National Parks affected by the climate changes

[digitaldog]

The whole Mississippi Delta and New Orleans are sinking because of man-made blockages of natural sediment not being deposited by the river.

Okay... And then there is raising sea levels.

Of course, the climate changers only mention rising seas and never falling land. 

Utter rubbish.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sinking-land-rising-seas-dual-crises-facing-coastal-communities

[TechTalk]

Utter rubbish.

It's a complete fabrication. But, that's to be expected.

[Alan Klein]

It's a complete fabrication. But, that's to be expected.

Here is some info. Most of the loss is caused by man and not related to global warming.  See the second link.

Although sea-level rise is a major factor in Louisiana’s disappearing coast, even if sea-levels remained stable, Louisiana would still be sinking. This, combined with natural subsidence and sea-level rise, has resulted in Louisiana having one of the worst coastal erosion problems around the world.
https://www.dekooktips.com/advices/what-causes-coastal-erosion-in-louisiana.html

More info:
https://mississippiriverdelta.org/our-coastal-crisis/land-loss/

[TechTalk]

I haven't ignored the other force, or general sea level rise.

Sure you did. The article from the EPA you cited was extremely brief. Despite its brevity, it managed to discuss several factors affecting coastal land loss — some natural and some caused by human activities. You cited only one portion of the article and left out the effect of climate change which it included.

I took notice of your use of language and wording in saying "the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes". I also took notice of what you didn't include in your post which is "sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change". I called that a false narrative by selective editing. I still do. But, I'm not surprised.

In response to my comment you attempt to again deflect from discussion of global climate change and its effects. You "consider" various past regional climate phenomena which were not global in scope or effect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.

[TechTalk]

Here is some info. Most of the loss is caused by man and not related to global warming.  See the second link.

regional... phenomena ... not global in scope or effect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.

[Alan Klein]

Sure you did. The article from the EPA you cited was extremely brief. Despite its brevity, it managed to discuss several factors affecting coastal land loss — some natural and some caused by human activities. You cited only one portion of the article and left out the effect of climate change which it included.

I took notice of your use of language and wording in saying "the problem of rising sea levels in New Jersey is exacerbated by natural processes". I also took notice of what you didn't include in your post which is "sea level is rising overall in connection with climate change". I called that a false narrative by selective editing. I still do. But, I'm not surprised.

In response to my comment you attempt to again deflect from discussion of global climate change and its affects. You "consider" various past regional climate phenomena which were not global in scope or affect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.

The damage caused on the New Jersey shore was not caused by sea levels rising.  It was caused by Hurricane Sandy. 

Even if you can prove that man caused sea levels to rise, the one or two inches are insignificant compared to rising water due to storm surge which ranged in height from 9 to 15 feet. Sandy's surge is what wiped out all those homes.

[TechTalk]

Now, there's some major league spinning in circles that you don't see every day!

[Alan Klein]

Now, there's some major league spinning in circles that you don't see every day!

Another personal attack.  You're getting like some others here.  I thought you were smarter than them.   How about addressing my points?

[Alan Klein]

Quote from: TechTalk on Today at 03:12:14 pm
regional... phenomena ... not global in scope or affect. It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda. Anyone that wants to swallow what you're selling is welcome to it.

Another personal attack.  You're getting like some others here.  I thought you were smarter than them.   How about addressing my points?

[TechTalk]

It's the same old game... and I have little interest in your agenda.

[Jonathan Cross]

To the nay sayers.

Incoming sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the planet and reradiated as infrared. The incoming and outgoing  need to balance or the earth will heat or cool according to which way the imbalance is.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising.

Carbon dioxide is a good absorber of infrared radiation, thereby preventing it escaping.

The imbalance is heading in the getting hotter direction.

In terms of sea levels it does not matter if the ice cap at the North Pole melts as it is floating. Melting ice that is above land will make sea levels rise. There is a huge amount of it on Greenland and at the South Pole. Ice and snow being white also reflect light back off the earth much more than non white earth so loss of ice will also affect the energy imbalance.

Jonathan

[Peter McLennan]

Another personal attack.  How about addressing my points?

It’s pointless.

[Frans Waterlander]

To the nay sayers.

Incoming sunlight is absorbed by the surface of the planet and reradiated as infrared. The incoming and outgoing  need to balance or the earth will heat or cool according to which way the imbalance is.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising.

Carbon dioxide is a good absorber of infrared radiation, thereby preventing it escaping.

The imbalance is heading in the getting hotter direction.

In terms of sea levels it does not matter if the ice cap at the North Pole melts as it is floating. Melting ice that is above land will make sea levels rise. There is a huge amount of it on Greenland and at the South Pole. Ice and snow being white also reflect light back off the earth much more than non white earth so loss of ice will also affect the energy imbalance.

Jonathan

A couple of observations. The biggest driver of global temperatures is solar activity: there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.

[digitaldog]

The biggest driver of global temperatures is solar activity: there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.

And now NASA and actual science of man-made climate change:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Is the Sun causing global warming?
No!

[TechTalk]

...There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures...

So, in addition to believing you're such a fierce debater that one would have to "be a masochist" to engage you... now, you believe that you have a better understanding of climate science than the world's leading climate scientists. Both prospects are absurd.

So, just how many minutes of your life have you spent studying climate science?

[Alan Klein]

A couple of observations. The biggest driver of global temperatures is solar activity: there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, in spite of the phenomenon you described. During long periods in the past global temperatures went down while CO2 levels rose and the other way around.

We're in one of the warming periods between many interglacial Ice Ages that occurred before when man could have no impact on climate at all. So that raises the question of how much of the warming now would have occurred anyway even if higher CO2 levels today play a part.

[budjames]

Oh, no! Not another climate-alarmist article!

I'm waiting for the return of the next ice age. It should be good for frozen Margaritas.
Bud

[budjames]

According to Al Gore's prognostications from years ago, we all should be dead by now.
Bud

[Alan Klein]

So, in addition to believing you're such a fierce debater that one would have to "be a masochist" to engage you... now, you believe that you have a better understanding of climate science than the world's leading climate scientists. Both prospects are absurd.

So, just how many minutes of your life have you spent studying climate science?

Climate scientists' predictions are as accurate as the Fed's PhD economists were about inflation.

[TechTalk]

Ever notice that the amateurs who know the least about science have the most disagreement with actual science and scientists. There's a correlation worthy of examination.