Climate change, rising sea levels a threat to farmers in Bangladesh

October 23, 2018, The Ohio State University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Rising sea levels driven by climate change make for salty soil, and that is likely to force about 200,000 coastal farmers in Bangladesh inland as glaciers melt into the world's oceans, according to estimates from a new study.

Frequent flooding with salt water is already pushing farmers in Bangladesh to shift from growing rice to raising shrimp and other seafood, but not all coastal residents will be able to stay put and maintain their agricultural livelihoods, said study co-lead author Joyce Chen of The Ohio State University.

"Unfortunately, this is likely to be most challenging for those farming families who have the fewest resources to begin with," said Chen, an associate professor of agricultural, environmental and development economics.

The study appears in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Chen and her co-author, Valerie Mueller of Arizona State University and the International Food Policy Research Institute, pulled together a variety of socioeconomic, population, geographic and climate change data to create models that allowed them to estimate population shifts based on rising water encroaching on coastal farmland and subsequent increases in . Salty soil impedes growth of rice and most other crops. It's the first study of its kind.

The researchers found that the farming potential lost with increased soil salinity is and will be a large driver of migration. The researchers estimated that a farm would be expected to lose 21 percent of its crop revenue each year when faced with moderate salt contamination.

In the next 120 years, coastal communities that are home to 1.3 billion people will be inundated with seawater, according to scientific forecasts. This puts about 40 percent of Bangladesh's agricultural fields in jeopardy and already, residents of coastal areas are experiencing frequent flooding from rising oceans and adapting to the new normal.

"Many farmers have already converted some of their operations to aquaculture, raising shrimp and fish that do well in brackish—or somewhat salty—water," Chen said.

According to the study, as soil salinity moves from low to high, the share of agricultural revenue from shrimp and other seafood farming goes up almost 60 percent. Converting from rice to aquaculture isn't a simple or cheap endeavor, however, and many farmers can't afford to make the change on a large-scale level, Chen said.

The shift from rice to seafood also presents a challenge for those looking to curtail the encroaching seawater, because shrimp and other seafood farmers now need and want it to maintain their livelihoods. Balancing those competing interests is something policymakers must consider, Chen said.

Another interesting finding from the study: While internal migration will likely increase by about 25 percent, migration abroad is estimated to decrease by 66 percent as soil salinity increases, because the resulting aquaculture produces jobs that are likely to keep Bangladesh residents in the country, she said.

The rising sea level and increase in frequency of catastrophic storms inevitably will leave Bangladesh vulnerable to losing coastal land, which is expected to disappear at a rate of 10 to 18 millimeters per year, the study says.

"My concern is that the most vulnerable people will be the least resilient in the face of climate change, because they have limited resources to adapt their farming practices or to move longer distances in search of other employment," Chen said.

Mueller said policymakers would benefit from planning early for related to .

"The Bangladesh study offers interesting insights for governments of countries facing similar imminent threats of . As patterns are expected to shift in countries vulnerable to sea level rise, ministries of planning may benefit from developing economic strategies that integrate and even leverage the expected additional number of workers coming from vulnerable areas," she said.

Neighboring countries also should begin to think about policies to accommodate international migrants, Mueller said.

"Given the humanitarian nature of climate migrants, additional financial support from the international community may be necessary to foster resettlement programs."

Explore further: How will people move as climate changes?

More information: J. Chen et al. Coastal climate change, soil salinity and human migration in Bangladesh, Nature Climate Change (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0313-8

Related Stories

How will people move as climate changes?

June 14, 2018

In coming decades, climate change is expected to displace millions of people through sea level rise, crop failures, more frequent extreme weather and other impacts. But scientists are still struggling to accurately predict ...

Food security threatened by sea-level rise

January 18, 2017

Coastal countries are highly prone to sea-level rise, which leads to salt-water intrusion and increased salinity levels in agricultural land. Also typical for these regions are floods and waterlogging caused by cyclones and ...

Aquafarmers on the front lines

September 10, 2018

Many of the world's future farmers will likely be farming oceans, as aquaculture—the cultivation of fish and other aquatic species—continues its expansion as the fastest growing food sector. New research shows that in ...

World Food Day: Fish gone, people gone

October 17, 2018

On World Food Day, WWF warns against the dramatic impact of overfished oceans on people around the globe. Currently, 33 percent of fish stocks are overfished (in the Mediterranean it is 85 percent) with a further 60 percent ...

Recommended for you

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grandpa
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2018
Lion's Tigers and Bears. If one increases the population of the earth by 1 percent each year for 2000 years, starting with 250 million people, the population would reach close to 7 trillion. Since there are not 7 trillion people on earth, and one percent is easily achievable, it is evident that the world has had many horrible disasters. We cannot stop disasters by the wisdom of humans, but by each individual free to make decisions. This is what has transpired since the United States was founded, and why we now have over one percent population growth.
rrwillsj
4 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2018
Interesting POV gramps. So that neighbor burning his trash whenever the wind flows towards your property, away fro, his trees? As an individual decision?

An example of "rugged" individuality could be your uphill neighbor letting his sewage flow down into your water supply.

A third neighbor holds raucous parties with loud music & muffler-free motorcycle stunts. Into the morning of your work week.

Or your fourth neighbor tossing his trash over your common fence onto your land. Including shovel-loads of feces from the kennels of their puppymill.

Hopefully the "party" neighbor's giant speakers blasting out heavy metal will be loud enough to drown out the 24/7 barking & howling!

gramos, you being an exemplary "neighbor", would never criticize their expressions of freedom?

What? What do you mean "They wouldn't dare!" Oh I see, when it is convenient for you? Suddenly you would be the "government" authority to enforce your dictates.

You have defined "hypocrisy".
grandpa
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2018
rrwillisj, you are way over simplifying my thoughts. Of course I believe in law. The global warming group is a group that wants one world government. A one world government is like Russian Roulette. 5 decisions are great, the next destroys everything. Nature picked tens of millions of species, because diversity works. Global Government is one species. The world with many nations keeps a balance in government, just like many species keeps a balance in nature. Federal government breaks up the power even more and democratically elected officials takes into account many different view points. When governments were ruled by kings there were many horrible disasters in the world that killed off populations.
Ken_Fabian
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
No grandpa, people like me who are informed and concerned about the climate problem have no underlying desire for one world government, we want our own governments to take the consistent and persistent expert advice seriously and apply well established precedents around ethics, responsibility and accountability.

Climate stability, not world government, is the enduring legacy we seek to leave our descendants. I am seeing serious, capable people doing what they can within the mess of political divisiveness, following available knowledge rather than rejecting it. I don't ask people to take the word of political environmentalists about climate change - but I do ask them to take what bodies like the US National Academy of Sciences or UK's Royal Society seriously.

Science denial has no redeeming qualities. It is a suppurating wound on the body politic.
grandpa
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2018
Getting all the world governments to get together and vote on a treaty to control fossil fuels, is by definition a one world government activity. There are no studies that show a major change, like eliminating fossil fuels, can be accomplished without causing more problems than it can fix. It will be through the actions of many individuals to invent technology that will replace fossil fuel with even more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper technology. It will not happen because a government legislates this. What many people don't realize, is that the earth's climate has been unstable for about a million to two million years and we need to get to 500 ppm CO2 to make it stable and eliminate these ice ages.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2018
Getting all the world governments to get together and vote on a treaty to control fossil fuels, is by definition a one world government activity.
No, it is not. It is, by definition, a gathering of nations committed to fostering co-operation between nations to deal with the reality presented by scientists around the world. The rest of what you said is simply rubbish. I especially scoff at the notion the climate has been unstable for a million or two years, and your lack of understanding of what 500PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere would do to the planet is breath-takingly juvenile for someone with your handle.
grandpa
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2018
Maggnus,

One can see from this chart that the average global earth temperatures were much higher for most of earths history and so were the CO2 levels. Clearly we were headed for iceball earth without the unintentional affect of humans on CO2 levels. Almost makes one think that Gaia earth is real and caused humans to exist to save the earth from permanent iceage.

https://www.googl...XZaC1sM:
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
Maggnus,

One can see from this chart that the average global earth temperatures were much higher for most of earths history and so were the CO2 levels. Clearly we were headed for iceball earth without the unintentional affect of humans on CO2 levels. Almost makes one think that Gaia earth is real and caused humans to exist to save the earth from permanent iceage.
There are other drivers of climate, and consider that recognizable hominids have only been around for about the last 3 million years, and homo sapiens only about 400,000 years. It is not that theplanet that will suffer, it is us, and every other living thing here with us. We, as a species, have never seen anything like this in the entirety of our existence on this planet. You are correct that we should be starting into an iceage, but we, as a species, have seen many of those. We have never seen a hothouse Earth.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2018
The biggest problem with climate change is mostly that it is happening so rapidly. Human beings and other species are just not able to move their cities and residences as fast as required.

Further, the costs of moving major cities inland is breathtaking. Consider for example how much it would cost to move the entire city of Miami 100 miles inland over a 10 or 20 year period. If this happened over 1000 years, that would be much easier to handle. Mankind isn't in any real danger of extinction from global warming. But the overwhelming costs of destroyed ecosystems and migration will destroy civilizations right and left. And if the wars associated with shifts in resource availability and mass migrations go nuclear, mankind could very well end itself.

The costs associated with mitigation are peanuts compared to the costs of not doing anything now.
grandpa
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2018
Maggnus, sorry but the ice age was much more traumatic than global warming. The sea level was 120 meters below current levels just 20000 years ago. Global warming is projected to only raise sea level by one to two meters before humans switch over to other types of fuels. 2 meters vs 120 meters nothing to worry about and this is a change over two centuries. Other challenges will be much greater than this. Nuclear war is inevitable at some time because we will get crazy leaders, we just don't know when. And please don't try to predict who will be crazy. It is statistically impossible. The worse challenge is disease, which I really think is an impossible challenge. The microbiology mutates too fast.
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2018
Maggnus, sorry but the ice age was much more traumatic than global warming.


Now you are just making things up.
It's not just that it's going to get hotter and sea levels are going to rise, there is much more.
We are also in the midst of a mass extinction due to human caused pressures on the ecosystem and the underrepresented rates of warming. Ocean acidification is continuing unabated.
The earth can cross a tipping point, ecosystems can collapse, it's happened in the past.
We don't know enough, it's unpredictable, we are in uncharted territory.

You saying "don't worry it will be fine" is stupid and short sighted, never mind selfish.

Are you really a grandpa?

You and people with your attitude are doing your grand kids (as well a the rest of humanity) a criminal disservice.
howhot3
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
Yeah, the problem I think with Grandpa is he's getting senile.
grandpa
2.3 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2018
Ojorf,

Do you know how many times I have heard the sky is falling. This is nothing new. Yes I believe humans are having an affect. I wish it wasn't so, but it is happening. Global warming and higher CO2 levels, however, are another the sky is falling thing. Nothing is predictable, and we certainly can't predict if human intervention, the was the Paris agreement was, wouldn't cause more problems then it would solve. What will work to reduce CO2 is for millions of scientists and engineers to make invent and implement the miracles that are already happening. It is stupid to take away the glory of these scientists and engineers and give it to politicians who are only piggybacking on what the scientists and engineers are doing. Also, the ice ages were much worse than global warming will be. The small amount of global warming we will get will be very good for life on earth.
howhot3
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2018
"They yearn for what they fear for."

senile grandpa says;
the ice ages were much worse than global warming will be. The small amount of global warming we will get will be very good for life on earth.
and I'm sure you have personal experience with an ice age of all things. You're certainly experiencing the very beginnings of man-made global warming right now and we barely have changed 0.5 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the Industrial Age. It is going to get a lot worse for us very quickly as the famous hockey stick exponential graph predicts.

grandpa
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
howhot3, The science of ice age is pretty clear. The ice age covered over half of north America and Europe making it uninhabitable for over 10,000 years. Whereas CO2 levels will reach a little less than 500 before technology changes. For most of life on earth it was over 500. Why would not the ocean have been acidified much more if CO2 levels were over 2000. I call the sky is falling again. We will be preventing ice ages for millions of years now. Higher CO2 than where we started is a good thing. Just think about how nice it will be for Canada and Russia to have liveable temperatures in the Winter. Sure, over 500 years we will lose some land along the coasts, but Canada and Russia, not too mention the Scandanavia countries, Alaska, Greenland, and others will increase habitable land by a factor of over 50 times what is lost.
grandpa
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
Look how the earth temperature swings were rapid with low CO2 levels and the earth temperatures were more stable with higher CO2 levels. https://www.googl...N6xzxsM:
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018

Climate stability, ..........seriously.

Science denial has no redeeming qualities. It is a suppurating wound on the body politic.

What is Climate stability?
When did it last exist?
Please share a single scientific paper that support your answers.

Blind faith in the AGW Cult's Pathological "science" has no redeeming quality. It is a suppurating wound on common sense.
SolSanguinity
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
Massive conjecture that this is due to rising sea levels.
Occam's razor would suggest that similar to Bali, these changes are due to the massive increase in ground water usage due to the "green revolution" (green certainly referring to money not permaculture in this context).
The higher crop rotation, increased use of pumped ground water results in saline incursion.
But that would leave the culpable exposed to criticism so it's much easier to blame rising sea levels..
Ya, the sea level rise is eating up 11mm per year of coastline.. that must be it..not the obvious and well studied mismanagement of groundwater/rivers.. sigh
Ken_Fabian
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2018
Antigoracle - Should I have said relative climate stability after rapid CO2 driven instability? Sounds like you are arguing semantics, but most people, including you I expect, know what I mean.

Trust in the world's leading science institutions, methods and practices is not faith, nor membership in a cult; it is entirely rational. Imagining you know better than, say, the US National Academy of Sciences, that draws on the world's most accomplished experts to review and make sense of complex science - that is not rational.
zz5555
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2018
Massive conjecture that this is due to rising sea levels.

Ya, the sea level rise is eating up 11mm per year of coastline.. that must be it..not the obvious and well studied mismanagement of groundwater/rivers.. sigh

No where in the article does it say the current change is due to sea level rise. As the article makes clear, the research is about looking at future changes based on current changes. Whether the current increase in soil salinity is due to sea level rise or due to groundwater depletion is irrelevant to this study. Globally, groundwater depletion is small compared to sea level rise and as the climate continues to warm it will only get smaller. So certainly in the future (ie, what the article is about), the main concern will be sea level rise.

I find that it's useful to read articles before commenting on them.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2018
Incidentally, SolSanguinity appears to have created an account just to comment on an article that s/he couldn't be bothered to read. That seems very bizarre to me.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
Maggnus, sorry but the ice age was much more traumatic than global warming. The sea level was 120 meters below current levels just 20000 years ago. Global warming is projected to only raise sea level by one to two meters before humans switch over to other types of fuels. 2 meters vs 120 meters nothing to worry about and this is a change over two centuries. Other challenges will be much greater than this. Nuclear war is inevitable at some time because we will get crazy leaders, we just don't know when. And please don't try to predict who will be crazy. It is statistically impossible. The worse challenge is disease, which I really think is an impossible challenge. The microbiology mutates too fast.
You're sorry? You have a few things wrong here grandpa, and you've thrown in some stuff that has little to do with climate change or global warming. Are you aware that the vectors of disease are moving due to the changing climate?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
@ grandpa, the last ice age started about 100,000 years ago, and ended roughly 11,500 years ago. No, ice ages are not as traumatic as what we are seeing with the warming phase we have introduced to the planet, because the species of this planet had about 10,000 years of cooling to adapt. The changes we are seeing are occurring in the space of a couple of centuries. That is incredibly fast, and much much faster than species can adopt. The reason seas were 120M less than they are now was because of the amount f ice locked up in the glacial sheets that covered the better part of the northern hemisphere. You think that 6 feet of ocean rise is trivial, but do you get how much water it takes to raise the levels of the planets oceans by 6 feet? You do not comprehend how much damage that will do.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2018
Science denial has no redeeming qualities.


So stop claiming that the plant food CO2 is a poison. Water is 90% of the greenhouse effect. Promote getting rid of water. heh
Ojorf
3 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2018
Science denial has no redeeming qualities.


So stop claiming that the plant food CO2 is a poison. Water is 90% of the greenhouse effect. Promote getting rid of water. heh


Says the one denying the science. What a hypocrite.
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2018
Water vapor can only act as a feedback, it can't drive the temperature change. This is because it's a condensing greenhouse gas. Only non-condensing greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, can drive the temperature change.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

"Water vapor can only act as a feedback, it can't drive the temperature change. This is because it's a condensing greenhouse gas. Only non-condensing greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, can drive the temperature change"

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2018
@old_c
plant food CO2
We had the discussion about CO2 in the past where you ignored validated studies

I will post some for anyone who wants to look them up

Cure and Acock 1986, Leaky et al. 2006, Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci, 2000, Salvucci et al. 2001, Stöcklin and Körner 2002, Norby et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2010, Bloom et al. 2010, Taub and Wang 2008, Zhu 2005, Högy et al. 2009, Zavala et al. 2008, Eastburn et al. 2010, Peñuelas and Estiarte 1999, Ziska et al. 2005, Stiling and Cornelissen 2007, Gleadow et al., 2009a and Gleadow et al. 2009b, Navas et al. 1999, Poorter and Navas 2003

that's just 20 of the many studies that prove you wrong that you ignored last time. Mind you, a good number of these come from FACE experiments, so it's not about guesswork but rather measured data

https://youtu.be/wcDUaBO8T34

Water is 90%
see also Lacis et al
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2018
You guys do understand that to add heat to the atmosphere the molecule has to emit infrared photons right? That a molecule retaining heat but only emitting it in the way CO2 does would require a far higher concentration to drive the temperature?

Of course not you were told what to believe and it was explained via graphs and ratios using measurements taken using the finest tech we have, why doubt it? Well, like in a lot of "science" these days, the peer review process says that if the math is done correctly it passes. This is akin to saying that if the grammar is correct, what the words say must also be.

The only relevant math to describe CO2 heating the atmosphere is the math that relates to the odds of a kinetic energy transfer between two molecules when their population is 420PPM in order to achieve actual heat output from said molecules. Not the statistical dog and pony show of "climate graphs".
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2018
double post
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
@theredpill
You guys do understand that
read Lacis et al
Mayday
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
Climate and sea levels are always in flux. 20,000 years ago, the sea was more than 300 feet lower. It has been rising fairly steadily for the last 9,000 years(The rate has varied. It is currently rising about 1mm/yr faster than average. It is a legitimate question as to why.). IMO, with the help of our predictive sciences, human beings should make intelligent preparations for these coming changes. We can continue to debate how to stop the climate and seas from changing(good luck with that), if you like, but that should not forestall preparation for the inevitable.
All encouragement should be made to move people away from threatened areas (eliminate insurance along coastal areas?) and building codes should require homes to withstand heavier weather. Current structural standards are rediculous. Homes are too fragile by at least an order of magnitude. Price goes up, so build smaller homes. It would be a start. We should build a safer, wiser future, while the debate continues.
theredpill
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2018
"(The rate has varied. It is currently rising about 1mm/yr faster than average. It is a legitimate question as to why.). "

No...it flat out is not. The in situ measurements from the worlds tidal gauges show a consistent 1.7mm rise per year over the service time of the gauges. This is neither accelerating, nor is it even close the average per year when you divide 300ft over 20,000 years.

@Stumpy I have read it...it is one of the bullshit papers I spoke about. I know you trust it because of where it came from but you seem to like to research, so do some. This is one where the relevant math doesn't lie, but they do not direct you to the relevant math. The paper says non condensing GHG's make up 25% of the atmosphere and these drive climate, fine, but the component of said gas that is a concentration of .00042% of the atmosphere physically CANNOT be the prime driver, especially the way this gas works mechanically. Appeals to false authority validate nothing.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2018
Antigoracle - Should I have said relative climate stability after rapid CO2 driven instability? Sounds like you are arguing semantics, but most people, including you I expect, know what I mean.

Trust in the world's leading science institutions, methods and practices is not faith, nor membership in a cult; it is entirely rational. ......

Relative climate stability??
Relative to what?
Please share a single scientific paper that conclusively shows CO2 drives climate instability?

You are arguing bullshit, so how can anyone know what you mean, when you don't.

Yep, trust in the leading science institutions, that produced the following -- http://hockeyscht...-26.html
Ken_Fabian
5 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2018
I'm not interested in following your links antigoracle. I've followed climate denier links down rabbit holes before - conspiratorial drivel and nonsense padded out with sciency sounding drivel and nonsense; I will continue to trust the professionals and the systems within which they operate. Every real world indicator of climate change shows warming - mostly with a steep uptick during the past half century. Our scientific institutions were charged with working out how climate change happens, how human activities could contribute to it and what the consequences are likely to be. They have done it well.

"There are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes." - National Academy of Sciences.

You may not understand those mechanisms but overwhelmingly, people with actual expertise do. Even I don't find the fundamentals that difficult to comprehend - but then, I don't begin from an existing conviction that it is wron
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2018
A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing

Anything above absolute zero radiates energy. Unless you're claiming that CO2 is at absolute zero, then CO2 must radiate energy. Therefore, it's not true that CO2 only emits heat via kinetic contact.

However, how CO2 emits energy is somewhat irrelevant to the greenhouse gas effect. The important detail is that greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the earth (and atmosphere) in the IR band. This is easily measured and proven. See, for example, https://www.acs.o...ing.html . Combine this fact with the atmospheric lapse rate and the Stefan-Boltzmann law and you've proven the greenhouse gas effect - regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2018
@redpill
@Stumpy I have read it...it is one of the bullshit papers I spoke about
then why hasn't anyone been able to debunk it legitimately by producing a scientific paper that is also validated like Lacis has been?
you seem to like to research, so do some
I have, but you're getting your arguments from non-scientific sources as demonstrated by this
physically CANNOT be the prime driver
so, my point is: where is the empirical evidence showing that CO2 cannot be a prime driver?

You are making an argument but you have no supporting evidence from the scientific source journals, so you're expecting me to accept *your word* over almost all of the scientific community

that isn't logical or rational

evidence would be nice, so if you could link your source material (Journals preferred)
howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2018
@zz5 says [qThe important detail is that greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the earth (and atmosphere) in the IR band

Basically CO2 becomes like a gaseous mirror to IR. That's the thing the climate deniers don't get. I've seen this effect with what are those IR cameras that they use to do thermal imaging. If you take a sheet of Grey chalky aluminum and look at it in ordinary light, it looks gray and chalky. However, if you put your face in front of the gray Dusty aluminum and look at it with the thermal camera all the sudden it looks exactly like a perfect mirror. So the point I think the climate change deniers are missing is that visual concept of CO2 creating a mirror in the sky for reflected infrared heat radiation. That is why we have the greenhouse gas effect occurring and as the gas gets denser the mirror becomes more reflective and less transmissive.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

"Water vapor can only act as a feedback, it can't drive the temperature change. This is because it's a condensing greenhouse gas. Only non-condensing greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, can drive the temperature change"

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.

Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

"Water vapor can only act as a feedback, it can't drive the temperature change. This is because it's a condensing greenhouse gas. Only non-condensing greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, can drive the temperature change"

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.

Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.

Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.

Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.

Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.

Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.
Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.
Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.
Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018


not rated yet 32 minutes ago

Biggest line of bullshit ever put out by the climate fraud squad, interesting to see who regurgitates it here. A trace gas that emits the heat it stores only via kinetic contact with another molecule of itself and constitutes .00042% of the atmosphere is driving the temperature of the whole thing.....way to take the science out of science folks. I can understand the general public buying into this because most people won't research something if they believe it is coming from a credible source. People here paint themselves as more intelligent than the general public....obviously they aren't.
Clearly, a person with no idea how the greenhouse effect, esp with regards to H2O, works.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2018
You guys do understand that to add heat to the atmosphere the molecule has to emit infrared photons right? That a molecule retaining heat but only emitting it in the way CO2 does would require a far higher concentration to drive the temperature?
Wrong.

Well, like in a lot of "science" these days, the peer review process says that if the math is done correctly it passes. This is akin to saying that if the grammar is correct, what the words say must also be.
Wrong.

The only relevant math to describe CO2 heating the atmosphere is the math that relates to the odds of a kinetic energy transfer between two molecules when their population is 420PPM in order to achieve actual heat output from said molecules. Not the statistical dog and pony show of "climate graphs".
Also wrong.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018
Apologies to all for the multiple posts, I do not know what happened.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.