosed.

Medieval warm period was about Europe.

Please tell us Antarctica is not an ice age. Those obsessed with parroting what these climate "scientists" put out never clear their minds to see it's all bs.

How does a (continent specific) ice age begin?

It begins with land moving closer and closer to a pole. Antarctica 120 million years ago broke off from South Africa, and was still attached to South America. There are 70 million year old dinosaur fossils on Antarctica. As AA moved closer and closer to the South Pole, it got colder and colder - duh. Finally, around 600 miles from the pole, the annual snowfall ceased to fully melt, and started to STACK. That's the start of a (continent specific) ice age, the stacking of ice. The ice grew and spread to South America before South America broke off from Antarctica circa 30 million years ago. The gap between SA and AA is the only lattitude with no land, which is why so many ships sink there - 80 foot waves are common. Anyone who believes those dinosaurs lived on top of 2 mile high glaciers at -60F must certainly also believe the bs about interglacials....

 

There has been an Ice age for the last 2.6 million years, but your confusion seems to be over the words Interglacial period which is actually part of the cycle along with the other part Glaciation phase.

ICE AGE

Interglacial phase

Glaciation Phase

=====

Utah Geological Survey

GLAD YOU ASKED: ICE AGES – WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT CAUSES THEM?
By Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek
Authors’ Note, September 2019

Excerpt:

What is an ice age?
An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).

LINK

 

Wrong.

[img[https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif[/img]

It was simply "noticed" more as we have written records from the time in Europe between around 950-1250 CE. But we also do have records from North America, as it was during this time that the Vikings arrived in what they called "Vinland". A much warmer climate, that they thought made for a good colony. But the Warm Period ended, the area grew cold again, and they left. But the entire North Atlantic was affected, we just have records from Europe because the natives in the region of North America affected had yet to become literate.

As for why for these short term changes, the Milankovitch is more responsible for those. But that is much more short term. But Antarctica has largely been in the same location for over 100 million years. It is the most "stable" of the plates, for various reasons. It's movement is less both because of where the convergence and divergence of the various plates are, and that appears to largely be in relation to the "currents" deep in the mantle. Most of the major plate spreading tends to happen along north-south running lines, and drift east-west. Hence, North America moving West, Europe drifting East (along with South America and Africa doing the same). Antarctica drifts very little in relation to the rest of the continents, as most tend to be "pivoting" around it. It does move, but more in reaction to the movement of other plates around it as there is no major expansion happening at any of it's convergence points with other plates. And on the other side of South America you have the East Pacific Rise. Which largely has South America locked in place, but is probably the reason it has been moving North, and raising the Andes range as you also have the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Which is doing the same expansion, causing the plates between South America and Africa to move apart and increase the size of the Atlantic Ocean.

There is some movement in the continent, but it is minimal compared to the rest of the crust. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving at an average of 2.5-3cm a year. Yet the South American-Antarctic Ridge is only moving at 9mm a year, making it the slowest expansion area known on the planet. And that is echoed along all of its plate boundaries. Almost no expansion, almost no subduction. It just remains in place as the rest of the plates do their largely east-west dance with each other. With them moving 3-4 times faster in relation. It is largely in the same location (having moved mostly from South America and more towards Australia), and the movement seems to be more in reaction to the movement of other plates than in it moving on its own.

This is why the prediction of future continents is so tricky for geologists. They largely are guessing at what the next "super continent" will be, when, and where. Ultimately, one side or the other will prevail, and the Americas will keep moving West and collide with Asia. Or the other side will win, and they will collide with Europe and Africa again. But it does seem that South America is indeed may be moving South again, and that a ridge will start to rise between there and Antarctica. Which is the soonest for another convergence, at the 50 my region from now. Or the 120 my estimate, which has it moving more towards Australia and colliding with it again.

There is a term for that, it is "Craton". And one of the largest is the East Antarctic Craton. Covering over 70% of the Continent, that has kept it remarkably stable. And you can even see in the following animation that while the rest of Pangea broke up, Africa started to move into Europe and India raced across the ocean to collide with Asia, Antarctica largely remained in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Antarctic_Shield#/media/File:Pangea_animation_03.gif

The pivot point that all the rest seem to be moving around.

 

And once again, the fact that

Greenland froze while North America thawed


Blows that definition right into the trash can....

 

Europe and Vikings who landed in NA...

How about this - a warm ocean current pushed further north for a while...

 

No, your understanding of what Musk is doing is just flat out wrong.

His play is communications. He's launching hundreds of his telecommunications satellites and offering internet to the entire world. FORTY PERCENT (40%) of Earth's population has no internet access. His play is to sell internet to ALL these people, plus the gigantic number (including inwho have pathetic internet due to being in remote locations where no service provider is willing to invest in serving them.

Only 40% of Americans have fast internet. Musk wants to sell THEM internet, too.

Do you have ANY idea what that market is worth???

Musk makes sure he helps NASA, because he gets funding from that for serving the ISS. For that, he launches NASA satellites, etc., etc. He has by FAR the cheapest launch costs per kilogram for anyone interested in Earth orbit.

You can NOT tie that to climate change. Sorry, but your attempt at ANOTHER conspiracy theory is a dead cat failure.

This is just plain nonsense.

Countries are NOT INTERESTED in people moving in with them.

Look at our own immigration situation. We get all upset about the number coming here - but it is not even a drop in the bucket of what we and the rest of the world would need to tolerate should MOVING become how we adapt.

No, your comment on COVID is as totally ridiculous as the rest of your post.

People are paying through the nose to adapt to climate change TODAY.

Look at the work the city of Miami Beach has been doing.

Look at the damage to NOLA and the work to attempt further protection.

Look at the Chesapeake Bay plan for mitigating sea rise.

Read about what's happening in NYC.

Read about what's happening in Bangladesh, the high areas of South America, the water and heat problems in the ME, the disappearing island nations of the Pacific.

 

Which is the very condition that caused the MWP in the first place.

So thank you for admitting it was the WMP.

 

Wrong. He plans on launching over 1,500 of them within the next 5 years. And when completed, he expects to have over 12,000 of them to cover most of the inhabited planet.

Just think about that for a bit. Over 12,000 satellites. That is almost 4 times the number of satellites in orbit today. And we are already worrying about and actually seeing collisions between regular satellites. ANd the handful of Starlink Satellites already in orbit are responsible for over 1,600 close calls each week.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-collision-alerts-on-the-rise

L. Ron Musk is nothing but a snake oil salesman, living in a fantasy world that the great Charles Ponzi could only have wet dreams about. Yet like every other scam artist of his league, people salivate to his claims, not realizing that almost none of them have ever come to fruition. And those that did never came even close to his claims for them. Yet, he takes advance payments for items that are never delivered. If it was anybody else, they would be in jail for fraud.

Think I am kidding? here is just a sample.

Way back in 2017, he unveiled the "Tesla Semi". And while most big rig tractors start in excess of $150k US, he promised his electric ones would sell for the same price, and you could reserve one for $5,000 in advance, to be delivered starting in 2020. SO far, none delivered and the company is saying 2023 at the soonest.

Another 2017 announcement, the Tesla Solar Roof. Just a $1,000 investment to reserve yours, with deliveries by 2018. Then 2019. Then in 2020 they announced they were canceling the entire program as they could never match the promised $35k installation cost, and started issuing the refund checks of $1,000. They refuse to say, but estimates are between 100-350k roof orders were made. They could literally have stuck that money in the bank for 3 years, collected interest, then sent it back. That means between $350k to $4.1 million, depending on how it was invested. A damned good return on essentially a free loan.

And we can't forget the Vegas Hyperloop. Which in reality is Tesla taxis in tunnels. Even the WED PeopleMover from the 1960's was a more efficient system for moving people that that joke is.

His claims to reduce the cost of space travel. When in reality, it costs NASA more to lift items into space on his rockets that even the Space Shuttle cost.

Removed from not one but two Internet companies he founded, the last being what was once X.Com, but he rebranded to PayPal. Then wanted to make huge infrastructure changes. The board of directors so disagreed with him he was ousted as CEO, but with a golden parachute.

The Tesla Roadster, announced in 2006 with production to be started in 2008. With over 200 sold by early 2007. With a promised cost of around $50,000. In reality, they were just Lotus Elise cars with a Tesla engine. They underperformed what was promised, and cost over $110k when finally delivered.

The history of most of his companies are the same. They survive on his ability to talk a great game, and his minions who praise anything he promises. And never even realizing that most of what he promises he never delivers.