Sky News claims that a recent Alaskan tsunami was caused by a climate change-induced landslide. This claim is speculative at best, since it is difficult to say whether the particular tidewater glacier is retreating because of warming or because of other factors that impact glacial movement. Climate change and glacial retreat have always occurred, but media overuse of the former term conflates natural shifts with supposed human-caused change. This has made it difficult, if not impossible, to discuss natural hazards.
The Sky News article, “Alaskan megatsunami bigger than Empire State Building triggered by climate change,” tries to convince people that using fossil fuels is causing megatsunamis. Sky News writes “[t]he wave at the Tracy Arm Fjord in the Tongass National Forest was triggered by a rock landslide which was driven by climate change,” and the “climate change” link goes to a list of Sky News articles connecting natural phenomena to human use of fossil fuels. This is not true. Recent warming is not all human-driven, except locally in the case of the urban heat island effect.
The amount of warming that humans contribute by industry and other activities releasing carbon dioxide is a question of ongoing debate. It’s true that industrialization has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but ice core data show that carbon dioxide was gradually rising even before that, most likely due to outgassing from the oceans as the world warmed after the end of the Little Ice Age, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Natural vs. Human Contributions to Greenhouse Gases and Global Average Temperatures. Human contributions to greenhouse-gas related warming are very small, probably around 0.28 percent, because the vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, not carbon dioxide.
Modern warming is likewise not unprecedented, in fact global average temperatures are still lower today than there were during the Holocene Climate Optimum.
In the case of this tsunami, glacial retreat is said to have destabilized a section of the fjord walls and a massive landslide resulted, which caused the second-tallest tsunami wave on record (that is to say, that we are aware of) at 1,578 feet high. The record is still held by the 1958 Lituya Bay landslide-caused tsunami, which was an incredible 1,720 feet high. No one was blaming climate change back then.
Gradual retreat of glacier ice can destabilize valley walls like those of the Tracy Arm fjord, but whether climate change (human or otherwise) is the main cause of this specific glacial retreat is unknown.
NASA reports that moderate rainfall was a contributing factor to destabilizing the slope, as is the case with many landslides.
Tidewater glaciers like the South Sawyer Glacier undergo hundred-plus-year-long retreat and advance cycles, and are unique in that they lose ice primarily through calving, or breaking off massive chunks, rather than gradual melting. It is notable that tidewater glaciers are not as sensitive to climate during their retreat and advance cycles as other kinds of glaciers are. Calving is impacted by water depth (which changes as the ice retreats or advances), along with other physical conditions like mass imbalances. Today, there are tidewater glaciers in Alaska that have advanced, not retreating, amid the modest warming of the past century has occurred. The Johns Hopkins Glacier is one of them; it has advanced a mile since 1948. It is unclear how global climate change could be causing one tidewater glacier to collapse while others, in the same climatic region, are expanding.
Because there are a lot of factors that influence tidewater glacier cycles, and some Alaskan glaciers’ advances are unaffected by recent modest warming, it is unclear whether blame climate change – natural or otherwise—for the recent megatsunami, and even more specious for Sky News to blame human activity for it by extension.
Never let mere facts get in the way of a sermon.
You are most always the early bird to post the first comment.
Of course earthquakes are caused by climate change – Follow the “Science”
Volcano eruptions are also caused by climate change –
Is the moon orbiting the earth caused by climate change?
Yes !!
No No No
Earthquakes are caused by DJT tariffs! /sarc
But, everything is caused by CO2-induced CACC;
I didn’t have haemorrhoids or ingrowing toenails before the Paris COP.
Also, my eyesight is failing (although my mother did warn me about that !! ) (:-))
failing eyesight means you can’t check for hirsute palms too
I had to read it twice when I saw “the size of the Empire State Building”… It’s gigantic! It makes me think of one of my best friends, who’s in the French Navy, and of rogue waves, capable of capsizing enormous vessels (there’s something called “the Three Sisters”: three rogue waves in succession, with the second capsizing the ship, and the third sweeping the wreckage away across the water… Nature is merciless.)
In another vein, Native Americans were confronted with terrifyingly intense fires long before Europeans arrived on American soil. There were no SUVs back then. Being no more foolish than the average members of the human race, they understood the value of forest management and undertook controlled burning in order to protect themselves against the devastation caused by megafires.
It is ironic, to say the least: the devotees of eco-leftism cultivate a genuine fascination with native peoples, and yet they are reluctant to use the very methods those same natives implemented for their survival.
Native Americans used controlled burning to manage landscape, especially for agricultural reasons. They also used wildfire as a warfare tool.
How exactly did they control the burns?
well obviously they didn’t bother calling the LA Fire Dept
Well, “controlled” means more as”intentionally caused” for many even to this day.
No army of fire trucks, but good weather, high humidity, winds blowing away from the campsite or toward the water, and so forth.
See it all the time here on the Eglin range.
Gums sends…
“For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.”
………..who find their way into positions of power in government. We need government to get involved if we want to REALLY screw things up.
Oops, wrong posting. I meant to post this under the article about Miliband and IYI’s.
I’m from the Government and I am hear to help.
Grab your wallet and run like hell.
That was from Ronald Regan: The most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Correct.
Madmani from NYC recently proclaimed that under socialism, government will be a force for good.
How can you tell a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
What is your best response when a politician says, “Trust me?”
Grab your wallet and run like hell.
Sorry, but the following is not true:
“Recent increases in atmospheric CO2 began around 1850, well before electric power generation and the internal combustion engine were common features of society.”
The industrialization did not start with cars and power, it started already around 1750 with the invention of the steam engine!
The influence of the ocean surface temperature on CO2 levels in the atmosphere is very modest: about 16 ppmv/°C over glacial-interglacial transitions which needed thousands of years in each direction. Over shorter periods like the MWP-LIA it is not more than 8 ppmv/°C
Thus near the full increase of 130 ppmv since 1850 is thanks (!) to our over 200 ppmv CO2 emissions.
One can discuss the opposite reaction: the beneficial increase in temperature thanks to our CO2, but the bulk of the increase certainly is from our use of fossil fuels…
See our work for the CO2 Coalition:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Human-Contribution-to-Atmospheric-CO2-digital-compressed.pdf
Indeed, that passage about oceanic degassing also surprised me a bit in the article.
That said, I had understood that accurately estimating atmospheric carbon is not so straightforward, with rock erosion by rivers adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere (if I’m not mistaken). Regarding the paleoclimate issue, air bubbles take time to become sealed, so the curve is relatively smoothed out. That does not change the fact that our activities are increasing atmospheric CO2 (and that the end of the world is not for tomorrow, much as catastrophists might dislike it).
Most natural CO2 inputs and outputs are relative slowly changing over time, except for the seasonal swings and fast reactions on temperature (Pinatubo, El Niño), both by vegetation.
While ice cores give a moving average of the real levels, the time resolution highly depends of the local snow accumulation and the latter gives how far in the past we can see with that resolution, before the ice core hits bedrock.
Over the past 150 years the resolution is better than a decade; over the past 2,000 years about 20 years; about 40 years for 45,000 years back in time and Dome C is good for 560 years resolution over 800,000 years…
Renee Hannon has written a comprehensive work about ice core measurements:
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Measurement-of-CO2-Concentrations-Through-Time-2024-June.pdf
Great ! Thank you very much.
I thought rock erosion absorbed CO2?
I asked the AI Claude to write me a short explanatory paragraph on this subject:
ChatGPT says the same thing.
Note: all evidence suggests that this release due to kerogen erosion is very small. From what I understand, it cannot obscure the accounting of human emissions. But it does exist, and it is therefore important to take it into account.
“… but the bulk of the increase certainly is from our use of fossil fuels…” The 96+% of CO2 produced by nature is the elephant in that room.
The 98+% of CO2 removed by nature makes a mouse of that elephant…
The influence of the human mouse and the natural elephant in the room as seen as the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, combined from 4 stations: Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole:
Assumed added by human influence.
Models are not proof.
Human emissions are solidly based on the sales of the different fuels (taxes!) and the burning efficiency of the individual fuels. No “models” involved.
Its accuracy depends thus on taxes… Due to the human nature to avoid taxes, maybe somewhat underestimated, certainly not overestimated…
So if I buy a load of coal, but do not burn it, it still gives off CO2.
There are too many assumptions in that calculation to be able to claim any accuracy. Just another estimate to play in with averages.
Come on, you buy coal, oil and gas just to stock it? Maybe a few years at maximum for coal, a few months for oil and a few days for gas… That hardly influences the total use over the past 175 years at all.
Moreover, land use changes are not even included and these simply add to the total human contribution…
Just out of curiosity: why so many “skeptics” insist that the increase is not man-made, while all available evidence points to the use of fossil fuels? If that is not the cause of catastrophic warming and mainly beneficial, why making a problem of it?
To make it as simple as possible…
Even if the calculations of human emissions are 25% off reality (25%/year going into stock each year in the past 175 years!), even then the increase in the atmosphere is 100% caused by human emissions.
Human emissions are 200% of the observed increase, thus with 25% less emissions, still 150% of the increase in the atmosphere.
If that was not the cause of the increase, where did human emissions go? Into space? If the increase is 100% natural, then all human emissions – as mass – must have been absorbed somewhere in nature: every gram emitted by humans:
That still means that the net natural sinks were twice the net natural contribution to the atmosphere…
That 96% is stable and matched by the size of the natural sinks.
If that wasn’t true, CO2 levels would not have been as stable as they have been.
Yes, there have been changes, but those occur on millennial scales.
Thanks F. E. (B.Sc. 1965)
{My degree was also in 1965, so I guess we are about the same age.}
I haven’t seen your name for several years and wondered if you were still active. That’s a long document — giving me something to do this week.
Still alive and kicking (the latter not so much anymore…), Still fighting the errors from both sides of the fence…
“The first commercially successful engine that could transmit continuous power to a machine was developed in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen. In 1764, James Watt made a critical improvement by removing spent steam to a separate vessel for condensation, greatly improving the amount of work obtained per unit of fuel consumed. By the 19th century, stationary steam engines powered the factories of the Industrial Revolution.”
[wiki/Steam_engine]
The machine developed in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen was not a direct-acting steam engine, but an atmospheric engine, using the condensing of steam in a cylinder to form a vacuum & allow atmospheric pressure to do the work (pumping water out of mines), developed from Thomas Savery’s 1698 machine.
‘Thus near the full increase of 130 ppmv since 1850 is thanks (!) to our over 200 ppmv CO2 emissions.”
Your assertion is patently false. Since 1959 just 39.1% of the cumulative net annual Mauna Loa CO2 is from human emissions, after annual CO2 ocean sinking is incorporated, not 100%.*
*However, my analysis is a few years old, so this percentage will change a small amount once it’s updated with the latest data including new land use numbers added in, which were first put in the mix of CO2 sources in the year following my original analysis (from Our World In Data).
Both the annual Mauna Loa rising phase & net CO2 correlate highly with sea surface temperature.
Further analysis indicates CO2 changes also correlate highly with ocean temperature changes.
This cannot have occurred without ocean CO2 solubility causing a large part of the CO2 increase as the ocean warmed from the 1850s.
Ferdinand, remember this for the next time the impulse to spew CO2 disinformation overcomes you.
Bob, the solubility of CO2 in seawater is exactly known with the formula of Takahashi, based on near one million seawater samples. The influence is independent of the initial conditions like composition and temperature:
(pCO2)seawater AT Tnew = (pCO2)seawater AT Told x EXP[0.0423 x (Tnew – Told)]
For an average SST of 15°C increasing to 16°C, that gives, starting in 1960 at 310 ppmv as “base” in the atmosphere:
pCO2(16°C) = 310*exp[0.0423*(16-15)] = 323.4 ppmv at “equilibrium”
That is an increase of 13 ppmv for a full increase of 1°C, that is all. Far from the 100+ CO2 increase, caused by the 170+ CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in the same period since 1960 with a smaller SST increase.
Further, the seasonal swings are dominated by the N.H. vegetation: when the N.H. warms up in spring, lots of CO2 is sucked out of the atmosphere by deciduous forests, more that the warming oceans can deliver. That makes that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop on spring, while the δ13C level increases, due to the preference of 12C over 13C by photosynthesis.
If the change was dominated by the oceans, CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other…
You left out laying asphalt and mixing concrete among other things.
Not all CO2 emissions are from thermal generating plants.
Not all CO2 emissions are from transportation.
Some of it comes from human respiration.
Some of it comes from agriculture.
Some of it comes from a variety of industrial processes, such as iron smelting.
A ton of it comes from Congress. /s
You also assume that a CO2 station atop an active volcano gives precise readings that apply to the entire globe.
Cities are ~10 ppm higher than that average while rural areas are ~10 ppm lower.
Cement manufacturing was included in human emissions, in recent years not anymore, as fresh concrete absorbs CO2 again over time. I disagree on that point, as that process is very slow…
Laying asphalt and mixing concrete are minor sources, if sources at all.
Respiration emits what was captured in the months to years before out of the atmosphere by plants, that is part of the natural cycles.
Agriculture is part of the natural cycle for ins and outs, but can give a contribution if land is changed from a natural (forest) cycle into an agricultural cycle, if that change gives extra CO2.
And please…
Stop nonsense like that the CO2 levels at Mauna Loa don’t represent near-global values for CO2…
At a start: there are 10 “baseline” stations monitoring CO2 at the best environments to do that: from near the North Pole (Barrow) to the South Pole. As CO2 in 95% of the atmosphere is well mixed within a few percent (despite 25%/season exchange with other reservoirs!), that is more than sufficient to know the global CO2 trend.
See: https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/iadv/
Cities are monitored, but any value in the 5% air near ground over land has not the slightest value for global CO2 levels. Neither historical, nor current. Except maybe in the middle of a dessert, far from any source or sink.
Or do you give any value to temperature measurements in hotspots like cities to know the global temperature trends?
Indeed the station is at the top of an active volcano, but the station is situated where the wind mostly blows from the oceans, the “trade winds” over thousands of kilometers of ocean.
If the wind comes in from the volcanic vents, that is noticed and these figures are marked and not used for daily, monthly and yearly averages.
The opposite also happens: in the afternoon sometimes air from the valley below reaches the station with lower CO2 values. These too are marked and not used for averages.
I have downloaded the figures for 2004 and plotted all measurements besides only the “selected” measurements. If you see a difference in average, I don’t:
I can see why you’re confused, but that doesn’t help you with your delusion.
Human CO2 emissions sink at the same rate as natural CO2, leaving a small annual net that is much less than the annual Mauna Loa net CO2. Bulk numbers don’t lie.
There’s no getting around that with your narrow explanation – focus on that.
Bob, the fundamental error you and several others before you, make is assuming that the outputs of CO2 from the atmosphere into other reservoirs (oceans and vegetation) are directly driven by the CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere. That is hardly the case.
The main CO2 flows in and out the atmosphere are seasonal, temperature (and sunlight) driven, not pressure driven. That is the case for 95% in mass of all CO2 flows within a year.
In spring/summer: from the warming oceans via the atmosphere into vegetation and in fall/winter from rotting vegetation via the atmosphere into the cooling oceans. The atmospheric CO2 pressure plays near zero role in these processes.
As the CO2 level in the atmosphere increased with 50%, as is the case by know, these flows didn’t increase with 50%, as you expect. The biological cycle increased with only 13% since 1850, that is all.
The main CO2 flows represent a “residence time” for any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, whatever its origin, of around 4 years. A quarter of all CO2 each year is exchanged with CO2 of the other reservoirs. That are exchanges, not changes in total mass of the atmosphere.
The change in mass, caused by the 50% extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is very modest: about 2.5% of the total mass exchange, that is the difference between total inputs and total outputs, or an “adjustment time” of around 50 years, an order of magnitude slower than the residence time.
The adjustment time is the only real removal rate, the residence time is the cycling time and is of zero relevance.
The adjustment time depends of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium with the ocean surface (around 295 ppmv for the current SST) and currently removes only about half the human input as mass (no matter the origin of the individual molecules). That means that the full increase in CO2 mass is human caused…
More can be seen on that difference in sheets prepared for a debate I had for the Clintel Group at a workshop in Athens, about two years ago, here as .pdf file:
https://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_pdf/On_the_CO2_Residence_Time.pdf
The above in graphic form:
Graph A shows the total human emissions since 1850 for the period 1959-2020, but which are not relevant for the calculations.
Then the observed CO2 levels in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, the increase in pCO2 of the ocean surface with increased temperature since 1850 and the relevant pressure difference between atmosphere and sea surface, which is what pushes extra CO2 into oceans and vegetation.
Graph B shows the observed result in net removal rate of CO2 over the same period and the polynomial to filter out the short term influence of temperature (mainly on vegetation uptake).
Graph C shows the calculated adjustment time, based on the polynomial.
“Bob, the fundamental error you and several others before you, make is assuming that the outputs of CO2 from the atmosphere into other reservoirs (oceans and vegetation) are directly driven by the CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere.”
I have not said a word about CO2 pressure, only temperature.
Every part of your explanation missed the mark.
Since human emissions sink at the same rate as natural CO2, the entire man-made emissions sum cannot be used by itself without taking into account the annual sinking portion. It should be plain as day that the cumulative man-made emissions after sinking are not enough by itself to supply the entire cumulative net CO2 flux.
You are stuck right there. You have spent a lot of time avoiding this issue by continuing to post irrelevant information.
Bob, I did respond on the influence of temperature: that is very modest and certainly the cause of the changes over time, with a maximum of 16 ppmv/°C over glacial-interglacial transitions:
The increase in CO2 between 1960 and 2020 was over 100 ppmv with a sea surface temperature increase of 0.6°C. The latter is good for less than 10 ppmv increase due to warming seawater. Human emissions in the same period were over 170 ppmv in total. Each year larger than what was net absorbed by nature in the same year.
If we may focus on the output in vegetation with temperature: if one increases the CO2 level in the atmosphere with 50% at once, that doesn’t increase the uptake of CO2 in the next growing season with 50%, as the growth of most plants depends of temperature and sunlight and only in second instance is influenced by extra CO2 (pressure!) in the atmosphere, but not with 100% of the increase and for may plants like trees. it takes many years to grow larger or more dense in forests.
The increase in plant uptake/release in the past 175 years was about 13% for a 50% increase in CO2 level in the atmosphere (figure IPCC).
That means that the natural sinks in vegetation did not grow fast enough to remove the extra CO2 mass induced by humans: only average half of the yearly emissions are sinking in oceans and vegetation together…
Oh and BTW, even with a residence time of 4 years, only 25% of all CO2 is “removed” per year (in fact replaced, not removed as mass), thus also only 25% of all human emissions of that year. Still 150% of the observed increase in the atmosphere caused by human FF emissions…
Assuming mankind has burned most of the coal mined and oil/gas drilled, there have been enough fossil fuels burned to create several times the increase in CO2 that has been observed.
The excess CO2 being consumed by various sinks, such as increased vegetation.
Beyond that, according to the proxy data, CO2 lags temperature (both warming and cooling) by about 900 years. It’s only been a bit over 200 years since temperatures started rising significantly.
I don’t know why some people fight so hard to avoid believing that man played any role in the increase in CO2. Even after proving that this increase has been completely beneficial.
I don’t really care that much where the enhanced atmospheric CO2 comes from.
Just so long as it keeps coming.
The very last thing the world needs is a decrease in atmospheric CO2.
This is not the first time we have seen such bogus claims about glaciers, floods, tsunamis.
This seems like a rinse, spin, and repeat effort.
They can generate alarms faster than I can disprove them. I just ignore them.
yup
From the Sky News article;
“A tsunami at a popular tourist spot in Alaska was the second highest ever recorded and it was “unbelievably lucky” no one was hurt, researchers have said.”
Second highest ever recorded? When and where was the #1 highest ever recorded?
The article never says.
This was within a fjord and one might like to know about a tsunami on an open ocean shore. That record I think belongs on the Ryukyu islands, although it is difficult to get any AI research to get out of their Lituya rut.
For reference this is about twice the run-up at Fukushima
Thanks!
My search engine was acting up.
(It was blocking me from doing anything. It said, “You are unable to access ssl1.prod.s1search.co”. Rebooting fixed it.)
WOW.. It is as if land slides have never happened before 😉
[wiki] Bridge_of_the_Gods_(land_bridge)
“Climate change and glacial retreat have always occurred”
As has glacial advance.
Unless you wish to call a pebble thrown into a lake a micro-tsunami, why call a rockfall into a fjord a mega-tsunami? The Alaska event was only a really big splash experienced only locally.
This is a case where a not-too-appropriate word was appled early on and it stuck. When I see the word, I think of an earthquake — not a rock fall.
The word “tsunami” comes from the Japanese words “tsu,” meaning ‘harbor,’ and “nami,” meaning ‘wave.’
If Chris Christie and JB Pritzker were to cannoball into Washington DC’s Tidal Basin there would be a really big splash. The media might lead with a headline: “Governors cause a tsunami.” 🙂
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone
RE: Please, No More Of This CO2 Nonsense!
RE: The Greenhouse Effect!
RE: CO2 vs H2O!
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2 at STP.
In air at 21° and with 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 17,780 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1,205 g and contains 14.3 g of H20 and 0.79 g of CO2. To the first approximation and all thing being equal, the proportion of the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to H2O is given by:
GHE=molesH2O/(molesH2O+molesCO2)=0.79/(.79+0.018)=.98 or 98%.
This calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and molecule of CO2 each absorb about the same amount of out-going long wavelength IR light emanating from the earth’s surface. Actually, H2O absorbs more IR light than CO2. The above empirical data and calculations falsifies the claims by the corrupt IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientist that CO2 causes global warming and is the cause of climate change.
Harold, the so-called greenhouse effect has nothing, zero, nada to do with the mass of these gases in the atmosphere.
You do know that there are tremendous differences in absorbed frequencies between the different GHGs.
The point is that CO2 absorbs in frequencies where water vapor is not (or less) active: the “escape window” for the IR radiation from earth to space. Thus both GHG effects are additive, largely independent of each other…
Thank for your reply.
The amount of the greenhouse effect for a region of the earth’s surface depends on the specific humidity. In a dry desert (e.g. the Atacama), the surface and air heats up after sunrise and becomes quite hot by late afternoon. After sunset the land and air cools down quickly, and on occasion the air temperature can drop below freezing.
In region with average humidity, the mourning’s after sunrise can be cool, but as the air warms up more water vapor from dew on the surface of plants and other surfaces evaporates into air. By late afternoon the air can be quite humid and uncomfortable especially at night.
Harold, the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor doesn’t change directly if CO2 doubles in the atmosphere, but that extra CO2 adds about 3.7 W/m2 extra to the surface over the whole globe, which translates to about 1°C warming up of the surface, before any positive or negative feedbacks. Independent of water vapor at any place…
Indirectly that may have influence: a warming earth can change the global and regional precipitation / water vapor content of the atmosphere: a warmer world is a wetter world.
That was anyway the case for the Sahara, where during the Holocene “Climate Optimum” of some 6,000 years ago, that was a steppe, not a dessert… All natural, without any help of CO2.
The influence of the recent increase in CO2 was measured line by line at two stations in the USA: about 0.2 W/m2/decade from 22 ppmv increase in the period 2000-2010:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
In the same period, the increase of other, natural, influences (solar, other GHGs) was a factor 10 higher… Thus natural causes of the warming can’t be easily separated from the influence of CO2…
Media megapanic bigger than the Empire State Building triggered by climate alarmism
Chuckleheaded journalists wet their pants in terror over benign and beneficial 1 ⁰C warming since 1850.
More like Marxist propagandists.
More crappy reporting from mainstream media, an industry losing credibility by the day.
Indigenous Alaskans have been aware of, and wary of, ‘tidal’ waves in fjords like Lituya Bay long before the advent of activists and tourists and their theories.
I have long since wearied of the “wages of sin” arguments supporting climate doomsday scenarios. If only we weren’t greedy, prolific, acquisitive, living near the top of the food chain, and hadn’t domesticated fire, the earth will still be an Eden.
Climate has changed, and catastrophes have recurred for millions of years prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens on Planet Earth only a million years ago. Plagues, pestilences, floods, droughts and famines go all the way back before that.
Whose sin was it those times?
Curious. Why no pictures or video of the tidal wave bigger than the Empire State Building? Did it kill everyone on the planet or what?