JF,
CO2 does not cause extreme events. But the increasing levels of CO2 means more of the suns energy stays in our environment than used to be the case. It is this additional energy in our atmosphere and oceans that cause many atmospheric events to become more energetic. Thus extreme events become more extreme. Droughts become longer and more extreme. Heat waves last longer and reach higher temperatures, glaciers melt, ice caps melt.

The heat coming from the sun has caused the worlds average ground level temperature to be about 15C (from memory). About 341watts of solar energy bathes every square meter on the earths surface. NASA has measured heat mismatch to be about 1 watt per sq m. It is this additional heat that is strengthening extreme events, warming the ocean and much more. Prof Muller (earlier post) compared temp trend with numerous natural events - solar output, sunspots, vulcanism, and more. None had trends matching observed heating. But, CO2 concentration does.

Massive slowly moving ocean currents, deep and surface, the earths rotation, the moons rotation all combine to create different sea levels at different locations. Satellites measure differences between what is and what was.

It is well known that much of the earth's oxygen is created by photosynthesis neat the oceans surface. I think that concern has been expressed that ocean acidification (increased CO2 caused) may disrupt this process.

Indian algal problems probably due to water shortages and additional heat - because of CO2 caused warming.

I understand that many coastal algal blooms might result from excessive fertiser in streams.

JF,
I understand you have thought much about algal matters, and icean photosynthesis. To get so involved in a branch of ecology is excellent. I am not an ecologisist or biologist or - not many other things as well.

I am just very concerned that the world is heading towards a disaster of epic precautions. Hence I have a great dislike of people who deliberately peddle myths and other scientific distortions.

However, I do not put you in that category. Your interest in that branch of science should be applauded.
Tony

ant

So your argument is, "I believe something, so you should believe it too, and as proof of my opinion, I cite the authority of an absent person who also believes what I believe."

Why do you care whether other people believe what you believe?

Do you support voluntary, or violence-based responses to climate change?

Interesting to read one's previous posts to see the glaringly obvious mis-corrections provided by Siri's alter ego

JKJ, you excel yourself when you ask..."Do you support voluntary, or violence-based responses to climate change?"

Violence only creates more violence ... it is the solution of a fool.

It is science I believe in; not the semantic nonsense from deniers who provide no science references. Do you believe in gravity, JKJ? With every peak science body agreeing that anthropogenic climate change is happening it takes on the same status as our view towards gravity.
Climate change denying is a very recent phenomena designed to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies.

Controlled experiments show how CO2 reacts with radiated infrared. To disbelieve this displays a lack of knowledge of the very area you are critical of...science.

Ant,
There are multiple types of deniers. And it almost impossible to find any pair of denialists that have similar views. Each has their own set of personal myths. Many reasons for denying credentialed science. Many are funded to spruik their views. But, there is another subset who, I believe, are not capable of either understanding what is happening, nor comprehending what has to be done to keep our planet in a liveable condition. JKJ may fall into this latter category. It may be best to just post: "JKJ: I understand that you are not able to address climate change issues from a position of knowledge. But, thanks for your opinion"