Cross this place off my tourist list. I don’t care how inviting, it will be now the “island of stupid” in my memory. Watch the video below the “read more” line for today’s dose of silliness. Look for more stunts like this leading to Copenhagen.
Maldives Cabinet Signs Climate Change Document 20 Feet Under Sea
From Fox News:
Excerpts: GIRIFUSHI, Maldives —
Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
President Mohammed Nasheed and 13 other government officials submerged and took their seats at a table on the sea floor — 20 feet below the surface of a lagoon off Girifushi, an island usually used for military training.
With a backdrop of coral, the meeting was a bid to draw attention to fears that rising sea levels caused by the melting of polar ice caps could swamp this Indian Ocean archipelago within a century. Its islands average 7 feet above sea level.
“What we are trying to make people realize is that the Maldives is a frontline state. This is not merely an issue for the Maldives but for the world,” Nasheed said.
Read the complete article at Fox News here
Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.
h/t to WUWT reader Steven Skinner
In the meantime, readers might benefit from reading this WUWT post:
Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise
Not much long term measured ocean pH data available as far as I know. However, at least in Monterey there is no problem with the incoming water pH levels:
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
RR Kampen
Why don’t you ask yourself how the maldives survived a sea level rise of 130m in the last 13,000 years .. since the start of the current interglacial period. In the early part of that period, sea levels rose at much faster than the 1m per century averege….. why are the Maldives even there ? They are a carbonate reef system … they grow with sea level !!! If they couldn’t keep up they would have drowned !!!
If you can reasonably answer that and also be concerned about sea level rise then you are a smarter man than me.
It was a publicity stunt …. show me the money baby !
Rgds
Imran
Robinson:
You ask me:
“richardscourtney, not being funny or anything, but do you have any specific expertise in this area? I would love to quote your post elsewhere, but given arguments usually boil down to “authority” (eventually), I hesitate to quote, “bloke from Watts blog”.”
Well, I earn my living as a consultant on matters of energy and environment. Some people – mostly politicians – must think I know a little about the subject because they continue to pay me. And a few others do, too.
For example, I have been called as Expert Witness before UK Parliamentary Select Committees. In November 1997 I chaired the Plenary Session of the Climate Conference in Bonn at the joint request of the European Academy of Science, the Science and Environment Project (USA), and the Europaische Akedemie fur Umweltfragen e.v. (Germany). And in June 2000 I was one of 15 scientists invited from around the world to give a briefing on climate change at the US Congress in Washington DC when I then chaired one of the three briefing sessions. More recently, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked me to be an expert peer reviewer for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 published 2007) of the UN Intergovernental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). After that, Rejendra Pechauri, Chairman of the IPCC, asked me to peer review the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report.
You do not expect me to say they are wrong to respect my expertise when I use that expertise provide my income do you?
Richard
Brian Johnson …. don’t worry .. Plan B involves losing the election and never havig to make any more completely absurd statements ……
….. its embarrassing to be British “we have 50 days to save the world” …… for gods sake .
With any luck by the time David Cameron gets in next year … when the politics starts to catch up ….. e’ll have enough sense to realise the massive liability of making any closed door statements about the end of the world and keep his mouth shut.
RR Kampen (05:11:44),
Every point in your argument is wrong. Every one of them. Your assumptions claim that:
“…CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration”
This IPCC chart shows that far from being the “major cause” of increasing CO2, human activity only accounts for one molecule emitted by humans for every 34 molecules emitted naturally. Next you say:
“…increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing… that is straight physics dating back to Fourier, about 1850, followed up by Arrhenius, Arrhenius again (1906) and others. This assumption is exactly as strong as Newton’s second law.”
Wrong again. The planet disagrees; as CO2 rises, the temperature continues to fall. Further, Arrhenius’ 1906 paper recants his 1896 paper, giving a greatly reduced climate sensitivity number [which, as it turns out, was still much too high]. And we don’t refer to “Arrhenius’ Law” like we do re: Newton’s 2nd Law, so claiming that your “assumption is exactly as strong as Newton’s second law” is plainly wrong.
Finally, you falsely claim that “you see CO2 rise and temperature rise virtually in unison.” This is so incorrect it is farcical. As CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature has been flat to falling. And not just temporarily, but for many years now.
Your incorrect beliefs can only be the result of cognitive dissonance, or deliberate alarmist propaganda.
Hi Mark, quoting “However, I can’t agree on the latter point you make; having a messenger who themselves has a degree of power, an invested interest and their own agenda can (and indeed I would say must) influence the message that is given.”
What I mean is this. Substance of the message depends on choices the messenger makes. But once the message exists, it’s truth value cannot depend on the messenger.
So if an ‘alarmist’ calls out ‘AGW is going to sink the world!’ and hopefully supplies some arguments for this, this hypothesis and these arguments can be evaluated without even knowing the messenger, let alone his or her agenda.
Unfortunately, most people will take a message on face value and therein I have a problem with AGW – we’re being sold a pup and a lot of people are falling for it. This is a crying shame as the money, time and best-efforts of some very talented people could be put to much greater use in solving some of the real problems facing this planet.
I tend to agree, though I think (A)GW ìs a real and serious problem. But my stance on solving this (if it can be solved at all), and my stance on how is dealt with it today, is entirely Björn Lomborg’s.
My ‘method’ of separating message and messenger though is exactly to eliminate the problem of popularism: it cannot work on me. For me, that suffices.
Re: Smokey (05:35:16) :
This IPCC chart shows that far from being the “major cause” of increasing CO2, human activity only accounts for one molecule emitted by humans for every 34 molecules emitted naturally.
So this molecule, being a pure additional CO2-source builds up in the atmosphere and is the sole cause of increasing CO2-concentration there. Isotope fingerprinting proves it (in this case I actually mean: proves).
Wrong again. The planet disagrees; as CO2 rises, the temperature continues to fall.
I asked you before if you believed in December 1998 we were in a runaway greenhouse effect situation, given the short terms you base your conclusions on.
Rising CO2 is not the only driver for global temperature, it is just the most dominant today. It is why 2007 and 2008 belong to the ten warmest years in the global record, instead of in the coolest ten percent befitting the combi of a vast Niña and a deep dip in the solar cycle. These two years are actually far better evidence for GW than 1998.
Finally, you falsely claim that “you see CO2 rise and temperature rise virtually in unison.” This is so incorrect it is farcical. As CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature has been flat to falling. And not just temporarily, but for many years now.
See previous remark. Correction: flat to increasing (do not connect the endpoints of a term to establish a trend, please).
Imran:
“Why don’t you ask yourself how the maldives survived a sea level rise of 130m in the last 13,000 years ”
We can assume that
a) The Maldives are constructed from a coral base and has a constant elevation with respect to the sea level, or
b) The Maldives are constructed from inorganic rock and have a constant elevation with respect to the sea bed, leading to the conclusion that 13,000 years ago, the islands thrust 130m above the sea like a giant parapet.
RR Kampen, can you enlighten us which model is correct?
The first thing that came to mind when I read this story was how large a phenomenon pet rocks were in the 70s (pet ghosts, too). AGW is simply this generation’s pet rock mania, albeit on a larger scale. The similarity between the two begins with their absurdity.
Paul Boyce (05:12:49) :
I suspect you’ll easily attract research grants if it supports the AGW notion. Perhaps you can begin marketing pet coral. Goodness, sounds like a revenue source for the Maldives in case their tourism ever dries up.
Why are those guys in the top photo deliberately dissolving carbon dioxide into the ocean while they sign a climate document?
RR Kampen (05:43:52) :
So if an ‘alarmist’ calls out ‘AGW is going to sink the world!’ and hopefully supplies some arguments for this, this hypothesis and these arguments can be evaluated without even knowing the messenger, let alone his or her agenda.
In an ideal world this would be true. However, in the case of AGW (and there have been others) we seem to be in a position where confirmation-bias, coupled with group-think mean that the objective evaluation you seek above cannot be achieved.
Dissenting voices are routinely dismissed or ignored; despite excellent, scientific and mathematical foundations for the dissent. Who now (in a position of authority) will be the first to break ranks and claim that there is no problem (or if there is that it has been greatly overplayed)?
Cheers
Mark.
RR Kampen,
“It is why 2007 and 2008 belong to the ten warmest years in the global record, instead of in the coolest ten percent .”
This is a fallacious argument, and you know it. The fact is that global temperatures have risen from the LIA until the end of the 20th. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they could instantaneously drop back to those levels. A good analogy is climbing a hill – once on the summit you have to retrace your altitude all the way back to the base.
Here’s why I do not see the influence of AGW. The theory predicts a radiative imbalance. I will use the values predicted by Hansen and the beginning of this century: he predicted a value rising to 0.85 watts/meter squared by the end of this decade. This in turn is predicted – indeed it must – lead to an accumulation of heat energy measured in joules. The Argo buoy network has detected no ocean warming since 2003. Satellite and radiosonde have detected no troposhere warming. This energy cannot be detected. Where is it? Observations are showing that the radiative imbalance no longer exists.
If the radiative imbalance does not exist then the agent that was predicated to cause it, cannot be causing it. QED CO2 is not causing the climate to warm.
RR Kampen:
I strongly agree with you when you say the “message” is independent of the “messenger”.
A Saint can be mistaken and a Nazi child-molester may make a true statement. So, as you say, it is right to consider the “message” and not to accept or to reject it on the basis of its source.
Having said that, I strongly dispute your statement saying;
“So this molecule, being a pure additional CO2-source builds up in the atmosphere and is the sole cause of increasing CO2-concentration there. Isotope fingerprinting proves it (in this case I actually mean: proves).”
The facts do not support your assertion.
There are two types of “isotope evidence” obtained by analysis of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide (CO2) in samples of air; viz. 14C isotope data and 13C:12C isotope ratio data.
It is important to note the difference between ‘residence time’ and ‘recovery time’ for isotope data. Both these terms are sometimes described by different names, and they are both usually expressed in terms of ‘half life’.
‘Residence time’ is the time it takes for the molecules of pulse of CO2 injected to the air to be removed from the air
‘Recovery time’ is the time it takes for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to return to its original level following a pulse of CO2 having been injected to the air.
14C isotope data
14C isotopes were created in the atmosphere by atomic bomb tests in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. The subsequent decay of atmospheric 14C isotope concentrations indicates atmospheric residence time of CO2 molecues as being ~14 years. This agrees with dozens of other studies that indicate the residence time is between 5 and 15 years.
But the model (e.g. reported by IPCC) of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere requires longer residence time for the accumulation to explain the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Those accumulation studies are adjusted to ‘fit’ by altering the assumed residence time. Hence, the IPCC reports residence time in the range 50 to 250 years.
So, the modeled residence time based on the assumption that accumulating anthropogenic CO2 provides an indication of atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 to 250 years: but this does not agree with the observed residence time of ~14 years indicated by decay of the 14C concentration.
This failure to agree is contra-evidence for the assumption of accumulating anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
13C:12C isotope ratio data
If the 13C:12C isotope ratio in the air varies then it must increase or decrease. The ratio is observed to have changed and in the direction expected if the change were a result of accumulation of the anthropogenic emission of CO2 into the air.
The ‘classical’ method for calculating the expected 13C:12C ratio change assumes the change results from accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. But there is no published comparison of the calculated magnitude of the change to the observed magnitude of the change.
I obtained a surprise when I used the ‘classical’ method to determine the expected magnitude of the change (i.e. the method reported in e.g.
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.).
The 13C:12C variation over recent decades as indicated by this method is (depending on assumptions) from 3 to 6 times too large if the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is accumulation of anthropogenic CO2. This indicates that the bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a result of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, and results from an unknown something else.
Importantly, if that ‘something else’ is causing the bulk of the rise then there is no reason to suppose it is not causing all of the rise.
I reported my finding to several others. Some of them – including some AGW-supporters – conducted their own calculations and they all reached the same conclusion that I had.
Roy Spencer was one to whom I stated this finding, and he did something much more useful than merely replicate what I and others had done. He considered the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration associated with interannual variations in the 13C:12C ratio and reported his comparison on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
He concluded:
“This means that most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around. ”
Using that conclusion, he went further by constructing a simple model that assumed 80%natural:20%anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and posted this on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
There, Spencer said:
“There will, of course, be vehement objections to this admittedly simple model. One will be that “we know the atmospheric CO2 increase is manmade because the C13 carbon isotope concentration in the atmosphere is decreasing, which is consistent with a fossil fuel source.” But has been discussed elsewhere, a change in ocean biological activity (or vegetation on land) has a similar signature…so the C13 change is not a unique signature of fossil fuel source.”
I fully understand Spencer’s point because some people are so sure of the anthropogenic cause that they refuse to look at the evidence.
Richard
RR Kampen:
I strongly agree with you when you say the “message” is independent of the “messenger”.
A Saint can be mistaken and a Nazi child-molester may make a true statement. So, s you say, it is right to consider the “message” and not to accept or to reject it on the basis of its source.
Having said that, I strongly dispute your statement saying;
“So this molecule, being a pure additional CO2-source builds up in the atmosphere and is the sole cause of increasing CO2-concentration there. Isotope fingerprinting proves it (in this case I actually mean: proves).”
The facts do not support your assertion.
There are two types of “isotope evidence” obtained by analysis of carbon atoms in carbon dioxide (CO2) in samples of air; viz. 14C isotope data and 13C:12C isotope ratio data.
It is important to note the difference between ‘residence time’ and ‘recovery time’ for isotope data. Both these terms are sometimes described by different names, and they are both usually expressed in terms of ‘half life’.
‘Residence time’ is the time it takes for the molecules of pulse of CO2 injected to the air to be removed from the air
‘Recovery time’ is the time it takes for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to return to its original level following a pulse of CO2 having been injected to the air.
14C isotope data
14C isotopes were created in the atmosphere by atomic bomb tests in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. The subsequent decay of atmospheric 14C isotope concentrations indicates atmospheric residence time of CO2 molecues as being ~14 years. This agrees with dozens of other studies that indicate the residence time is between 5 and 15 years.
But the model (e.g. reported by IPCC) of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere requires longer residence time for the accumulation to explain the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Those accumulation studies are adjusted to ‘fit’ by altering the assumed residence time. Hence, the IPCC reports residence time in the range 50 to 250 years.
So, the modeled residence time based on the assumption that accumulating anthropogenic CO2 provides an indication of atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 to 250 years: but this does not agree with the observed residence time of ~14 years indicated by decay of the 14C concentration.
This failure to agree is contra-evidence for the assumption of accumulating anthropogenic CO2 being the cause of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
13C:12C isotope ratio data
If the 13C:12C isotope ratio in the air varies then it must increase or decrease. The ratio is observed to have changed and in the direction expected if the change were a result of accumulation of the anthropogenic emission of CO2 into the air.
The ‘classical’ method for calculating the expected 13C:12C ratio change assumes the change results from accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. But there is no published comparison of the calculated magnitude of the change to the observed magnitude of the change.
I obtained a surprise when I used the ‘classical’ method to determine the expected magnitude of the change (i.e. the method reported in e.g.
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.).
The 13C:12C variation over recent decades as indicated by this method is (depending on assumptions) from 3 to 6 times too large if the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is accumulation of anthropogenic CO2. This indicates that the bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a result of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, and results from an unknown something else.
Importantly, if that ‘something else’ is causing the bulk of the rise then there is no reason to suppose it is not causing all of the rise.
I reported my finding to several others. Some of them – including some AGW-supporters – conducted their own calculations and they all reached the same conclusion that I had.
Roy Spencer was one to whom I stated this finding, and he did something much more useful than merely replicate what I and others had done. He considered the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration associated with interannual variations in the 13C:12C ratio and reported his comparison on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
He concluded:
“This means that most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around. ”
Using that conclusion, he went further by constructing a simple model that assumed 80%natural:20%anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and posted this on his web site at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
There, Spencer said:
“There will, of course, be vehement objections to this admittedly simple model. One will be that “we know the atmospheric CO2 increase is manmade because the C13 carbon isotope concentration in the atmosphere is decreasing, which is consistent with a fossil fuel source.” But has been discussed elsewhere, a change in ocean biological activity (or vegetation on land) has a similar signature…so the C13 change is not a unique signature of fossil fuel source.”
I fully understand Spencer’s point because some people are so sure of the anthropogenic cause that they refuse to look at the evidence.
Richard
RR Kampen: “Rising CO2 is not the only driver for global temperature, it is just the most dominant today. It is why 2007 and 2008 belong to the ten warmest years in the global record, instead of in the coolest ten percent befitting the combi of a vast Niña and a deep dip in the solar cycle. These two years are actually far better evidence for GW than 1998.”
This and similar arguments rely crucially on the hockey stick, and I consider the hockey stick to be completely broken by now. Until somebody should manage to repair the hockey stick, the possibility that the roman and medieval warm periods were at least just as warm as the current warm period must be taken seriously again, and then the question whether there is anything special about our current warm period (or if it is just another ripple in the chaotic world climate system) remains quite open.
Re: Vincent (06:01:38) :
We can assume that
a) The Maldives are constructed from a coral base and has a constant elevation with respect to the sea level, or
b) The Maldives are constructed from inorganic rock and have a constant elevation with respect to the sea bed, leading to the conclusion that 13,000 years ago, the islands thrust 130m above the sea like a giant parapet.
RR Kampen, can you enlighten us which model is correct?
Most of the Maldives base (98%) is sand.
The islands rose above sea level after 6.000 years ago, when a combination of reefs and sand sustained a yearly sea level rise of 3-10 mm/yr.
This might mean the Islands are safe for now, but I lived there I’d be a bit worried for my grandchildren… Too many uncertainties and too many scenario’s to neglect. But it’s complex, I absolutely submit that.
Comparable situation, different environment: Dutch Waddenzee, a tidal sea mostly dry at low tide. The area sinks thanks to us taking methane gas from the ground (this also causes earthquakes up to or slightly over magnitude 3/Richter). Question was whether the sea would survive this as is, it being a unique nature area. Answer seems to be quite convincingly it is surviving with no noticeable changes: silt from the North Sea just washes up a little faster.
Vincent, given that coral grows in the shallows which are, by definition, under water, we can assume that those parts of the Islands currently above water were once underneath it, i.e. that sea levels were once much higher than they are now (assuming for the sake of argument that the sea floor hasn’t risen). Unless of course the corals trap drifting sediments which gradually build up into Islands over time, which is another possibility. In any case, something more complex than the water simply rising and falling is going on there, in my totally uninformed and probably stupid opinion.
R R Kampen,
You claim ocean acidification is happening now, and is strong enough to hurt coral.
Please show us that ocean pH is falling, or withdraw your assertion.
Also please demonstrate that GCMs are are not engineering models, based on large assumptions about how the physics of CO2 operate in the atmosphere.
You ask if we were in a runaway greenhouse condition in 1998.
There is no runaway greenhouse tipping point in the real world of Earth climate.
The AGW community, until the last years when the differences between the apocalyptic predictions and reality have been too great to ignore, has not been making the claim that ‘except for CO2 things would be cooler’.
In the US, we call that kind of argument ‘moving goal posts’.
The specific failures of AGW predictions are long:
Storms are down, not up, worldwide.
Droughts are normal.
Rainfall pattersn are normal.
Temperatures have had nothing but modest changes, well within normal variability.
The ‘hockey stick’ ‘results’ used to suport the idea of a rapidly warming climate have proven to be fraudulent.
Ocean levels are rising at about the rate they have for long periods of time.
Arctic ice fluctuations have proven to cyclic.
Antarctic ice is up
Greenland ice has proven to be highly variable historically, and is not anywhere close to the catastrophes the aGW community has cliamed.
So what are you defending?
WAG … you asked So out of full disclosure, I’d ask you to let us know how much revenue this site generates you personally in terms of ads, speech fees, book sales, etc. Otherwise, how will we know you’re being honest? I look forward to your response.
.. what Martin said. AND …
So have you asked Al Gore the same question? I understand that he charges something like $200,000 (and more) to do a speech. Have to check how much money Gore made from the sci-fi fiction AIT? Have you asked Gore how much he makes directly or indirectly from his “carbon offset” businesses?
Al says, “We MUST reduce by 90 percent in ten years!!” KA-CHING!
And how much money do university researchers make (I am NOT bashing university types) who have based their careers on perpetrating the grant-generating AGW fallacy?
And how about the money made by all of the eco lawyers and CEOs of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club etc ad nauseum. Eco pimps comes to mind. (Snip?)
The AGW myth is making a lot of money for a lot of people and the longer the myth can be sustained the more they make.
WOW! … WAG is an anagram for AGW!
Coincidence? Freudian? Stranger than fiction, wot? ☺ ☺ ☺
Clive
“They are just “diving for dollars” trying to milk the AGW system for money.
Any small community politician would be stupid to ignore that much potential money.
It is perfectly understandable from the point of view of political survival. Most politicians cannot afford the luxury of being honest with this sort of thing because if they don’t milk it their opponent will.
Free money corrupts the political process, which is one of the reasons AGW is so dangerous.”
Larry
I commend this comment, and the similar one by helvio. Politicians are in an invidious position – if they do not lie and cheat they will be thrown out of power in short order by someone who does. What this comes down to is that, en mass, people do not mind being cheated and lied to, and will vote for someone who does this readily.
Do not blame the politicians. If we did not encourage dishonour, and, more importantly, discourage any spark of honour, then we would have better leaders. If scientists really cared about truth, rather than getting the next grant in, Mann would never have gained the following he has today.
Money is power, and Lord Acton’s dictum was never so true…
RR Kampen (05:11:44) :
CO2 it is not black, but trasparent and invisible
CO2 is the gas you exhale. You exhale about 900 grams a day of CO2
CO2 that you exhale is what plants breath to give you back O2 (oxygen) for you to breath. Then it is neither a pollutant nor a poison, it even rejuvenates!!!:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1485258/carbon_dioxide_therapy_carboxy_therapy_pg2_pg2.html?cat=69
CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn´t fly up, up and away
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038 per cent of it, or 3.8 parts per ten thousand.
The atmosphere, the air you know, does not have the capacity to “hold” enough heat, it only “saves” 0.001297 joules per cubic centimeter, while water , the sea you know, has 3227 times that capacity (4.186 joules).
Would you warm your feet with a bottle filled with air or filled with hot water?
The so called “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, see:
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
But if you have been cheated to the core and still believe in it, think the following:
Svante Arrhenius, the guy of the greenhouse effect, said he thought CO2 acted as the “window panes” of a green-house, but as its concentration in atmosphere it is just 3.8 per ten thousand, you would have a greenhouse with 3.8 window panes and 9996.2 empty holes.
Conclusion: That issue they have told you of “global warming” and/or “climate change” it is just an issue of MONEY, MONEY, promoted by some who are inflating this new financial bubble, out of which you will not receive anything.
They will become trillioners while you will have to suffer the cold which instead, and for sure, is coming.
On a typical island in the Maldives you can sleep in a house on stilts, eat (but never be served by a female), lay in the sun, go boating AND LEARN TO DIVE. So this is a free advertisement for those who want to LEARN TO DIVE in warm water with little sharks around their feet. So take that plane to Male (it can be very cheap off-season), and LEARN TO DIVE in water so warm you do not need a diving suit. And the water is clear, so you see something when you LEARN TO DIVE.
I don’t want to sound pedantic but it seems that nobody here seems to understand how islands with coral reefs as foundation are formed and maintained during sea levels rise.
The Maldives and most atolls are sandy above the water surface. Coral doesn’t grow above the water. Only islands in tectonically active areas, where there is or has been some tectonic uplift, old dead coral reefs may be found above the water. The sand originates from certain coral fish that grinds the coral with their jaws and from strong wave action that causes coral to break. The sand and the coral debris are washed up onto the beach which already has an older dead part of the reef as its foundation. The occasional storms and wind will finally accumulate the sand at a level that make habitation by humans feasible (some 2 meters above high tide level). Bird droppings brought plant seeds and fertilizer to these islands.
When sea level rises gradually the corals that fringe these sandy islands will keep up with the rise and the natural process described above will maintain sand islands with new detrital sediment.
However!!! This natural process cannot be allowed to go on since humans have changed their ways of life and have constructed permanent infra-structures (roads, permanent houses, airports) that cannot evolve with the islands. Hence the rate of sea level rise, which was no problem in the past 12000 years, has now become a major problem for the inhabitants. Coral islands are not sustainable for the permanent inhabitation. That is a fact and has everything to do with post-glacial global warming and sea level rise, but nothing to do with CO2.
If I’m wrong, show us that the ocean is acidifying.
This is the same as CO2 causing atmospheric warming. Increased atmospheric CO2 will cause atmospheric warming and cause ocean acidification.
The 64K question is how much?
In both cases the answer appears to be too little to be measured empirically.
richardscourtney (04:44:37) :
I’m sceptical volcanic activity in the recent past has produced sufficent S and Cl to produce a measurable effect on ocean acidity on the scale of the world’s oceans.
Thanks for that explanation Chris.