Ocean Solutions are key to solving Climate Change

There is a comprehensive and systematic assessment of 13 global- and local-scale, ocean-based measures was performed to help steer the development and implementation of technologies and actions toward a sustainable outcome.

Iron Fertilization and growth of large kelp farms are the two favorite programs that Nextbigfuture believes can both reduce CO2 but also massively increase fish.

Scientists have reported a 6–12% decline in global plankton production since 1980. A full-scale plankton restoration program using iron fertilization could regenerate approximately 3–5 billion tons of sequestration capacity. This could be done for less than $5 per ton of CO2 which is one of the lowest cost large scale methods.

A handful of people could go onto a small boat and put 10-100 tons of soluble iron into the ocean and generate algae bloom visible from space. The blooms can hundreds of thousands to millions of tons in mass.

A hundred tons of iron were put in 2012 in the coastal waters of Canada and generated tens of millions more fish. Different breeds of fish mature and are caught at different ages. In 2013, there were a lot more one-year-old fish varieties. In 2014, there were a lot more two-year-old fish on the western part of Canada and the USA. On 2015 there was a lot more three-year-old fish and in 2016, there were a lot more four-year-old fish. The one iron fertilization project sequestered more CO2 to the bottom of the ocean than a greater than one billion dollar carbon capture project.

Ocean climate solutions report

The ocean provides most of the life-supporting environment on the planet. It hosts a large portion of biodiversity, plays a major role in climate regulation, sustains a vibrant economy and contributes to food security worldwide. Severe impacts on key marine ecosystems and ecosystem services are projected in response to the future increase in global mean temperature and concurrent ocean acidification, deoxygenation, and sea-level rise.

Ocean Solutions to Address Climate Change and Its Effects on Marine Ecosystems

They look at reducing adverse impacts on selected, important and sensitive marine ecosystems and ecosystem services. The three drivers considered are ocean warming, ocean acidification and sea-level rise, although others such as hypoxia, extreme events, and changes in storminess and precipitation can also be important.

They focus on four ecosystems and habitats (warm-water coral reefs, mangroves and salt-marshes, seagrass beds, and Arctic biota) and four ecosystem services (finfish fisheries, fish aquaculture, coastal protection, and bivalve fisheries and aquaculture), which are particularly vulnerable to climate impacts and are critical for livelihoods and food security.

The potential of each ocean-based measure is assessed in terms of the following eight environmental, technological, social, and economic criteria:
(1) potential effectiveness to increase net carbon uptake and moderate ocean warming, ocean acidification, and sea level rise;
(2) technological readiness;
(3) lead time until full potential effectiveness;
(4) duration of benefits;
(5) co-benefits;
(6) disbenefits;
(7) cost-effectiveness; and
(8) governability from an international perspective.

(1) Ocean-based renewable energy (hereafter renewable energy) comprises the production of energy using offshore wind turbines and harvesting of energy from tides, waves, ocean currents, and thermal stratification

(2) The restoration and conservation of coastal vegetation (hereafter vegetation), primarily saltmarshes, mangroves and seagrasses (also referred to as “blue carbon ecosystems”), seeks to enhance their carbon sink capacity and avoid emissions from their existing large carbon stocks if degraded or destroyed.

(3) Fertilization involves the artificial increase in the ocean’s primary production and, hence, carbon uptake by phytoplankton in the open ocean, to be achieved primarily by adding soluble iron to surface waters where it is currently lacking, mostly in mid-ocean gyres and the Southern Ocean.

(4) Alkalinization describes the addition of a variety of alkaline substances that consume CO2 and/or neutralize acidity primarily achieved by raising the concentration of carbonate or hydroxide ions in surface waters, and thereby shifting the associated chemical equilibria in seawater to increase the oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2. The feasibility and effectiveness of adding alkalinity are considered at both global and local scales. In either case the alkalinity would be derived from land-based mineral or synthetic chemical sources or from locally available marine material (e.g., waste shells). The alkalinity would then require transport to and distribution within the marine environment.

5) Land-ocean hybrid methods include the use of the ocean and its sediments to store biomass, CO2 or alkalinity derived from terrestrial sources. Examples are crop residue storage on the seafloor marine storage of CO2 from land-based bio-energy or from direct air capture of CO2 and conversion of such CO2 to alkaline forms for ocean storage. Hybrid methods also include techniques involving marine-to-land transfers, such as using marine biomass to fuel biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) on land or using such biomass to form biochar as a soil amendment.

Cloud Brightening and increasing surface reflection

Another area of action to counter global and ocean warming (but which does not directly address the greenhouse gas cause) is solar radiation management (SRM, also known as sunlight reflection methods). Several schemes were described, including stratospheric aerosol injection.

Two ocean-based schemes are considered here.

(6) Marine cloud brightening (hereafter cloud brightening) involves the large-scale aerial spraying of seawater or other substances into the lower atmosphere to increase the amount of sunlight clouds reflect back into space. Sub-global implementation could also be considered.

(7) Increased surface ocean albedo (hereafter albedo enhancement) is here considered to be achieved by long-lived ocean micro-bubbles or foams, produced either by commercial shipping or by vessels dedicated to that task.

Four measures relate to the protection of biota and ecosystem

(8) Reducing pollution refers to decreasing release of anthropogenic, harmful substances. Pollution can exacerbate hypoxia and ocean acidification especially in coastal waters while increasing the sensitivity of marine organisms and ecosystems to climate-related drivers).

(9) Restoring hydrological regimes (restoring hydrology) relates to the maintenance and restoration of marine hydrological conditions, primarily in coastal waters, including both the tidal and riverine delivery of water and sediments, to alleviate local changes in climate-related drivers

(10) Eliminating overexploitation includes ensuring the harvest and extraction of living resources are within biologically safe limits for sustainable use by humans and to maintain ecosystem function and, in the case of non-living resources (e.g., sand and minerals), in levels that avoid irreversible ecological impacts. For example, in over-exploited ecosystems, pelagic species that are smaller and faster turnover generally increase in dominance.

(11) The protection of habitats and ecosystems (protection) refers to the conservation of habitats and ecosystems, primarily through marine protected areas (MPAs). For example, increased abundance of marine species is expected to enhance productivity of the surrounding areas which can help buffer against climate impacts and increase resilience

Manipulation of biological and ecological adaptation of organisms and ecosystems to the changing ocean conditions

(12) Assisted evolution involves large-scale genetic modification, captive breeding and release of organisms with enhanced stress tolerance.

(13) Relocation and reef restoration involves not only the restoration of degraded coral and oyster reefs, but also their enhancement and active relocation, with the potential creation of new habitats and use of more resilient species or strains. Note that restoration and protection of vegetated coastal habitats (seagrasses, mangroves, and saltmarshes) is considered in the vegetation measure.

180 thoughts on “Ocean Solutions are key to solving Climate Change”

  1. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters.” Suddenly scientists all over the world hit themselves on the forehead saying “why didn’t we think of that? APEMAN IS A GENIUS”.

  2. That’s not a problem because CO2 is not a problem, and we get out of it non-starving whales and more more fish. ” That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  3. The problem with iron fertilization is that 95% of the CO2 captured does not sink to the bottom of the ocean and returns to the atmosphere. The bacterial decay that results when the plankton dies after fertilization event reduces oxygen levels in the water which causes a massive marine life die off. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  4. The relationship between PPM of CO2 in the atmo and global temps is not linear, that’s why. The relationship is logarithmic. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters. The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm. So, if we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees. We *could* double the rate over the course of a century but it is doubtful that we will. We certainly will not triple it.

  5. As long as all the rest of you Global Warming Fraud Enablers pay for it out of YOUR pockets and not mine, knock yourselves out!

  6. When temps rise, cloud & thunderstorm activity in the equatorial regions of the ocean rises as well. This is a natural negative feedback that likely is stronger than anything contemplated here, and helps explain why the Earth has not experienced runaway heating despite a brightening Sun and 10x higher CO2 levels in the past

  7. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters.””Suddenly scientists all over the world hit themselves on the forehead saying “”””why didn’t we think of that? APEMAN IS A GENIUS””””.”””

  8. That’s not a problem because CO2 is not a problem and we get out of it non-starving whales and more more fish. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review. “” “””

  9. The problem with iron fertilization is that 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the CO2 captured does not sink to the bottom of the ocean and returns to the atmosphere. The bacterial decay that results when the plankton dies after fertilization event reduces oxygen levels in the water which causes a massive marine life die off. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  10. The relationship between PPM of CO2 in the atmo and global temps is not linear that’s why. The relationship is logarithmic. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters. The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm. So if we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees. We *could* double the rate over the course of a century but it is doubtful that we will. We certainly will not triple it.

  11. As long as all the rest of you Global Warming Fraud Enablers pay for it out of YOUR pockets and not mine knock yourselves out!

  12. When temps rise cloud & thunderstorm activity in the equatorial regions of the ocean rises as well. This is a natural negative feedback that likely is stronger than anything contemplated here and helps explain why the Earth has not experienced runaway heating despite a brightening Sun and 10x higher CO2 levels in the past

  13. ‘.. there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm’ Yes there was. For example, at the extreme southern end of New Zealand, you can visit a petrified forest, being cut into by the surf, dating from 180 million years ago. The trees are almost identical to today’s Kauri species, who’s modern natural range is only the northern quarter of the country, and which during the last ice age was confined to tiny pockets near North Cape. Yet when these ancient forests were laid down, they were actually south of the Antarctic circle, almost at the Pole. Much more recently, at the last major excursion into very high levels of CO2, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago, the Arctic Ocean was infested with crocodiles and surrounded by palm trees. In both cases, there was no polar ice to start with, so the effect of loss of ice albedo on the speed of warming was not a factor. We’re going to get a double whammy. And don’t try to say that ‘ice loss has stopped since 2012’. That’s just like ‘global warming has stopped since 1998’. A new extreme is declared to be the new normal, as the annual figures fluctuate around it – and then a few years later, it’s left behind.

  14. Once again, you show your ignorance. This inconvenient factoid is well known by ‘climate scientists’. Where have you been?

  15. ‘.. there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm’Yes there was. For example at the extreme southern end of New Zealand you can visit a petrified forest being cut into by the surf dating from 180 million years ago. The trees are almost identical to today’s Kauri species who’s modern natural range is only the northern quarter of the country and which during the last ice age was confined to tiny pockets near North Cape. Yet when these ancient forests were laid down they were actually south of the Antarctic circle almost at the Pole. Much more recently at the last major excursion into very high levels of CO2 the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum about 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was infested with crocodiles and surrounded by palm trees. In both cases there was no polar ice to start with so the effect of loss of ice albedo on the speed of warming was not a factor. We’re going to get a double whammy.And don’t try to say that ‘ice loss has stopped since 2012’. That’s just like ‘global warming has stopped since 1998’. A new extreme is declared to be the new normal as the annual figures fluctuate around it – and then a few years later it’s left behind.

  16. Once again you show your ignorance. This inconvenient factoid is well known by ‘climate scientists’. Where have you been?

  17. The Warmists are the only ones in denial. They still think it’s ok to take an outlier warm measurement known to be artificially high, and claim from that all surrounding stations are too low–and they add 1 degree or two to every measurement within a few hundred miles. The whole evidence for “warming” is adjustments to real measurements, not measurements.

  18. No one denies the earth is warming. No one denies a slight warming effect from CO2. What is questioned are the failing climate models that predict doom and the political push for regulatory power over everyone. The reason it can be political is because there is no definitive proof. What if warming a few degrees is desirable? Focusing on CO2 has done a pretty good job of getting everyone to forget about real pollution.

  19. Wait…don’t we already have too MUCH algae in places where there is agricultural pesticide runoff, like the Mississippi delta? I guess that is the wrong kind of algae for fish to eat? Maybe fish need to evolve, or be artificially selected, to eat that algae? Also, the article does not address the pollution caused by the various methods, like extracting iron for fertilizing the ocean. Nor does it address the trade-off of spending billions for a marginal effect on the climate, which would probably have to be repeated periodically. I’m not saying nothing is worth it. There certainly are things that are worth it, but I can’t tell which ones from this.

  20. AGAIN your sources for this crap. You wax on and on and yet provide no sources. Now your are saying it will take over a century when before it was a total fraud. Make up your mind

  21. The Warmists are the only ones in denial. They still think it’s ok to take an outlier warm measurement known to be artificially high and claim from that all surrounding stations are too low–and they add 1 degree or two to every measurement within a few hundred miles.The whole evidence for warming”” is adjustments to real measurements”””” not measurements.”””

  22. No one denies the earth is warming. No one denies a slight warming effect from CO2. What is questioned are the failing climate models that predict doom and the political push for regulatory power over everyone. The reason it can be political is because there is no definitive proof. What if warming a few degrees is desirable? Focusing on CO2 has done a pretty good job of getting everyone to forget about real pollution.

  23. Wait…don’t we already have too MUCH algae in places where there is agricultural pesticide runoff like the Mississippi delta? I guess that is the wrong kind of algae for fish to eat? Maybe fish need to evolve or be artificially selected to eat that algae?Also the article does not address the pollution caused by the various methods like extracting iron for fertilizing the ocean. Nor does it address the trade-off of spending billions for a marginal effect on the climate which would probably have to be repeated periodically. I’m not saying nothing is worth it. There certainly are things that are worth it but I can’t tell which ones from this.

  24. AGAIN your sources for this crap. You wax on and on and yet provide no sources. Now your are saying it will take over a century when before it was a total fraud. Make up your mind

  25. What do you mean? You asking how your outright denial of an ‘inconvenient’ scientific fact would be a huge weakness as you sell your AGW bullsh!t? Answer is pretty self-evidend, Brenty! Perhaps you need some sort of help in your reading comprehension and logic abilities?

  26. Why should I post sources on a basic fact of science. I love this! You are being caught red handed in the act of DENYING SCIENCE! Hahahahahah… That’s for outing yourself! (finally)

  27. No, he said ‘climate change’ is real. Despite the flat out lies about ‘climate deniers’, nobody denies that climate changes. That is a 100% falsehood cooked up by Greentards because they are getting more and more desperate to keep the scam going.

  28. Nobody is denying the earth is getting warmer People just don’t agree that its humans and co2 causing the warming

  29. Because of the laws of physics CO2 vs light absorption is a logarithmical function This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming Just like at some point making sunglasses an inch thicker no longer makes a difference since already no light is getting through The evidence shows that we are far beyond this point A photon follows a straight predetermined path from the sun to the earth If the photon collides with a co2 molecule certain frequencies are absorbed by the co2 But there is no difference whether that single photon runs into 1 co2 molecule or 10 co2 molecules the amount of warming remains the same >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.

  30. I suspect ocean iron fertilization would not only be the cheapest way to fix carbon, it would be cost negative, because of the increase in fisheries. Fishing boats could do the fertilization, unloading iron sulfate from their holds, as they filled them with fish.

  31. Could you link said outlier? I thought the more recent 2000 – 2018 heatmap released by NASA squashed that argument finally. Just remove some foreslashes and such in the link so it becomes allowed.

  32. What do you mean? You asking how your outright denial of an ‘inconvenient’ scientific fact would be a huge weakness as you sell your AGW bullsh!t? Answer is pretty self-evidend Brenty! Perhaps you need some sort of help in your reading comprehension and logic abilities?

  33. Why should I post sources on a basic fact of science.I love this! You are being caught red handed in the act of DENYING SCIENCE! Hahahahahah…That’s for outing yourself! (finally)

  34. No he said ‘climate change’ is real. Despite the flat out lies about ‘climate deniers’ nobody denies that climate changes. That is a 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} falsehood cooked up by Greentards because they are getting more and more desperate to keep the scam going.

  35. Nobody is denying the earth is getting warmerPeople just don’t agree that its humans and co2 causing the warming

  36. Because of the laws of physics CO2 vs light absorption is a logarithmical functionThis means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming Just like at some point making sunglasses an inch thicker no longer makes a difference since already no light is getting through The evidence shows that we are far beyond this point A photon follows a straight predetermined path from the sun to the earth If the photon collides with a co2 molecule certain frequencies are absorbed by the co2 But there is no difference whether that single photon runs into 1 co2 molecule or 10 co2 molecules the amount of warming remains the same >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.

  37. I suspect ocean iron fertilization would not only be the cheapest way to fix carbon it would be cost negative because of the increase in fisheries. Fishing boats could do the fertilization unloading iron sulfate from their holds as they filled them with fish.

  38. Could you link said outlier? I thought the more recent 2000 – 2018 heatmap released by NASA squashed that argument finally. Just remove some foreslashes and such in the link so it becomes allowed.

  39. Wha are you talking about? Why I should I ‘prove’ that which is an already proven scientific fact simply because you don’t even know about it while calling people ‘deniers’.

  40. TOO funny you claim FACTS and yet you provide no sources. You have never provided just on source for your BS. You just keep running your mouth calling it a scam and a fraud. ” pretty self-evidend,” yes it is quite evident that you have no clue on what you are talking about. Come on just one recognized national or international scientific organization that agrees with you position.

  41. Wha are you talking about? Why I should I ‘prove’ that which is an already proven scientific fact simply because you don’t even know about it while calling people ‘deniers’.

  42. TOO funny you claim FACTS and yet you provide no sources. You have never provided just on source for your BS. You just keep running your mouth calling it a scam and a fraud. pretty self-evidend””” yes it is quite evident that you have no clue on what you are talking about. Come on just one recognized national or international scientific organization that agrees with you position.”””

  43. Pls do your homework. Fishing is an acquaculture industry now, it surpassed the 50% of all fish catches a couple years ago. Industrial-scale commercial fishing boats will eventually be a rarity and free fish stocks are on the rise. Iron fertilization will be a useless exercise as far as fishing is concerned.

  44. sorry dude, continental drift, Gondwana, and sea currents. – trees currently grow at 70degN in Scandinavia due to the gulf stream. – Drilling in the Greenland ice sheet shows it’s hasn’t been de-iced at all during the last warming periods even back to Eemian. – The term “runaway” is misleading when you look at Earth’s climate over hundreds of millions of years. A warming of 3c could cause a “runaway” melting of Greenland/Antarctic ice (sea water rise) over 5-10 thousands of years (according to NatGeo). A blink of an eye in Earth years, not for man. – Your comment about crocs in the Arctic is disingenuous. That was during the Eocene period 50 million years ago when Earth was 9-14c warmer and CO2 was about 1-2k ppm. And, I believe, the continents and ocean currents were different than they were today. Crocs and palm trees didn’t “suddenly” appear – it takes some time for climate change to make that happen. You are trying to squeeze millions of years of climate effects into something observable in an extremely short period of time. There is no evidence it happens so quickly. Will it happen? Of course! Earth climate changes. Should we be worried that Greenland’s ice will melt in 5,000 years (Antarctica takes much, much longer given the ocean isolation) and forests will blanket the norther latitudes and we can grow food by the polar circle and ships don’t have to travel through the Panama Canal and thorium and fusion reactors will power the future? No.

  45. After reading some of the other comments, I’m guessing you mean the Beer-Lambert law? If so, in my case, I a) forgot all about it, and b) didn’t make the connection. Most people don’t know it at all.

  46. It may (or may not) be a fact, but if it is, it’s not a well-known fact by most people. I’d hardly call it basic. Most people have no idea what the science says about the relationship between CO2 concentration and heat retention or temperature. All they know is the qualitative (not the quantitative) relationship: more CO2 -> more heat retention -> more temperature. They don’t know *how much* more. And I admit, neither do I. So a source would be more educating and convincing.

  47. >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.” Right, except any significant energy emitted by the Sun in the IR wavelengths is very small. By contrast, the Earth emits a large portion in the IR wavelengths, such as ~12 – 17 um which is the larger of the few bands that CO2 absorbs at. And, even though that one photon of IR light can bounce back and forth between CO2 and cause the same amount of warming, that’s not the only photon going out. Hence, CO2 traps the heat emitted by Earth, and increases localized temps on a global scale. “This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming” Not even considering that the IR doesn’t just bounce back and forth between CO2 forever, and is instead absorbed by the oceans, the land, and cities…just looking at CO2 from a warming perspective vastly overlooks how it also affects other aspects of the environment with its higher concentration. Yes, increased temperatures lead to elevated levels of evapotranspiration, causing less water uptake and more heat stress in plants. Yes, increased temps also reduce overall plant efficiency and biases against pollination. But on top of that, a higher CO2:N2 ratio reduces the food quality of plants as well as the yield. Higher CO2 concentrations also locally increase plant leaf temps by biasing towards closed stomata. It also biases Rubisco (the carbon fixation enzyme in plants) away from carbon fixation. So really, because of the laws of physics, CO2 is indeed a problem.

  48. Pls do your homework. Fishing is an acquaculture industry now it surpassed the 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of all fish catches a couple years ago. Industrial-scale commercial fishing boats will eventually be a rarity and free fish stocks are on the rise. Iron fertilization will be a useless exercise as far as fishing is concerned.

  49. sorry dude continental drift Gondwana and sea currents. – trees currently grow at 70degN in Scandinavia due to the gulf stream.- Drilling in the Greenland ice sheet shows it’s hasn’t been de-iced at all during the last warming periods even back to Eemian. – The term runaway”” is misleading when you look at Earth’s climate over hundreds of millions of years. A warming of 3c could cause a “”””runaway”””” melting of Greenland/Antarctic ice (sea water rise) over 5-10 thousands of years (according to NatGeo). A blink of an eye in Earth years”” not for man.- Your comment about crocs in the Arctic is disingenuous. That was during the Eocene period 50 million years ago when Earth was 9-14c warmer and CO2 was about 1-2k ppm. And I believe”” the continents and ocean currents were different than they were today. Crocs and palm trees didn’t “”””suddenly”””” appear – it takes some time for climate change to make that happen.You are trying to squeeze millions of years of climate effects into something observable in an extremely short period of time. There is no evidence it happens so quickly. Will it happen? Of course! Earth climate changes. Should we be worried that Greenland’s ice will melt in 5″”000 years (Antarctica takes much”” much longer given the ocean isolation) and forests will blanket the norther latitudes and we can grow food by the polar circle and ships don’t have to travel through the Panama Canal and thorium and fusion reactors will power the future?No.”””

  50. After reading some of the other comments I’m guessing you mean the Beer-Lambert law? If so in my case I a) forgot all about it and b) didn’t make the connection. Most people don’t know it at all.

  51. It may (or may not) be a fact but if it is it’s not a well-known fact by most people. I’d hardly call it basic.Most people have no idea what the science says about the relationship between CO2 concentration and heat retention or temperature. All they know is the qualitative (not the quantitative) relationship: more CO2 -> more heat retention -> more temperature. They don’t know *how much* more. And I admit neither do I. So a source would be more educating and convincing.

  52. >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.””Right”” except any significant energy emitted by the Sun in the IR wavelengths is very small. By contrast the Earth emits a large portion in the IR wavelengths such as ~12 – 17 um which is the larger of the few bands that CO2 absorbs at. And even though that one photon of IR light can bounce back and forth between CO2 and cause the same amount of warming that’s not the only photon going out. Hence CO2 traps the heat emitted by Earth”” and increases localized temps on a global scale. “”””This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming””””Not even considering that the IR doesn’t just bounce back and forth between CO2 forever”” and is instead absorbed by the oceans the land and cities…just looking at CO2 from a warming perspective vastly overlooks how it also affects other aspects of the environment with its higher concentration. Yes increased temperatures lead to elevated levels of evapotranspiration causing less water uptake and more heat stress in plants. Yes increased temps also reduce overall plant efficiency and biases against pollination. But on top of that a higher CO2:N2 ratio reduces the food quality of plants as well as the yield. Higher CO2 concentrations also locally increase plant leaf temps by biasing towards closed stomata. It also biases Rubisco (the carbon fixation enzyme in plants) away from carbon fixation.So really because of the laws of physics”” CO2 is indeed a problem.”””

  53. Changes at the end of the Paleocene were very fast by geological standards, but the rate we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is way faster than what happened then. When the Laurentide ice sheet melted off North America, sea level rise got up to about a metre every twenty five years for four hundred years straight. The melting really took off after Hudson Bay became seasonally ice free, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that loss of summer ice over the Arctic Ocean would have a similar effect on the Greenland ice sheet. The rate of the Jakobshavn glacier, the largest in Greenland, has tripled since the mid nineties – as have those of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, the largest in West Antarctica. Since not all the ice melted off Greenland during the Eemian, it’s clear that a good deal of the West Antarctic sheet must have melted then, to match the sea level rise that occurred.

  54. Changes at the end of the Paleocene were very fast by geological standards but the rate we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is way faster than what happened then.When the Laurentide ice sheet melted off North America sea level rise got up to about a metre every twenty five years for four hundred years straight. The melting really took off after Hudson Bay became seasonally ice free so it would not be unreasonable to expect that loss of summer ice over the Arctic Ocean would have a similar effect on the Greenland ice sheet. The rate of the Jakobshavn glacier the largest in Greenland has tripled since the mid nineties – as have those of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers the largest in West Antarctica. Since not all the ice melted off Greenland during the Eemian it’s clear that a good deal of the West Antarctic sheet must have melted then to match the sea level rise that occurred.

  55. Sounds like you agree with me, if you had a perfect sphere of CO2 covering the earth making the sphere thicker won’t have any further warming effects. Everything is already being absorbed, so adding any further CO2 won’t have a effect. The research shows that we have already reached this stage so any further CO2 won’t result in further warming A physicist who denies global warming has already done the math for this, with our PPM level statistically every photon is colliding with co2

  56. Sounds like you agree with me if you had a perfect sphere of CO2 covering the earth making the sphere thicker won’t have any further warming effects. Everything is already being absorbed so adding any further CO2 won’t have a effect. The research shows that we have already reached this stage so any further CO2 won’t result in further warming A physicist who denies global warming has already done the math for this with our PPM level statistically every photon is colliding with co2

  57. I didn’t say I agreed with you. I did try to expand the picture a bit for you, though: a thicker blanket traps more heat than a thin blanket, but they both trap heat. That heat gets absorbed by other things, “freeing” up the blanket to trap “new” heat. Can you link this research? I’d like to take a look. And, even if we have passed the point of no further CO2 contributing to increasing temperatures, its high concentrations are problematic in other ways (the other half of my comment which you didn’t address). Unless we’re in agreement on that?

  58. I didn’t say I agreed with you. I did try to expand the picture a bit for you though: a thicker blanket traps more heat than a thin blanket but they both trap heat. That heat gets absorbed by other things freeing”” up the blanket to trap “”””new”””” heat. Can you link this research? I’d like to take a look.And”” even if we have passed the point of no further CO2 contributing to increasing temperatures”” its high concentrations are problematic in other ways (the other half of my comment which you didn’t address). Unless we’re in agreement on that?”””

  59. Doubling CO2 concentrations decreases the pathlength of absorption for IR light by half. By saying that extra CO2 is not contributing to further warming, you’re implying that the moment IR light is radiated from a source at the ground, it is instantaneously absorbed and preoccupies every other CO2 molecule in perpetuity. Please, just link the research. I’d like to read about it.

  60. And at some point when you have a 100 foot thick blanket, adding an extra foot no longer has any heat trapping effect. Which is exactly the point. For a person laying in a bed the first 6 inches of blanket thickness have a big effect on temperature The effect will be less going from 1 foot to 2 foot and the effect continues to decrease You can do this experiment yourself at home with just a thermometer a couple of feet worth of blankets and a assistant The calculation for this was already done by physicists and it was determined that 200 PPM had the greatest effect and every PPM after would have a decreasing effect we are at 400 PPM today, when you look at the ice core data around 350,000 years ago temperatures were at -60F in Antartica CO2 PPM was at 290 Today it is -66F at PPM 400 so even though we have so much more co2 today it is actually colder today than in the past! There’s no evidence that higher CO2 concentrations are problematic if the amount of heat remains the same.

  61. Doubling CO2 concentrations decreases the pathlength of absorption for IR light by half. By saying that extra CO2 is not contributing to further warming you’re implying that the moment IR light is radiated from a source at the ground it is instantaneously absorbed and preoccupies every other CO2 molecule in perpetuity. Please just link the research. I’d like to read about it.

  62. And at some point when you have a 100 foot thick blanket adding an extra foot no longer has any heat trapping effect. Which is exactly the point. For a person laying in a bed the first 6 inches of blanket thickness have a big effect on temperature The effect will be less going from 1 foot to 2 foot and the effect continues to decreaseYou can do this experiment yourself at home with just a thermometer a couple of feet worth of blankets and a assistant The calculation for this was already done by physicists and it was determined that 200 PPM had the greatest effect and every PPM after would have a decreasing effectwe are at 400 PPM today when you look at the ice core data around 350000 years ago temperatures were at -60F in Antartica CO2 PPM was at 290Today it is -66F at PPM 400 so even though we have so much more co2 today it is actually colder today than in the past!There’s no evidence that higher CO2 concentrations are problematic if the amount of heat remains the same.

  63. Climate change is real – but global warming caused by CO2 is a fraud I agree! But trust me we are freezing in the UK – no warming here (except we has a hot June & July this year while they laid off the geoengineering!) Most of the time we have completely white skies (after the droves of planes have sprayed their filth) and flooding is a more common feature – along with Vit D3 deficiency and all the associated ill-health!

  64. Climate change is real – but global warming caused by CO2 is a fraud I agree! But trust me we are freezing in the UK – no warming here (except we has a hot June & July this year while they laid off the geoengineering!) Most of the time we have completely white skies (after the droves of planes have sprayed their filth) and flooding is a more common feature – along with Vit D3 deficiency and all the associated ill-health!

  65. Climate change is real – but global warming caused by CO2 is a fraud I agree! But trust me we are freezing in the UK – no warming here (except we has a hot June & July this year while they laid off the geoengineering!) Most of the time we have completely white skies (after the droves of planes have sprayed their filth) and flooding is a more common feature – along with Vit D3 deficiency and all the associated ill-health!

  66. Climate change is real – but global warming caused by CO2 is a fraud I agree! But trust me we are freezing in the UK – no warming here (except we has a hot June & July this year while they laid off the geoengineering!) Most of the time we have completely white skies (after the droves of planes have sprayed their filth) and flooding is a more common feature – along with Vit D3 deficiency and all the associated ill-health!

  67. Doubling CO2 concentrations decreases the pathlength of absorption for IR light by half. By saying that extra CO2 is not contributing to further warming, you’re implying that the moment IR light is radiated from a source at the ground, it is instantaneously absorbed and preoccupies every other CO2 molecule in perpetuity. Please, just link the research. I’d like to read about it.

  68. Doubling CO2 concentrations decreases the pathlength of absorption for IR light by half. By saying that extra CO2 is not contributing to further warming you’re implying that the moment IR light is radiated from a source at the ground it is instantaneously absorbed and preoccupies every other CO2 molecule in perpetuity. Please just link the research. I’d like to read about it.

  69. And at some point when you have a 100 foot thick blanket, adding an extra foot no longer has any heat trapping effect. Which is exactly the point. For a person laying in a bed the first 6 inches of blanket thickness have a big effect on temperature The effect will be less going from 1 foot to 2 foot and the effect continues to decrease You can do this experiment yourself at home with just a thermometer a couple of feet worth of blankets and a assistant The calculation for this was already done by physicists and it was determined that 200 PPM had the greatest effect and every PPM after would have a decreasing effect we are at 400 PPM today, when you look at the ice core data around 350,000 years ago temperatures were at -60F in Antartica CO2 PPM was at 290 Today it is -66F at PPM 400 so even though we have so much more co2 today it is actually colder today than in the past! There’s no evidence that higher CO2 concentrations are problematic if the amount of heat remains the same.

  70. And at some point when you have a 100 foot thick blanket adding an extra foot no longer has any heat trapping effect. Which is exactly the point. For a person laying in a bed the first 6 inches of blanket thickness have a big effect on temperature The effect will be less going from 1 foot to 2 foot and the effect continues to decreaseYou can do this experiment yourself at home with just a thermometer a couple of feet worth of blankets and a assistant The calculation for this was already done by physicists and it was determined that 200 PPM had the greatest effect and every PPM after would have a decreasing effectwe are at 400 PPM today when you look at the ice core data around 350000 years ago temperatures were at -60F in Antartica CO2 PPM was at 290Today it is -66F at PPM 400 so even though we have so much more co2 today it is actually colder today than in the past!There’s no evidence that higher CO2 concentrations are problematic if the amount of heat remains the same.

  71. Climate change is real – but global warming caused by CO2 is a fraud I agree! But trust me we are freezing in the UK – no warming here (except we has a hot June & July this year while they laid off the geoengineering!) Most of the time we have completely white skies (after the droves of planes have sprayed their filth) and flooding is a more common feature – along with Vit D3 deficiency and all the associated ill-health!

  72. Doubling CO2 concentrations decreases the pathlength of absorption for IR light by half. By saying that extra CO2 is not contributing to further warming, you’re implying that the moment IR light is radiated from a source at the ground, it is instantaneously absorbed and preoccupies every other CO2 molecule in perpetuity.

    Please, just link the research. I’d like to read about it.

  73. And at some point when you have a 100 foot thick blanket, adding an extra foot no longer has any heat trapping effect.

    Which is exactly the point. For a person laying in a bed the first 6 inches of blanket thickness have a big effect on temperature

    The effect will be less going from 1 foot to 2 foot and the effect continues to decrease

    You can do this experiment yourself at home with just a thermometer a couple of feet worth of blankets and a assistant

    The calculation for this was already done by physicists and it was determined that 200 PPM had the greatest effect and every PPM after would have a decreasing effect

    we are at 400 PPM today, when you look at the ice core data around 350,000 years ago temperatures were at -60F in Antartica CO2 PPM was at 290

    Today it is -66F at PPM 400 so even though we have so much more co2 today it is actually colder today than in the past!

    There’s no evidence that higher CO2 concentrations are problematic if the amount of heat remains the same.

  74. I didn’t say I agreed with you. I did try to expand the picture a bit for you, though: a thicker blanket traps more heat than a thin blanket, but they both trap heat. That heat gets absorbed by other things, “freeing” up the blanket to trap “new” heat. Can you link this research? I’d like to take a look. And, even if we have passed the point of no further CO2 contributing to increasing temperatures, its high concentrations are problematic in other ways (the other half of my comment which you didn’t address). Unless we’re in agreement on that?

  75. I didn’t say I agreed with you. I did try to expand the picture a bit for you though: a thicker blanket traps more heat than a thin blanket but they both trap heat. That heat gets absorbed by other things freeing”” up the blanket to trap “”””new”””” heat. Can you link this research? I’d like to take a look.And”” even if we have passed the point of no further CO2 contributing to increasing temperatures”” its high concentrations are problematic in other ways (the other half of my comment which you didn’t address). Unless we’re in agreement on that?”””

  76. Sounds like you agree with me, if you had a perfect sphere of CO2 covering the earth making the sphere thicker won’t have any further warming effects. Everything is already being absorbed, so adding any further CO2 won’t have a effect. The research shows that we have already reached this stage so any further CO2 won’t result in further warming A physicist who denies global warming has already done the math for this, with our PPM level statistically every photon is colliding with co2

  77. Sounds like you agree with me if you had a perfect sphere of CO2 covering the earth making the sphere thicker won’t have any further warming effects. Everything is already being absorbed so adding any further CO2 won’t have a effect. The research shows that we have already reached this stage so any further CO2 won’t result in further warming A physicist who denies global warming has already done the math for this with our PPM level statistically every photon is colliding with co2

  78. I didn’t say I agreed with you. I did try to expand the picture a bit for you, though: a thicker blanket traps more heat than a thin blanket, but they both trap heat. That heat gets absorbed by other things, “freeing” up the blanket to trap “new” heat. Can you link this research? I’d like to take a look.

    And, even if we have passed the point of no further CO2 contributing to increasing temperatures, its high concentrations are problematic in other ways (the other half of my comment which you didn’t address). Unless we’re in agreement on that?

  79. Sounds like you agree with me, if you had a perfect sphere of CO2 covering the earth making the sphere thicker won’t have any further warming effects.

    Everything is already being absorbed, so adding any further CO2 won’t have a effect.

    The research shows that we have already reached this stage so any further CO2 won’t result in further warming

    A physicist who denies global warming has already done the math for this, with our PPM level statistically every photon is colliding with co2

  80. Changes at the end of the Paleocene were very fast by geological standards, but the rate we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is way faster than what happened then. When the Laurentide ice sheet melted off North America, sea level rise got up to about a metre every twenty five years for four hundred years straight. The melting really took off after Hudson Bay became seasonally ice free, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that loss of summer ice over the Arctic Ocean would have a similar effect on the Greenland ice sheet. The rate of the Jakobshavn glacier, the largest in Greenland, has tripled since the mid nineties – as have those of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, the largest in West Antarctica. Since not all the ice melted off Greenland during the Eemian, it’s clear that a good deal of the West Antarctic sheet must have melted then, to match the sea level rise that occurred.

  81. Changes at the end of the Paleocene were very fast by geological standards but the rate we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is way faster than what happened then.When the Laurentide ice sheet melted off North America sea level rise got up to about a metre every twenty five years for four hundred years straight. The melting really took off after Hudson Bay became seasonally ice free so it would not be unreasonable to expect that loss of summer ice over the Arctic Ocean would have a similar effect on the Greenland ice sheet. The rate of the Jakobshavn glacier the largest in Greenland has tripled since the mid nineties – as have those of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers the largest in West Antarctica. Since not all the ice melted off Greenland during the Eemian it’s clear that a good deal of the West Antarctic sheet must have melted then to match the sea level rise that occurred.

  82. Pls do your homework. Fishing is an acquaculture industry now, it surpassed the 50% of all fish catches a couple years ago. Industrial-scale commercial fishing boats will eventually be a rarity and free fish stocks are on the rise. Iron fertilization will be a useless exercise as far as fishing is concerned.

  83. Pls do your homework. Fishing is an acquaculture industry now it surpassed the 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of all fish catches a couple years ago. Industrial-scale commercial fishing boats will eventually be a rarity and free fish stocks are on the rise. Iron fertilization will be a useless exercise as far as fishing is concerned.

  84. sorry dude, continental drift, Gondwana, and sea currents. – trees currently grow at 70degN in Scandinavia due to the gulf stream. – Drilling in the Greenland ice sheet shows it’s hasn’t been de-iced at all during the last warming periods even back to Eemian. – The term “runaway” is misleading when you look at Earth’s climate over hundreds of millions of years. A warming of 3c could cause a “runaway” melting of Greenland/Antarctic ice (sea water rise) over 5-10 thousands of years (according to NatGeo). A blink of an eye in Earth years, not for man. – Your comment about crocs in the Arctic is disingenuous. That was during the Eocene period 50 million years ago when Earth was 9-14c warmer and CO2 was about 1-2k ppm. And, I believe, the continents and ocean currents were different than they were today. Crocs and palm trees didn’t “suddenly” appear – it takes some time for climate change to make that happen. You are trying to squeeze millions of years of climate effects into something observable in an extremely short period of time. There is no evidence it happens so quickly. Will it happen? Of course! Earth climate changes. Should we be worried that Greenland’s ice will melt in 5,000 years (Antarctica takes much, much longer given the ocean isolation) and forests will blanket the norther latitudes and we can grow food by the polar circle and ships don’t have to travel through the Panama Canal and thorium and fusion reactors will power the future? No.

  85. sorry dude continental drift Gondwana and sea currents. – trees currently grow at 70degN in Scandinavia due to the gulf stream.- Drilling in the Greenland ice sheet shows it’s hasn’t been de-iced at all during the last warming periods even back to Eemian. – The term runaway”” is misleading when you look at Earth’s climate over hundreds of millions of years. A warming of 3c could cause a “”””runaway”””” melting of Greenland/Antarctic ice (sea water rise) over 5-10 thousands of years (according to NatGeo). A blink of an eye in Earth years”” not for man.- Your comment about crocs in the Arctic is disingenuous. That was during the Eocene period 50 million years ago when Earth was 9-14c warmer and CO2 was about 1-2k ppm. And I believe”” the continents and ocean currents were different than they were today. Crocs and palm trees didn’t “”””suddenly”””” appear – it takes some time for climate change to make that happen.You are trying to squeeze millions of years of climate effects into something observable in an extremely short period of time. There is no evidence it happens so quickly. Will it happen? Of course! Earth climate changes. Should we be worried that Greenland’s ice will melt in 5″”000 years (Antarctica takes much”” much longer given the ocean isolation) and forests will blanket the norther latitudes and we can grow food by the polar circle and ships don’t have to travel through the Panama Canal and thorium and fusion reactors will power the future?No.”””

  86. After reading some of the other comments, I’m guessing you mean the Beer-Lambert law? If so, in my case, I a) forgot all about it, and b) didn’t make the connection. Most people don’t know it at all.

  87. After reading some of the other comments I’m guessing you mean the Beer-Lambert law? If so in my case I a) forgot all about it and b) didn’t make the connection. Most people don’t know it at all.

  88. It may (or may not) be a fact, but if it is, it’s not a well-known fact by most people. I’d hardly call it basic. Most people have no idea what the science says about the relationship between CO2 concentration and heat retention or temperature. All they know is the qualitative (not the quantitative) relationship: more CO2 -> more heat retention -> more temperature. They don’t know *how much* more. And I admit, neither do I. So a source would be more educating and convincing.

  89. It may (or may not) be a fact but if it is it’s not a well-known fact by most people. I’d hardly call it basic.Most people have no idea what the science says about the relationship between CO2 concentration and heat retention or temperature. All they know is the qualitative (not the quantitative) relationship: more CO2 -> more heat retention -> more temperature. They don’t know *how much* more. And I admit neither do I. So a source would be more educating and convincing.

  90. >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.” Right, except any significant energy emitted by the Sun in the IR wavelengths is very small. By contrast, the Earth emits a large portion in the IR wavelengths, such as ~12 – 17 um which is the larger of the few bands that CO2 absorbs at. And, even though that one photon of IR light can bounce back and forth between CO2 and cause the same amount of warming, that’s not the only photon going out. Hence, CO2 traps the heat emitted by Earth, and increases localized temps on a global scale. “This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming” Not even considering that the IR doesn’t just bounce back and forth between CO2 forever, and is instead absorbed by the oceans, the land, and cities…just looking at CO2 from a warming perspective vastly overlooks how it also affects other aspects of the environment with its higher concentration. Yes, increased temperatures lead to elevated levels of evapotranspiration, causing less water uptake and more heat stress in plants. Yes, increased temps also reduce overall plant efficiency and biases against pollination. But on top of that, a higher CO2:N2 ratio reduces the food quality of plants as well as the yield. Higher CO2 concentrations also locally increase plant leaf temps by biasing towards closed stomata. It also biases Rubisco (the carbon fixation enzyme in plants) away from carbon fixation. So really, because of the laws of physics, CO2 is indeed a problem.

  91. >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.””Right”” except any significant energy emitted by the Sun in the IR wavelengths is very small. By contrast the Earth emits a large portion in the IR wavelengths such as ~12 – 17 um which is the larger of the few bands that CO2 absorbs at. And even though that one photon of IR light can bounce back and forth between CO2 and cause the same amount of warming that’s not the only photon going out. Hence CO2 traps the heat emitted by Earth”” and increases localized temps on a global scale. “”””This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming””””Not even considering that the IR doesn’t just bounce back and forth between CO2 forever”” and is instead absorbed by the oceans the land and cities…just looking at CO2 from a warming perspective vastly overlooks how it also affects other aspects of the environment with its higher concentration. Yes increased temperatures lead to elevated levels of evapotranspiration causing less water uptake and more heat stress in plants. Yes increased temps also reduce overall plant efficiency and biases against pollination. But on top of that a higher CO2:N2 ratio reduces the food quality of plants as well as the yield. Higher CO2 concentrations also locally increase plant leaf temps by biasing towards closed stomata. It also biases Rubisco (the carbon fixation enzyme in plants) away from carbon fixation.So really because of the laws of physics”” CO2 is indeed a problem.”””

  92. Changes at the end of the Paleocene were very fast by geological standards, but the rate we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is way faster than what happened then.
    When the Laurentide ice sheet melted off North America, sea level rise got up to about a metre every twenty five years for four hundred years straight. The melting really took off after Hudson Bay became seasonally ice free, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that loss of summer ice over the Arctic Ocean would have a similar effect on the Greenland ice sheet.
    The rate of the Jakobshavn glacier, the largest in Greenland, has tripled since the mid nineties – as have those of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, the largest in West Antarctica. Since not all the ice melted off Greenland during the Eemian, it’s clear that a good deal of the West Antarctic sheet must have melted then, to match the sea level rise that occurred.

  93. Wha are you talking about? Why I should I ‘prove’ that which is an already proven scientific fact simply because you don’t even know about it while calling people ‘deniers’.

  94. Wha are you talking about? Why I should I ‘prove’ that which is an already proven scientific fact simply because you don’t even know about it while calling people ‘deniers’.

  95. TOO funny you claim FACTS and yet you provide no sources. You have never provided just on source for your BS. You just keep running your mouth calling it a scam and a fraud. ” pretty self-evidend,” yes it is quite evident that you have no clue on what you are talking about. Come on just one recognized national or international scientific organization that agrees with you position.

  96. TOO funny you claim FACTS and yet you provide no sources. You have never provided just on source for your BS. You just keep running your mouth calling it a scam and a fraud. pretty self-evidend””” yes it is quite evident that you have no clue on what you are talking about. Come on just one recognized national or international scientific organization that agrees with you position.”””

  97. Pls do your homework. Fishing is an acquaculture industry now, it surpassed the 50% of all fish catches a couple years ago. Industrial-scale commercial fishing boats will eventually be a rarity and free fish stocks are on the rise. Iron fertilization will be a useless exercise as far as fishing is concerned.

  98. sorry dude, continental drift, Gondwana, and sea currents.
    – trees currently grow at 70degN in Scandinavia due to the gulf stream.
    – Drilling in the Greenland ice sheet shows it’s hasn’t been de-iced at all during the last warming periods even back to Eemian.
    – The term “runaway” is misleading when you look at Earth’s climate over hundreds of millions of years. A warming of 3c could cause a “runaway” melting of Greenland/Antarctic ice (sea water rise) over 5-10 thousands of years (according to NatGeo). A blink of an eye in Earth years, not for man.

    – Your comment about crocs in the Arctic is disingenuous. That was during the Eocene period 50 million years ago when Earth was 9-14c warmer and CO2 was about 1-2k ppm. And, I believe, the continents and ocean currents were different than they were today. Crocs and palm trees didn’t “suddenly” appear – it takes some time for climate change to make that happen.

    You are trying to squeeze millions of years of climate effects into something observable in an extremely short period of time. There is no evidence it happens so quickly. Will it happen? Of course! Earth climate changes. Should we be worried that Greenland’s ice will melt in 5,000 years (Antarctica takes much, much longer given the ocean isolation) and forests will blanket the norther latitudes and we can grow food by the polar circle and ships don’t have to travel through the Panama Canal and thorium and fusion reactors will power the future?
    No.

  99. After reading some of the other comments, I’m guessing you mean the Beer-Lambert law? If so, in my case, I a) forgot all about it, and b) didn’t make the connection. Most people don’t know it at all.

  100. It may (or may not) be a fact, but if it is, it’s not a well-known fact by most people. I’d hardly call it basic.

    Most people have no idea what the science says about the relationship between CO2 concentration and heat retention or temperature. All they know is the qualitative (not the quantitative) relationship: more CO2 -> more heat retention -> more temperature. They don’t know *how much* more. And I admit, neither do I. So a source would be more educating and convincing.

  101. “>Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.”

    Right, except any significant energy emitted by the Sun in the IR wavelengths is very small. By contrast, the Earth emits a large portion in the IR wavelengths, such as ~12 – 17 um which is the larger of the few bands that CO2 absorbs at. And, even though that one photon of IR light can bounce back and forth between CO2 and cause the same amount of warming, that’s not the only photon going out. Hence, CO2 traps the heat emitted by Earth, and increases localized temps on a global scale.

    “This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming”

    Not even considering that the IR doesn’t just bounce back and forth between CO2 forever, and is instead absorbed by the oceans, the land, and cities…just looking at CO2 from a warming perspective vastly overlooks how it also affects other aspects of the environment with its higher concentration.

    Yes, increased temperatures lead to elevated levels of evapotranspiration, causing less water uptake and more heat stress in plants. Yes, increased temps also reduce overall plant efficiency and biases against pollination. But on top of that, a higher CO2:N2 ratio reduces the food quality of plants as well as the yield. Higher CO2 concentrations also locally increase plant leaf temps by biasing towards closed stomata. It also biases Rubisco (the carbon fixation enzyme in plants) away from carbon fixation.

    So really, because of the laws of physics, CO2 is indeed a problem.

  102. What do you mean? You asking how your outright denial of an ‘inconvenient’ scientific fact would be a huge weakness as you sell your AGW bullsh!t? Answer is pretty self-evidend, Brenty! Perhaps you need some sort of help in your reading comprehension and logic abilities?

  103. What do you mean? You asking how your outright denial of an ‘inconvenient’ scientific fact would be a huge weakness as you sell your AGW bullsh!t? Answer is pretty self-evidend Brenty! Perhaps you need some sort of help in your reading comprehension and logic abilities?

  104. Why should I post sources on a basic fact of science. I love this! You are being caught red handed in the act of DENYING SCIENCE! Hahahahahah… That’s for outing yourself! (finally)

  105. Why should I post sources on a basic fact of science.I love this! You are being caught red handed in the act of DENYING SCIENCE! Hahahahahah…That’s for outing yourself! (finally)

  106. No, he said ‘climate change’ is real. Despite the flat out lies about ‘climate deniers’, nobody denies that climate changes. That is a 100% falsehood cooked up by Greentards because they are getting more and more desperate to keep the scam going.

  107. No he said ‘climate change’ is real. Despite the flat out lies about ‘climate deniers’ nobody denies that climate changes. That is a 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} falsehood cooked up by Greentards because they are getting more and more desperate to keep the scam going.

  108. Nobody is denying the earth is getting warmer People just don’t agree that its humans and co2 causing the warming

  109. Nobody is denying the earth is getting warmerPeople just don’t agree that its humans and co2 causing the warming

  110. Because of the laws of physics CO2 vs light absorption is a logarithmical function This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming Just like at some point making sunglasses an inch thicker no longer makes a difference since already no light is getting through The evidence shows that we are far beyond this point A photon follows a straight predetermined path from the sun to the earth If the photon collides with a co2 molecule certain frequencies are absorbed by the co2 But there is no difference whether that single photon runs into 1 co2 molecule or 10 co2 molecules the amount of warming remains the same >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.

  111. Because of the laws of physics CO2 vs light absorption is a logarithmical functionThis means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming Just like at some point making sunglasses an inch thicker no longer makes a difference since already no light is getting through The evidence shows that we are far beyond this point A photon follows a straight predetermined path from the sun to the earth If the photon collides with a co2 molecule certain frequencies are absorbed by the co2 But there is no difference whether that single photon runs into 1 co2 molecule or 10 co2 molecules the amount of warming remains the same >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.

  112. I suspect ocean iron fertilization would not only be the cheapest way to fix carbon, it would be cost negative, because of the increase in fisheries. Fishing boats could do the fertilization, unloading iron sulfate from their holds, as they filled them with fish.

  113. I suspect ocean iron fertilization would not only be the cheapest way to fix carbon it would be cost negative because of the increase in fisheries. Fishing boats could do the fertilization unloading iron sulfate from their holds as they filled them with fish.

  114. Could you link said outlier? I thought the more recent 2000 – 2018 heatmap released by NASA squashed that argument finally. Just remove some foreslashes and such in the link so it becomes allowed.

  115. Could you link said outlier? I thought the more recent 2000 – 2018 heatmap released by NASA squashed that argument finally. Just remove some foreslashes and such in the link so it becomes allowed.

  116. The Warmists are the only ones in denial. They still think it’s ok to take an outlier warm measurement known to be artificially high, and claim from that all surrounding stations are too low–and they add 1 degree or two to every measurement within a few hundred miles. The whole evidence for “warming” is adjustments to real measurements, not measurements.

  117. The Warmists are the only ones in denial. They still think it’s ok to take an outlier warm measurement known to be artificially high and claim from that all surrounding stations are too low–and they add 1 degree or two to every measurement within a few hundred miles.The whole evidence for warming”” is adjustments to real measurements”””” not measurements.”””

  118. Wha are you talking about? Why I should I ‘prove’ that which is an already proven scientific fact simply because you don’t even know about it while calling people ‘deniers’.

  119. TOO funny you claim FACTS and yet you provide no sources. You have never provided just on source for your BS. You just keep running your mouth calling it a scam and a fraud. ” pretty self-evidend,” yes it is quite evident that you have no clue on what you are talking about.
    Come on just one recognized national or international scientific organization that agrees with you position.

  120. No one denies the earth is warming. No one denies a slight warming effect from CO2. What is questioned are the failing climate models that predict doom and the political push for regulatory power over everyone. The reason it can be political is because there is no definitive proof. What if warming a few degrees is desirable? Focusing on CO2 has done a pretty good job of getting everyone to forget about real pollution.

  121. No one denies the earth is warming. No one denies a slight warming effect from CO2. What is questioned are the failing climate models that predict doom and the political push for regulatory power over everyone. The reason it can be political is because there is no definitive proof. What if warming a few degrees is desirable? Focusing on CO2 has done a pretty good job of getting everyone to forget about real pollution.

  122. Wait…don’t we already have too MUCH algae in places where there is agricultural pesticide runoff, like the Mississippi delta? I guess that is the wrong kind of algae for fish to eat? Maybe fish need to evolve, or be artificially selected, to eat that algae? Also, the article does not address the pollution caused by the various methods, like extracting iron for fertilizing the ocean. Nor does it address the trade-off of spending billions for a marginal effect on the climate, which would probably have to be repeated periodically. I’m not saying nothing is worth it. There certainly are things that are worth it, but I can’t tell which ones from this.

  123. Wait…don’t we already have too MUCH algae in places where there is agricultural pesticide runoff like the Mississippi delta? I guess that is the wrong kind of algae for fish to eat? Maybe fish need to evolve or be artificially selected to eat that algae?Also the article does not address the pollution caused by the various methods like extracting iron for fertilizing the ocean. Nor does it address the trade-off of spending billions for a marginal effect on the climate which would probably have to be repeated periodically. I’m not saying nothing is worth it. There certainly are things that are worth it but I can’t tell which ones from this.

  124. AGAIN your sources for this crap. You wax on and on and yet provide no sources. Now your are saying it will take over a century when before it was a total fraud. Make up your mind

  125. AGAIN your sources for this crap. You wax on and on and yet provide no sources. Now your are saying it will take over a century when before it was a total fraud. Make up your mind

  126. What do you mean? You asking how your outright denial of an ‘inconvenient’ scientific fact would be a huge weakness as you sell your AGW bullsh!t? Answer is pretty self-evidend, Brenty! Perhaps you need some sort of help in your reading comprehension and logic abilities?

  127. Why should I post sources on a basic fact of science.

    I love this! You are being caught red handed in the act of DENYING SCIENCE! Hahahahahah…

    That’s for outing yourself! (finally)

  128. No, he said ‘climate change’ is real.

    Despite the flat out lies about ‘climate deniers’, nobody denies that climate changes. That is a 100% falsehood cooked up by Greentards because they are getting more and more desperate to keep the scam going.

  129. Because of the laws of physics

    CO2 vs light absorption is a logarithmical function

    This means at a certain point adding more CO2 no longer increases warming

    Just like at some point making sunglasses an inch thicker no longer makes a difference since already no light is getting through

    The evidence shows that we are far beyond this point

    A photon follows a straight predetermined path from the sun to the earth

    If the photon collides with a co2 molecule certain frequencies are absorbed by the co2

    But there is no difference whether that single photon runs into 1 co2 molecule or 10 co2 molecules the amount of warming remains the same

    >Not just any old photon can get absorbed by a CO2 molecule — it has to be a photon of radiation within certain wavelengths.

  130. ‘.. there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm’ Yes there was. For example, at the extreme southern end of New Zealand, you can visit a petrified forest, being cut into by the surf, dating from 180 million years ago. The trees are almost identical to today’s Kauri species, who’s modern natural range is only the northern quarter of the country, and which during the last ice age was confined to tiny pockets near North Cape. Yet when these ancient forests were laid down, they were actually south of the Antarctic circle, almost at the Pole. Much more recently, at the last major excursion into very high levels of CO2, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago, the Arctic Ocean was infested with crocodiles and surrounded by palm trees. In both cases, there was no polar ice to start with, so the effect of loss of ice albedo on the speed of warming was not a factor. We’re going to get a double whammy. And don’t try to say that ‘ice loss has stopped since 2012’. That’s just like ‘global warming has stopped since 1998’. A new extreme is declared to be the new normal, as the annual figures fluctuate around it – and then a few years later, it’s left behind.

  131. ‘.. there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm’Yes there was. For example at the extreme southern end of New Zealand you can visit a petrified forest being cut into by the surf dating from 180 million years ago. The trees are almost identical to today’s Kauri species who’s modern natural range is only the northern quarter of the country and which during the last ice age was confined to tiny pockets near North Cape. Yet when these ancient forests were laid down they were actually south of the Antarctic circle almost at the Pole. Much more recently at the last major excursion into very high levels of CO2 the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum about 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was infested with crocodiles and surrounded by palm trees. In both cases there was no polar ice to start with so the effect of loss of ice albedo on the speed of warming was not a factor. We’re going to get a double whammy.And don’t try to say that ‘ice loss has stopped since 2012’. That’s just like ‘global warming has stopped since 1998’. A new extreme is declared to be the new normal as the annual figures fluctuate around it – and then a few years later it’s left behind.

  132. I suspect ocean iron fertilization would not only be the cheapest way to fix carbon, it would be cost negative, because of the increase in fisheries. Fishing boats could do the fertilization, unloading iron sulfate from their holds, as they filled them with fish.

  133. Once again, you show your ignorance. This inconvenient factoid is well known by ‘climate scientists’. Where have you been?

  134. Once again you show your ignorance. This inconvenient factoid is well known by ‘climate scientists’. Where have you been?

  135. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters.” Suddenly scientists all over the world hit themselves on the forehead saying “why didn’t we think of that? APEMAN IS A GENIUS”.

  136. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters.””Suddenly scientists all over the world hit themselves on the forehead saying “”””why didn’t we think of that? APEMAN IS A GENIUS””””.”””

  137. That’s not a problem because CO2 is not a problem, and we get out of it non-starving whales and more more fish. ” That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  138. That’s not a problem because CO2 is not a problem and we get out of it non-starving whales and more more fish. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review. “” “””

  139. The Warmists are the only ones in denial. They still think it’s ok to take an outlier warm measurement known to be artificially high, and claim from that all surrounding stations are too low–and they add 1 degree or two to every measurement within a few hundred miles.

    The whole evidence for “warming” is adjustments to real measurements, not measurements.

  140. The problem with iron fertilization is that 95% of the CO2 captured does not sink to the bottom of the ocean and returns to the atmosphere. The bacterial decay that results when the plankton dies after fertilization event reduces oxygen levels in the water which causes a massive marine life die off. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  141. The problem with iron fertilization is that 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the CO2 captured does not sink to the bottom of the ocean and returns to the atmosphere. The bacterial decay that results when the plankton dies after fertilization event reduces oxygen levels in the water which causes a massive marine life die off. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  142. The relationship between PPM of CO2 in the atmo and global temps is not linear, that’s why. The relationship is logarithmic. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters. The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm. So, if we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees. We *could* double the rate over the course of a century but it is doubtful that we will. We certainly will not triple it.

  143. The relationship between PPM of CO2 in the atmo and global temps is not linear that’s why. The relationship is logarithmic. This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters. The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm. So if we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees. We *could* double the rate over the course of a century but it is doubtful that we will. We certainly will not triple it.

  144. As long as all the rest of you Global Warming Fraud Enablers pay for it out of YOUR pockets and not mine, knock yourselves out!

  145. As long as all the rest of you Global Warming Fraud Enablers pay for it out of YOUR pockets and not mine knock yourselves out!

  146. When temps rise, cloud & thunderstorm activity in the equatorial regions of the ocean rises as well. This is a natural negative feedback that likely is stronger than anything contemplated here, and helps explain why the Earth has not experienced runaway heating despite a brightening Sun and 10x higher CO2 levels in the past

  147. When temps rise cloud & thunderstorm activity in the equatorial regions of the ocean rises as well. This is a natural negative feedback that likely is stronger than anything contemplated here and helps explain why the Earth has not experienced runaway heating despite a brightening Sun and 10x higher CO2 levels in the past

  148. No one denies the earth is warming. No one denies a slight warming effect from CO2. What is questioned are the failing climate models that predict doom and the political push for regulatory power over everyone. The reason it can be political is because there is no definitive proof. What if warming a few degrees is desirable? Focusing on CO2 has done a pretty good job of getting everyone to forget about real pollution.

  149. Wait…don’t we already have too MUCH algae in places where there is agricultural pesticide runoff, like the Mississippi delta? I guess that is the wrong kind of algae for fish to eat? Maybe fish need to evolve, or be artificially selected, to eat that algae?

    Also, the article does not address the pollution caused by the various methods, like extracting iron for fertilizing the ocean. Nor does it address the trade-off of spending billions for a marginal effect on the climate, which would probably have to be repeated periodically. I’m not saying nothing is worth it. There certainly are things that are worth it, but I can’t tell which ones from this.

  150. AGAIN your sources for this crap. You wax on and on and yet provide no sources. Now your are saying it will take over a century when before it was a total fraud. Make up your mind

  151. ‘.. there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm’
    Yes there was. For example, at the extreme southern end of New Zealand, you can visit a petrified forest, being cut into by the surf, dating from 180 million years ago. The trees are almost identical to today’s Kauri species, who’s modern natural range is only the northern quarter of the country, and which during the last ice age was confined to tiny pockets near North Cape. Yet when these ancient forests were laid down, they were actually south of the Antarctic circle, almost at the Pole.
    Much more recently, at the last major excursion into very high levels of CO2, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, about 55 million years ago, the Arctic Ocean was infested with crocodiles and surrounded by palm trees.
    In both cases, there was no polar ice to start with, so the effect of loss of ice albedo on the speed of warming was not a factor. We’re going to get a double whammy.
    And don’t try to say that ‘ice loss has stopped since 2012’. That’s just like ‘global warming has stopped since 1998’. A new extreme is declared to be the new normal, as the annual figures fluctuate around it – and then a few years later, it’s left behind.

  152. “This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters.”

    Suddenly scientists all over the world hit themselves on the forehead saying “why didn’t we think of that? APEMAN IS A GENIUS”.

  153. That’s not a problem because CO2 is not a problem, and we get out of it non-starving whales and more more fish.

    ” That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review. ” <-- No, in spite of it known results it is on hold because it's too simple to permit greater control by Leftist captured governments. They don't want it to be that simple to feed more people and whales. What's in it for them?

  154. The problem with iron fertilization is that 95% of the CO2 captured does not sink to the bottom of the ocean and returns to the atmosphere. The bacterial decay that results when the plankton dies after fertilization event reduces oxygen levels in the water which causes a massive marine life die off. That is why experiments with ocean fertilization have stopped are on hold and going through a review.

  155. The relationship between PPM of CO2 in the atmo and global temps is not linear, that’s why. The relationship is logarithmic.

    This is the huge weakness of the Global Warming Fraudsters. The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppm.

    So, if we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees.

    We *could* double the rate over the course of a century but it is doubtful that we will. We certainly will not triple it.

  156. When temps rise, cloud & thunderstorm activity in the equatorial regions of the ocean rises as well. This is a natural negative feedback that likely is stronger than anything contemplated here, and helps explain why the Earth has not experienced runaway heating despite a brightening Sun and 10x higher CO2 levels in the past

Comments are closed.