Blaming "Climate Change"

[Steve]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

[bagboy]

And Galveston hurricane in 1900. Estimated 8000 people died.

[njbchbum]

Were there fewer/less intense weather events when we had more air pollution?

Are we still supposed to be worrying about the hole in the ozone layer?

[Keefelane66]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.
Don't just concentrate on Hurricanes but also droughts, and what people use to call hundred year weather events now estimated 500 year rain events.
Prior to April 1960 when the first weather satellite was launched we were blind to hurricane forecasting resulting in loss of life and property.

[Stu from NYC]

When in doubt lets blame it on man made global warming

[PugMom]

Were there fewer/less intense weather events when we had more air pollution?

Are we still supposed to be worrying about the hole in the ozone layer?

LOL! that came & went, huh?? i was in 8th grade when Prince Charles claimed the ozone condition would destroy the earth within 10 years. after that it became global warming, & now climate change, each time becoming more dire than the last warning. same story re-packaged for each generation. i wonder what they'll call it 10 years from now?

[fdpaq0580]

LOL! that came & went, huh?? i was in 8th grade when Prince Charles claimed the ozone condition would destroy the earth within 10 years. after that it became global warming, & now climate change, each time becoming more dire than the last warning. same story re-packaged for each generation. i wonder what they'll call it 10 years from now?

Global heatwave? Whatever they call it, "global" will be the first word.

[justjim]

The temperature of our oceans have increased by several degrees according to those that check such things. Warmer temps gives “fuel” to the storms as they approach the coast of the U.S. In addition, the oceans are rising on our coast. Having said that, the majority of scientists tend to call this “climate change”. Some disagree calling it “climate change.” A matter of semantics I suppose? The debate and politics begin when discussion starts over the “cause” of this phenomenon. This phenomenon has become political and since this site has a policy of no political references I will refrain from any comments what may or may not be a cause. Its above my “pay grade”anyway and probably above most who post on TOTV.

[Taltarzac725]

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0pGu8PPB-gIVBXKGCh3hZQG8EAAYBCAAEgKrQ_D_BwE

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers. They say that it is a pattern of centuries or something like that. But what happens to the people living decade to decade or year to year? We humans may all be dead by 2122 at the rate we are changing the earth now.

[fdpaq0580]

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0pGu8PPB-gIVBXKGCh3hZQG8EAAYBCAAEgKrQ_D_BwE

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers. They say that it is a pattern of centuries or something like that. But what happens to the people living decade to decade or year to year? We human may all be dead by 2122 at the rate we are changing the earth now.

There have always been and always be "deniers" no matter the subject. For whatever reason they can't accept evidence counter to their beliefs. Flat earther's are a good example. Anything relating to earth as a globe is conspiracy and lies in their minds.

[JMintzer]

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0pGu8PPB-gIVBXKGCh3hZQG8EAAYBCAAEgKrQ_D_BwE

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers. They say that it is a pattern of centuries or something like that. But what happens to the people living decade to decade or year to year? We humans may all be dead by 2122 at the rate we are changing the earth now.

Which circles back to whether or not "we" are changing anything...

[Arctic Fox]

Are we still supposed to be worrying about the hole in the ozone layer?

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

[JMintzer]

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

You're old fashioned because you ignore the fact that your 80+% number (actually more commonly cited as 97%) is false...

[golfing eagles]

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0pGu8PPB-gIVBXKGCh3hZQG8EAAYBCAAEgKrQ_D_BwE

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers. They say that it is a pattern of centuries or something like that. But what happens to the people living decade to decade or year to year? We humans may all be dead by 2122 at the rate we are changing the earth now.

Surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself.

Our climate IS changing, it has done so many, many times. For example, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it was about 10-12 degrees warmer world wide. Twenty thousand years ago, half the northern hemisphere was covered in 2 miles of ice and it was 7-8 degrees colder on average. This is just fact, it would be illogical to deny it.

However, NONE of that has anything to do with humans burning fossil fuels. I again challenge those who believe that is the cause to tell me what model of SUV Fred Flintstone drove. To date, none of the "humans caused climate change believers" have even attempted to answer that question.

The last 4 million years have seen a cycle of repeated periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last not decades, not centuries, but 80-100,000 years. For anyone to make any assumptions based on the last 50 years is a joke. After all, Uncle Al said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010, instead they are actually growing slowly. In the 1970's, the great fear was another ice age was imminent.

Unless we nuke ourselves into oblivion or the big asteroid comes to get us, we will be just fine in 2122---because "the rate at which we are changing the planet" is just about nil in comparison to the forces that drive climate change (the sun, variations in Earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis)

[JMintzer]

Surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself.

Our climate IS changing, it has done so many, many times. For example, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it was about 10-12 degrees warmer world wide. Twenty thousand years ago, half the northern hemisphere was covered in 2 miles of ice and it was 7-8 degrees colder on average. This is just fact, it would be illogical to deny it.

However, NONE of that has anything to do with humans burning fossil fuels. I again challenge those who believe that is the cause to tell me what model of SUV Fred Flintstone drove. To date, none of the "humans caused climate change believers" have even attempted to answer that question.

The last 4 million years have seen a cycle of repeated periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last not decades, not centuries, but 80-100,000 years. For anyone to make any assumptions based on the last 50 years is a joke. After all, Uncle Al said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010, instead they are actually growing slowly. In the 1970's, the great fear was another ice age was imminent.

Unless we nuke ourselves into oblivion or the big asteroid comes to get us, we will be just fine in 2122---because "the rate at which we are changing the planet" is just about nil in comparison to the forces that drive climate change (the sun, variations in Earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis)

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[ThirdOfFive]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.
Science is NOT dogma. Religion is. Good science is nothing more than a theory that may change as new or more data becomes available.

[EastCoastDawg]

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

Yes, it is sad that the internet is littered with posts from oldies bemoaning the fact that kids of today can't find Kamchatka on a map, yet when our generation is asked to face up to an existential threat those self-same people are falling over themselves to deny the facts and belittle those who are taking it seriously just so that they don't have to change their lifestyles.

[Davonu]

Climate has always changed and will always change. How much man contributes to that change is the real point of contention. And there is science to support “very little “ and “quite a bit”….which means that area of science has a long way go before either position is truly proven.

[Stu from NYC]

Surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself.

Our climate IS changing, it has done so many, many times. For example, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it was about 10-12 degrees warmer world wide. Twenty thousand years ago, half the northern hemisphere was covered in 2 miles of ice and it was 7-8 degrees colder on average. This is just fact, it would be illogical to deny it.

However, NONE of that has anything to do with humans burning fossil fuels. I again challenge those who believe that is the cause to tell me what model of SUV Fred Flintstone drove. To date, none of the "humans caused climate change believers" have even attempted to answer that question.

The last 4 million years have seen a cycle of repeated periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last not decades, not centuries, but 80-100,000 years. For anyone to make any assumptions based on the last 50 years is a joke. After all, Uncle Al said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010, instead they are actually growing slowly. In the 1970's, the great fear was another ice age was imminent.

Unless we nuke ourselves into oblivion or the big asteroid comes to get us, we will be just fine in 2122---because "the rate at which we are changing the planet" is just about nil in comparison to the forces that drive climate change (the sun, variations in Earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis)

well said

[BlueStarAirlines]

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers.

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....

[MartinSE]

Didn't we just go around this tree a few days ago and the tread got locked.

I don't see anything new to discuss. The deniers continue to deny - base3d on their logic, and the beleivers continue to believe based on scientists that actually committed their lives to researching it.

And the wheels go round and round.

If the deniers are right and we clean up our kids will have a cleaner healthier world, if the climate change believers are right and we don't clean up, out kids may not have a livable world. Hmm. Let's go with the 80 year old experts with no degrees and no expereicen in the field. After what's the worst that can happen.

[Stu from NYC]

Didn't we just go around this tree a few days ago and the tread got locked.

I don't see anything new to discuss. The deniers continue to deny - base3d on their logic, and the beleivers continue to believe based on scientists that actually committed their lives to researching it.

And the wheels go round and round.

If the deniers are right and we clean up our kids will have a cleaner healthier world, if the climate change believers are right and we don't clean up, out kids may not have a livable world. Hmm. Let's go with the 80 year old experts with no degrees and no expereicen in the field. After what's the worst that can happen.

The worst thing is we spend tons of money we do not have and everyones standard of living goes down, govt goes into bankruptcy and it is determined that global warming is just another cycle our planet goes thru and we have little way to influence the changes and the money spent is up in smoke.

[golfing eagles]

The worst thing is we spend tons of money we do not have and everyones standard of living goes down, govt goes into bankruptcy and it is determined that global warming is just another cycle our planet goes thru and we have little way to influence the changes and the money spent is up in smoke.

Exactly. But some people get rich and a political agenda is fulfilled

[MartinSE]

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....

Please show me ANY climate change believers that have said they do not think the climate historically changes. NONE that I know of and I know a lot.

It is not all or nothing. Yes, the climate varies over time. What climate theory says it is going to be MUCH worse this time BECAUSE of human activity.

Climate deniers DENY that humans can cause any significant change.

[MartinSE]

Exactly. But some people get rich and a political agenda is fulfilled

Can you provide a list of 1 or 2 people GETTING RICH?

[MartinSE]

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....

Please provide me with a list of people getting VERY RICH promoting the climate change. Because I know several personally that are working several jobs ignorer to support their families while doing their research.

Of the 14,000 scientists that have signed a letter stating that we have an emergency how man y can you show are getting rich?

[golfing eagles]

Please provide me with a list of people getting VERY RICH promoting the climate change. Because I know several personally that are working several jobs ignorer to support their families while doing their research.

Of the 14,000 scientists that have signed a letter stating that we have an emergency how man y can you show are getting rich?

Show me that list of "14,000 scientists" who state explicitly that we have an emergency, or even state explicitly that climate change is due to man's activity. Good Luck. And then among those scientists who actually state that nonsense, how many are funded by government grants? Those climatologists who are either independent or recently retired tell a whole different story.

And once again, I'll ask:

2 researchers apply for a government grant

The first proposes a study with the intention of proving that climate change has nothing to do with human activity and requests $250,000

The second proposes a study that will show the world is in imminent danger due to fossil fuels and requests 50 million

I think we all know who will get the grant and who will be sent packing

[Petersweeney]

Plastic waste in the ocean in landfills and in our bodies is more of a immediate concern…

[Worldseries27]

for those blaming "climate change" or "global warming" for the severity of hurricane ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'climate change" or "global warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most intense hurricanes in florida’s history
(from worldatlas.com)
rank system season estimated casualties
1 "labor day" 1935 400
2 michael 2018 74
3 andrew 1992 65
4 "florida keys" 1919 600-900
5 "okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "great miami" 1926 372–539
7 donna 1960 438
8 irma 2017 134
9 "florida" 1948 13
10 charley 2004 35

the warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "ice age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.
category 3 hurricane made landfall 37 miles as the crow flies from the villages

[djplong]

I may get banned for this but...

How ignorant can you be? Measuring hurricane severity by CASUALTIES? Are you NUTS?

You know why there aren't many casualties in hurricanes these days? SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY - METEOROLOGY - STORM TRACKING.

We know DAYS in advance when a storm is going to hit and get the warning out to people. We fly airplanes INTO these storms to get precise measurements. What airplane could do that in 1926? NONE - that's what!

Dear lord - the people here should be old enough to remember when we did NOT have these tools! They only started coming into play in the 1960s and 70s!

Yeah, the "top three" were in the early part of the 20th century - when the population was a LOT less, there was almost NO mass media (certainly not compared to today - only a couple of 'worst' storms would even have RADIO).

We're documenting the warning of the oceans. We're getting historical climate information from everything from tree rings to ice cores. We've documented the warming properties of carbon. The oil companies have been CAUGHT in misinformation campaigns to protect their profits.

Look, I don't blame some people for not knowing the difference between "weather" and "climate". It's hard, for example, to be up here in New England and hear about global warming during a blizzard. And that's why it's "climate change" now. As science learns more, the definitions get refined. Yes, "on average" the temperatures are going up - but in some places that means more severe WINTER storms. We know this because of observations and models.

I used to be a skeptic, like many here. We'd learned, back in grade school, that it was VOLCANOES that put the carbon in the atmosphere that changed the climate - over millenia. Now? Humans are putting OVER SIXTY TIMES the amount of carbon into the atmosphere that volcanoes do, year over year. Still think we can't affect the climate? When we're 60x worse than the worst "natural" cause - that's the number that made me change my mind.

And that's what science is. When you find data that doesn't match up with what you thought was the answer, you do more testing. And that's how we've refined the models over time.

Science wasn't wrong. Science was being science. It's like looking into the sky and seeing something and thinking it's a star. Then you get a telescope and you see it's not a star but something spiral shaped. You get better optics and you start seeing that 'thing' is made up of many points of light - like stars are here. And you realize there are things called "galaxies". The word didn't exist not too long ago. But it doesn't mean that Galileo was wrong. It means that we didn't have enough knowledge. Now, because of our technology, we're seeing more galaxies further out in the cosmos than we ever imagined - in numbers that we can't wrap our heads around. We pointed the Hubble at some "empty space" and found THOUSANDS of galaxies. That's how science evolves.

We knew about the properties of carbon in the 1800s:

Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote (https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687)

It was even in a New Zealand newspaper in August of 1912:

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5

The data is OVERWHELMING. Ask yourself who stands to profit from the denial. You think there's a "Big Science" out there making a profit off of the 'alarmism'? Who was the last billionaire scientists you met? Take a good look at the balance sheet of fossil fuel companies.

[Worldseries27]

lol! That came & went, huh?? I was in 8th grade when prince charles claimed the ozone condition would destroy the earth within 10 years. After that it became global warming, & now climate change, each time becoming more dire than the last warning. Same story re-packaged for each generation. I wonder what they'll call it 10 years from now?
three card monte

[Worldseries27]

i may get banned for this but...

How ignorant can you be? Measuring hurricane severity by casualties? Are you nuts?

You know why there aren't many casualties in hurricanes these days? Satellite technology - meteorology - storm tracking.

We know days in advance when a storm is going to hit and get the warning out to people. We fly airplanes into these storms to get precise measurements. What airplane could do that in 1926? None - that's what!

Dear lord - the people here should be old enough to remember when we did not have these tools! They only started coming into play in the 1960s and 70s!

Yeah, the "top three" were in the early part of the 20th century - when the population was a lot less, there was almost no mass media (certainly not compared to today - only a couple of 'worst' storms would even have radio).

We're documenting the warning of the oceans. We're getting historical climate information from everything from tree rings to ice cores. We've documented the warming properties of carbon. The oil companies have been caught in misinformation campaigns to protect their profits.

Look, i don't blame some people for not knowing the difference between "weather" and "climate". It's hard, for example, to be up here in new england and hear about global warming during a blizzard. And that's why it's "climate change" now. As science learns more, the definitions get refined. Yes, "on average" the temperatures are going up - but in some places that means more severe winter storms. We know this because of observations and models.

I used to be a skeptic, like many here. We'd learned, back in grade school, that it was volcanoes that put the carbon in the atmosphere that changed the climate - over millenia. Now? Humans are putting over sixty times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere that volcanoes do, year over year. Still think we can't affect the climate? When we're 60x worse than the worst "natural" cause - that's the number that made me change my mind.

And that's what science is. When you find data that doesn't match up with what you thought was the answer, you do more testing. And that's how we've refined the models over time.

Science wasn't wrong. Science was being science. It's like looking into the sky and seeing something and thinking it's a star. Then you get a telescope and you see it's not a star but something spiral shaped. You get better optics and you start seeing that 'thing' is made up of many points of light - like stars are here. And you realize there are things called "galaxies". The word didn't exist not too long ago. But it doesn't mean that galileo was wrong. It means that we didn't have enough knowledge. Now, because of our technology, we're seeing more galaxies further out in the cosmos than we ever imagined - in numbers that we can't wrap our heads around. We pointed the hubble at some "empty space" and found thousands of galaxies. That's how science evolves.

We knew about the properties of carbon in the 1800s:

scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named eunice foote (https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687)

it was even in a new zealand newspaper in august of 1912:

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/rotwkg19120814.2.56.5

the data is overwhelming. Ask yourself who stands to profit from the denial. You think there's a "big science" out there making a profit off of the 'alarmism'? Who was the last billionaire scientists you met? Take a good look at the balance sheet of fossil fuel companies.
mission impossible

[CSB1228]

Don't just concentrate on Hurricanes but also droughts, and what people use to call hundred year weather events now estimated 500 year rain events.
Prior to April 1960 when the first weather satellite was launched we were blind to hurricane forecasting resulting in loss of life and property.


Let's not forget "The Dust Bowl" in the 1930's. Was that global warming??

[me4vt]

Amen

[BiPartisan]

Great Hurricane of 1780, it is among the deadliest storms ever recorded 20,000 dead. In today number that would be over 100,000 due to increased population.

[me4vt]

Gods time not ours ; )

[rsmurano]

That narrative didn’t pan out along with dozens of others. Years ago, it was earth warming, then earth cooling, the hole in the ozone, then climate change. The only change is the narrative of the year

[defrey12]

There have always been and always be "deniers" no matter the subject. For whatever reason they can't accept evidence counter to their beliefs. Flat earther's are a good example. Anything relating to earth as a globe is conspiracy and lies in their minds.

Excuse me, but SCIENCE is not a “belief system.” And there is absolutely NO evidence that WE are the cause of it, ONLY computer models. The sky is not falling!

[dougawhite]

Scientists everywhere said Pluto was a planet, with not one of them disagreeing on that. Until...
So, scientists do not hold the ultimate truths, they just study nature, make conjectures and hypotheses, and take lots of measurements. Hardly anything is 'settled' in science, so always keep an open mind.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

The Ice Age did not kill off the dinosaurs and the reason for the current Global Warming is the result of human caused activity. See the NASA website. It has many pages for your edification: Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/)

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself.

Our climate IS changing, it has done so many, many times. For example, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it was about 10-12 degrees warmer world wide. Twenty thousand years ago, half the northern hemisphere was covered in 2 miles of ice and it was 7-8 degrees colder on average. This is just fact, it would be illogical to deny it.

However, NONE of that has anything to do with humans burning fossil fuels. I again challenge those who believe that is the cause to tell me what model of SUV Fred Flintstone drove. To date, none of the "humans caused climate change believers" have even attempted to answer that question.

The last 4 million years have seen a cycle of repeated periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last not decades, not centuries, but 80-100,000 years. For anyone to make any assumptions based on the last 50 years is a joke. After all, Uncle Al said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010, instead they are actually growing slowly. In the 1970's, the great fear was another ice age was imminent.

Unless we nuke ourselves into oblivion or the big asteroid comes to get us, we will be just fine in 2122---because "the rate at which we are changing the planet" is just about nil in comparison to the forces that drive climate change (the sun, variations in Earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis)

Search Results – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/search/?q=CLIMATE+HISTORY)

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature)

66 Million Years of Earth’s Climate History Uncovered – Puts Current Changes in Context (https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/)

Read especially the latter that does show the earth was warmer millions of years ago, but that was before humans existed. The current trend is moving much faster than ever in recorded history and is directly the result of human activity as these reports all conclude. Please stop the nonsense and accept the reality which is presented very clearly by these reports of scientists who have studied the phenomena.

[Worldseries27]

great hurricane of 1780, it is among the deadliest storms ever recorded 20,000 dead. In today number that would be over 100,000 due to increased population.
the loss of life is staggering.

[fdpaq0580]

The Ice Age did not kill off the dinosaurs and the reason for the current Global Warming is the result of human caused activity. See the NASA website. It has many pages for your edification: Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/)

Excellent!

[Gdkrause]

In order to even make a dent in human caused climate change, you have to start with China and India. The USA is not the big global polluter.

[fdpaq0580]

Search Results – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/search/?q=CLIMATE+HISTORY)

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature)

66 Million Years of Earth’s Climate History Uncovered – Puts Current Changes in Context (https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/)

Read especially the latter that does show the earth was warmer millions of years ago, but that was before humans existed. The current trend is moving much faster than ever in recorded history and is directly the result of human activity as these reports all conclude. Please stop the nonsense and accept the reality which is presented very clearly by these reports of scientists who have studied the phenomena.

Yep!

[Bay Kid]

Climate change

Summer, fall, winter and spring

Happens every year

[golfing eagles]

The Ice Age did not kill off the dinosaurs and the reason for the current Global Warming is the result of human caused activity. See the NASA website. It has many pages for your edification: Home – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/)

Well, 1/2 correct

The current ice age began about 4 million years ago, the dinosaurs disappeared about 60-65 million years ago, so no, the current ice age did not kill off the dinos. Whether it was nuclear winter after an asteroid collision or just the 10-degree cooling of the planet after the rise of the Rocky Mountains and Himalayan Plateau is debatable.

The "current global warming" began approximately 20,000 years ago after the peak of the last period of glaciation, and therefore IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY. I'm still at a loss to understand why some people have difficulty with that concept. It's simple---20,000 years of global warming with only about 130 years of internal combustion engines---DOH! Yep, let's all go out and buy an EV. And yet those true believers call those of us who understand astrophysics and paleoclimatology "deniers". Actually, it's just about the highest compliment that we can be paid. To them all I can say is that I am also a "Santa Claus denier", an "Easter Bunny denier" and a "Tooth Fairy denier", but I am happy for those that wrap themselves in the belief of those fantasies as well.

[golfing eagles]

Search Results – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/search/?q=CLIMATE+HISTORY)

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature)

66 Million Years of Earth’s Climate History Uncovered – Puts Current Changes in Context (https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/)

Read especially the latter that does show the earth was warmer millions of years ago, but that was before humans existed. The current trend is moving much faster than ever in recorded history and is directly the result of human activity as these reports all conclude. Please stop the nonsense and accept the reality which is presented very clearly by these reports of scientists who have studied the phenomena.

Actually, the "nonsense" is what is posted above. "In recorded history" LOL. That's 6,000 years out of the 4,000,000 years that we have been in the current ice age. And recorded WEATHER/CLIMATE history is about 100 years old. Amazing how well the powers that be have sold this propaganda to the masses

[Mhope]

Ya think that all the concrete, asphalt, big buildings, billions of people needing food, shelter, vehicles etc might just have an affect on warming???? Slow the expansion of people and problem solved

[Ginmato]

You do realize that storm prediction now is not what it was 100 years ago. That quality of construction and infrastructure is not the same now as it was 100 years ago. That even the measurements of storms aren’t the same. The earth has gone through many cycles and changes in its billions of years but I’m pretty sure it never had a population of almost 8 billion people before either. In just one year this planet has endured world wide floods, droughts, wild fires, record high heat, war. Many people are going to starve, freeze, drown. Because it doesn’t affect you doesn’t mean it’s not true. At one point, you worked hard, you studied, you were educated to be able to provide a better life for you, your family and their future. I’m worried about the life my grandchildren will have. What will this world be like, what will be left for them. Greenpeace and Earth Day in the 70s. That was only 50 years ago. What will be left 50 years from now?

[Vermilion Villager]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.
So you're saying the dinosaurs died as a result of the Ice Age.....which happened 100,000 years ago. I guess that carbon dating thing they use is a hoax huh?
I was wondering why it was so hard to get tinfoil at Publix last week… obviously the flat earth society is making hats out of it again. :mornincoffee:

[fdpaq0580]

Excuse me, but SCIENCE is not a “belief system.” And there is absolutely NO evidence that WE are the cause of it, ONLY computer models. The sky is not falling!

Never said "science is a belief system". Read the post again.
We are not the only cause, but we are a contributing factor.
Accept it or deny it, the evidence is there.
No, the sky is not falling, but the earth is getting warmer.

[fdpaq0580]

Climate change

Summer, fall, winter and spring

Happens every year

"Summer fall winter spring" was the name of the Indian princess on Howdy Doody.

Seasons are not "climate change"/"global warming".

[golfing eagles]

Excellent!

Excellent????? I think you spelled "ridiculous" wrong---it starts with a "r"

[Regorp]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.
To quote Candace Owens "even if there were never humans on Earth, there would still be hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, earthquakes because that is what the planet does, not global warming".

[mrf6969]

So it makes sense to throw Billions/Trillions at it and then watch world wide fires and volcanic eruptions erase what was thought to be money well spent. Better to invest in what we can control, true needs.

[COLTempleton]

Not 80+% of scientists believe in man causing global effects. Some of the top NOAA scientists are debunking this whole thing. The world is going through a natural cycle. Besides, we using GAS to create ELECTRICITY.
No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

[Lottoguy]

When the temp hit 100 degrees in Alaska for the first time this year that was a big eye opener for me. There is something going on. Just look at the before and after photos of glaciers around the world.

[golfing eagles]

When the temp hit 100 degrees in Alaska for the first time this year that was a big eye opener for me. There is something going on. Just look at the before and after photos of glaciers around the world.

So, did I understand that post? Does it claim that the temperature (weather) for ONE DAY in ONE LOCATION can be extrapolated to conclude that mankind is causing a change in a 100,000 year cycle and dooming us to live in a Venusian climate? Please tell me it didn't mean that.

[rpalumberi]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.



All they want is control, we saw it most clearly during the China virus pandemic. Although inflation is itself a tax, that's why they raise taxes, they want to control the way our money is spent. Sad, hope others see this as well.

[davefin]

It's a cycle people. Can't do a thing to prevent it. There have been several Ice Ages, we are still recovering from the last one. The cycle is roughly 60,000 years. Get real people... adjust!

[greg.turay]

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0pGu8PPB-gIVBXKGCh3hZQG8EAAYBCAAEgKrQ_D_BwE

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers. They say that it is a pattern of centuries or something like that. But what happens to the people living decade to decade or year to year? We humans may all be dead by 2122 at the rate we are changing the earth now.
I know that I will be dead by 2122.

[Taltarzac725]

I know that I will be dead by 2122.

And so might most of the human race.

[golfing eagles]

And so might most of the human race.

We very well might. But it will have absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

[lkagele]

That narrative didn’t pan out along with dozens of others. Years ago, it was earth warming, then earth cooling, the hole in the ozone, then climate change. The only change is the narrative of the year

You forgot acid rain.

Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Mankind has been around for 200,000 years.
Industrial revolution started less than 200 years ago.

Anyone believing mankind has destroyed the planet in less than 200 years is simply catering to the fear mongering.

[Junehher]

FINALLY, someone with sense. Thanks for the research and information.

[lkagele]

Can you provide a list of 1 or 2 people GETTING RICH?

Easy. John Kerry and Al Gore. BTW, how many of Gore's predictions from the Inconvenient Truth have come true? Been awhile since I watched it but I remember that San Fran and Florida were supposed to disappear from rising sea levels.

[fdpaq0580]

Excellent????? I think you spelled "ridiculous" wrong---it starts with a "r"

Thank you, teacher. 😏

[MartinSE]

You forgot acid rain.

Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Mankind has been around for 200,000 years.
Industrial revolution started less than 200 years ago.

Anyone believing mankind has destroyed the planet in less than 200 years is simply catering to the fear mongering.

Let see, could you show where someone said we DESTROYED the planet. I will wait.

[Carlsondm]

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....
Most climate concerned scientists try to look at the WHOLE picture and consider as many variables as they can afford. They recognize that there are uncontrollable (by man) and controllable contributions to carefully observed and statistically reported temperature increases. Long term averages have shown a slow creep upward in temperatures around the globe.
If you have a victim mentality, you want to let the earth continue on so you can do the woe is me thing and start blaming.
If you have a survivalist approach, you look at the biggest controllable contributions to climate change and reduce them as feasible.
God helps those who help themselves.

[golfing eagles]

Thank you, teacher. 😏

You're welcome. Anytime. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[GizmoWhiskers]

"Science" had us believing in masks and jabs. Wonder how many masks are polluting parking lots and dumps now all while politicians fly in their eco-friendly jets?

[fdpaq0580]

So, did I understand that post? Does it claim that the temperature (weather) for ONE DAY in ONE LOCATION can be extrapolated to conclude that mankind is causing a change in a 100,000 year cycle and dooming us to live in a Venusian climate? Please tell me it didn't mean that.

So, did I understand that the extremely unusual temperature for one day in one location can, in absolutely no possible way, be an indication or symtom of mankind interference in the normal or natural order of things?

[denniskathyb]

When the ice age came it took 10,000 years for the ice to get 2 miles thick over Iowa.
We are now compressing 10,000 of temp change into several 100. Life needs more than 200 years to adapt.

[golfing eagles]

So, did I understand that the extremely unusual temperature for one day in one location can, in absolutely no possible way, be an indication or symtom of mankind interference in the normal or natural order of things?

That would be correct. Great! Now you understand! One down, about 8 million to go.

[golfing eagles]

When the ice age came it took 10,000 years for the ice to get 2 miles thick over Iowa.
We are now compressing 10,000 of temp change into several 100. Life needs more than 200 years to adapt.

Just what gave you that idea???? I had no idea mankind was so "formidable" in a battle with mother nature. Let's see, the same experts at NASA that my friend loves to quote estimate it would take 20,000 years to terraform Mars, yet we can do it here on Earth in "several 100". Yeah, right.

[Jeffery M]

Mars is warming as well as the Earth.

[Blackbird45]

When it comes to global warming or climate change, hardcore skeptics will not change their minds. So, let's put this issue a side and look at pollution. We have factories, diesel trucks and cars pumping toxic fumes in the air daily and people support this either for financial reasons or convenance. Now for those how do not believe this is true let do a little test. Tonight, after dinner get into your car, start it up, don't forget to keep your garage door close and in the morning see if you change your mind. Remember the old saying "Don't s**t where you eat".

[Nellmack]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

I don't agree with your comment. The worst loss of life on the list above if from the early 1900s long before quality weather predictions were available and zero building codes were in place. I recommend listening to climate scientists rather than political conversations.

[PugMom]

Can you provide a list of 1 or 2 people GETTING RICH?

john mccain, (cap & trade), and algore.

[Taltarzac725]

Mars is warming as well as the Earth. Funny how that works. The Mars rover is solar powered so no global warming from that

Is Mars really heating up quicker than Earth? | BBC Science Focus Magazine (https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-mars-really-heating-up-quicker-than-earth/)

Kind of a different planet. And different reasons.

[tvbound]

Can you provide a list of 1 or 2 people GETTING RICH?

The ultimate irony being that those who are actually "getting rich," are those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and are spending billions to convince a certain gullible demographic that 90%+ of scientists and the science that humans are the primary problem - are all wrong. Exactly the same as cigarette companies full-court blitz of money and propaganda, that their product didn't cause cancer/other health problems. What we really have, are two large demographics of human induced climate change deniers. One group that figures they won't be around anyway, so don't want to be inconvenienced now regarding taking any actions for future generations. Another, much larger group than is acknowledged, are those that believe the 'rapture/end of days' will soon happen and any actions will be for naught anyway...so why bother?

[golfing eagles]

The ultimate irony being that those who are actually "getting rich," are those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and are spending billions to convince a certain gullible demographic that 90%+ of scientists and the science that humans are the primary problem - are all wrong. Exactly the same as cigarette companies full-court blitz of money and propaganda, that their product didn't cause cancer/other health problems. What we really have, are two large demographics of human induced climate change deniers. One group that figures they won't be around anyway, so don't want to be inconvenienced now regarding taking any actions for future generations. Another, much larger group than is acknowledged, are those that believe the 'rapture/end of days' will soon happen and any actions will be for naught anyway...so why bother?

First of all, human induced climate change is the myth, so the so-called deniers are the group that is correct.

Anyway, I have explained the facts at least 5 times, yet the true believers just ignore the truth and persist in their chicken little sky is falling beliefs in climate change.

So, look at it this way----in about 1.6 billon years when our sun starts its death throes, and the photosphere expands past the Earth's orbit---We'll have plenty of global warming. The true believers will still probably insist it was due to fossil fuels

[golfing eagles]

Mars is warming as well as the Earth.

Are the Martians also burning fossil fuel?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[tvbound]

First of all, human induced climate change is the myth, so the so-called deniers are the group that is correct.

Anyway, I have explained the facts at least 5 times, yet the true believers just ignore the truth and persist in their chicken little sky is falling beliefs in climate change.

So, look at it this way----in about 1.6 billon years when our sun starts its death throes, and the photosphere expands past the Earth's orbit---We'll have plenty of global warming. The true believers will still probably insist it was due to fossil fuels

Thank you for so quickly confirming my point - I appreciate it.

[Jeffery M]

Is Mars really heating up quicker than Earth? | BBC Science Focus Magazine (https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-mars-really-heating-up-quicker-than-earth/)

Kind of a different planet. And different reasons.

Same sun, which is warming both of the planets. Let's not forget the Climategate scandal, where so called top climate change scientists purposely obfuscated facts regarding climate change.


Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=768680b527ba)

[rogerrice60]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

Loved your post.
I remember in the 60's all the radio shows were in a panic over "global cooling" they feared the earth was going to tip over due to the ice cap!

[Stu from NYC]

Mars is warming as well as the Earth.

What have we done to cause this?

[MartinSE]

Same sun, which is warming both of the planets. Let's not forget the Climategate scandal, where so called top climate change scientists purposely obfuscated facts regarding climate change.


Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/?sh=768680b527ba)

Lets not forget the main source PUSHING climate gate was Saudi Arabia - and they have no financial interest in that - ahem...

'Climategate' - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/)

[wamley]

Yes, but 1935 is exactly the time the earth had started to warm. LOL. Bye the way it was changed to climate change because the warming wasn't working fast enough.

[JMintzer]

Yes, it is sad that the internet is littered with posts from oldies bemoaning the fact that kids of today can't find Kamchatka on a map, yet when our generation is asked to face up to an existential threat those self-same people are falling over themselves to deny the facts and belittle those who are taking it seriously just so that they don't have to change their lifestyles.

When did everything become an "existential threat"?

[JMintzer]

Didn't we just go around this tree a few days ago and the tread got locked.

I don't see anything new to discuss. The deniers continue to deny - base3d on their logic, and the beleivers continue to believe based on scientists that actually committed their lives to researching it.

And the wheels go round and round.

If the deniers are right and we clean up our kids will have a cleaner healthier world, if the climate change believers are right and we don't clean up, out kids may not have a livable world. Hmm. Let's go with the 80 year old experts with no degrees and no expereicen in the field. After what's the worst that can happen.

Same with the Covid threads, and the dog poop threads etc, etc, etc

[golfing eagles]

Yes, but 1935 is exactly the time the earth had started to warm. LOL. Bye the way it was changed to climate change because the warming wasn't working fast enough.

Exactly????? 1935 was a little late to the party----the Earth (this time around) started to warm 20,000 years ago.

[JMintzer]

Can you provide a list of 1 or 2 people GETTING RICH?

That would be political and result in a "time out"...

[JMintzer]

To them all I can say is that I am also a "Santa Claus denier", an "Easter Bunny denier" and a "Tooth Fairy denier", but I am happy for those that wrap themselves in the belief of those fantasies as well.

Wait, what???

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TFnW_p2O8Dw/V0DHHqQCZqI/AAAAAAAATJI/Jn6pqTn7JggUcq14WA1F_HwhZCZri9izACLcB/s1600/tooth-fairy-movie-poster.jpg

[JMintzer]

Are the Martians also burning fossil fuel?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Well, we DID land a Mars Rover there...

So I guess that's our fault, as well...

[JMintzer]

Are the Martians also burning fossil fuel?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I blame Matt Damon...

[Stu from NYC]

The man from uncle is coming to save the day

[rsimpson]

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-change-humans-are-causing-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0pGu8PPB-gIVBXKGCh3hZQG8EAAYBCAAEgKrQ_D_BwE

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers. They say that it is a pattern of centuries or something like that. But what happens to the people living decade to decade or year to year? We humans may all be dead by 2122 at the rate we are changing the earth now.

Lets' all agree with the terms Deniers and Sheep for the opposing sides. You can't label one opinion without a comperable name for the other side, right?

[fcgiii]

Hardly anything is 'settled' in science, so always keep an open mind.

Science can disprove a theory but never completely prove one.

[fcgiii]

Show me that list of "14,000 scientists" who state explicitly that we have an emergency, or even state explicitly that climate change is due to man's activity. Good Luck. And then among those scientists who actually state that nonsense, how many are funded by government grants? Those climatologists who are either independent or recently retired tell a whole different story.

And once again, I'll ask:

2 researchers apply for a government grant

The first proposes a study with the intention of proving that climate change has nothing to do with human activity and requests $250,000

The second proposes a study that will show the world is in imminent danger due to fossil fuels and requests 50 million

I think we all know who will get the grant and who will be sent packing

Exactly. An most of these studies are computer models. Every 4 years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes a large report on the previous 4 years' studies. Most of these are from modelers who essentially state that their last study was wrong but this new one will be right and we are all going to die.

[jimjamuser]

Please show me ANY climate change believers that have said they do not think the climate historically changes. NONE that I know of and I know a lot.

It is not all or nothing. Yes, the climate varies over time. What climate theory says it is going to be MUCH worse this time BECAUSE of human activity.

Climate deniers DENY that humans can cause any significant change.
True! And no matter what various people believe is causing it, climate scientists say that the next 30 years are going to be increasingly warmer. The oceans are getting warmer and are rising each year. 41% of all hurricanes that have hit the US have hit Florida. Probably because the shallow Gulf warms more than the deeper oceans. The Pacific coast has a cooler north-to-south flow of its ocean current. Atlantic has the opposite. So, more and stronger hurricanes will likely be in Florida's future.

Coastal living Floridians aware of this 30-year prediction are likely to slowly migrate to north central Florida. And many older ones will likely pick a location like The Villages. Full-time residents over 55 may start to prefer Georgia or the Carolinas due to the higher summer Florida heat.

[golfing eagles]

True! And no matter what various people believe is causing it, climate scientists say that the next 30 years are going to be increasingly warmer. The oceans are getting warmer and are rising each year. 41% of all hurricanes that have hit the US have hit Florida. Probably because the shallow Gulf warms more than the deeper oceans. The Pacific coast has a cooler north-to-south flow of its ocean current. Atlantic has the opposite. So, more and stronger hurricanes will likely be in Florida's future.

Coastal living Floridians aware of this 30-year prediction are likely to slowly migrate to north central Florida. And many older ones will likely pick a location like The Villages. Full-time residents over 55 may start to prefer Georgia or the Carolinas due to the higher summer Florida heat.

That could very well be your best post ever. Everything you said is correct, overall, we will continue to get warmer, not just for the next 30 years, but probably for the next 15-25,000 years. After that, break out your parkas and snowshoes. But kudos to you for not stating any of this has to do with human activity. I'm getting sick of posts that should start with "Once upon a time....."

[fcgiii]

Ya think that all the concrete, asphalt, big buildings, billions of people needing food, shelter, vehicles etc might just have an affect on warming???? Slow the expansion of people and problem solved

To show global climate change you need to be able to measure the temperature globally over time. The only actual direct temperature records from the past are those from the scientific outposts from the British Empire. These outposts only covered the British colonies and conspicuously missed most of the southern and western hemispheres. And they used physical Mercury thermometers if limited accuracy. And, to your point, many of these stations were originally out in the fields but now have been enveloped by urban sprawl. Thus these results get "corrected".

[Warcats]

Ice age kill the dinosaurs?? Your lack of scientific knowledge is stunning. And you list is inaccurate.

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.[/QUOTE]

[jimjamuser]

Let's not forget "The Dust Bowl" in the 1930's. Was that global warming??
Actually many think that it was MAN MADE. Due to not rotating crops, not providing soil banks, and cutting down all the trees that could have blocked the winds.

[jimjamuser]

Ya think that all the concrete, asphalt, big buildings, billions of people needing food, shelter, vehicles etc might just have an affect on warming???? Slow the expansion of people and problem solved
Human population is controlled by wars and disease primarily. Global Warming increases human migration which can affect both.

[TrapX]

Climate scientists didn't predict hurricane Ian 30 days in advance.
Climate scientists predicted a direct hit to Tampa 2 days in advance. They evacuated to be safe from total destruction.
Climate scientists didn't predict the location for the eye to hit until it was only a few miles away from land.

Their models were close, but very wrong and incomplete. I'm glad they are as good as they are, but realize there are many factors that cannot be predicted.

So climate scientists... What is the exact date when the next hurricane will hit Florida? And where will it hit? How strong? What will the high and low temperatures be on that day?
Climate scientists didn't even predict the 15deg drop in daytime high temperatures until after Ian passed and it was happening.

And now try to convince me that you all know what will happen 100 years from now?

But wait. I can predict the next hurricane. I'll write it down, seal it in an envelope. I'll open it the day it happens to prove I am better at predicting than you. Of course I will predict every combination of a hurricane to hit for every day, impacting every city, and for every intensity. Thousands of prediction envelopes. One WILL be right. That's the one I'll pull out and show the world how great I am.
Analyzing data points to predict the future is a lot like that scenario. Pick the data points you want to use that show your sponsor's theories are spot on. Ignore the rest. Extrapolate into the future.

[JMintzer]

That could very well be your best post ever. Everything you said is correct, overall, we will continue to get warmer, not just for the next 30 years, but probably for the next 15-25,000 years. After that, break out your parkas and snowshoes. But kudos to you for not stating any of this has to do with human activity. I'm getting sick of posts that should start with "Once upon a time....."

What do they say about "blind squirrels"? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

True! And no matter what various people believe is causing it, climate scientists say that the next 30 years are going to be increasingly warmer. The oceans are getting warmer and are rising each year. 41% of all hurricanes that have hit the US have hit Florida. Probably because the shallow Gulf warms more than the deeper oceans. The Pacific coast has a cooler north-to-south flow of its ocean current. Atlantic has the opposite. So, more and stronger hurricanes will likely be in Florida's future.

Coastal living Floridians aware of this 30-year prediction are likely to slowly migrate to north central Florida. And many older ones will likely pick a location like The Villages. Full-time residents over 55 may start to prefer Georgia or the Carolinas due to the higher summer Florida heat.

I agree with this post...

(I can't believe I just wrote those words...)

[Stu from NYC]

I agree with this post...

(I can't believe I just wrote those words...)

What have you been drinking?:bigbow:

[sounding]

Great post. Also, there were many warming periods after the last ice age and before ours -- called the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, and others -- and all while CO2 levels were much lower -- plus those civilizations thrived. For more information visit the Villages Weather Club where warm & cold periods are also discussed ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/)

[sounding]

This is the Narrative, while the Data says otherwise as discussed in the Villages Weather Club. The poor farming practices caused the "dust" while the ocean heating cycles, called the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation) and the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), caused the "heat." Both the AMO and PDO reached maximum strength during this period -- just like they are now -- but the PDO is weaker this time which is why it was hotter back then.

[sounding]

Population is also controlled by climate. During the last Ice Age Glaciation (20,000 years ago) the Neanderthals went extinct. During the Little Ice Age (350 years ago) they say at least 50 million died (which included the black death and massive crop failures). Humans are tropical in nature as we are born without fur. We thrive in heat and suffer in cold -- which is why I moved to The Villages.

[sounding]

"We are changing the earth right now" does apply to the things like Trash Mountains and Highway Litter. However, there is no climate emergency. We are just enhancing our climate with more plant food (CO2) and warming that is so tiny it can not be measured. For those who claim we are heating the planet, please tell me how much man-made CO2 altered earth's temperature last year.

[sounding]

The last Interglacial Warm Period was about 115,000 years ago, while the last Glaciation (ice age) was about 20,000 years ago. We are currently in the Pleistocene Ice Age, which began about 2.5 million years ago -- and there have been about 42 Glaciation cycles during this period. We are in earth's coldest period in history -- and each Glaciation is getting colder. Remember, most of earth's history had NO ice caps. These and other climate & weather trends are discussed in the Weather Club.

[sounding]

The deadliest tropical cyclone in recorded history is the Bhola Cyclone which hit Bangladesh in 1970, where about 400,000 died.

[MartinSE]

Climate scientists didn't predict hurricane Ian 30 days in advance.
Climate scientists predicted a direct hit to Tampa 2 days in advance. They evacuated to be safe from total destruction.
Climate scientists didn't predict the location for the eye to hit until it was only a few miles away from land.

Their models were close, but very wrong and incomplete. I'm glad they are as good as they are, but realize there are many factors that cannot be predicted.

So climate scientists... What is the exact date when the next hurricane will hit Florida? And where will it hit? How strong? What will the high and low temperatures be on that day?
Climate scientists didn't even predict the 15deg drop in daytime high temperatures until after Ian passed and it was happening.

And now try to convince me that you all know what will happen 100 years from now?

But wait. I can predict the next hurricane. I'll write it down, seal it in an envelope. I'll open it the day it happens to prove I am better at predicting than you. Of course I will predict every combination of a hurricane to hit for every day, impacting every city, and for every intensity. Thousands of prediction envelopes. One WILL be right. That's the one I'll pull out and show the world how great I am.
Analyzing data points to predict the future is a lot like that scenario. Pick the data points you want to use that show your sponsor's theories are spot on. Ignore the rest. Extrapolate into the future.

So, something isn't perfect enough to predict absolute accuracy and so it doesn't exist or is BS.

WOW.

Please provide us with ANYTHING that sicence can predict absolutely, and I will exclude light switches.

Sigh...

WOW. Just WOW.

[manaboutown]

I blame dog poop.

[MartinSE]

I blame dog poop.

I agree with you, but is it big dog poop or lots of little dog poop? It's important.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

TrapX:

Musicians can all perform music. Most of them can even tell you which key the music sheet was written for. But most of them can't recreate a specific note when asked to, on demand, without the benefit of hearing someone play that note for them. It's called perfect, or absolute pitch, and it's incredibly rare. Even most gifted, formally trained professional musicians can't do it. Does that mean their ability to perform music is invalid? Does that make their vocals sung in the key of c less melodious? No. They're still the best at their craft, and you benefit from it either directly or indirectly. (aside: I am not a professional musician. But I do have absolute pitch. It's not something you can learn - you either have it, or you don't. And you don't need to be a musician to have it. You just have to know what each note sounds like - precisely.)

The same for weather folks. Being 100% accurate is not a reasonable expectation. They have graphs and trends and computers and technology to help them figure it out, but the weather will do what the weather does.

[jaj523]

I believe I read that the hole in the ozone layer you mentioned is actually closing up!!

[jaj523]

Since most of the countries on earth that make up the majority of the earth's surface (Russia, China, India, etc.) do nothing about hydrocarbon emissions and continue to mine for coal, oil, natural gas with abandon, why do we think that bankrupting our country with half measures (wind, solar, and hydro) is going to have any effect on global warming? We buy oil from Russia and other countries, with their out-dated polluting refinery systems, and then ship it to our country in oil tankers that are fueled by oil that can leak into the ocean. We pay money and support the economies of these countries that hate us. To me this is the height of insanity when we can be energy independent and produce our own oil, etc. far more cheaply and efficiently, using refining systems we have worked hard to improve.

[tuccillo]

There are a lot of things that are incorrect in this post. I’ll just hit the highlights. Climate scientists do not predict short term weather events. While short and medium range (typically up to about 15 days) forecast are derived from numerical models that are fundamentally the same as the models used for longer term climate scenarios (N-S fluid equation plus radiative transfer, turbulence, phase change of moisture, and heat, momentum, and moisture exchange with the surface of the earth), the application is entirely different. Short and medium range forecasts are concerned with deterministic events while climate simulations are concerned with running various CO2 scenarios to compute quantities such as, but not limited to, global means. You cannot simulate deterministic events more than a week or two in advance so don’t pretend that anyone (who actually knows what they are doing) is trying to do that. Climate and weather simulations are two different endeavors.

Two days in advance, Ian was very well simulated and the landfall was very close. Some of the longer term simulations had landfall anywhere from the panhandle of Florida to the Keys. With the hurricane approaching from the south and the Florida coastline oriented north-south, slight differences in the simulated tracks can result in large geographic differences in landfall. This was a much different geometry than if Ian was approaching land from a right angle. Regardless, similarly to many complex fields, what is really being forecasted is a probability function. The atmosphere is inherently chaotic and slight differences in the initial state can produce differences in the simulations. That is the reason why ensembles, both with different initial states and different models, are run. Essentially, an envelope of possible outcomes is created. Large spreads in the ensembles is an indicator of the inherent predictability of the event. This event had fairly large variations in the results until about 2 days before landfall. Some events are more predictable than others. Numerical Weather Prediction is a difficult problem because it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom.

Climate scientists didn't predict hurricane Ian 30 days in advance.
Climate scientists predicted a direct hit to Tampa 2 days in advance. They evacuated to be safe from total destruction.
Climate scientists didn't predict the location for the eye to hit until it was only a few miles away from land.

Their models were close, but very wrong and incomplete. I'm glad they are as good as they are, but realize there are many factors that cannot be predicted.

So climate scientists... What is the exact date when the next hurricane will hit Florida? And where will it hit? How strong? What will the high and low temperatures be on that day?
Climate scientists didn't even predict the 15deg drop in daytime high temperatures until after Ian passed and it was happening.

And now try to convince me that you all know what will happen 100 years from now?

But wait. I can predict the next hurricane. I'll write it down, seal it in an envelope. I'll open it the day it happens to prove I am better at predicting than you. Of course I will predict every combination of a hurricane to hit for every day, impacting every city, and for every intensity. Thousands of prediction envelopes. One WILL be right. That's the one I'll pull out and show the world how great I am.
Analyzing data points to predict the future is a lot like that scenario. Pick the data points you want to use that show your sponsor's theories are spot on. Ignore the rest. Extrapolate into the future.

[BigHoss18]

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

I'm curious, seriously, about your statements. Can you provide us a list of all the changes you've made in your life to reduce your carbon footprint? Do you ride a bicycle instead of driving a car? Maybe you purchased an electric vehicle (climate-saving fallacy)? Is your house covered in solar panels made in China? Do you have a wind turbine generating your electrical power? Or are you one of those types that condemn the "rest of us", like celebrities, that fly all over the world willie-nille driving gas-guzzling show-off vehicles? IMHO, climate change/global warming believers/activists are self-aggrandizing hypocrites. Just calling it the way I see it.

[djplong]

Let's not forget "The Dust Bowl" in the 1930's. Was that global warming??

No, that was a drought that would have been weathered were it not for the disastrous farming techniques of the time that stripped the land of it's ability to hold together.

Discoveries made during the Dust Bowl on how to farm land more responsibly are still being used to this day.

[djplong]

I'm curious, seriously, about your statements. Can you provide us a list of all the changes you've made in your life to reduce your carbon footprint? Do you ride a bicycle instead of driving a car? Maybe you purchased an electric vehicle (climate-saving fallacy)? Is your house covered in solar panels made in China? Do you have a wind turbine generating your electrical power? Or are you one of those types that condemn the "rest of us", like celebrities, that fly all over the world willie-nille driving gas-guzzling show-off vehicles? IMHO, climate change/global warming believers/activists are self-aggrandizing hypocrites. Just calling it the way I see it.

You don't see very much.

I'll answer your questions, though, and I'll be honest about them.

Yes, I drive an EV. While it DID cost more initially, I've saved a BUNDLE on fuel, insurance and maintenance. I honestly can't explain how I managed to save on insurance as most people pay MORE when they replace a 20 year old car with a new, more expensive one. Virtually everything about my car is recyclable. And I'm not worried about the battery dying since I still get almost the same range now as I did 4 1/2 years and 75,000 miles ago. Vehicle maintenance is almost non-existent. I've paid for tires and windshield washer fluid. I'm not lying - even my brakes are like new since my car does regenerative braking with the electric motor. I barely ever need the 'legacy' braking system.

Solar panels? Funny you should mention that. The recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act combined with Putin's war in Ukraine that shot up natural gas prices around the world made solar an option for us. I signed the papers 3 days ago. Even though I use a LOT of electricity (even before I got an EV), I'd signed up for 'green' supplier plans. Combined with the trees on my lot, solar was a no-go. With the events I just mentioned, it just became cost effective. I'll be paying $245/mo on my solar loan for a system that will cover all my usage compared to $250-$535/mo for electricity BEFORE the price hikes that I'm about to see (and pay for until my system goes live - probably in the spring).

This past year, we had an energy audit done and had a lot of work performed on the house with a rebate from the gas company - and our natural gas usage (heat, hot water, oven) has gone down over 30%.

And I don't "condemn" people. Very often, people are using outdated information because, to be honest, things have been changing FAST - and you can't expect everyone to keep up on every development going on in so many places.

So if you're REALLY interested in learning "where we are" today and what's coming next, I'm more than happy to engage in a conversation.

Am I perfect? No. I'd LIKE to be able to replace my natural gas usage even though we just reduced it by quite a chunk - but that's out of the question for now. My electric bill had to take precedence.

I *suspect* your opinion of climate change activists is colored by the lens through which it's presented to you. And if that's all the information you have, then, to be honest, I don't blame you for having your opinion.

[tuccillo]

You are not asking the correct questions.

1) How much of the climate change is naturally occurring (we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years) and how much is anthropogenic?

2) Do we have a “problem”?

3) If we do have a “problem”, can we do anything about it?

Some of the warming is anthropogenic. We know that increases in CO2 creates some warming and land use changes also creates changes. How much? This is hard to quantify since our direct measurements are limited and have been homogenized to some degree. I suspect it is not as much as you think.

Do we have a problem? Also hard to say. Predictions are based on numerical modeling scenarios. Unfortunately, activists, politicians, and the media have latched onto the 8.5 scenario. Perhaps it is not the most likely scenario. We do know from radiative transfer calculations that CO2 increases causes warming but the dire predictions require positive feedbacks from the CO2 forced warming. This is hard to get correct in a numerical model. This is still an area of active research and it isn’t clear to me that the modeling is sufficiently advanced to be used as a tool for developing public policy.

If we have a “problem”, can we do anything about it? Yes, but it is not what you think. Reducing CO2 emissions to a large degree is not really possible because of developing countries. Migration from impacted areas is probably what will need to be done. This has been common throughout history. Dikes for water control in low lying areas may become more common as sea levels will continue to rise, regardless of the anthropogenic warming perturbation on the natural warming (because we are in an interglacial period).


No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

[Stu from NYC]

Since most of the countries on earth that make up the majority of the earth's surface (Russia, China, India, etc.) do nothing about hydrocarbon emissions and continue to mine for coal, oil, natural gas with abandon, why do we think that bankrupting our country with half measures (wind, solar, and hydro) is going to have any effect on global warming? We buy oil from Russia and other countries, with their out-dated polluting refinery systems, and then ship it to our country in oil tankers that are fueled by oil that can leak into the ocean. We pay money and support the economies of these countries that hate us. To me this is the height of insanity when we can be energy independent and produce our own oil, etc. far more cheaply and efficiently, using refining systems we have worked hard to improve.

So very true and well said

[Two Bills]

Since most of the countries on earth that make up the majority of the earth's surface (Russia, China, India, etc.) do nothing about and continue to mine for coal, oil, natural gas with abandon, why do we think that bankrupting our country with half measures (wind, solar, and hydro) is going to have any effect on global warming? We buy oil from Russia and other countries, with their out-dated polluting refinery systems, and then ship it to our country in oil tankers that are fueled by oil that can leak into the ocean. We pay money and support the economies of these countries that hate us. To me this is the height of insanity when we can be energy independent and produce our own oil, etc. far more cheaply and efficiently, using refining systems we have worked hard to improve.

Top 10 countries for hydrocarbon emissions.
(in million metric tons, 2019 data)

1. China — 9,877.
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

[golfing eagles]

Top 10 countries for hydrocarbon emissions.
(in million metric tons, 2019 data)

1. China — 9,877.
2. United States — 4,745
3. India — 2,310
4. Russia — 1,640
5. Japan — 1,056
6. Germany — 644
7. South Korea — 586
8. Iran — 583
9. Canada — 571
10. Saudi Arabia — 495

Have to wonder how many of those countries report accurately

[chet2020]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.


So your premise is that all hurricanes hit Florida, and therefore listing all hurricanes that have hit Florida is representative of global hurricane activity? Hurricanes that hit Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Cuba, Puerto Rico should not be considered in your argument? The overall severity of hurricanes is increasing. That is a fact.

[golfing eagles]

So your premise is that all hurricanes hit Florida, and therefore listing all hurricanes that have hit Florida is representative of global hurricane activity? Hurricanes that hit Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Cuba, Puerto Rico should not be considered in your argument? The overall severity of hurricanes is increasing. That is a fact.

It is???????? So, we have data on hurricane severity for say the last 5,000 years???? Because it would take that long to have an accurate assessment on a hurricane severity trend----looking at the last 20 years is completely useless.

[JMintzer]

What have you been drinking?:bigbow:

I think it may have been the recent head trauma...

https://c.tenor.com/HdpItgzbI9AAAAAM/head-bang.gif

[Keefelane66]

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.
You are missing an awful lot of hurricanes here's another one
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest, second costliest, and most intense hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed at least 469 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina as a Category 4 hurricane.
Hurricane Gloria was a powerful hurricane that caused significant damage along the east coast of the United States and in Atlantic Canada during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season.
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was a destructive and powerful tropical cyclone that swept across a large portion of the United States East Coast in September 1944
Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille was the second most intense tropical cyclone on record to strike the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
I can go further I listed to Tucker he also said something similar.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Global warming or not, fossil fuel is polluting our air and water.

[MartinSE]

Horror of Horrors!

Global warming or not, fossil fuel is polluting our air and water.

[Two Bills]

Have to wonder how many of those countries report accurately

Probably none of them. Except the USA of course!;)

[Stu from NYC]

Have to wonder how many of those countries report accurately

I am sure we can trust China and Russia to be accurate. As the old saying goes as far as you can throw them

[TrapX]

Science can predict outcomes based on physics, such as Volts = Current * Amps
Science can predict the speed an aircraft will stall based upon aerodynamics.
Science invented math.

For other things that are more complex, science first attempts to understand how things work. Once all variables can be discovered, their behaviors identified and understood, cause and effect relationships are documented, then predictions can be made.
If you have a small set of inputs, then reasonable predictions can be made for the short term.
For large sets of inputs, making short term predictions become more difficult and inaccurate. Longer term predictions compound the collective series of short term predictions. The further out you predict, the worse the confidence will be as it becomes more inaccurate. Soon it becomes a guess because you cannot account for the subtle effects of all the variables over long time spans.
Even one input that is not accurately known, or has random properties, or a false cause/effect correlation, destroys the prediction.

Watch weather forecasts and notice the probability of rain. 40%, 50% or 60% means they have no clue. What is the probability of rain in 4 weeks? 50% LOL.

I've looked at weather estimates made in the spring for the upcoming summer. Simple short term guidance. Those predictions have all been saying it will be a lot hotter than actually happened. That is for one year. They reset the baseline for the next year and repeat. But what happens if that baseline is not reset for 10 years? 10 years of prediction stacked in order predicted this summer would have been been dozens of degrees warmer than it was.

The math is called Model Predictive Control. It's a matrix inversion that relates all inputs to all outputs. Change an input and see what happens to the output. Pick an output you want and see what inputs need to change to get there.
In weather terms, they say the more co2 causes higher temperatures. It's a over-simplification to a single linear cause/effect. Ignoring all other inputs is bad science. What if cloud density begins to increase at a higher level of co2 causing global cooling? What if clearing forests and other vegetation is an input that is being ignored, and things will change from that? Is that ignored because it will reduce the global warming prediction?

Perfectly said "it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom."
Many more than just co2.

The spaghetti models are a perfect example of predicting the future based upon the previous prediction. Each predicts where storms goes in the next few minutes, and then the next, and so on. They were created by scientists who believed their model was right. They all had slight errors that compounded over time. That compounding error is the most serious problem with making long term predictions. We are only seeing how the error effects compound over a few days, not multiple years.


Music is not science. Music is an art that involves creativity, imagination, skills. Oddly, the absolute frequency of musical notes is a completely made up thing. Someone, long ago, picked those note frequencies because they thought it sounded right to them. Humans are raised to think those notes are "correct". That's not science


Two days in advance Tampa was predicted as landfall with the eye going over The Villages. People in Fort Myers were eating ice cream. So much for that prediction. A very tiny change that was shifting trajectory made a huge change in outcome. The models missed that input source. What other tiny element are global warming models missing?

I wish they would stop using every weather event as global warming proof.
Snowstorm = global warming? Heatwave = global warming?
Drought = global warming? Floods = global warming?
Sunny 72deg low humidity = global warming?


So, something isn't perfect enough to predict absolute accuracy and so it doesn't exist or is BS.
WOW.
Please provide us with ANYTHING that sicence can predict absolutely, and I will exclude light switches.
Sigh...
WOW. Just WOW.

TrapX:
Musicians can all perform music. <TRIM> It's called perfect, or absolute pitch, and it's incredibly rare. <TRIM>
The same for weather folks. Being 100% accurate is not a reasonable expectation.
They have graphs and trends and computers and technology to help them figure it out, but the weather will do what the weather does.

<SNIP>Two days in advance, Ian was very well simulated and the landfall was very close. <SNIP> This event had fairly large variations in the results until about 2 days before landfall. Some events are more predictable than others. Numerical Weather Prediction is a difficult problem because it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom.

[golfing eagles]

Horror of Horrors!

Of course, that assumes bankruptcy is "better"

[JMintzer]

You are missing an awful lot of hurricanes here's another one
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest, second costliest, and most intense hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed at least 469 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina as a Category 4 hurricane.
Hurricane Gloria was a powerful hurricane that caused significant damage along the east coast of the United States and in Atlantic Canada during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season.
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was a destructive and powerful tropical cyclone that swept across a large portion of the United States East Coast in September 1944
Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille was the second most intense tropical cyclone on record to strike the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
I can go further I listed to Tucker he also said something similar.

Well, he specifically said he was talking about "Florida" hurricanes... So...

[Steve]

You are missing an awful lot of hurricanes here's another one
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest, second costliest, and most intense hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed at least 469 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina as a Category 4 hurricane.
Hurricane Gloria was a powerful hurricane that caused significant damage along the east coast of the United States and in Atlantic Canada during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season.
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was a destructive and powerful tropical cyclone that swept across a large portion of the United States East Coast in September 1944
Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille was the second most intense tropical cyclone on record to strike the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
I can go further I listed to Tucker he also said something similar.

This isn't my list. It's from WorldAtlas.com. And we're talking about "Florida Hurricanes" specifically. Please keep on point.

[graciegirl]

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

[golfing eagles]

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

Hey! Long time, no see.

[tuccillo]

There is so many incorrect things in his post I don’t even know where to begin so I won’t bother. Sigh ….



Science can predict outcomes based on physics, such as Volts = Current * Amps
Science can predict the speed an aircraft will stall based upon aerodynamics.
Science invented math.

For other things that are more complex, science first attempts to understand how things work. Once all variables can be discovered, their behaviors identified and understood, cause and effect relationships are documented, then predictions can be made.
If you have a small set of inputs, then reasonable predictions can be made for the short term.
For large sets of inputs, making short term predictions become more difficult and inaccurate. Longer term predictions compound the collective series of short term predictions. The further out you predict, the worse the confidence will be as it becomes more inaccurate. Soon it becomes a guess because you cannot account for the subtle effects of all the variables over long time spans.
Even one input that is not accurately known, or has random properties, or a false cause/effect correlation, destroys the prediction.

Watch weather forecasts and notice the probability of rain. 40%, 50% or 60% means they have no clue. What is the probability of rain in 4 weeks? 50% LOL.

I've looked at weather estimates made in the spring for the upcoming summer. Simple short term guidance. Those predictions have all been saying it will be a lot hotter than actually happened. That is for one year. They reset the baseline for the next year and repeat. But what happens if that baseline is not reset for 10 years? 10 years of prediction stacked in order predicted this summer would have been been dozens of degrees warmer than it was.

The math is called Model Predictive Control. It's a matrix inversion that relates all inputs to all outputs. Change an input and see what happens to the output. Pick an output you want and see what inputs need to change to get there.
In weather terms, they say the more co2 causes higher temperatures. It's a over-simplification to a single linear cause/effect. Ignoring all other inputs is bad science. What if cloud density begins to increase at a higher level of co2 causing global cooling? What if clearing forests and other vegetation is an input that is being ignored, and things will change from that? Is that ignored because it will reduce the global warming prediction?

Perfectly said "it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom."
Many more than just co2.

The spaghetti models are a perfect example of predicting the future based upon the previous prediction. Each predicts where storms goes in the next few minutes, and then the next, and so on. They were created by scientists who believed their model was right. They all had slight errors that compounded over time. That compounding error is the most serious problem with making long term predictions. We are only seeing how the error effects compound over a few days, not multiple years.


Music is not science. Music is an art that involves creativity, imagination, skills. Oddly, the absolute frequency of musical notes is a completely made up thing. Someone, long ago, picked those note frequencies because they thought it sounded right to them. Humans are raised to think those notes are "correct". That's not science


Two days in advance Tampa was predicted as landfall with the eye going over The Villages. People in Fort Myers were eating ice cream. So much for that prediction. A very tiny change that was shifting trajectory made a huge change in outcome. The models missed that input source. What other tiny element are global warming models missing?

I wish they would stop using every weather event as global warming proof.
Snowstorm = global warming? Heatwave = global warming?
Drought = global warming? Floods = global warming?
Sunny 72deg low humidity = global warming?

[MartinSE]

Science can predict outcomes based on physics, such as Volts = Current * Amps
Science can predict the speed an aircraft will stall based upon aerodynamics.
Science invented math.

For other things that are more complex, science first attempts to understand how things work. Once all variables can be discovered, their behaviors identified and understood, cause and effect relationships are documented, then predictions can be made.
If you have a small set of inputs, then reasonable predictions can be made for the short term.
For large sets of inputs, making short term predictions become more difficult and inaccurate. Longer term predictions compound the collective series of short term predictions. The further out you predict, the worse the confidence will be as it becomes more inaccurate. Soon it becomes a guess because you cannot account for the subtle effects of all the variables over long time spans.
Even one input that is not accurately known, or has random properties, or a false cause/effect correlation, destroys the prediction.

Watch weather forecasts and notice the probability of rain. 40%, 50% or 60% means they have no clue. What is the probability of rain in 4 weeks? 50% LOL.

I've looked at weather estimates made in the spring for the upcoming summer. Simple short term guidance. Those predictions have all been saying it will be a lot hotter than actually happened. That is for one year. They reset the baseline for the next year and repeat. But what happens if that baseline is not reset for 10 years? 10 years of prediction stacked in order predicted this summer would have been been dozens of degrees warmer than it was.

The math is called Model Predictive Control. It's a matrix inversion that relates all inputs to all outputs. Change an input and see what happens to the output. Pick an output you want and see what inputs need to change to get there.
In weather terms, they say the more co2 causes higher temperatures. It's a over-simplification to a single linear cause/effect. Ignoring all other inputs is bad science. What if cloud density begins to increase at a higher level of co2 causing global cooling? What if clearing forests and other vegetation is an input that is being ignored, and things will change from that? Is that ignored because it will reduce the global warming prediction?

Perfectly said "it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom."
Many more than just co2.

The spaghetti models are a perfect example of predicting the future based upon the previous prediction. Each predicts where storms goes in the next few minutes, and then the next, and so on. They were created by scientists who believed their model was right. They all had slight errors that compounded over time. That compounding error is the most serious problem with making long term predictions. We are only seeing how the error effects compound over a few days, not multiple years.


Music is not science. Music is an art that involves creativity, imagination, skills. Oddly, the absolute frequency of musical notes is a completely made up thing. Someone, long ago, picked those note frequencies because they thought it sounded right to them. Humans are raised to think those notes are "correct". That's not science


Two days in advance Tampa was predicted as landfall with the eye going over The Villages. People in Fort Myers were eating ice cream. So much for that prediction. A very tiny change that was shifting trajectory made a huge change in outcome. The models missed that input source. What other tiny element are global warming models missing?

I wish they would stop using every weather event as global warming proof.
Snowstorm = global warming? Heatwave = global warming?
Drought = global warming? Floods = global warming?
Sunny 72deg low humidity = global warming?

Are you a climatologist? Where do you study and practice?

[MartinSE]

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

Welcome back!!! You were missed!

[Taltarzac725]

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

Good to see you here again.

[MorTech]

The planet has been ice/desert-free for 90% of the last million years. Atmospheric CO2 has almost never been as low as it is today at 400 PPM. Climate change is the cause of my bad breath, however.

[jimjamuser]

"We are changing the earth right now" does apply to the things like Trash Mountains and Highway Litter. However, there is no climate emergency. We are just enhancing our climate with more plant food (CO2) and warming that is so tiny it can not be measured. For those who claim we are heating the planet, please tell me how much man-made CO2 altered earth's temperature last year.
The last 7 years are the hottest on earth.....from records dating back to 1850. 2020 ties with 2016 as the world's hottest year on record. (note see....CBC news reports)

July 2022 was the world's 6th hottest July on record (note see......US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

[Nellmack]

You don't see very much.

I'll answer your questions, though, and I'll be honest about them.

Yes, I drive an EV. While it DID cost more initially, I've saved a BUNDLE on fuel, insurance and maintenance. I honestly can't explain how I managed to save on insurance as most people pay MORE when they replace a 20 year old car with a new, more expensive one. Virtually everything about my car is recyclable. And I'm not worried about the battery dying since I still get almost the same range now as I did 4 1/2 years and 75,000 miles ago. Vehicle maintenance is almost non-existent. I've paid for tires and windshield washer fluid. I'm not lying - even my brakes are like new since my car does regenerative braking with the electric motor. I barely ever need the 'legacy' braking system.

Solar panels? Funny you should mention that. The recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act combined with Putin's war in Ukraine that shot up natural gas prices around the world made solar an option for us. I signed the papers 3 days ago. Even though I use a LOT of electricity (even before I got an EV), I'd signed up for 'green' supplier plans. Combined with the trees on my lot, solar was a no-go. With the events I just mentioned, it just became cost effective. I'll be paying $245/mo on my solar loan for a system that will cover all my usage compared to $250-$535/mo for electricity BEFORE the price hikes that I'm about to see (and pay for until my system goes live - probably in the spring).

This past year, we had an energy audit done and had a lot of work performed on the house with a rebate from the gas company - and our natural gas usage (heat, hot water, oven) has gone down over 30%.

And I don't "condemn" people. Very often, people are using outdated information because, to be honest, things have been changing FAST - and you can't expect everyone to keep up on every development going on in so many places.

So if you're REALLY interested in learning "where we are" today and what's coming next, I'm more than happy to engage in a conversation.

Am I perfect? No. I'd LIKE to be able to replace my natural gas usage even though we just reduced it by quite a chunk - but that's out of the question for now. My electric bill had to take precedence.

I *suspect* your opinion of climate change activists is colored by the lens through which it's presented to you. And if that's all the information you have, then, to be honest, I don't blame you for having your opinion.

Thanks for the intelligent rational response to what appears to be the uninformed climate change attitude. Hey, also thanks for your effort working towards a reduced carbon footprint. Eventually most will gravitate towards your informed mind set. By "Eventually" I mean a long time from now. It's hard to change opinions of folks that are stuck with a that old mind set.

[jimjamuser]

I blame dog poop.
The truth there is that any dog flatulence associated with the dog poop would likely be like cattle flatulence which is known to affect climate change. Methane is a greenhouse gas from animals (mostly cattle) that has 28 times the warming potential as carbon dioxide (CO2). Buy, cows account for just 4% of all greenhouse gas produced by the US. (see.....UC Davis article "Cows and Climate Change).

[golfing eagles]

Thanks for the intelligent rational response to what appears to be the uninformed climate change attitude. Hey, also thanks for your effort working towards a reduced carbon footprint. Eventually most will gravitate towards your informed mind set. By "Eventually" I mean a long time from now. It's hard to change opinions of folks that are stuck with a that old mind set.

Yes, there is "the uninformed climate change attitude".

You hear it from the media, politicians, and socialists every day.

[jimjamuser]

No, that was a drought that would have been weathered were it not for the disastrous farming techniques of the time that stripped the land of it's ability to hold together.

Discoveries made during the Dust Bowl on how to farm land more responsibly are still being used to this day.
I enthusiastically concur with the post.

[fdpaq0580]

The truth there is that any dog flatulence associated with the dog poop would likely be like cattle flatulence which is known to affect climate change. Methane is a greenhouse gas from animals (mostly cattle) that has 28 times the warming potential as carbon dioxide (CO2). Buy, cows account for just 4% of all greenhouse gas produced by the US. (see.....UC Davis article "Cows and Climate Change).

Save the planet. Eat more beef.

[Taltarzac725]

6 Claims Made by Climate Change Skeptics—and How to Respond | Rainforest Alliance (https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/everyday-actions/6-claims-made-by-climate-change-skeptics-and-how-to-respond/?c_src=MDS22VX&c_src2=22vvmmembcpc&creative=435537818866&keyword=climate+change&matchtype=b&network=g&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-LDBloPH-gIVpN-GCh1p-gpbEAAYAiAAEgLsKvD_BwE)

Looks like a good source for information about the facts.

[jimjamuser]

Forget cardiac surgery, I wouldn't want him for my electrician. It's been 45 years, but I believe the equation is V=I*R (Ohm's law), where I is amperage and R is resistance. As far as I remember, current and amps are the same, the latter being a measurement of the former.
True that Amps or Amperage is the unit to measure the I (current in ohms law). Ohms law is easiest understood (by myself) as ...... the current in a circuit (in amps) which is given the symbol ( I ) is equal to the voltage (symbol E for electromotive force) in units named volts divided by the resistance in units of olms ( with a symbol of R)

or.......within a circuit.......I = E / R or in units...... amps = volts / ohms

[Keefelane66]

This isn't my list. It's from WorldAtlas.com. And we're talking about "Florida Hurricanes" specifically. Please keep on point.
If you are going to talk weather you just can't exclude the whole east coast. Weather is generated by the warming of the tropics and steered by the gulf stream

[Stu from NYC]

The last 7 years are the hottest on earth.....from records dating back to 1850. 2020 ties with 2016 as the world's hottest year on record. (note see....CBC news reports)

July 2022 was the world's 6th hottest July on record (note see......US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

I heard that it snowed here on 4/71841.

[benegan66]

In the 1960s and 70s we called it water and air pollution. Pete Seager was sailing up and down the Hudson River to bring the pollution to our attention. Does anyone remember the Ohio river catching fire, love canal. Then someone decided to do something so they and what we used to call “Green Day” and that eventually turned into climate change. The original idea was to clean up the air and water and people decided they could make a lot of money off scaring the crap out of everyone and that today folks is behind the climate hesteria today . Take anyway you want but the air and rivers are cleaner. The rest of it is to make money for someone.

[dougjb]

I've never understood why some people are so intent on denying that climate change is happening as a direct result of human activity. There are less than ten legitimate scientists (real scientists with degrees) worldwide who subscribe to this denial. But, the vast super majority of climate scientologists (real scientists with degrees and experience) are in accord that human activity is causing climate change to a degree that it may not be stopped.

As rational human beings, we can take steps to slow the progress of climate change ... or we can stick our heads in the sand ...which may be the only place that is not subject to climate change.

So why are so many Villagers intent on denying real science? Do they hate their grandchildren so much as to create and leave them an uninhabitable planet?

[golfing eagles]

I've never understood why some people are so intent on denying that climate change is happening as a direct result of human activity. There are less than ten legitimate scientists (real scientists with degrees) worldwide who subscribe to this denial. But, the vast super majority of climate scientologists (real scientists with degrees and experience) are in accord that human activity is causing climate change to a degree that it may not be stopped.

As rational human beings, we can take steps to slow the progress of climate change ... or we can stick our heads in the sand ...which may be the only place that is not subject to climate change.

So why are so many Villagers intent on denying real science? Do they hate their grandchildren so much as to create and leave them an uninhabitable planet?

Less than 10 scientists???? I'm not sure whether that statement is delusional or psychotic

And the planet will be uninhabitable in the lifetime of our grandchildren??? I think I'm leaning toward psychotic.

Please, please tell me that no one with more than 2 functional neurons would ever believe that.

[Taltarzac725]

I've never understood why some people are so intent on denying that climate change is happening as a direct result of human activity. There are less than ten legitimate scientists (real scientists with degrees) worldwide who subscribe to this denial. But, the vast super majority of climate scientologists (real scientists with degrees and experience) are in accord that human activity is causing climate change to a degree that it may not be stopped.

As rational human beings, we can take steps to slow the progress of climate change ... or we can stick our heads in the sand ...which may be the only place that is not subject to climate change.

So why are so many Villagers intent on denying real science? Do they hate their grandchildren so much as to create and leave them an uninhabitable planet?

Well said, or written.

[JMintzer]

The last 7 years are the hottest on earth.....from records dating back to 1850. 2020 ties with 2016 as the world's hottest year on record. (note see....CBC news reports)

July 2022 was the world's 6th hottest July on record (note see......US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Nice non-sequitur... 7 years means nothing in the scheme of things...

[JMintzer]

6 Claims Made by Climate Change Skeptics—and How to Respond | Rainforest Alliance (https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/everyday-actions/6-claims-made-by-climate-change-skeptics-and-how-to-respond/?c_src=MDS22VX&c_src2=22vvmmembcpc&creative=435537818866&keyword=climate+change&matchtype=b&network=g&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-LDBloPH-gIVpN-GCh1p-gpbEAAYAiAAEgLsKvD_BwE)

Looks like a good source for information about the facts.

Yeah, they are completely unbiased...

The very first sentence of the article states: "It’s hard to believe, but apparently more than a few climate-deniers still roam our ever-heating planet." :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

Well said, or written.

Which part?? The delusional part or the psychotic part? My friend, please read again the nonsense that you seem to have agreed with.
You can't possibly concur that out of millions of scientists, only 10 are "deniers" Neither can you believe that the world will be uninhabitable within this century

[benj]

Good thing there was global warming in New York or it would still be under 2 miles of ice.

[golfing eagles]

Good thing there was global warming in New York or it would still be under 2 miles of ice.

Yep. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble both owned gas guzzlers :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

Yep. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble both owned gas guzzlers :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl:

Yabba-Dabba-Diesel!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Forget cardiac surgery, I wouldn't want him for my electrician. It's been 45 years, but I believe the equation is V=I*R (Ohm's law), where I is amperage and R is resistance. As far as I remember, current and amps are the same, the latter being a measurement of the former.

Also, music is mathematics. Which he states is science. Here's mathematics:

IF [music = mathematics]
ANDIF [mathematics = science]
THEN [music = science]

[fdpaq0580]

I've never understood why some people are so intent on denying that climate change is happening as a direct result of human activity. There are less than ten legitimate scientists (real scientists with degrees) worldwide who subscribe to this denial. But, the vast super majority of climate scientologists (real scientists with degrees and experience) are in accord that human activity is causing climate change to a degree that it may not be stopped.

As rational human beings, we can take steps to slow the progress of climate change ... or we can stick our heads in the sand ...which may be the only place that is not subject to climate change.

So why are so many Villagers intent on denying real science? Do they hate their grandchildren so much as to create and leave them an uninhabitable planet?

The thought that billions of humans and their industry could actually effect the planet goes against their politics and/or religion. They turn to their chosen religious or political icons who pander to them, telling them what they want to hear, how smart they are and good they are and not to believe the global conspiracy. Accept the truth? They really can't handle the truth. They, in some cases, hope they will be dead before they are forced to acknowledge they were wrong.
Or, they really do hate their grand children that much.
🌎☀🌋🌑

[TrapX]

When your electric car can drive across country without days of delay charging...
When battery technology improves so that it doesn't create immense amounts of pollution to produce them, or dispose of them... When the energy needed to acquire the raw materials, then build, and finally retire, a windmill (or solar panel) is finally less than what it produces...
When the power grid can handle charging cars without fear of blackouts...
When the electric grid no longer needs coal powered power plants...
When the payback for a solar system is viable without other taxpayer's money...
When all solar systems can cope with weeks of continuous snow, clouds, and storms and still work 100% off grid...
When you live without petroleum related products like road asphalt (back to dirt roads), plastics, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, window screens, vinyl (siding, windows, soffit vents), roof shingles...
When you no longer need commercial farms for food planted and harvested with diesel tractors (and everybody is self sufficient with chickens, cows, and farms in their back yard) (apartments and cities suddenly don't get food from closed farms) and you have the time to tend to all that stuff...
When you throw out your gas stove, propane grill, backup generator, furnace, diesel construction machines (crane, backhoe, grader, plow, cement truck, dump truck)...
When you never again can have cataract surgery using replacement plastic lens, or get an IV delivered via a plastic line, or an injection from a plastic syringe...
When you can buy a cell phone, appliances, furniture, TVs, and nearly ever other device that is housed in a plastic case or has internal plastic parts...
When you have a viable alternative to tractor trailers, railroad engines, cargo ships...
When the cost for any of these alternatives is lower than today...

THEN come talk to me about how your "solutions" effect life in future centuries, and be sure to cover how life would be so much better and affordable right away... should fossil fuels get banned in the name of climate change.

[golfing eagles]

The thought that billions of humans and their industry could actually effect the planet goes against their politics and/or religion. They turn to their chosen religious or political icons who pander to them, telling them what they want to hear, how smart they are and good they are and not to believe the global conspiracy. Accept the truth? They really can't handle the truth. They, in some cases, hope they will be dead before they are forced to acknowledge they were wrong.
Or, they really do hate their grand children that much.
🌎☀🌋🌑

Absolutely agree. They cannot handle the truth that global warming has nothing to do with human activity. And they hate their grandchildren so much that they want to bankrupt the world combatting a myth.

[justjim]

I've never understood why some people are so intent on denying that climate change is happening as a direct result of human activity. There are less than ten legitimate scientists (real scientists with degrees) worldwide who subscribe to this denial. But, the vast super majority of climate scientologists (real scientists with degrees and experience) are in accord that human activity is causing climate change to a degree that it may not be stopped.

As rational human beings, we can take steps to slow the progress of climate change ... or we can stick our heads in the sand ...which may be the only place that is not subject to climate change.

So why are so many Villagers intent on denying real science? Do they hate their grandchildren so much as to create and leave them an uninhabitable planet?

Sometimes you just have to let people be wrong. You know as well as I, we have some so called cable tv personalities who say things to get attention and ratings who I’m convinced don’t believe their own words themselves. Finally, the World Wide Web is both a blessing and curse at the same time. One way to handle all the information available on climate changes is to research several credible “sites” (not just one or two) and use facts not opinions to draw your own conclusions. Finally, leave politics out of your findings and conclusions. It’s the latter that is the most difficult to accomplish.

[JMintzer]

Absolutely agree. They cannot handle the truth that global warming has nothing to do with human activity. And they hate their grandchildren so much that they want to bankrupt the world combatting a myth.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/5gw0VWGbgNm8w/giphy.gif

[nick demis]

Simple answer, I don't give a damn.

[chet2020]

It is???????? So, we have data on hurricane severity for say the last 5,000 years???? Because it would take that long to have an accurate assessment on a hurricane severity trend----looking at the last 20 years is completely useless.

We have reasonably good data going back to 1950. Of course data can be interpreted differently, but the link below is NASA's interpretation. Summary statement from paper:

In Brief:
Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense.

A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/)

[golfing eagles]

We have reasonably good data going back to 1950. Of course data can be interpreted differently, but the link below is NASA's interpretation. Summary statement from paper:

In Brief:
Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense.

A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/)

My bad. 70 years out of the last 100,000 is much, much more valuable than 20 years :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Steve]

We have reasonably good data going back to 1950. Of course data can be interpreted differently, but the link below is NASA's interpretation. Summary statement from paper:

In Brief:
Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense.

A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/)

But keep in mind, according to NASA's own study which was completed in 2000 but just recently released, human activity is NOT the cause of "Global Warming". According to NASA, the Earth's axis is shifting slightly AND the Earth's path around the sun is getting closer to the sun. Carbon emissions, according to NASA, are not the cause of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

[golfing eagles]

But keep in mind, according to NASA's own study which was completed in 2000 but just recently released, human activity is NOT the cause of "Global Warming". According to NASA, the Earth's axis is shifting slightly AND the Earth's path around the sun is getting closer to the sun. Carbon emissions, according to NASA, are not the cause of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

Once again, please don't confuse anyone with the FACTS.

[Taltarzac725]

Fact Check-NASA did not announce that climate change is only driven by variations to Earth’s orbital position relative to the sun | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-nasa-climate/fact-check-nasa-did-not-announce-that-climate-change-is-only-driven-by-variations-to-earths-orbital-position-relative-to-the-sun-idUSL1N2YO23I)

That NASA report looks like a myth.

[golfing eagles]

Fact Check-NASA did not announce that climate change is only driven by variations to Earth’s orbital position relative to the sun | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-nasa-climate/fact-check-nasa-did-not-announce-that-climate-change-is-only-driven-by-variations-to-earths-orbital-position-relative-to-the-sun-idUSL1N2YO23I)

That NASA report looks like a myth.

Perhaps. Or perhaps their current back peddling is a myth.

Let's see-----why would an agency pretty much totally funded by the US government now want to express a position that mimics the current agenda??? Think hard, just why might they do that?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

But keep in mind, according to NASA's own study which was completed in 2000 but just recently released, human activity is NOT the cause of "Global Warming". According to NASA, the Earth's axis is shifting slightly AND the Earth's path around the sun is getting closer to the sun. Carbon emissions, according to NASA, are not the cause of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

Does anyone have a link to this study and not a NASA climate page with a lot of information? I'm interested in a link to a study completed in 2000 but just recently released.

[JMintzer]

We have reasonably good data going back to 1950. Of course data can be interpreted differently, but the link below is NASA's interpretation. Summary statement from paper:

In Brief:
Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense.

A Force of Nature: Hurricanes in a Changing Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3184/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/)

"Likely"...

[tvbound]

But keep in mind, according to NASA's own study which was completed in 2000 but just recently released, human activity is NOT the cause of "Global Warming". According to NASA, the Earth's axis is shifting slightly AND the Earth's path around the sun is getting closer to the sun. Carbon emissions, according to NASA, are not the cause of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

You might want to actually fact check that (with legitimate sources), as NASA said/inferred/alluded to - absolutely no such thing.

[tvbound]

Does anyone have a link to this study and not a NASA climate page with a lot of information? I'm interested in a link to a study completed in 2000 but just recently released.

No, NASA did not admit that changes in Earth’s solar orbit, not human activity, is causing climate change | Fact Check (https://factcheck.afp.com/no-nasa-did-not-admit-changes-earths-solar-orbit-not-human-activity-causing-climate-change)


"The false article includes graphs from a NASA publication from the year 2000 as purported proof that variations in shape and angles of the Earth’s orbit over thousands of years, as explained by the Milankovitch theory, alone explain the warming trends.

At no point does the NASA publication used by the authors of the viral article deny that humans have an influence over climate change. There is scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, including reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts."

[B-flat]

The elites don't want to save the climate, they want to save the world for themselves and eventually kill off the common man.

[tvbound]

Perhaps. Or perhaps their current back peddling is a myth.

Let's see-----why would an agency pretty much totally funded by the US government now want to express a position that mimics the current agenda??? Think hard, just why might they do that?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Oh the naiveté (purposeful deceit?) it takes, to think those whose wealth is predicated on fossil fuels have less incentive to lie/have an agenda - than those making comparatively low government wages. I mean...really?

[golfing eagles]

Oh the naiveté (purposeful deceit?) it takes, to think those whose wealth is predicated on fossil fuels have less incentive to lie/have an agenda - than those making comparatively low government wages. I mean...really?

Low government wages? Like Elon Musk? Price out a Tesla lately???😂😂😂

[golfing eagles]

No, NASA did not admit that changes in Earth’s solar orbit, not human activity, is causing climate change | Fact Check (https://factcheck.afp.com/no-nasa-did-not-admit-changes-earths-solar-orbit-not-human-activity-causing-climate-change)


"The false article includes graphs from a NASA publication from the year 2000 as purported proof that variations in shape and angles of the Earth’s orbit over thousands of years, as explained by the Milankovitch theory, alone explain the warming trends.

At no point does the NASA publication used by the authors of the viral article deny that humans have an influence over climate change. There is scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, including reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts."

I’d love to see the original article from 20 years ago. Of course, at that time not everything was posted on the internet. So if this paper is such a myth, why is NASA only denying it now? Could the political winds (ie: their funding) have something to do with it???

[Bill14564]

I’d love to see the original article from 20 years ago. Of course, at that time not everything was posted on the internet. So if this paper is such a myth, why is NASA only denying it now? Could the political winds (ie: their funding) have something to do with it???

That particular factcheck is from 2019. The original "article" is linked and doesn't make any claims at all about man's influence on climate.

Seems like a case of confirmation bias that is repeating for at least the second time.

[golfing eagles]

That particular factcheck is from 2019. The original "article" is linked and doesn't make any claims at all about man's influence on climate.

Seems like a case of confirmation bias that is repeating for at least the second time.

And there's no way that "original" article that was linked could have been "edited"???
Tens of billions in funding---people have killed for less.

And if it didn't "make any claims at all about man's influence on climate", that kind of speaks for itself.

[Bill14564]

And there's no way that "original" article that was linked could have been "edited"???
Tens of billions in funding---people have killed for less.

And if it didn't "make any claims at all about man's influence on climate", that kind of speaks for itself.

Are you being serious? The conspiracies you are implying rival those dreamed up for the pandemic and the vaccinations! What's next, should we all start doing our own research?

[golfing eagles]

Are you being serious? The conspiracies you are implying rival those dreamed up for the pandemic and the vaccinations! What's next, should we all start doing our own research?

Yes, I was being intentionally obtuse. Yet consider how many people were convinced that a certain person "colluded" with a certain government to influence a certain election.

[fdpaq0580]

Low government wages? Like Elon Musk? Price out a Tesla lately???😂😂😂

Low government wages? I always thought the government paid fairly well, benefits and nearly unfireable.
Elon Musk? Thought he was an entrepreneur, not a government employee.
Price a Tesla? No need. My little Hyundai works just fine. Besides, I don't think I could afford a new Tesla.
But, what do I know? (rhetorical questio. No need to answer and hurt my little feelings.)
😝

[tvbound]

Are you being serious? The conspiracies you are implying rival those dreamed up for the pandemic and the vaccinations! What's next, should we all start doing our own research?

"Are you being serious?"


No kidding!

Even these days when I think I can't be any more amazed at the craziness/lying/gullibility/hypocrisy/Etc. that currently exists, along comes something like that showing me the bottom - hasn't even been close to being reached yet. lol

[tvbound]

Low government wages? I always thought the government paid fairly well, benefits and nearly unfireable.
Elon Musk? Thought he was an entrepreneur, not a government employee.
Price a Tesla? No need. My little Hyundai works just fine. Besides, I don't think I could afford a new Tesla.
But, what do I know? (rhetorical questio. No need to answer and hurt my little feelings.)
😝

"Low government wages? I always thought the government paid fairly well benefits and nearly unfireable."


That's why I said "comparatively." The comparison being in response to the assertion made regarding an "agenda" (please reread posts made prior to mine) between government scientists/agencies and oil company executives/other wealthy stakeholders in fossil fuel sales/production. I am comfortable sticking with what I see as a very valid comparison of whom has the larger incentive.

[coffeebean]

Great Hurricane of 1780, it is among the deadliest storms ever recorded 20,000 dead. In today number that would be over 100,000 due to increased population.

I don't think the word "evacuate" was in the dictionary back then. What I'm getting at is..........It was a totally different time and they did not have the technology we have today to track storms and warn the population who is in the path of the storm. Like comparing apples to oranges.

[JMintzer]

Low government wages? I always thought the government paid fairly well, benefits and nearly unfireable.
Elon Musk? Thought he was an entrepreneur, not a government employee.
Price a Tesla? No need. My little Hyundai works just fine. Besides, I don't think I could afford a new Tesla.
But, what do I know? (rhetorical questio. No need to answer and hurt my little feelings.)
😝

https://media2.giphy.com/media/13f5iwTRuiEjjW/200.gif

:D:thumbup::1rotfl:

[fdpaq0580]

"Low government wages? I always thought the government paid fairly well benefits and nearly unfireable."


That's why I said "comparatively." The comparison being in response to the assertion made regarding an "agenda" (please reread posts made prior to mine) between government scientists/agencies and oil company executives/other wealthy stakeholders in fossil fuel sales/production. I am comfortable sticking with what I see as a very valid comparison of whom has the larger incentive.

For your piece of mind, I did go back and re-read your post in conjunction with the posts you were responding to. I can see why you failed to see I was simply being facetious and having fun with the post I responded to and taking it out of context. You, along with others, are debating a serious subject. Enjoy the debate, by all means, but remember this is TOTV and it is unlikely that any minds or opinions will be changed. Don't let debates here raise your BP.

[fdpaq0580]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/13f5iwTRuiEjjW/200.gif

:D:thumbup::1rotfl:



Sorry, you lost me on this one. Who is Jon Snow? Is he am amnesiac and doesn't know or remember anything? Or is the woman making reference to his lack of sexual prowess? 😶

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Sorry, you lost me on this one. Who is Jon Snow? Is he am amnesiac and doesn't know or remember anything? Or is the woman making reference to his lack of sexual prowess? 😶

The .gif is called a meme. The specific .gif is a snippet of a scene from Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is/was a fantasy series, based on a book by George R. R. Martin of the same name.

The .gif is appropriately used to inject a touch of sarcastic, wry humor into the thread. The appropriate response would be to nod with a slight smirk on the corner of your lips.

[Taltarzac725]

Sorry, you lost me on this one. Who is Jon Snow? Is he am amnesiac and doesn't know or remember anything? Or is the woman making reference to his lack of sexual prowess? ������

The actors married in real life. The ones that played Jon Snow and his captor, Ygritte.

[tvbound]

For your piece of mind, I did go back and re-read your post in conjunction with the posts you were responding to. I can see why you failed to see I was simply being facetious and having fun with the post I responded to and taking it out of context. You, along with others, are debating a serious subject. Enjoy the debate, by all means, but remember this is TOTV and it is unlikely that any minds or opinions will be changed. Don't let debates here raise your BP.

Gotcha, kewl and you're probably correct on changing any opinions. However, I've personally had my opinion changed when someone provided legitimate/verifiable facts and a good argument on why my initial viewpoint/opinion was incorrect/incomplete, so I keep hoping there might be others like that out there. I also appreciate, and is the reason I tried not to come across snarky, on the even-keeled way you wrote your post - so thanks for that. Take care, good luck and I definitely don't let some of the crazies/myopic/cult-driven here...raise my BP. lol

[tvbound]

P.S. For those who are truly open-minded, I challenge you to watch the Netflix documentary "Chasing Coral" and then honestly say afterward, that you weren't emotionally affected or are not now - very concerned about climate change.

[Taltarzac725]

The actors married in real life. The ones that played Jon Snow and his captor, Ygritte. Both of the actors also have real life connections to UK royalty and/history.

P.S. For those who are truly open-minded, I challenge you to watch the Netflix documentary "Chasing Coral" and then honestly say afterward, that you weren't emotionally affected or are not now - very concerned about climate change.

I had heard that a lot of the coral reefs are dying.

[tvbound]

Both of the actors also have real life connections to UK royalty and/history.

I had heard that a lot of the coral reefs are dying.

"I had heard that a lot of the coral reefs are dying."



If you have Netflix, you really need to watch it. It's not just that they're dying, it is the astounding breadth and speed at which it is happening and how they are so important to the overall ecosystem.

And yes, I'm sure there will be the usual suspects who will comment that they weren't emotionally affected by the scientific documentary and/or think there is nothing we can do about it anyway.

In fact, I have a mental list of those that I would bet will say exactly such - so I do hope they don't disappoint. LOL

[Love2Swim]

I don't think the word "evacuate" was in the dictionary back then. What I'm getting at is..........It was a totally different time and they did not have the technology we have today to track storms and warn the population who is in the path of the storm. Like comparing apples to oranges.

Exactly. Not a valid comparison. In today's world, we have so much advance warning, and the ability to communicate to the public the need to evacuate. We have automobiles that move faster than horseback, and planes/trains, etc. to move people more quickly as well. At that time, it was probably all word of mouth, at the last minute, when it was too late.

[Stu from NYC]

Well, let's not disappoint you.

After all, if it's on Netflix, it must be true :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

PS: Don't look up, the sky is falling

60 minutes had a story on it a few weeks ago and seem to be on the level but not an ecoscientist so not entirely sure if they were totally objective in this case.

[fdpaq0580]

The .gif is called a meme. The specific .gif is a snippet of a scene from Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is/was a fantasy series, based on a book by George R. R. Martin of the same name.

The .gif is appropriately used to inject a touch of sarcastic, wry humor into the thread. The appropriate response would be to nod with a slight smirk on the corner of your lips.

I am not familiar with Game of Thrones. That is why I missed the humour. Thanks for the info.

[golfing eagles]

60 minutes had a story on it a few weeks ago and seem to be on the level but not an ecoscientist so not entirely sure if they were totally objective in this case.

Didn't see it so maybe it's true. And IF true, is it due to "climate change"? And IF due to climate change, is that due to human activity????

Since it was posted that the show elicited "an emotional response", I would speculate that it was definitely less than "objective", putting it more in the realm of propaganda, even if the core of the story is true.

[chet2020]

But keep in mind, according to NASA's own study which was completed in 2000 but just recently released, human activity is NOT the cause of "Global Warming". According to NASA, the Earth's axis is shifting slightly AND the Earth's path around the sun is getting closer to the sun. Carbon emissions, according to NASA, are not the cause of "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

NASA did not say this. Link below. The post you are referring to regarding Milankovitch cycles was debunked. Link below.

NASA Summary:

The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth, but human-made emissions in the atmosphere are trapping and slowing heat loss to space.

Five key greenhouse gases are CO2, nitrous oxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor.

While the Sun has played a role in past climate changes, the evidence shows the current warming cannot be explained by the Sun.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

Fact check: NASA did not ‘admit man-made climate change is a hoax’ | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-nasa-climate-change/fact-check-nasa-did-not-admit-man-made-climate-change-is-a-hoax-idUSKBN2AI2KX)

[sounding]

Stratospheric ozone is created by the summer sun, then it disappears during the winter when there is no sun at the poles. This cycle has been going on for millions of years. CFCs were never proven to affect stratospheric ozone, just like DDT was never proven to cause cancer, just like "man-made" CO2 was never proven to alter our climate, just like it has never been proven that witches caused the little ice age -- even though the little ice age ended after the successful killing of over 50,000 witches. Human ignorance is boundless.

[golfing eagles]

Stratospheric ozone is created by the summer sun, then it disappears during the winter when there is no sun at the poles. This cycle has been going on for millions of years. CFCs were never proven to affect stratospheric ozone, just like DDT was never proven to cause cancer, just like "man-made" CO2 was never proven to alter our climate, just like it has never been proven that witches caused the little ice age -- even though the little ice age ended after the successful killing of over 50,000 witches. Human ignorance is boundless.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just like blaming the current cycle of global warming (just one of dozens in the last 4 million years) on human activity

PS: For those whose Latin is rusty, it means "after this therefore because of this", and is the motto of all those with faulty cause-effect reasoning. Translation, just as the little ice age ended during the killing of 50,000 witches, there are those who blame cyclical global warming on the CO2 being released into the air. Neither has anything to do with the other. Funny thing----atmospheric levels of CO2 haven't really changed all that much, and are not even at a high of the last 100 years.

[sounding]

The mining of lithium and rare earth minerals is doing what to the earth? And why are we burying old wind turbine blades in the ground -- are they fertilizer?

[golfing eagles]

The mining of lithium and rare earth minerals is doing what to the earth? And why are we burying old wind turbine blades in the ground -- are they fertilizer?

No, but what comes out of the mouths of those advocating for it is definitely fertilizer :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Stu from NYC]

Stratospheric ozone is created by the summer sun, then it disappears during the winter when there is no sun at the poles. This cycle has been going on for millions of years. CFCs were never proven to affect stratospheric ozone, just like DDT was never proven to cause cancer, just like "man-made" CO2 was never proven to alter our climate, just like it has never been proven that witches caused the little ice age -- even though the little ice age ended after the successful killing of over 50,000 witches. Human ignorance is boundless.

50,000 were killed wow

[fdpaq0580]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
9

Non omens qui coronas Reyes.
Not everyone is fluent in latin. Using it to give one the air of superiority does not mean one is actually superior.

[golfing eagles]

9

Non omens qui coronas Reyes.
Not everyone is fluent in latin. Using it to give one the air of superiority does not mean one is actually superior.

Hence the translation. If I wanted to act superior I would have just left it as is and not translate. If I wanted to act superior, I could have just strung together a bunch of 8 syllable words. I did neither.

[fdpaq0580]

Since it was posted that the show elicited "an emotional response", I would speculate that it was definitely less than "objective", putting it more in the realm of propaganda, even if the core of the story is true.

You think objective information cannot be presented in a way that elicits emotion? Human beings are emotional creatures. Some more than others. I have often looked up at the night sky and felt a welling of emotion. I have hung over the edge of a reef and looked into the abyss and felt moved. It is not a brand new story that the reefs are dying, but it is getting more publicly. It is also known that human waste and pollution are a factor.

[golfing eagles]

You think objective information cannot be presented in a way that elicits emotion? Human beings are emotional creatures. Some more than others. I have often looked up at the night sky and felt a welling of emotion. I have hung over the edge of a reef and looked into the abyss and felt moved.

I think objective information can be presented and manipulated in such a way as to elicit the emotional response that the producer wants. I don't think anyone can deny that statement

[fdpaq0580]

It makes people sound intelligent even though 37% of the people stringing together latin words have no idea what the words mean.:BigApplause:

Sorry. Non omens qui coronal Reyes = not all who wear crowns are kings.
It was my way of pointing out the not everyone who sounds like they know what they are talking about actually do.

[jimjamuser]

The elites don't want to save the climate, they want to save the world for themselves and eventually kill off the common man.
Somehow there are some questions. Since there are thousands of the "common man" for every one of the "elites" how could that 99% of the world's people be killed off? Would the elites go on TV and say "common man" would you please kill yourself? And then without the "common man" around anymore, who would cut the "elites" grass and work in restaurants? The elites would have problems starting a lawnmower and they might put the gas where the oil goes. Inquiring minds see a conundrum here!

[fdpaq0580]

I think objective information can be presented and manipulated in such a way as to elicit the emotional response that the producer wants. I don't think anyone can deny that statement

"Can" is the word here that is the tripping point.
"Can be presented and manipulated" I agree with. The question is, was it? Maybe, maybe not.
"I don't think anyone Can deny that statement". Can deny any statement, correct or not. For example, next two statements.
1. Climate change is affected by human activities.
2. Climate change is not affected by human activities.
You Can choose to deny one, two, both or neither.
Personally, I believe that statement 1 is correct, so I deny statement 2.

[fdpaq0580]

Somehow there are some questions. Since there are thousands of the "common man" for every one of the "elites" how could that 99% of the world's people be killed off? Would the elites go on TV and say "common man" would you please kill yourself? And then without the "common man" around anymore, who would cut the "elites" grass and work in restaurants? The elites would have problems starting a lawnmower and they might put the gas where the oil goes. Inquiring minds see a conundrum here!

Robots?

[jimjamuser]

You think objective information cannot be presented in a way that elicits emotion? Human beings are emotional creatures. Some more than others. I have often looked up at the night sky and felt a welling of emotion. I have hung over the edge of a reef and looked into the abyss and felt moved. It is not a brand new story that the reefs are dying, but it is getting more publicly. It is also known that human waste and pollution are a factor.
Climate change affects coral reefs and coral reefs affect climate change. Healthy reefs can keep the systems in balance. The problem is that the reefs have become unhealthy probably starting about 1950 and getting worse in the last 20 years. A quote from NASA......."Coral reef ecosystems play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity and are valuable as a source of food and MEDICAL advances". The world's coral reefs could decrease by 70 to 90% by 2050.
...... Today 90% of new coral growth in Australia's great barrier reef has collapsed mainly due to RISING OCEAN TEMPERATURES and increased acidity in the water (thus the term whitening or bleaching of the coral). Other causes are pollution, poor water quality, overfishing, and unsustainable coastal development (recently demonstrated by the Fort Meyers area and nearby barrier islands).
........Trees and plants absorb 25% of the world's CO2 - the rest is absorbed by the ocean. 25% of all sea organisms live
on coral reefs. People produce EXCESS CO2 by burning fossil fuel which leads to the bleaching and destruction of the coral reefs. The end product of this cycle would lead to the world's oceans being barren of FISH - thus a HUGE protein source is eliminated, which could ultimately lead to massive hunger and violence, and wars. Right now China has massive fishing fleets OVERFISHING all the oceans.

The bottom line is that coral reef destruction may NOT seem like any big deal to many people today, but as the earth and nature's forces go unbalanced - humanity becomes threatened .........by humanity itself!

[PugMom]

You think objective information cannot be presented in a way that elicits emotion? Human beings are emotional creatures. Some more than others. I have often looked up at the night sky and felt a welling of emotion. I have hung over the edge of a reef and looked into the abyss and felt moved. It is not a brand new story that the reefs are dying, but it is getting more publicly. It is also known that human waste and pollution are a factor.

somebody once told me it was chemicals from sunscreen that were contributing to the die off. makes me wonder what it does to my skin

[Stu from NYC]

somebody once told me it was chemicals from sunscreen that were contributing to the die off. makes me wonder what it does to my skin

Well they all say it helps prevent skin cancer.

[fdpaq0580]

Climate change affects coral reefs and coral reefs affect climate change. Healthy reefs can keep the systems in balance. The problem is that the reefs have become unhealthy probably starting about 1950 and getting worse in the last 20 years. A quote from NASA......."Coral reef ecosystems play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity and are valuable as a source of food and MEDICAL advances". The world's coral reefs could decrease by 70 to 90% by 2050.
...... Today 90% of new coral growth in Australia's great barrier reef has collapsed mainly due to RISING OCEAN TEMPERATURES and increased acidity in the water (thus the term whitening or bleaching of the coral). Other causes are pollution, poor water quality, overfishing, and unsustainable coastal development (recently demonstrated by the Fort Meyers area and nearby barrier islands).
........Trees and plants absorb 25% of the world's CO2 - the rest is absorbed by the ocean. 25% of all sea organisms live
on coral reefs. People produce EXCESS CO2 by burning fossil fuel which leads to the bleaching and destruction of the coral reefs. The end product of this cycle would lead to the world's oceans being barren of FISH - thus a HUGE protein source is eliminated, which could ultimately lead to massive hunger and violence, and wars. Right now China has massive fishing fleets OVERFISHING all the oceans.

The bottom line is that coral reef destruction may NOT seem like any big deal to many people today, but as the earth and nature's forces go unbalanced - humanity becomes threatened .........by humanity itself!

🙏BRAVO!!! On the money.

[barlfair]

What if we save the environment and turns out global warming is a hoax?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

somebody once told me it was chemicals from sunscreen that were contributing to the die off. makes me wonder what it does to my skin

It wasn't "somebody" who "once told me" that. Maui County in Hawaii has a ban that became affective October 1, on non-mineral sunscreens. It's illegal to buy, sell, or use them in Maui. Most of the resorts and retail businesses were 100% on board with the ban and had already transitioned before October 1. You can use titanium or zinc oxide sunscreens, and some of the beaches even have sunblock dispensers on boxes, similarly to how we have sanitizing gel dispensers in supermarket lobbies and doctors' offices now.

They had conducted several studies and it was proven that non-mineral sunscreen was absolutely contributing to the decay of the reefs, which was causing significant damage to the ecosystem. Plankton die, fish die, marine mammals die, birds die, people die. There are other causes of damage, including speedboats and other boat engines, general pollution, toxic waste dumping - in short, humans. We humans just can't leave well enough alone. If it's green, we need to chop it down. If it's a blue ocean, we need to pollute it. If it's ice, we must melt it. We are a destructive species.

[fdpaq0580]

What if we save the environment and turns out global warming is a hoax?

What if it is the the truth? Are you willing to risk it? People without kids or grand kids have little stake in the game. But those who do have children and grand children are gambling their future generations lives on this.

[fdpaq0580]

It wasn't "somebody" who "once told me" that. Maui County in Hawaii has a ban that became affective October 1, on non-mineral sunscreens. It's illegal to buy, sell, or use them in Maui. Most of the resorts and retail businesses were 100% on board with the ban and had already transitioned before October 1. You can use titanium or zinc oxide sunscreens, and some of the beaches even have sunblock dispensers on boxes, similarly to how we have sanitizing gel dispensers in supermarket lobbies and doctors' offices now.

They had conducted several studies and it was proven that non-mineral sunscreen was absolutely contributing to the decay of the reefs, which was causing significant damage to the ecosystem. Plankton die, fish die, marine mammals die, birds die, people die. There are other causes of damage, including speedboats and other boat engines, general pollution, toxic waste dumping - in short, humans. We humans just can't leave well enough alone. If it's green, we need to chop it down. If it's a blue ocean, we need to pollute it. If it's ice, we must melt it. We are a destructive species.

Good to hear/see people speaking out for Mother Earth and for the longevity of our species.

[Dusty_Star]

Well, 1/2 correct

The current ice age began about 4 million years ago, the dinosaurs disappeared about 60-65 million years ago, so no, the current ice age did not kill off the dinos. Whether it was nuclear winter after an asteroid collision or just the 10-degree cooling of the planet after the rise of the Rocky Mountains and Himalayan Plateau is debatable.

The "current global warming" began approximately 20,000 years ago after the peak of the last period of glaciation, and therefore IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY. I'm still at a loss to understand why some people have difficulty with that concept. It's simple---20,000 years of global warming with only about 130 years of internal combustion engines---DOH! Yep, let's all go out and buy an EV. And yet those true believers call those of us who understand astrophysics and paleoclimatology "deniers". Actually, it's just about the highest compliment that we can be paid. To them all I can say is that I am also a "Santa Claus denier", an "Easter Bunny denier" and a "Tooth Fairy denier", but I am happy for those that wrap themselves in the belief of those fantasies as well.

:BigApplause:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The elites don't want to save the climate, they want to save the world for themselves and eventually kill off the common man.

But who would be left to SERVE them, if they kill off the commoners?

Who would clean their toilets, chauffeur them around in their limos, cook and serve their tea and crumpets, polish their silver, bring their trash to the city dump, etc. etc. etc.

No, they need the common man. In fact, the elite wouldn't be capable of survival if the common man were eradicated. No one ever taught them how to be of any practical use. They need us plebians to do everything for them or they'd perish.

[golfing eagles]

But who would be left to SERVE them, if they kill off the commoners?

Who would clean their toilets, chauffeur them around in their limos, cook and serve their tea and crumpets, polish their silver, bring their trash to the city dump, etc. etc. etc.

No, they need the common man. In fact, the elite wouldn't be capable of survival if the common man were eradicated. No one ever taught them how to be of any practical use. They need us plebians to do everything for them or they'd perish.

True, but they don't need 7 billion of us.

Read the Georgia Guidestones---the first rule is "reduce the world's population to 500 million".
Who erected those megaliths? Nobody knows---possibly the freemasons, possibly the Bilderberg group or maybe just some eccentric millionaire. The reality is that there are those, usually old money, that actually resent the rest of us for "eating their food, drinking their water and breathing their air"

[fdpaq0580]

They are turbine blade "seeds"...

That's how they get new ones! :loco:

Doesn't work for batteries. I planted some batteries under my palm tree a while back. No new batteries, but the tree lights up when it gets dark. Go figure.😠

[sounding]

That is only true if you believe in altered and fabricated data ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-K_tadveI

[MartinSE]

True, but they don't need 7 billion of us.

Read the Georgia Guidestones---the first rule is "reduce the world's population to 500 million".
Who erected those megaliths? Nobody knows---possibly the freemasons, possibly the Bilderberg group or maybe just some eccentric millionaire. The reality is that there are those, usually old money, that actually resent the rest of us for "eating their food, drinking their water and breathing their air"

Not that I agree with them, but you sound like you believe in the cancel culture.

[fdpaq0580]

True, but they don't need 7 billion of us.

Read the Georgia Guidestones---the first rule is "reduce the world's population to 500 million".
Who erected those megaliths? Nobody knows---possibly the freemasons, possibly the Bilderberg group or maybe just some eccentric millionaire. The reality is that there are those, usually old money, that actually resent the rest of us for "eating their food, drinking their water and breathing their air"

Welcome to this side if the fence. Over population has always been the underlying cause for most of humankind's problems. Getting couple to willingly limit themselves to two offspring will be tough, if not impossible. China tried limiting the number of children a family could have. The result, due to the societal preference for males to carry on the family name, was to kill or abort female children and fetuses. Societal and religious teachings and prejudices make the voluntary limiting of births a virtual impossibility. Next time you see a show and someone is introduced and they proudly say they have 6 kids, 24 grand kids, they are the face of the problem. To paraphrase from Jesus, " forgive them for they probably don't know what they have done".

[golfing eagles]

Not that I agree with them, but you sound like you believe in the cancel culture.

Be careful when “assuming”😂😂😂

[MartinSE]

Be careful when “assuming”😂😂😂

I agree entirely; that is why I included the word "like" as in "it seems like"

BTW, while I do disagree with the content of the reference you made - establishing an artificial limit to population, they do have some valid points, in that for the first couple hundred thousand years (a few billion if you don't include people), the population of the earth was naturally limited by factors like exposure, food, disease, etc. And I disagree with enforcing an artificial limit since we now have science and technology that allow more people to survive at a higher standard of living.

And you know, what could go wrong with unbridled population growth artificially supported by science and technology that so many believe to be politically motivated?

[jimjamuser]

But who would be left to SERVE them, if they kill off the commoners?

Who would clean their toilets, chauffeur them around in their limos, cook and serve their tea and crumpets, polish their silver, bring their trash to the city dump, etc. etc. etc.

No, they need the common man. In fact, the elite wouldn't be capable of survival if the common man were eradicated. No one ever taught them how to be of any practical use. They need us plebians to do everything for them or they'd perish.
America WAS great after WW2 because of the economic strength of the "common man" AKA the middle class.
The elites became like economic "vampire squids" as they sucked the wealth and power of the middle-class gradually away. Today, the upper 90% of America has more wealth than the lower 60%. That change was accomplished gradually and by mechanisms like OUTSOURCING to China and other countries. Now China has our middle class and has military strength and is aggressive toward the US. The decline of UNIONS was "another brick in the wall" toward US degradation.

Someone once said that the only country that can destroy the US is the US itself..........internally.

The elites have used their wealth in places like Florida to build houses and condos right on the barrier islands and the low areas like Fort Meyers. Now Global Warming has told Florida that "it is time to pay the piper". Smarter states like Oregon declared a 1/2 mile exclusion zone of no building on their beaches. The common public has parking places where they can walk or bike to the beach. The rich elites build their large homes where they can see the water from their 2nd stories. It's called a good compromise. In Florida, the elites will take advantage of this current climate change hurricane crisis and buy up Fort Meyers and the Barrier islands. Floridian tax dollars will pay for NEW bridges to those barrier islands so that their chauffer-driven Cadillacs can be driven over them. The middle class of the hurricane survivors with total damage to their homes will be shortchanged by the insurance companies and will not be able to meet the new (stilt basement) codes, which are a somewhat good safety requirement (not as good as the Oregon solution). The new codes will price more of the "common man" out of the area.

The common man will be forced by climate warming conditions to migrate to north central Florida or further north. The elites of Florida will have the wealth to remain on the ecologically dangerous barrier islands of the Florida coast. They may even eventually build some RENTAL condos slightly inland so as to continue to have a source of common-man-type worker bees. Meanwhile, since the last 8 years globally have been the warmest in recorded history, mother nature in the form of hurricanes will continue to BATTER (an often-used word lately) Florida's coast and also other southern states' coasts. Finally, in 2 or 3 years Florida will give up rebuilding and create a no-building zone 1/2 or 1 mile from the rising water line - like Oregon did years ago!

[Byte1]

The temperature of our oceans have increased by several degrees according to those that check such things. Warmer temps gives “fuel” to the storms as they approach the coast of the U.S. In addition, the oceans are rising on our coast. Having said that, the majority of scientists tend to call this “climate change”. Some disagree calling it “climate change.” A matter of semantics I suppose? The debate and politics begin when discussion starts over the “cause” of this phenomenon. This phenomenon has become political and since this site has a policy of no political references I will refrain from any comments what may or may not be a cause. Its above my “pay grade”anyway and probably above most who post on TOTV.

The oceans are warmer due to underwater volcanoes. Wait for a few years and it will either get worse or better.

[Byte1]

America WAS great after WW2 because of the economic strength of the "common man" AKA the middle class.
The elites became like economic "vampire squids" as they sucked the wealth and power of the middle-class gradually away. Today, the upper 90% of America has more wealth than the lower 60%. That change was accomplished gradually and by mechanisms like OUTSOURCING to China and other countries. Now China has our middle class and has military strength and is aggressive toward the US. The decline of UNIONS was "another brick in the wall" toward US degradation.

Someone once said that the only country that can destroy the US is the US itself..........internally.

The elites have used their wealth in places like Florida to build houses and condos right on the barrier islands and the low areas like Fort Meyers. Now Global Warming has told Florida that "it is time to pay the piper". Smarter states like Oregon declared a 1/2 mile exclusion zone of no building on their beaches. The common public has parking places where they can walk or bike to the beach. The rich elites build their large homes where they can see the water from their 2nd stories. It's called a good compromise. In Florida, the elites will take advantage of this current climate change hurricane crisis and buy up Fort Meyers and the Barrier islands. Floridian tax dollars will pay for NEW bridges to those barrier islands so that their chauffer-driven Cadillacs can be driven over them. The middle class of the hurricane survivors with total damage to their homes will be shortchanged by the insurance companies and will not be able to meet the new (stilt basement) codes, which are a somewhat good safety requirement (not as good as the Oregon solution). The new codes will price more of the "common man" out of the area.

The common man will be forced by climate warming conditions to migrate to north central Florida or further north. The elites of Florida will have the wealth to remain on the ecologically dangerous barrier islands of the Florida coast. They may even eventually build some RENTAL condos slightly inland so as to continue to have a source of common-man-type worker bees. Meanwhile, since the last 8 years globally have been the warmest in recorded history, mother nature in the form of hurricanes will continue to BATTER (an often-used word lately) Florida's coast and also other southern states' coasts. Finally, in 2 or 3 years Florida will give up rebuilding and create a no-building zone 1/2 or 1 mile from the rising water line - like Oregon did years ago!

I think that I have seen that scyfy movie..........:a20:

[Byte1]

Welcome to this side if the fence. Over population has always been the underlying cause for most of humankind's problems. Getting couple to willingly limit themselves to two offspring will be tough, if not impossible. China tried limiting the number of children a family could have. The result, due to the societal preference for males to carry on the family name, was to kill or abort female children and fetuses. Societal and religious teachings and prejudices make the voluntary limiting of births a virtual impossibility. Next time you see a show and someone is introduced and they proudly say they have 6 kids, 24 grand kids, they are the face of the problem. To paraphrase from Jesus, " forgive them for they probably don't know what they have done".

Does that extinguish the phrase from GOD "Be Fruitful and Multiply" ??? I believe you mistakenly "paraphrased Jesus" when he was speaking of the elimination of a life, not the reproduction of life. I do not remember a scripture that assumed that GOD (Jesus) would be disappointed in reproduction. Personally, and only my opinion, but I don't see how the world population has made any changes in Climate Change.

[sounding]

And ... we are in a CO2 famine ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLnQo8l-BHc

[Byte1]

Are we getting into a review of the "Soylent Green" movie now? Lower the population of the world?

[MartinSE]

America WAS great after WW2 because of the economic strength of the "common man" AKA the middle class.
The elites became like economic "vampire squids" as they sucked the wealth and power of the middle-class gradually away. Today, the upper 90% of America has more wealth than the lower 60%. That change was accomplished gradually and by mechanisms like OUTSOURCING to China and other countries. Now China has our middle class and has military strength and is aggressive toward the US. The decline of UNIONS was "another brick in the wall" toward US degradation.

Someone once said that the only country that can destroy the US is the US itself..........internally.

The elites have used their wealth in places like Florida to build houses and condos right on the barrier islands and the low areas like Fort Meyers. Now Global Warming has told Florida that "it is time to pay the piper". Smarter states like Oregon declared a 1/2 mile exclusion zone of no building on their beaches. The common public has parking places where they can walk or bike to the beach. The rich elites build their large homes where they can see the water from their 2nd stories. It's called a good compromise. In Florida, the elites will take advantage of this current climate change hurricane crisis and buy up Fort Meyers and the Barrier islands. Floridian tax dollars will pay for NEW bridges to those barrier islands so that their chauffer-driven Cadillacs can be driven over them. The middle class of the hurricane survivors with total damage to their homes will be shortchanged by the insurance companies and will not be able to meet the new (stilt basement) codes, which are a somewhat good safety requirement (not as good as the Oregon solution). The new codes will price more of the "common man" out of the area.

The common man will be forced by climate warming conditions to migrate to north central Florida or further north. The elites of Florida will have the wealth to remain on the ecologically dangerous barrier islands of the Florida coast. They may even eventually build some RENTAL condos slightly inland so as to continue to have a source of common-man-type worker bees. Meanwhile, since the last 8 years globally have been the warmest in recorded history, mother nature in the form of hurricanes will continue to BATTER (an often-used word lately) Florida's coast and also other southern states' coasts. Finally, in 2 or 3 years Florida will give up rebuilding and create a no-building zone 1/2 or 1 mile from the rising water line - like Oregon did years ago!

There is so little I disagree with in the post, I think you must be playing a trick on me some how (just kidding).

BTW, You know what the corporate tax rate was following the end of WWII, you know the period of the highest levels of investment and growth in the US economy and standard of living? 38% It is 21% today... ahem.