Hurricane Ian & Climate Change Calamity

[sounding]

At this month's Weather Club meeting, a post-analysis and video of Hurricane Ian will precede an updated "Climate Change Calamity" presentation. It is this Thursday (Oct 20) at 1:30 PM at the Bridgeport Recreation Center. Important climate studies that are rarely seen in the media will be reviewed. These studies are published in scientific journals -- and yet the public hardly knows about them. One very important study is the $9 million NEEM Project from Greenland, which produced amazing climate change information.

[Calisport]

???

[coralway]

You’re in the wrong group pal. This is The Villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.

[sounding]

Ditto. That's why the club exists.

[golfing eagles]

Ditto. That's why the club exists.

Here we go again:rant-rave::rant-rave::rant-rave:

Is there a tooth fairy club??? After all, it would need to exist to gather all the believers in the tooth fairy, including presentations by tooth fairy "experts" and to call everyone else a "tooth fairy de-nye-ah"

[tvbound]

You’re in the wrong group pal. This is The Villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.

Can't help but chuckle (sadly), at how perfectly you've nailed it.

On the flip side, if you're someone who is ruled primarily by a visceral hate of others who are, or think, differently, embrace lying/hypocrisy, love a lot of crazy conspiracies and enjoy personally attacking those who don't - you will probably feel right at home.

BUT, there are a lot of choices for golfing - so it has that going for it.

[Taltarzac725]

At this month's Weather Club meeting, a post-analysis and video of Hurricane Ian will precede an updated "Climate Change Calamity" presentation. It is this Thursday (Oct 20) at 1:30 PM at the Bridgeport Recreation Center. Important climate studies that are rarely seen in the media will be reviewed. These studies are published in scientific journals -- and yet the public hardly knows about them. One very important study is the $9 million NEEM Project from Greenland, which produced amazing climate change information.

I will have to check that out. The study I mean.

[golfing eagles]

Can't help but chuckle (sadly), at how perfectly you've nailed it.

On the flip side, if you're someone who is ruled primarily by a visceral hate of others who are, or think, differently, embrace lying/hypocrisy, love a lot of crazy conspiracies and enjoy personally attacking those who don't - you will probably feel right at home.

BUT, there are a lot of choices for golfing - so it has that going for it.

Amazing how well you nailed it as well.
These are the groups/people that are setting the agenda and driving the direction of our country. Let's just hope the rest of us are able to stop them before they destroy this great country.

[sounding]

Go to the Univ of Copenhagen (Neils Bohr Institute) for details ...or just search for "The NEEM Project" on YouTube. They had big plans for a follow-up project -- but the funds mysteriously never came through.

[ex34449]

Darn, can't make it. I have my Chemtrail meeting the same time.

[retiredguy123]

At this month's Weather Club meeting, a post-analysis and video of Hurricane Ian will precede an updated "Climate Change Calamity" presentation. It is this Thursday (Oct 20) at 1:30 PM at the Bridgeport Recreation Center. Important climate studies that are rarely seen in the media will be reviewed. These studies are published in scientific journals -- and yet the public hardly knows about them. One very important study is the $9 million NEEM Project from Greenland, which produced amazing climate change information.
A $9 million project? After watching the video of U.S Air Force planes and personnel involved in the project, I find it difficult to believe that more than that from our tax money wasn't spent on the project. How much did other countries contribute?

[golfing eagles]

Darn, can't make it. I have my Chemtrail meeting the same time.

And I have the annual shareholders meeting of Solyndra :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[sounding]

You'll have to try the Freedom of Information Act to find that out I guess. I'm afraid it's much like funding for the U.N.

[jimbomaybe]

Amazing how well you nailed it as well.
These are the groups/people that are setting the agenda and driving the direction of our country. Let's just hope the rest of us are able to stop them before they destroy this great country.
Best be careful lest you self identify as one to be so characterized by those who KNOW

[fdpaq0580]

Here we go again:rant-rave::rant-rave::rant-rave:

Is there a tooth fairy club??? After all, it would need to exist to gather all the believers in the tooth fairy, including presentations by tooth fairy "experts" and to call everyone else a "tooth fairy de-nye-ah"

There is a tooth fairy! When I was little and lost a tooth, I would put it under my pillow when I went to bed. The next morning the tooth was gone, and in its place was a shiny new nickel. And that is the proof!
Are we having fun yet?? 😀😀😀

[golfing eagles]

Best be careful lest you self identify as one to be so characterized by those who KNOW

Thanks for the warning, but I’m sure I know the difference between the real science and those with an agenda

[Byte1]

Yep, no need to convince me. I believe that Hurricane IAN existed and was evidence that the climate changed for a little while. Are they going to explain how man made the hurricane? If so, count me in. Spoiler alert: Mr. Clean may make an appearance and we know how he is able to change the kitchen climate.

[golfing eagles]

Yep, no need to convince me. I believe that Hurricane IAN existed and was evidence that the climate changed for a little while. Are they going to explain how man made the hurricane? If so, count me in. Spoiler alert: Mr. Clean may make an appearance and we know how he is able to change the kitchen climate.

Just think of the impact if it was Gordon Ramsey:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[ThirdOfFive]

At this month's Weather Club meeting, a post-analysis and video of Hurricane Ian will precede an updated "Climate Change Calamity" presentation. It is this Thursday (Oct 20) at 1:30 PM at the Bridgeport Recreation Center. Important climate studies that are rarely seen in the media will be reviewed. These studies are published in scientific journals -- and yet the public hardly knows about them. One very important study is the $9 million NEEM Project from Greenland, which produced amazing climate change information.
Would that be the same calamity the Al Gore prediction that he made on Dec. 14, 2008, stating that the arctic would be completely ice-free by 2014?

[golfing eagles]

Would that be the same calamity the Al Gore prediction that he made on Dec. 14, 2008, stating that the arctic would be completely ice-free by 2014?

Pretty much. Also similar to the "calamity" of another impending ice age that those same "experts" were predicting in the 1970's. At least back then they weren't proposing the world (and by world, I mean mostly the US) spend over $100 trillion to "combat" it.

[sounding]

Regarding "man made hurricanes" ... if one believes increasing "man-made" CO2 is causing climate change, then must also believe that increasing CO2 is causing hurricanes and tornadoes to decrease in strength and intensity.

[JMintzer]

Oh, look! Another "Climate Change" thread that will change no one's mind about anything...

Just in time, since it's been almost a week since the last one was closed...

[sounding]

Ditto. Even Mr. Spock believed in that scam ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfAeG9_8s6I

[retiredguy123]

Oh, look! Another "Climate Change" thread that will change no one's mind about anything...

Just in time, since it's been almost a week since the last one was closed...
Well, I did buy a 4-pack of toilet paper today.

[golfing eagles]

Regarding "man made hurricanes" ... if one believes increasing "man-made" CO2 is causing climate change, then must also believe that increasing CO2 is causing hurricanes and tornadoes to decrease in strength and intensity.

That's like saying "if you believe in Santa Claus, you must also believe in the Easter Bunny"

[Stu from NYC]

Well, I did buy a 4-pack of toilet paper today.

Should have bought a whole case if the world is about to come to an end where will you get more?

[Byte1]

Oh, look! Another "Climate Change" thread that will change no one's mind about anything...

Just in time, since it's been almost a week since the last one was closed...

Are you being cynical or facetious? ....with a hint of sarcasm?

[sounding]

Bingo!

[Kenswing]

Bingo!

It would be real helpful if you quoted what you’re Bingo-ing.

Although I don’t know that I would categorize anything in this thread as helpful. :1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Badger 2006]

Thanks for the warning, but I’m sure I know the difference between the real science and those with an agenda

Dr Anthony Fauci / Real Science or agenda? You know the difference?

[golfing eagles]

Dr Anthony Fauci / Real Science or agenda? You know the difference?

Yep

[JMintzer]

Are you being cynical or facetious? ....with a hint of sarcasm?

Yes...

[ThirdOfFive]

Should have bought a whole case if the world is about to come to an end where will you get more?
You can stretch it twice as far. Just use both sides.

[fdpaq0580]

Well, I did buy a 4-pack of toilet paper today.

You're use all that yourself, are ya? 😰

[fdpaq0580]

You can stretch it twice as far. Just use both sides.

If you bought the good stuff you can separate the plys.

[Worldseries27]

you’re in the wrong group pal. This is the villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.
unfortunately i agree.
Ego, vanity, id,≥

[Blackbird45]

If you believe in climate change or not you have to believe in pollution. We create so much trash we're running out of landfills. We've dumped so many chemicals in our water ways we're not sure if it's safe to drink and we pump tons of toxic fumes in our air every year. Doesn't anyone believe in the old saying "Don't s##t where you eat".

[Surf Daddy]

You’re in the wrong group pal. This is The Villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.

I believe that I do understand science, and scientific methods. I have an education and experience to corroborate that. I believe in climate change, but not for the reasons projected by politicians.

I am tired of people categorizing me as being a science denier.

The climate change predictions are based on models. The models can easily be flawed for a variety of reasons. The outcomes can easily be manipulated by the algorithm as well as attributes used in the model. So here are two real world climate related examples. Consider the so called spaghetti charts used to predict paths of hurricanes, that the meteorologist point to, just days or even hours before expected landfall. There are 22 possible paths, with some wildly different. No model gets it right. Next, consider the weather predictions for precipitation. Last summer in Michigan, we had a day with a rain forecast of 0% chance for the next 12 hour period. You guessed it. There was a huge downpour.

I am not disparaging meteorologists. I am just saying that weather prediction is difficult in the very near term. Long term has to be orders of magnitude more difficult.

I learned a long time ago that data can be truncated, extrapolated or interpolated to prove any point you want to prove. This allows corrupt people to get the result that they want.

“Building consensus is a politico-religious concept, not a scientific one. Consensus involves creating broad agreement amongst a group of people, but science should never lean on agreement to provide a false sense of comfort. When forming their worldviews, scientists must emphasize the evidence, not the opinions of their fellow scientists.”

[Retwarrior]

Where and when is the next the next Q club meeting? I have all my HAARP videos ready so we can help educate these poor people…

[guitarguy]

What may be good for the climate can be terrible for the environment. .. wind farms many kill birds. Solar collection farms destroy local habitat.

[Stu from NYC]

If you believe in climate change or not you have to believe in pollution. We create so much trash we're running out of landfills. We've dumped so many chemicals in our water ways we're not sure if it's safe to drink and we pump tons of toxic fumes in our air every year. Doesn't anyone believe in the old saying "Don't s##t where you eat".

Many waterways are much cleaner than before. Hudson river fish were destroyed by GE dumping years ago. Now you can fish there.

Do believe in many areas of the world the air is cleaner. However some countries like China could care less about clean air. We can do tremendous things here while they pollute the world

[Worldseries27]

i believe that i do understand science, and scientific methods. I have an education and experience to corroborate that. I believe in climate change, but not for the reasons projected by politicians.

I am tired of people categorizing me as being a science denier.

The climate change predictions are based on models. The models can easily be flawed for a variety of reasons. The outcomes can easily be manipulated by the algorithm as well as attributes used in the model. So here are two real world climate related examples. Consider the so called spaghetti charts used to predict paths of hurricanes, that the meteorologist point to, just days or even hours before expected landfall. There are 22 possible paths, with some wildly different. No model gets it right. Next, consider the weather predictions for precipitation. Last summer in michigan, we had a day with a rain forecast of 0% chance for the next 12 hour period. You guessed it. There was a huge downpour.

I am not disparaging meteorologists. I am just saying that weather prediction is difficult in the very near term. Long term has to be orders of magnitude more difficult.

I learned a long time ago that data can be truncated, extrapolated or interpolated to prove any point you want to prove. This allows corrupt people to get the result that they want.

“building consensus is a politico-religious concept, not a scientific one. Consensus involves creating broad agreement amongst a group of people, but science should never lean on agreement to provide a false sense of comfort. When forming their worldviews, scientists must emphasize the evidence, not the opinions of their fellow scientists.”
summing up in blue collar speak.
Figures don't lie,
liars know how to figure.

[Blackbird45]

Many waterways are much cleaner than before. Hudson river fish were destroyed by GE dumping years ago. Now you can fish there.

Do believe in many areas of the world the air is cleaner. However some countries like China could care less about clean air. We can do tremendous things here while they pollute the world

Oh, I'm sorry until everyone gets into the boat with us, we should drown in our own sewage. Look we cannot dictate what other countries should do, but if the quality of life improves in our country because we can clean up our pollution you can bet people in those countries will demand their leaders do the same.

[ReneeBelter]

Plenty of Villagers believe in the science!!! Thanks for info— I’ll be out of town.

[Stu from NYC]

Oh, I'm sorry until everyone gets into the boat with us, we should drown in our own sewage. Look we cannot dictate what other countries should do, but if the quality of life improves in our country because we can clean up our pollution you can bet people in those countries will demand their leaders do the same.

Communist countries and dictatorships do not work that way unfortunately. For years in China you cannot drink the water unless purified. Hotels will leave 2 bottles of water in your bathroom daily. They are busily opening up more coal mines.

[sounding]

I believe that I do understand science, and scientific methods. I have an education and experience to corroborate that. I believe in climate change, but not for the reasons projected by politicians.

I am tired of people categorizing me as being a science denier.

The climate change predictions are based on models. The models can easily be flawed for a variety of reasons. The outcomes can easily be manipulated by the algorithm as well as attributes used in the model. So here are two real world climate related examples. Consider the so called spaghetti charts used to predict paths of hurricanes, that the meteorologist point to, just days or even hours before expected landfall. There are 22 possible paths, with some wildly different. No model gets it right. Next, consider the weather predictions for precipitation. Last summer in Michigan, we had a day with a rain forecast of 0% chance for the next 12 hour period. You guessed it. There was a huge downpour.

I am not disparaging meteorologists. I am just saying that weather prediction is difficult in the very near term. Long term has to be orders of magnitude more difficult.

I learned a long time ago that data can be truncated, extrapolated or interpolated to prove any point you want to prove. This allows corrupt people to get the result that they want.

“Building consensus is a politico-religious concept, not a scientific one. Consensus involves creating broad agreement amongst a group of people, but science should never lean on agreement to provide a false sense of comfort. When forming their worldviews, scientists must emphasize the evidence, not the opinions of their fellow scientists.”

Agree -- consensus is not science ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

[ReneeBelter]

You underestimate the numbers of intelligent, educated Villagers!

[Ksfirefighter]

You’re in the wrong group pal. This is The Villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.

The Villager’s believe in Biology!

[Blackbird45]

Many waterways are much cleaner than before. Hudson river fish were destroyed by GE dumping years ago. Now you can fish there.

Do believe in many areas of the world the air is cleaner. However some countries like China could care less about clean air. We can do tremendous things here while they pollute the world

I'm a native New Yorker and on 2 occasions while on the job we had dead bodies float up in the Hudson River.

I lived a 10-minute drive from the East River and if I showed up to Palmer's restaurant and told me the catch of the day was East River scrod I would not order it and I bet you wouldn't either.

[Carlsondm]

You’re in the wrong group pal. This is The Villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.
Thanks for telling us what we think. I for one am open to new discussion groups and appreciate news of outside groups.

[fdpaq0580]

Agree -- consensus is not science ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

True, but it would make sense if the evidence has merit, those who study said evidence would tend to agree. Consensus.

[fdpaq0580]

Thanks for telling us what we think. I for one am open to new discussion groups and appreciate news of outside groups.

Good. Welcome.

[Byte1]

You’re in the wrong group pal. This is The Villages, where an overwhelming majority do not believe in science, let alone climate change.

Science is NOT absolute, and changes as much as the weather. I believe in science as an evolving study that changes as evidence presents itself. I believe in man caused pollution, but I have seen no real evidence of man caused climate change. Since the climate has changed before man ever existed, the best I can factor in is that man might/MIGHT have contributed minutely to the cause but would only be able to eliminate human cause by eliminating humans totally. I also believe that nature has a way of surviving in spite of changes to the environment. Perhaps one should read an Ecology book or two in order to understand how the food chain works. Preferably, a book that does not have political motivations. Science is on-going and never settles for a final conclusion.

[rsmurano]

Here we go again:rant-rave::rant-rave::rant-rave:

Is there a tooth fairy club??? After all, it would need to exist to gather all the believers in the tooth fairy, including presentations by tooth fairy "experts" and to call everyone else a "tooth fairy de-nye-ah"

There isn’t a tooth fairy? Next you’re going to tell me there isn’t a Santa Claus!
The climate change hoax has been going on since the tooth fairy saga started.
For many decades, I can remember we went thru;
Global cooling
Hole in the ozone layer
Global warming
20 years ago, they were predicting all the ice caps will be gone in 10 years.

6 years ago, we had many people that know nothing about climate change predicting the we have only 10 years before global disaster if we don’t adopt the green new deal. So in 4 years we are gone. Who believes this stuff? There were 130,000 ice caps when Gore started this hoax decades ago and there are still 130,000 today

[golfing eagles]

There isn’t a tooth fairy? Next you’re going to tell me there isn’t a Santa Claus!
The climate change hoax has been going on since the tooth fairy saga started.
For many decades, I can remember we went thru;
Global cooling
Hole in the ozone layer
Global warming
20 years ago, they were predicting all the ice caps will be gone in 10 years.

6 years ago, we had many people that know nothing about climate change predicting the we have only 10 years before global disaster if we don’t adopt the green new deal. So in 4 years we are gone. Who believes this stuff? There were 130,000 ice caps when Gore started this hoax decades ago and there are still 130,000 today

Answer:
The indoctrinated
The gullible
Those invested in it
Those who are either writing their doctoral dissertation or applying for a federal grant in climatology and know darn well that even the slightest hint of "DE-NYE-YING" the political narrative of manmade climate change will earn them a big fat goose egg. (This, btw, is why "90+%" of climate scientists concur that humans are causing climate change---they have no choice if they want to survive)

[jimjamuser]

Here we go again:rant-rave::rant-rave::rant-rave:

Is there a tooth fairy club??? After all, it would need to exist to gather all the believers in the tooth fairy, including presentations by tooth fairy "experts" and to call everyone else a "tooth fairy de-nye-ah"
The "tooth fairy" is NOT melting glaciers all over the world. Even in California and the Rocky Mountains where rivers and dams are drying out and farmers are losing their life's work. Globally, glaciers will lose 40% of their ice by 2050. Glacier National Park will have about ZERO glaciers as soon as 2230. The tooth fairy is not expected to make large areas of Africa and Asia UNINHABITABLE in 80 years. It will be caused by EXTREME HEAT according to a report put together by the UN and the Red Cross.

The last 8 years have seen record heat worldwide. The Gulf of Mexico is currently at a record heat of around 90 degrees. Increasing heat is expected for the next 30 years, at least, and hurricanes will continue to be bigger and stronger with more rain and flooding like hurricane Ian. Florida is talking about rebuilding the damaged coastal areas, but that is a big mistake. Florida should stop all new building or rebuilding within one mile of the water line. This is something Oregon did years ago. I assume and fear that Florida will not be so logical and that KILLER HURRICANES like Ian will continue into the future, like next year!

[Shimpy]

With inflation the way it is it would need to be a $5.00 bill.

[golfing eagles]

The "tooth fairy" is NOT melting glaciers all over the world. Even in California and the Rocky Mountains where rivers and dams are drying out and farmers are losing their life's work. Globally, glaciers will lose 40% of their ice by 2050. Glacier National Park will have about ZERO glaciers as soon as 2030. The tooth fairy is not expected to make large areas of Africa and Asia UNINHABITABLE in 80 years. It will be caused by EXTREME HEAT according to a report put together by the UN and the Red Cross.

The last 8 years have seen record heat worldwide. The Gulf of Mexico is currently at a record heat of around 90 degrees. Increasing heat is expected for the next 30 years, at least, and hurricanes will continue to be bigger and stronger with more rain and flooding like hurricane Ian. Florida is talking about rebuilding the damaged coastal areas, but that is a big mistake. Florida should stop all new building or rebuilding within one mile of the water line. This is something Oregon did years ago. I assume and fear that Florida will not be so logical and that KILLER HURRICANES like Ian will continue into the future, like next year!

You mean like the polar ice caps would all be gone by 2010?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Posting the same misinformation 100 times does not make it valid.

[JMintzer]

Oh, I'm sorry until everyone gets into the boat with us, we should drown in our own sewage. Look we cannot dictate what other countries should do, but if the quality of life improves in our country because we can clean up our pollution you can bet people in those countries will demand their leaders do the same.

We have taken HUGE strides in cleaning up out own back yard...

You don't remember the LA Smog, the Cuyahoga River catching fire? Love Canal? All cleaned up.

Cars now are 98% emissions free, compared to 1975...

[JMintzer]

The "tooth fairy" is NOT melting glaciers all over the world. Even in California and the Rocky Mountains where rivers and dams are drying out and farmers are losing their life's work. Globally, glaciers will lose 40% of their ice by 2050. Glacier National Park will have about ZERO glaciers as soon as 2030. The tooth fairy is not expected to make large areas of Africa and Asia UNINHABITABLE in 80 years. It will be caused by EXTREME HEAT according to a report put together by the UN and the Red Cross.

The last 8 years have seen record heat worldwide. The Gulf of Mexico is currently at a record heat of around 90 degrees. Increasing heat is expected for the next 30 years, at least, and hurricanes will continue to be bigger and stronger with more rain and flooding like hurricane Ian. Florida is talking about rebuilding the damaged coastal areas, but that is a big mistake. Florida should stop all new building or rebuilding within one mile of the water line. This is something Oregon did years ago. I assume and fear that Florida will not be so logical and that KILLER HURRICANES like Ian will continue into the future, like next year!

So, they glaciers that receded, leaving"The Bread Basket", which feeds the world, was a bad thing?

Killer Hurricanes? There are plenty of severe hurricanes every year. They just wander around the Atlantic and don't make landfall...

Sadly, we had a large one that did...

[jimjamuser]

Would that be the same calamity the Al Gore prediction that he made on Dec. 14, 2008, stating that the arctic would be completely ice-free by 2014?
Last I heard, the Arctic is pretty much ice-free. The US and Russia are competing for the oil and minerals there. Polar bears are floating on tiny islands of ice and having problems adapting to the Global Warming changes. By 2040 Glacier National Park will be renamed Devoid of Ice National Park. All that ice melting in the Arctic means greater ocean rise, which means more problems for South Florida and coastal Florida. The Gulf of Mexico has record-high water temperatures, which provided the rain and water for HURRICANE Ian to flood much of the Fort Meyers coastal areas as well as south-central Florida. Prepare for more IANs for the next 30 years. People thinking of moving to Florida had better consider Georgia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas instead.

[golfing eagles]

So, they glaciers that receded, leaving"The Bread Basket", which feeds the world, was a bad thing?

Killer Hurricanes? There are plenty of severe hurricanes every year. They just wander around the Atlantic and don't make landfall...

Sadly, we had a large one that did...

How many times do I have to tell you---stop confusing the indoctrinated with the facts

[golfing eagles]

Last I heard, the Arctic is pretty much ice-free. The US and Russia are competing for the oil and minerals there. Polar bears are floating on tiny islands of ice and having problems adapting to the Global Warming changes. By 2040 Glacier National Park will be renamed Devoid of Ice National Park. All that ice melting in the Arctic means greater ocean rise, which means more problems for South Florida and coastal Florida. The Gulf of Mexico has record-high water temperatures, which provided the rain and water for HURRICANE Ian to flood much of the Fort Meyers coastal areas as well as south-central Florida. Prepare for more IANs for the next 30 years. People thinking of moving to Florida had better consider Georgia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas instead.

Correction: 101 times:blahblahblah::blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

[JMintzer]

Last I heard, the Arctic is pretty much ice-free. The US and Russia are competing for the oil and minerals there. Polar bears are floating on tiny islands of ice and having problems adapting to the Global Warming changes. By 2040 Glacier National Park will be renamed Devoid of Ice National Park. All that ice melting in the Arctic means greater ocean rise, which means more problems for South Florida and coastal Florida. The Gulf of Mexico has record-high water temperatures, which provided the rain and water for HURRICANE Ian to flood much of the Fort Meyers coastal areas as well as south-central Florida. Prepare for more IANs for the next 30 years. People thinking of moving to Florida had better consider Georgia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas instead.

More Chicken Little foolishness...

Those "Polar Bear stranded on the ice" pics? They were purposely taken at an angle that ignored the vast amount of ice behind the photographer...

National Geographic admits skeletal polar bear-global warming link 'went too far' - ArcticToday (https://www.arctictoday.com/national-geographic-admits-skeletal-polar-bear-global-warming-link-went-far/)

The real story behind the famous starving polar-bear video reveals more manipulation | Financial Post (https://financialpost.com/opinion/the-real-story-behind-the-famous-starving-polar-bear-video-reveals-more-manipulation)

[jimjamuser]

Regarding "man made hurricanes" ... if one believes increasing "man-made" CO2 is causing climate change, then must also believe that increasing CO2 is causing hurricanes and tornadoes to decrease in strength and intensity.
We just saw with hurricane IAN that hurricanes were INCREASING in intensity. There are estimates that IAN caused 100 billion dollars worth of damage. That was because of record Gulf water temperatures. Most scientists are in agreement that MAN is causing all the CHANGES to the climate around the world. Glaciers are disappearing. There are pictures that prove that.

People like to shoot down the messenger, Al Gore who did NOT say that the " sky is falling", but rather that the sky was filled with too much CO2. Today all the proof shows that Mr. Gore was right and that Gore-e-ness is predicted for the earth's future. In about 15 years there will be ZERO deniers of Global Climate Change. In 80 years vast areas of Africa and Asia will be UNINHABITABLE.

Florida is VERY susceptible to the worse effects of Climate Change. And will see more killer hurricanes like IAN next year. And many people say that it will take 5 years to rebuild from IAN. What will that mean when a NEW IAN hits next year and in 2024 and on and on? Scientists are NOT predicting Global Cooling in the next 30 years, just the opposite. All I see in Florida today is an attempt to ignore Climate ravaging and destruction......good luck with that !

[jimjamuser]

That's like saying "if you believe in Santa Claus, you must also believe in the Easter Bunny"
Speaking of "Bunnies" and other furry mammals, fish, birds, and reptiles. The total worldwide population of those animals has decreased by 68% since 1970. To me 1970 onward seems suspiciously like a period of great human population growth. Florida increased from about 9 million people to 30 million people. Also, the time when scientists were beginning to talk about humans causing Climate Change. The coral reefs worldwide started dying. And the icing on the cake is this years hurricane IAN. Ma man.......IAN.

[jimjamuser]

Dr Anthony Fauci / Real Science or agenda? You know the difference?
Dr. Fauci's agenda was to help US people become informed about Covid and the importance of getting shots. And I hope that the victims of hurricane IAN that are homeless and in shelters have gotten all their shots and boosters because indoors it spreads easier than outside. Those poor people do NOT need a deadly disease in addition to all their other problems.

[jimjamuser]

You mean like the polar ice caps would all be gone by 2010?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Posting the same misinformation 100 times does not make it valid.
I stand corrected. So embarrassing! You ARE right. I changed it to 2250. I need to proofread my posts.

[golfing eagles]

I stand corrected. So embarrassing! You ARE right. I changed it to 2250. I need to proofread my posts.

try the year 25,000 and you will be correct

[sounding]

We just saw with hurricane IAN that hurricanes were INCREASING in intensity. There are estimates that IAN caused 100 billion dollars worth of damage. That was because of record Gulf water temperatures. Most scientists are in agreement that MAN is causing all the CHANGES to the climate around the world. Glaciers are disappearing. There are pictures that prove that.

People like to shoot down the messenger, Al Gore who did NOT say that the " sky is falling", but rather that the sky was filled with too much CO2. Today all the proof shows that Mr. Gore was right and that Gore-e-ness is predicted for the earth's future. In about 15 years there will be ZERO deniers of Global Climate Change. In 80 years vast areas of Africa and Asia will be UNINHABITABLE.

Florida is VERY susceptible to the worse effects of Climate Change. And will see more killer hurricanes like IAN next year. And many people say that it will take 5 years to rebuild from IAN. What will that mean when a NEW IAN hits next year and in 2024 and on and on? Scientists are NOT predicting Global Cooling in the next 30 years, just the opposite. All I see in Florida today is an attempt to ignore Climate ravaging and destruction......good luck with that !

What you describe is NOT supported by data. But let's look at each claim one at a time ... please show me a graph which shows hurricane intensity is increasing.

[JMintzer]

We just saw with hurricane IAN that hurricanes were INCREASING in intensity. There are estimates that IAN caused 100 billion dollars worth of damage. That was because of record Gulf water temperatures. Most scientists are in agreement that MAN is causing all the CHANGES to the climate around the world. Glaciers are disappearing. There are pictures that prove that.

People like to shoot down the messenger, Al Gore who did NOT say that the " sky is falling", but rather that the sky was filled with too much CO2. Today all the proof shows that Mr. Gore was right and that Gore-e-ness is predicted for the earth's future. In about 15 years there will be ZERO deniers of Global Climate Change. In 80 years vast areas of Africa and Asia will be UNINHABITABLE.

Florida is VERY susceptible to the worse effects of Climate Change. And will see more killer hurricanes like IAN next year. And many people say that it will take 5 years to rebuild from IAN. What will that mean when a NEW IAN hits next year and in 2024 and on and on? Scientists are NOT predicting Global Cooling in the next 30 years, just the opposite. All I see in Florida today is an attempt to ignore Climate ravaging and destruction......good luck with that !

One hurricane does not a trend make...

And just because you continue to repeat your : "most scientists believe that man is causing climate change" fallacy, does not make it true...

[ThirdOfFive]

Speaking of "Bunnies" and other furry mammals, fish, birds, and reptiles. The total worldwide population of those animals has decreased by 68% since 1970. To me 1970 onward seems suspiciously like a period of great human population growth. Florida increased from about 9 million people to 30 million people. Also, the time when scientists were beginning to talk about humans causing Climate Change. The coral reefs worldwide started dying. And the icing on the cake is this years hurricane IAN. Ma man.......IAN.
Florida has just over 21 million people, not 30 million.

It is exaggerations like that, that destroy the credibility of the argument being made.

[sounding]

Florida has just over 21 million people, not 30 million.

It is exaggerations like that, that destroy the credibility of the argument being made.

1. Florida's population is increasing because people are moving out of colder regions. Humans are tropical in nature because we are born without fur -- which is why cold is the bigger killer. 2. Coral diversity and coverage has been changing up & down for the past 160 million (or so) years -- and records clearly show that they were more diverse when global temps and CO2 were much higher than today -- plus today, Great Barrier Reef coral growth is at a 36 year high. Find out much more on Oct 20 at 1:30 at Bridgeport.

[jimjamuser]

Florida has just over 21 million people, not 30 million.

It is exaggerations like that, that destroy the credibility of the argument being made.
I admit that I just asked a friend who said 30 million. But if you took 21 million and added in the Illegal aliens, you would be several million higher.

[ThirdOfFive]

I admit that I just asked a friend who said 30 million. But if you took 21 million and added in the Illegal aliens, you would be several million higher.
Most likely true.

[jimjamuser]

What you describe is NOT supported by data. But let's look at each claim one at a time ... please show me a graph which shows hurricane intensity is increasing.
OK not too challenging......all I had to do was Google increased hurricane activity. And I found ......James P. Kossin, a researcher for the US National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration used satellite images from 1980 to determine that WARMING has increased the intensity of hurricanes by 8% per decade.
........Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at MIT agrees with Mr. Kossin's findings.
.......There were many other expert statements on this issue.

It is only intuitively logical that if Globally the last 8 years have had the highest recorded temperatures in that kind of scientific recordings .......that hurricanes would increase in INTENSITY. We know that recently the Gulf reached record temperatures of around 90 degrees. If global temps were to get cooler for the next 8 years, then one might expect hurricane intensity to drop down. But that is not what is predicted to happen.
.........Basically, I am only a messenger, relaying what I read and see on TV.

[golfing eagles]

OK not too challenging......all I had to do was Google increased hurricane activity. And I found ......James P. Kossin, a researcher for the US National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration used satellite images from 1980 to determine that WARMING has increased the intensity of hurricanes by 8% per decade.
........Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at MIT agrees with Mr. Kossin's findings.
.......There were many other expert statements on this issue.

It is only intuitively logical that if Globally the last 8 years have had the highest recorded temperatures in that kind of scientific recordings .......that hurricanes would increase in INTENSITY. We know that recently the Gulf reached record temperatures of around 90 degrees. If global temps were to get cooler for the next 8 years, then one might expect hurricane intensity to drop down. But that is not what is predicted to happen.
.........Basically, I am only a messenger, relaying what I read and see on TV.

I agree with one thing-----this isn't too challenging.
Unfortunately, the climate change advocates just don't get it, they just go on and on repeating the same fallacious arguments.
So, here's one employing the same logic----today and tomorrow are the coldest Oct 19th and 20th in the last 8 years---so therefore we must be heading into an imminent ice age
Let's spend $100 trillion on parkas and snowshoes :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

I agree with one thing-----this isn't too challenging.
Unfortunately, the climate change advocates just don't get it, they just go on and on repeating the same fallacious arguments.
So, here's one employing the same logic----today and tomorrow are the coldest Oct 19th and 20th in the last 8 years---so therefore we must be heading into an imminent ice age
Let's spend $100 trillion on parkas and snowshoes :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
I understand that you don't have the same OPINION as I do about climate change in the near term (100 years or less). If we both live another 10 years, then if man's influence on Climate is NOT REAL (as you opinionate) then Florida will NOT have had any more INCREASINGLY powerful damaging hurricanes stronger than IAN. In which case I will publically apologize to you and state that YOUR OPINION was the correct one. But conversely, if Miami is in danger of going UNDERWATER and is becoming depopulated, then MY OPINION was correct.

I will not be hurt in the least, because I HOPE that YOU are RIGHT. I enjoy living in Florida and hope that it does NOT experience any CHANGE for the worse. I am actually much MORE concerned about POPULATION CHANGE in the US and the world because that is the FATHER of Global Climate Change. But, I notice that no one on TV is willing to talk directly about that subject.
.........I value your opinions to the extent that I read your posts with the most open mind that I can summon.

[sounding]

OK not too challenging......all I had to do was Google increased hurricane activity. And I found ......James P. Kossin, a researcher for the US National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration used satellite images from 1980 to determine that WARMING has increased the intensity of hurricanes by 8% per decade.
........Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at MIT agrees with Mr. Kossin's findings.
.......There were many other expert statements on this issue.

It is only intuitively logical that if Globally the last 8 years have had the highest recorded temperatures in that kind of scientific recordings .......that hurricanes would increase in INTENSITY. We know that recently the Gulf reached record temperatures of around 90 degrees. If global temps were to get cooler for the next 8 years, then one might expect hurricane intensity to drop down. But that is not what is predicted to happen.
.........Basically, I am only a messenger, relaying what I read and see on TV.

First of all, intuitively does not prove anything, Second, you did NOT provide data of increasing hurricane intensity -- only a Narrative, which anyone can say. Talk is cheap -- data is gold. Both will be shown at tomorrow's presentation (1:30 PM at Bridgeport, Oct 20). Google is the last place to obtain valid information about climate change as they are in cahoots with the United Nations ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRR9AMum9A0
Anyone who says they own the "science" is someone who wants to be King of the Hill and wants you to stop thinking for yourself. More importantly Richard Feynman, who was probably the smartest scientist after Einstein said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics, he won the Einstein Award, he help develop the A-bomb, and he solved the O-ring Challenger disaster problem, and much more. Anyone who calls himself an "expert" is most likely trying to fool you -- unless that person has a verifiable track record in that field of expertise and/or can present solid, peer-reviewed, data.

[ThirdOfFive]

OK not too challenging......all I had to do was Google increased hurricane activity. And I found ......James P. Kossin, a researcher for the US National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration used satellite images from 1980 to determine that WARMING has increased the intensity of hurricanes by 8% per decade.
........Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at MIT agrees with Mr. Kossin's findings.
.......There were many other expert statements on this issue.

It is only intuitively logical that if Globally the last 8 years have had the highest recorded temperatures in that kind of scientific recordings .......that hurricanes would increase in INTENSITY. We know that recently the Gulf reached record temperatures of around 90 degrees. If global temps were to get cooler for the next 8 years, then one might expect hurricane intensity to drop down. But that is not what is predicted to happen.
.........Basically, I am only a messenger, relaying what I read and see on TV.
Is it possible that Mr. Kossin discovered that hurricane intensity has increased by 8% per decade (I'd like to see his research; just how many decades are covered, all hurricanes or just that made landfall, are tropical storms included, etc. etc.) and just attributed that increase to global warming? Correlation does not prove causation.

[jimjamuser]

I agree with one thing-----this isn't too challenging.
Unfortunately, the climate change advocates just don't get it, they just go on and on repeating the same fallacious arguments.
So, here's one employing the same logic----today and tomorrow are the coldest Oct 19th and 20th in the last 8 years---so therefore we must be heading into an imminent ice age
Let's spend $100 trillion on parkas and snowshoes :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Oh, and I forgot. That logic that was mentioned does not seem to me to be the "same". 2 cold days in Oct. do not seem the same as a TREND of the recent 8 year's record warming. And I believe that this year's June or July set a record for the US. Also, the Gulf water temperature was a record. The logic is NOT the same because my examples are indicative of trends and 2 cold days in Oct are merely data points. But they are interesting. And nice days to put a sweatshirt on.

[jimjamuser]

First of all, intuitively does not prove anything, Second, you did NOT provide data of increasing hurricane intensity -- only a Narrative, which anyone can say. Talk is cheap -- data is gold. Both will be shown at tomorrow's presentation (1:30 PM at Bridgeport, Oct 20). Google is the last place to obtain valid information about climate change as they are in cahoots with the United Nations ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRR9AMum9A0
Anyone who says they own the "science" is someone who wants to be King of the Hill and wants you to stop thinking for yourself. More importantly Richard Feynman, who was probably the smartest scientist after Einstein said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Feynman won the Nobel Prize in Physics, he won the Einstein Award, he help develop the A-bomb, and he solved the O-ring Challenger disaster problem, and much more. Anyone who calls himself an "expert" is most likely trying to fool you -- unless that person has a verifiable track record in that field of expertise and/or can present solid, peer-reviewed, data.
OK...."data is gold" and I did not provide ANY DATA. That's intuitively true because I am NOT a PAID hurricane expert. I did provide 2 names of EXPERT researchers that have collected DATA about hurricanes and got paid to do so using satellite images from 1980. Just write to them and request their data.
......I did my best to answer your request!

[jimjamuser]

Is it possible that Mr. Kossin discovered that hurricane intensity has increased by 8% per decade (I'd like to see his research; just how many decades are covered, all hurricanes or just that made landfall, are tropical storms included, etc. etc.) and just attributed that increase to global warming? Correlation does not prove causation.
All the decades from 1980. That would be 3 decades. I am not interested enough to write to those 2 experts. I have formed my opinion on Climate Change already. It is based on watching TV and reading articles going all the way back to Al Gore. Just general societal knowledge that I have ABSORBED through the years. .......from things like the reef coral dying. From the fact that animal populations are dropping (and human populations are increasing) From the fact that farmers from South America are traveling north to the US because their crops won't grow. The same northward migration is happening in Europe. From the fires due to excess heat in the US west. From flooding news from Pakistan.
From the fact that factory farms have eliminated the large numbers of pheasants that used to be in Nebraska.

The news is all around us and environmentally it is NOT good. I really don't need any more GRAPHS to tell me what is intuitively obvious TO ME anyway!

[golfing eagles]

Oh, and I forgot. That logic that was mentioned does not seem to me to be the "same". 2 cold days in Oct. do not seem the same as a TREND of the recent 8 year's record warming. And I believe that this year's June or July set a record for the US. Also, the Gulf water temperature was a record. The logic is NOT the same because my examples are indicative of trends and 2 cold days in Oct are merely data points. But they are interesting. And nice days to put a sweatshirt on.

Guess what?----The last 8 years is not a TREND of the last 4 million years. That's why I picked that ridiculous analogy in the first place

[Vermilion Villager]

At this month's Weather Club meeting, a post-analysis and video of Hurricane Ian will precede an updated "Climate Change Calamity" presentation. It is this Thursday (Oct 20) at 1:30 PM at the Bridgeport Recreation Center. Important climate studies that are rarely seen in the media will be reviewed. These studies are published in scientific journals -- and yet the public hardly knows about them. One very important study is the $9 million NEEM Project from Greenland, which produced amazing climate change information.
Sorry.....BFRO meets at that time. We have free beer!:beer3:

[fdpaq0580]

What you describe is NOT supported by data. But let's look at each claim one at a time ... please show me a graph which shows hurricane intensity is increasing.

Showing you any data that does not support your exact assertion would be denied as true and you would brand it propaganda. So it is a waste of time and energy to provide you with anything you don't want to hear.

[fdpaq0580]

One hurricane does not a trend make...

And just because you continue to repeat your : "most scientists believe that man is causing climate change" fallacy, does not make it true...

Every trend begins with a single event.

[fdpaq0580]

Is it possible that Mr. Kossin discovered that hurricane intensity has increased by 8% per decade (I'd like to see his research; just how many decades are covered, all hurricanes or just that made landfall, are tropical storms included, etc. etc.) and just attributed that increase to global warming? Correlation does not prove causation.

I think that you could find the research, if you really want it.

[fdpaq0580]

I agree with one thing-----this isn't too challenging.
Unfortunately, the climate change advocates just don't get it, they just go on and on repeating the same fallacious arguments.
So, here's one employing the same logic----today and tomorrow are the coldest Oct 19th and 20th in the last 8 years---so therefore we must be heading into an imminent ice age
Let's spend $100 trillion on parkas and snowshoes :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Holding up 2 days of local weather out of 8 years of global average temperatures as a of trying to add credence to your position is ingenuous and, imo, like a verbal shell game. Chicanery.

[fdpaq0580]

What may be good for the climate can be terrible for the environment. .. wind farms many kill birds. Solar collection farms destroy local habitat.

But not even a tiny bit as bad as oil fields, refineries, coal mines and coal and oil fired factories and power plants. Be honest. Almost anything humans do, even putting a blanket down for a picnic, negatively impacts habitat, albeit in a miniscule way. You point at the solar and wind to divert the eye from the far, far greater damages by coal and oil.

[golfing eagles]

Holding up 2 days of local weather out of 8 years of global average temperatures as a of trying to add credence to your position is ingenuous and, imo, like a verbal shell game. Chicanery.

sort of like holding out 8 years as a reflection of the last 4 million?????

[jimjamuser]

Guess what?----The last 8 years is not a TREND of the last 4 million years. That's why I picked that ridiculous analogy in the first place
Admitting to a "ridiculous analogy" about the general topic of Climate Change..........somehow gave me a good laugh. I thought it was ridiculous, but it was creative. Kudos!

[jimjamuser]

Sorry.....BFRO meets at that time. We have free beer!:beer3:
Yes, nice to see that some people have their priorities straight.

[jimjamuser]

Showing you any data that does not support your exact assertion would be denied as true and you would brand it propaganda. So it is a waste of time and energy to provide you with anything you don't want to hear.
Many people do NOT want to admit that the Climate Change going on today exists or is man-made. It pulls them out of their comfort zone. I try, but I don't know how to reach them. I think that it is worth trying because it is a factor that is lowering the quality of life for people throughout the planet. Just as one and only one example........when a living coral reef dies there is less beauty available to see in the world and less eco-function.

[jimjamuser]

Holding up 2 days of local weather out of 8 years of global average temperatures as a of trying to add credence to your position is ingenuous and, imo, like a verbal shell game. Chicanery.
"a verbal shell game" ........well played.......touche!

[mtdjed]

All of the back and forth as to whether there is human caused climate changes or not has been discussed here and changes nothing. What I would prefer to know is whether those who truly believe we cause the weather to change have done anything significant such that you can demonstrate you are doing your part to change the trend. Tell us what great changes you have made to your life that truly makes a difference. Solar panels on your home, EV's charged by energy source such as solar, wind, tide or wind. Biking and walking instead of energy consuming transportation. Avoiding air transport, growing your own food without fertilizers, eating no meat.

Or are you just like the rest of us? Plug into the grid, heat and cool your house, power to keep your pool usable, air transport to your cruise port. Wash and dry your clothes in machines powered by gas or electric. And heaven forbid, us a powered golf cart and have your lawn mowed by gas powered equipment.

[golfing eagles]

All of the back and forth as to whether there is human caused climate changes or not has been discussed here and changes nothing. What I would prefer to know is whether those who truly believe we cause the weather to change have done anything significant such that you can demonstrate you are doing your part to change the trend. Tell us what great changes you have made to your life that truly makes a difference. Solar panels on your home, EV's charged by energy source such as solar, wind, tide or wind. Biking and walking instead of energy consuming transportation. Avoiding air transport, growing your own food without fertilizers, eating no meat.

Or are you just like the rest of us? Plug into the grid, heat and cool your house, power to keep your pool usable, air transport to your cruise port. Wash and dry your clothes in machines powered by gas or electric. And heaven forbid, us a powered golf cart and have your lawn mowed by gas powered equipment.

Great post! I wouldn't single out anyone on TOTV, but I suspect most of them worldwide follow the example of utilizing gas guzzling private jets and yachts set by their leader, Leonardo DiCaprio, UN global ambassador for climate change:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You see, this whole myth and culture of climate change leads to modern convenience for the Hollywierd crowd and bicoastal elites while relegating the rest of us to the 17th century. The classic "do as I say, not as I do"

[ThirdOfFive]

All the decades from 1980. That would be 3 decades. I am not interested enough to write to those 2 experts. I have formed my opinion on Climate Change already. It is based on watching TV and reading articles going all the way back to Al Gore. Just general societal knowledge that I have ABSORBED through the years. .......from things like the reef coral dying. From the fact that animal populations are dropping (and human populations are increasing) From the fact that farmers from South America are traveling north to the US because their crops won't grow. The same northward migration is happening in Europe. From the fires due to excess heat in the US west. From flooding news from Pakistan.
From the fact that factory farms have eliminated the large numbers of pheasants that used to be in Nebraska.

The news is all around us and environmentally it is NOT good. I really don't need any more GRAPHS to tell me what is intuitively obvious TO ME anyway!
Actually that would be four decades: the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s. which would mean, if the research quoted was accurate, that hurricanes in 1980 were 32% less severe than hurricanes in 2020.

I did quite a bit of clicking around this morning to see if I could find evidence to support or refute the theory that there was that much variation in hurricane severity over the years, but the data I could find was all over the map. Interestingly enough the "severity" of hurricanes are measured in one of two ways; wind speed or barometric pressure, and depending on the method the list of "severe" storms can be quite different. Some people attempt to categorize hurricanes according to damage and/or deaths, but that is sophistic. For instance, the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record was the "Great Hurricane" (Huracán San Calixto) killed over 22,000 people (some estimates of close to 30,000) but that was back in 1780! No data about wind speed of that storm is available, only estimates, though it is believed to have been a category 5. It should be noted as well that Huracán San Calixto struck the Antilles (Hispaniola, St. Kitts, Nevis, several other islands) which were agrarian cultures, growing mainly sugar cane, and as I assume slaves were counted as property, not people, the toll could have been far higher than reported.

Interestingly enough, 1780 is still the deadliest hurricane year on record, though I'll bet the farm that many people believe it was actually 2005 and Katrina.

Another fly in this particular ointment is that the old data records probably only the hurricanes that made landfall, and many don't, so it is quite possible that in years like 1780 there were quite a few more storms than were reported. Today we track every tropical depression using a variety of methods and get hour-by-hour updates, but 200 years ago those methods didn't exist.

Bottom line: we can choose whatever we want to believe and can find statistics to support it. But, as Mark Twain once observed, there are three kinds of untruths, "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[Byte1]

Many people do NOT want to admit that the Climate Change going on today exists or is man-made. It pulls them out of their comfort zone. I try, but I don't know how to reach them. I think that it is worth trying because it is a factor that is lowering the quality of life for people throughout the planet. Just as one and only one example........when a living coral reef dies there is less beauty available to see in the world and less eco-function.

Perhaps that is because those that scream wolf have not produced evidence of the wolf. And since that will elicit a response that the person that cried wolf eventually met up with a wolf, I will put it this way: YOU have not produced ANY evidence that humans have caused climate change. So, since the climate has changed from good to bad and back to good and then bad again, and since it is a cycle that is never consistent other than the seasons created by the rotation of the Earth around the SUN, no one has given me any REAL evidence that mankind has been powerful enough to change the climate. Like I said before and reiterate, I believe in man caused air pollution to a certain extent. I also believe that nature naturally effects the air pollution too.
I believe that oil is in the Earth for a specific reason, to provide us with fuel for energy. I believe that animals (some) are good to eat and therefore are on earth as a food source. Of course, I believe in creation but I won't start that argument.
AND I believe that the concept of "man caused climate change" is a gigantic joke perpetrated by sophisticated grifters to Con gullible folks out of their money. That's my opinion, which I might add is just as valid as those that believe that man can change the seasons and make the world either warmer or colder.
Question: if man can change the climate, what temperature should we set the climate thermostat at? I like an average of 75 degrees year round with a few 90 days for water skying and diving. Can we concur with that?

[fdpaq0580]

sort of like holding out 8 years as a reflection of the last 4 million?????

Yeah! Kind like that. If a graph shows only a steep increase it is not as meaningful as extending the graph to show where the steeper incline began. Then, by examining what was happening at the point of increase, the reason(s) for said increase may be determined. In the case of climate change it begins at the beginning of the industrial revolution and population explosion.
Hmm! Do you think it possible that might have something to do with it? 😉

[Davonu]

…In the case of climate change it begins at the beginning of the industrial revolution and population explosion.
Hmm! Do you think it possible that might have something to do with it? 😉
Yeah, right.

We all know that climate was 100% constant prior to that. Never wavered in the slightest. Every year/decade/century/ millenium was exactly the same as every other.

Give me a break.

[fdpaq0580]

Many people do NOT want to admit that the Climate Change going on today exists or is man-made. It pulls them out of their comfort zone. I try, but I don't know how to reach them. I think that it is worth trying because it is a factor that is lowering the quality of life for people throughout the planet. Just as one and only one example........when a living coral reef dies there is less beauty available to see in the world and less eco-function.

I agree with you. Just understand that many people are so deeply dug onto their foxhole that they can never come out. Also, remember that you will not change their minds. They have to accept the truth on their own. Keep the debate friendly and respectful. You can catch more flies with honey, is a wise old adage and applicable in most cases. After all, we are all friends here.

[jimjamuser]

All of the back and forth as to whether there is human caused climate changes or not has been discussed here and changes nothing. What I would prefer to know is whether those who truly believe we cause the weather to change have done anything significant such that you can demonstrate you are doing your part to change the trend. Tell us what great changes you have made to your life that truly makes a difference. Solar panels on your home, EV's charged by energy source such as solar, wind, tide or wind. Biking and walking instead of energy consuming transportation. Avoiding air transport, growing your own food without fertilizers, eating no meat.

Or are you just like the rest of us? Plug into the grid, heat and cool your house, power to keep your pool usable, air transport to your cruise port. Wash and dry your clothes in machines powered by gas or electric. And heaven forbid, us a powered golf cart and have your lawn mowed by gas powered equipment.
OK, I can respond to that challenge, That is a reasonable question. I eat VERY little red meat. I have an electric lawnmower and bicycle. I avoid air travel and large cruise ships would bore me and waste my money. I drive a small gas car. My next car, if I live long enough, will be an E-car. I plant many hedges and trees in my yard because they produce more oxygen than plain grass and require zero fertilizer. Before the pandemic, we had a summer home in Tn. with 2 acres on which we grew apples, peaches, and vegetables, including corn, and also blackberries. I buy recycled clothes from goodwill and garage sales. I drink soy milk. I would NEVER, NEVER waste money on a private pool when the neighborhood pool is close and has some interesting characters there. I do NOT play GOLF because it is very little exercise and a lot of wasted time - also the plain grass there releases MUCH, MUCH less oxygen than the trees they cut down for a golf course. Also, a golf course has a lot of fertilizer runoff which destabilizes the surrounding lakes and , of course, wastes water. And all the non-electric golf carts are without smog control devices as good as modern automobiles so the pollution factor is high.
.........Thanks for the question and challenge. I hope others take that challenge also.

[fdpaq0580]

Yeah, right.

We all know that climate was 100% constant prior to that. Never wavered in the slightest. Every year/decade/century/ millenium was exactly the same as every other.

Give me a break.

No need to be sarcastic. We all know that the earths climate has gone thru a lot of changes since it formed. The current question is, has man-made destruction of habitats and man-made pollution exacerbated/increased the rate of rise of the average global temperature? I say it has. I am guessing you don't agree.

[Byte1]

OK, I can respond to that challenge, That is a reasonable question. I eat VERY little red meat. I have an electric lawnmower and bicycle. I avoid air travel and large cruise ships would bore me and waste my money. I drive a small gas car. My next car, if I live long enough, will be an E-car. I plant many hedges and trees in my yard because they produce more oxygen than plain grass and require zero fertilizer. Before the pandemic, we had a summer home in Tn. with 2 acres on which we grew apples, peaches, and vegetables, including corn, and also blackberries. I buy recycled clothes from goodwill and garage sales. I drink soy milk. I would NEVER, NEVER waste money on a private pool when the neighborhood pool is close and has some interesting characters there. I do NOT play GOLF because it is very little exercise and a lot of wasted time - also the plain grass there releases MUCH, MUCH less oxygen than the trees they cut down for a golf course. Also, a golf course has a lot of fertilizer runoff which destabilizes the surrounding lakes and , of course, wastes water. And all the non-electric golf carts are without smog control devices as good as modern automobiles so the pollution factor is high.
.........Thanks for the question and challenge. I hope others take that challenge also.

Personally, I use as much gasoline as I need. I bought a new gas fueled car this year as it gets as much mileage as a friend's brand new hybrid. But that is not the reason. I just like gasoline fueled vehicles better than EVs right now. Maybe my opinion will change later, if I live long enough. I have an EV golf cart that I never use. I have a motorcycle that I do not use to conserve on fuel, but just for the pure enjoyment of riding, not going anywhere, just riding. I use battery powered tools rather than fossil powered because I do not like the smell of fuel in my garage. I do not fly because I have flown all over the world and it is now, no longer comfortable for me to fly. I have been to many countries with way more pollution than ours. I have spent winters in countries where you could not see the tops of buildings due to the fuel they used to heat their homes. Gotta love the smell of burning manure in the winter.
I am NOT concerned about climate change as I know it has ALWAYS changed and will continue to do so whether or not man intervenes. I care a little bit about air pollution, but the air quality has improved since I was a child, so it is a minor issue or possibly a fleeting thought.
I am more concerned about inflation than I am about the great new green deal. Although, I do care about all the taxpayer money wasted on it. I care about the rising oil price and the rising cost of living (inflation) and hope that someone gets their act together before they ruin too many lives. But, I do not care about the changing climate. I do not worry about hurricanes since the only thing you can do is get out of their way. I've lived through hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons, as well as many, many earthquakes. When it is my time to go, I know where I will go in my afterlife so I am not even concerned about that.
My only concern for the next generation is whether or not they will enjoy the freedom and liberty my generation has been blessed with.
But, like I said earlier if you all figure out how man can change the climate....please change it for an average temp of 75 degrees with a few 90 degree days for water activity.

[jimjamuser]

Actually that would be four decades: the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s, and the 2010s. which would mean, if the research quoted was accurate, that hurricanes in 1980 were 32% less severe than hurricanes in 2020.

I did quite a bit of clicking around this morning to see if I could find evidence to support or refute the theory that there was that much variation in hurricane severity over the years, but the data I could find was all over the map. Interestingly enough the "severity" of hurricanes are measured in one of two ways; wind speed or barometric pressure, and depending on the method the list of "severe" storms can be quite different. Some people attempt to categorize hurricanes according to damage and/or deaths, but that is sophistic. For instance, the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record was the "Great Hurricane" (Huracán San Calixto) killed over 22,000 people (some estimates of close to 30,000) but that was back in 1780! No data about wind speed of that storm is available, only estimates, though it is believed to have been a category 5. It should be noted as well that Huracán San Calixto struck the Antilles (Hispaniola, St. Kitts, Nevis, several other islands) which were agrarian cultures, growing mainly sugar cane, and as I assume slaves were counted as property, not people, the toll could have been far higher than reported.

Interestingly enough, 1780 is still the deadliest hurricane year on record, though I'll bet the farm that many people believe it was actually 2005 and Katrina.

Another fly in this particular ointment is that the old data records probably only the hurricanes that made landfall, and many don't, so it is quite possible that in years like 1780 there were quite a few more storms than were reported. Today we track every tropical depression using a variety of methods and get hour-by-hour updates, but 200 years ago those methods didn't exist.

Bottom line: we can choose whatever we want to believe and can find statistics to support it. But, as Mark Twain once observed, there are three kinds of untruths, "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
You are correct about the 4 decades. My bad, I will try harder in the future. Impressive that your post was so well-researched. As to the conclusion that basically anybody can find support for anything that they believe. Yes, I guess that is true. It is said that as people age their belief systems harden like their arteries. So, here in the Villages, it is hard to find open-minded discussions. I remember a few philosophy club meetings that I attended. It was a waste because one very closed-minded belligerent man would dominate the group discussions. I imagine that the Village weather and climate club has some rowdy exchanges. I can only imagine because I have never attended that club.

I guess each person has to make up their mind about how they feel about climate change, recent Global Warming, and whether hurricanes are increasing in intensity. For any family living in the coastal areas of Florida, it becomes a practical and NOT academic decision - they must decide IF they rebuild their destroyed homes and can they afford to rebuild to the newer housing standards (stilt basements). And Florida may eventually decide to set a no-building limit some certain distance from the water line - depending on if there are more KILLER hurricanes like IAN for the next 10 years.

So, here in north central Florida, the Villagers can be more academic about warming and intensifying hurricanes. The hurricane threat is not quite as real as someone living on the coast. I will just conclude by saying that we will likely know who is correct about Global Warming and hurricanes within the next 10 years. So. just buckle up and be aware!

[Davonu]

No need to be sarcastic. We all know that the earths climate has gone thru a lot of changes since it formed. The current question is, has man-made destruction of habitats and man-made pollution exacerbated/increased the rate of rise of the average global temperature? I say it has. I am guessing you don't agree.Mankind’s activity does effect climate. The big issue I have is with the argument that humans are solely responsible for…or even a MAJOR contributor to…climate change. Not even close.

[fdpaq0580]

Mankind’s activity does effect climate. The big issue I have is with the argument that humans are solely responsible for…or even a MAJOR contributor to…climate change. Not even close.

We certainly are not solely responsible for climate change. And, as continuing study and discussion of the findings are known, the exact amount of effect will certainly be recalculated and stats revised. But, you might be familiar with the phrase, "the straw that broke the camel's back". Our growing population has been adding a lot of straws, particularly in the latter years. We have overloaded the camel far beyond normal load rate and the camel is suffering greatly. We better slow down before that last critical straw goes on or ....?

[jimjamuser]

1. Florida's population is increasing because people are moving out of colder regions. Humans are tropical in nature because we are born without fur -- which is why cold is the bigger killer. 2. Coral diversity and coverage has been changing up & down for the past 160 million (or so) years -- and records clearly show that they were more diverse when global temps and CO2 were much higher than today -- plus today, Great Barrier Reef coral growth is at a 36 year high. Find out much more on Oct 20 at 1:30 at Bridgeport.
Just did a simple google of ......coral on the Great Barrier Reef. That reef has LOST 50% of its coral since 1995. This was an NPR report. It is expected to have a 90% LOSS in 75 years. And YES I consider NPR to be a legitimate source of information. If someone else does not like NPR then that is on them!

[JMintzer]

Every trend begins with a single event.

https://media.giphy.com/media/OWpMbuG5W4r4Y/giphy.gif

[B-flat]

Our growing population has been adding a lot of straws, particularly in the latter years. We have overloaded the camel far beyond normal load rate and the camel is suffering greatly. We better slow down before that last critical straw goes on or ....?

Exactly and this is why if you read between the lines the elites want us, peasants, dead and they will do it systematically.

[golfing eagles]

Just did a simple google of ......coral on the Great Barrier Reef. That reef has LOST 50% of its coral since 1995. This was an NPR report. It is expected to have a 90% LOSS in 75 years. And YES I consider NPR to be a legitimate source of information. If someone else does not like NPR then that is on them!

So, in other words, it's my news source or the highway?????

I also didn't realize NPR did original research----or were they just reporting on a paper by yet another climate change flunky?????

[JMintzer]

Where is the guy who always shows us how many people post in certain threads?

I guess he only does that in threads where he doesn't like the replies...

[Stu from NYC]

If we can get enough people to pay for my trip, I will volunteer to go to the great barrier reef and do my own research into its status.

I do expect to go there in the status I want to become accustomed to in my own private jet with all the accouterments.

[jimjamuser]

I just did. And, as usual, you are wrong...

Despite Media Fearmongering, Great Barrier Reef Is Growing Quickly: Study - Climate Change Dispatch (https://climatechangedispatch.com/despite-media-fearmongering-great-barrier-reef-is-growing-quickly-study/)
Actually, in this case, I would NOT be wrong. Either NPR is RIGHT and the other study is wrong. Or visa versa. Either way, I am just the messenger and we all know NOT to shoot the messenger.

[jimjamuser]

So, in other words, it's my news source or the highway?????

I also didn't realize NPR did original research----or were they just reporting on a paper by yet another climate change flunky?????
As I said, I consider NPR to be at the top of the news pyramid. Others can disagree if they must.

[golfing eagles]

As I said, I consider NPR to be at the top of the news pyramid. Others can disagree if they must.

Doesn't address the question of NPR doing research, which we all know they don't
So once again, sounds like reporting on the work of another climate change advocate

[Byte1]

If the Great Barrier Reef has been there for millions of years and is so big that it can be seen from space (over 70 million football fields in length), exactly how long will it take for mankind to destroy it by using ICE vehicles and smoking cigars? Just a question for the climate change experts on here.

[Stu from NYC]

Actually, in this case, I would NOT be wrong. Either NPR is RIGHT and the other study is wrong. Or visa versa. Either way, I am just the messenger and we all know NOT to shoot the messenger.

Some of us think it is ok to shoot the messenger especially if you do not trust their message

[golfing eagles]

If the Great Barrier Reef has been there for millions of years and is so big that it can be seen from space (over 70 million football fields in length), exactly how long will it take for mankind to destroy it by using ICE vehicles and smoking cigars? Just a question for the climate change experts on here.

Don't forget Coppertone suntan lotion :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

Doesn't address the question of NPR doing research, which we all know they don't
So once again, sounds like reporting on the work of another climate change advocate
NPR could get sued for putting out false news just like any newspaper. So, that would make NPR pretty conscientious and reliable. As a large worldwide organization, they would have people always available to cross-check their stories for reliability.

[golfing eagles]

NPR could get sued for putting out false news just like any newspaper. So, that would make NPR pretty conscientious and reliable. As a large worldwide organization, they would have people always available to cross-check their stories for reliability.

Some climatologist applies for a federal grant in which he proposes to do a study to show coral reefs are decreasing due to human activity. Since his proposal meets the approval of the flavor of the month club, he gets $2 million. He completes his study, and surprise of all surprises, he concludes man's activity is killing the coral reefs. If he's really good and instills fear that this is happening very quickly, he'll probably get another grant for being such a good lap dog. Now NPR reports it. It's not "false news", they can't be "sued". It's just wrong. NPR's due diligence would be to verify that this scientist is real, and he really did a study, but not to critique it.

But I like the idea----there's about a million "reports" that I'd like to sue the MSM for airing.

[jimjamuser]

NPR could get sued for putting out false news just like any newspaper. So, that would make NPR pretty conscientious and reliable. As a large worldwide organization, they would have people always available to cross-check their stories for reliability.
With a quick Google of the Great Barrier Reef, I have seen several underwater pictures of DEAD bleached-out white coral. And stories of scuba divers that are very unhappy about the sad condition of the reef. The water around the reef is exceptionally warm this year. That combined with the excess CO2 not being absorbed by land plants is causing slight acids to kill and bleach the coral. All the world's coral reefs are predicted by scientists to have decreased by 90% in about 75 years.

[sounding]

Just did a simple google of ......coral on the Great Barrier Reef. That reef has LOST 50% of its coral since 1995. This was an NPR report. It is expected to have a 90% LOSS in 75 years. And YES I consider NPR to be a legitimate source of information. If someone else does not like NPR then that is on them!

You'll notice that NPR does not provide data, because the corals are at their 36 year high ... Advance (https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/scientists_admit_great_barrier_reef_has_the_highes t_coral_cover_ever_recorded)

[fdpaq0580]

Some climatologist applies for a federal grant in which he proposes to do a study to show coral reefs are decreasing due to human activity. Since his proposal meets the approval of the flavor of the month club, he gets $2 million. He completes his study, and surprise of all surprises, he concludes man's activity is killing the coral reefs. If he's really good and instills fear that this is happening very quickly, he'll probably get another grant for being such a good lap dog. Now NPR reports it. It's not "false news", they can't be "sued". It's just wrong. NPR's due diligence would be to verify that this scientist is real, and he really did a study, but not to critique it.

But I like the idea----there's about a million "reports" that I'd like to sue the MSM for airing.

Been away for the day. Are we still doing the green agenda conspiracy? Or have we moved on?

[fdpaq0580]

You'll notice that NPR does not provide data, because the corals are at their 36 year high ... Advance (https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/scientists_admit_great_barrier_reef_has_the_highes t_coral_cover_ever_recorded)

Really? Doesn't appear that way when I swim by.

[golfing eagles]

Been away for the day. Are we still doing the green agenda conspiracy? Or have we moved on?

No, I'm pretty sure the green agenda conspirators are still at it

[fdpaq0580]

No, I'm pretty sure the green agenda conspirators are still at it

Oh, good. Can I play too?😃

[Taltarzac725]

Hurricanes and Climate Change - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions (https://www.c2es.org/content/hurricanes-and-climate-change/)

A good source.

[Stu from NYC]

Been away for the day. Are we still doing the green agenda conspiracy? Or have we moved on?

This will be debated ad nauseam for years unless someone in authority makes it go away

[Taltarzac725]

There are all kinds of data out there.

Coral Reefs and Corals | Smithsonian Ocean (https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/corals-and-coral-reefs)

[Taltarzac725]

You'll notice that NPR does not provide data, because the corals are at their 36 year high ... Advance (https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/scientists_admit_great_barrier_reef_has_the_highes t_coral_cover_ever_recorded)

Advance hardly looks like an objective site.

Parts of Australia'''s Great Barrier Reef show highest coral cover in 36 years | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/parts-australias-great-barrier-reef-show-highest-coral-cover-36-years-2022-08-04/)

[Byte1]

With a quick Google of the Great Barrier Reef, I have seen several underwater pictures of DEAD bleached-out white coral. And stories of scuba divers that are very unhappy about the sad condition of the reef. The water around the reef is exceptionally warm this year. That combined with the excess CO2 not being absorbed by land plants is causing slight acids to kill and bleach the coral. All the world's coral reefs are predicted by scientists to have decreased by 90% in about 75 years.

And underwater volcanoes had nothing to do with it? Sure, man did it. The Great Barrier reef did NOT decrease by 90% in 75 years, so conveniently grouping it with others is in my opinion, to be just as irresponsible as some of these bogus scientists.

[fdpaq0580]

With a quick Google of the Great Barrier Reef, I have seen several underwater pictures of DEAD bleached-out white coral. And stories of scuba divers that are very unhappy about the sad condition of the reef. The water around the reef is exceptionally warm this year. That combined with the excess CO2 not being absorbed by land plants is causing slight acids to kill and bleach the coral. All the world's coral reefs are predicted by scientists to have decreased by 90% in about 75 years.

I have been diving there on various occasions and witnessed it first hand. Spoken with those who live there, make their livelihood there and study the causes and effects. The truth is not good, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

[jimjamuser]

You'll notice that NPR does not provide data, because the corals are at their 36 year high ... Advance (https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/scientists_admit_great_barrier_reef_has_the_highes t_coral_cover_ever_recorded)
Well........a quick lookup in Wikipedia says that Advance Australia (AA) is a conservative political lobbying group that emphasizes a Judeo-Christian heritage. AA started a campaign around Australian children with an E-book titled,"10 climate facts to expose the climate change HOAX" in an attempt to go against the established SCIENTIFIC view. AA has received a large amount of RIDICULE from the Australian media.

Judging by Wikipedia I would conclude that AA is merely a group with an agenda against SCIENCE - reminiscent of America's old Flat-Earth-Society. So, I will continue to believe the PICTURES of the bleached white and dying coral in the Great Barrier Reef. And the prediction by REAL SCIENTISTS (not AA want-to-be-s) that 90% of all earth's coral reefs will be DEAD in about 75 years!

[jimjamuser]

This will be debated ad nauseam for years unless someone in authority makes it go away
Also, any individual that does not want to contribute is welcome to contribute to another thread.

[jimjamuser]

Advance hardly looks like an objective site.

Parts of Australia'''s Great Barrier Reef show highest coral cover in 36 years | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/parts-australias-great-barrier-reef-show-highest-coral-cover-36-years-2022-08-04/)
I agree about Advance Australia. A careful reading of the posted link reveals that the LARGER southern region is in big trouble and dying. The other SMALLER sections ARE increasing, but with a type of coral that scientists feel will be very vulnerable to future conditions.
........So this is another environmental situation (like US forest health) that can be interpreted in either a pessimistic manner or an optimistic one. I believe that in 8 or 10 years the total environmental picture and man's deterioration of it will become so apparent that scientists and laymen alike will agree. That picture will come into clear focus!
........and to remind folks of one alarming man-caused environmental problem.......we have the war in the Ukraine - which LIKELY has led Russia to blow 4 holes in the gas pipeline sitting on the sea floor in order to let Europe freeze this winter. These pipeline ruptures are spewing methane gas straight into the upper atmosphere. That would be a good example of man-made Global Warming.

[jimjamuser]

There are all kinds of data out there.

Coral Reefs and Corals | Smithsonian Ocean (https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/corals-and-coral-reefs)
That is the most interesting and informative link that I have ever read on this forum or anywhere. Period. Kudos to the Smithsonian.

[jimjamuser]

And underwater volcanoes had nothing to do with it? Sure, man did it. The Great Barrier reef did NOT decrease by 90% in 75 years, so conveniently grouping it with others is in my opinion, to be just as irresponsible as some of these bogus scientists.
All reefs around the world are predicted in the FUTURE 75 years to be down 90%. In other words, reefs WILL be down to only 10%. According to that link on the Smithsonian warm water corals in shallow water have an ENORMOUS effect on all marine life. Basically, I take that to mean that people will not be seeing fish in the Publix supermarkets of the Future.

In the Smithsonian article, it was stated........that the past 200 years ocean water has become 30% more ACIDIC and that is FASTER than any CHANGE in the LAST 50 MILLION YEARS
........I can imagine that the last 200 years of increased ocean acidity relates to man's increased CO2 production which increased dramatically with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

[golfing eagles]

Well........a quick lookup in Wikipedia says that Advance Australia (AA) is a conservative political lobbying group that emphasizes a Judeo-Christian heritage. AA started a campaign around Australian children with an E-book titled,"10 climate facts to expose the climate change HOAX" in an attempt to go against the established SCIENTIFIC view. AA has received a large amount of RIDICULE from the Australian media.

Judging by Wikipedia I would conclude that AA is merely a group with an agenda against SCIENCE - reminiscent of America's old Flat-Earth-Society. So, I will continue to believe the PICTURES of the bleached white and dying coral in the Great Barrier Reef. And the prediction by REAL SCIENTISTS (not AA want-to-be-s) that 90% of all earth's coral reefs will be DEAD in about 75 years!

Are those the same "real" scientists who predicted the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010?????

[golfing eagles]

All reefs around the world are predicted in the FUTURE 75 years to be down 90%. In other words, reefs WILL be down to only 10%. According to that link on the Smithsonian warm water corals in shallow water have an ENORMOUS effect on all marine life. Basically, I take that to mean that people will not be seeing fish in the Publix supermarkets of the Future.

In the Smithsonian article, it was stated........that the past 200 years ocean water has become 30% more ACIDIC and that is FASTER than any CHANGE in the LAST 50 MILLION YEARS
........I can imagine that the last 200 years of increased ocean acidity relates to man's increased CO2 production which increased dramatically with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Really????? They've plotted out the acidity of the oceans for every 200 year span out of the last 50 million????? Quite an accomplishment. You do realize that is 250,000 spans of 200 years-----I'd love to see that data chart. So, no matter who made that statement, it is plainly idiotic

[jimjamuser]

Are those the same "real" scientists who predicted the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010?????
I believe that we will know the truth in about 8 to 10 years. I can wait. P.S. There is a Cat 4 hurricane in the Pacific heading toward Mexico.

[jimjamuser]

Really????? They've plotted out the acidity of the oceans for every 200 year span out of the last 50 million????? Quite an accomplishment. You do realize that is 250,000 spans of 200 years-----I'd love to see that data chart. So, no matter who made that statement, it is plainly idiotic
Please .....then quickly inform the Smithsonian Institute of their grievous error. Anyway, they're just a bunch of out-of-touch scientists. And at the end of that Smithsonian Institute link, there are pictures of and the educational qualifications of three Smithsonian Ocean scientists with Doctorates that would be glad to have a debate. Maybe tickets could be sold!

[jimjamuser]

Really????? They've plotted out the acidity of the oceans for every 200 year span out of the last 50 million????? Quite an accomplishment. You do realize that is 250,000 spans of 200 years-----I'd love to see that data chart. So, no matter who made that statement, it is plainly idiotic
Actually. I imagine they know the ocean acidity levels back 50 Million years because they did core samples of ancient coral reefs. When reading the Smithsonian article I found out that living coral form rings just like ancient redwood trees do. I assume from that and core samples they can date the rings and come to the conclusion back to 50 Million years. And I enjoyed learning that !

[golfing eagles]

Actually. I imagine they know the ocean acidity levels back 50 Million years because they did core samples of ancient coral reefs. When reading the Smithsonian article I found out that living coral form rings just like ancient redwood trees do. I assume from that and core samples they can date the rings and come to the conclusion back to 50 Million years. And I enjoyed learning that !

It doesn’t work that way

[Byte1]

All reefs around the world are predicted in the FUTURE 75 years to be down 90%. In other words, reefs WILL be down to only 10%. According to that link on the Smithsonian warm water corals in shallow water have an ENORMOUS effect on all marine life. Basically, I take that to mean that people will not be seeing fish in the Publix supermarkets of the Future.

In the Smithsonian article, it was stated........that the past 200 years ocean water has become 30% more ACIDIC and that is FASTER than any CHANGE in the LAST 50 MILLION YEARS
........I can imagine that the last 200 years of increased ocean acidity relates to man's increased CO2 production which increased dramatically with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

So, you are not disagreeing with my statement directly, just adding a bunch of verbiage that you think will impress others as well as predicting what might happen in the next 75 years? And you "imagine" that the increase in the ocean acidity is related to automobile exhaust fumes? I don't "imagine" that volcanoes can cause disruptions in the ocean environment. It's fact, not imagination.

[jimjamuser]

So, you are not disagreeing with my statement directly, just adding a bunch of verbiage that you think will impress others as well as predicting what might happen in the next 75 years? And you "imagine" that the increase in the ocean acidity is related to automobile exhaust fumes? I don't "imagine" that volcanoes can cause disruptions in the ocean environment. It's fact, not imagination.
In BOTH of my posts about the 75 years, I was talking about the FUTURE, not the LAST 75 years. It somehow got misinterpreted from my 1st post. (possibly if it was read rapidly) Regardless, I did not make that prediction, it was made by an ocean scientist that is an expert on the world's coral reefs. I just passed that prediction along because it was important to the Climate Change topic that is being discussed. I am just like everyone else a CONTRIBUTOR to the discussion, no more, no less.
.........When I say I "imagine" that the increased ocean acidity is caused by CO2 from IC engines (because the last 200 years of increased acidity - that time period OVERLAPS with the invention of the automobile. When I say I "imagine" something, that means that it is my OPINION.
.........as far as ocean volcanoes causing the rising level of oceans worldwide as measured by scientists (not my opinion) - that is NOT something that I have ever heard or read from any scientist as a cause of their measurements increasing at a large rate in recent years. They have always said that the cause is the melting of glaciers and polar ice, which in turn is caused by Global Warming. Again.NOT my OPINION, just a statement from scientists that I am relaying or adding to this discussion.

[sounding]

In BOTH of my posts about the 75 years, I was talking about the FUTURE, not the LAST 75 years. It somehow got misinterpreted from my 1st post. (possibly if it was read rapidly) Regardless, I did not make that prediction, it was made by an ocean scientist that is an expert on the world's coral reefs. I just passed that prediction along because it was important to the Climate Change topic that is being discussed. I am just like everyone else a CONTRIBUTOR to the discussion, no more, no less.
.........When I say I "imagine" that the increased ocean acidity is caused by CO2 from IC engines (because the last 200 years of increased acidity - that time period OVERLAPS with the invention of the automobile. When I say I "imagine" something, that means that it is my OPINION.
.........as far as ocean volcanoes causing the rising level of oceans worldwide as measured by scientists (not my opinion) - that is NOT something that I have ever heard or read from any scientist as a cause of their measurements increasing at a large rate in recent years. They have always said that the cause is the melting of glaciers and polar ice, which in turn is caused by Global Warming. Again.NOT my OPINION, just a statement from scientists that I am relaying or adding to this discussion.

There is NO increased ocean acidity -- only a tiny decrease in alkalinity. Plus, coral diversity was much higher in the past when CO2 levels much higher than now. Oceans convert CO2 to carbonates which corals use to build coral reefs. CO2 is plant food on land and in oceans -- it is the foundation of earth's food chain -- and more is better.

[golfing eagles]

There is NO increased ocean acidity -- only a tiny decrease in alkalinity. Plus, coral diversity was much higher in the past when CO2 levels much higher than now. Oceans convert CO2 to carbonates which corals use to build coral reefs. CO2 is plant food on land and in oceans -- it is the foundation of earth's food chain -- and more is better.

Once again, stop trying to confuse the truly indoctrinated with the facts. Maybe we need a professional deprogrammer.

[sounding]

Once again, stop trying to confuse the truly indoctrinated with the facts. Maybe we need a professional deprogrammer.

This climate propaganda has been going on for 30 years ... so deprogramming may take 29 more years.

[jimjamuser]

There is NO increased ocean acidity -- only a tiny decrease in alkalinity. Plus, coral diversity was much higher in the past when CO2 levels much higher than now. Oceans convert CO2 to carbonates which corals use to build coral reefs. CO2 is plant food on land and in oceans -- it is the foundation of earth's food chain -- and more is better.
From the source The Smithsonian Institute. Ocean water has become 30% more acidic during the last 200 years. I am just the messenger and the message is everyone should read the Smithsonian Institute ocean science article.

[sounding]

From the source The Smithsonian Institute. Ocean water has become 30% more acidic during the last 200 years. I am just the messenger and the message is everyone should read the Smithsonian Institute ocean science article.

As a life-long student of atmospheric and climate science, I also study how people and governments manipulate data and alter statistics -- this has been going on ever since man arrived on earth. Most people also do this by studying fantastic claims as seen by TV ads before buying. At the Weather Club, we discuss these types of claims all the time. But regarding the 30% acidity claim, please tell me what the pH level was before the Smithsonian claim and what it is now. It's amazing what you'll find when looking at "data" versus "narrative." Data always trumps narrative.

[fdpaq0580]

It doesn’t work that way

I think it sorta does. Check with the scientists who are experts in that field. Read scientific research and journals. I think we can find out, if we want to.

[Whitley]

Are those the same "real" scientists who predicted the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010?????

No, the climate experts who predicted the polar ice caps would be gone are climate experts from the other side.

[sounding]

All reefs around the world are predicted in the FUTURE 75 years to be down 90%. In other words, reefs WILL be down to only 10%. According to that link on the Smithsonian warm water corals in shallow water have an ENORMOUS effect on all marine life. Basically, I take that to mean that people will not be seeing fish in the Publix supermarkets of the Future.

In the Smithsonian article, it was stated........that the past 200 years ocean water has become 30% more ACIDIC and that is FASTER than any CHANGE in the LAST 50 MILLION YEARS
........I can imagine that the last 200 years of increased ocean acidity relates to man's increased CO2 production which increased dramatically with the invention of the internal combustion engine.

The Smithsonian says pH levels are more acidic and dropped by 30% ... saying it dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 pH. So just how does 30% reflect that 0.1 drop using the 0-14 pH scale? Answer: they failed the "new math" course and now push junk science. And exactly what does a pH of 8.1 mean? Answer: a pH of 8.1 is alkaline -- not acid. Furthermore, a simple scan of historic ocean pH levels shows it has been cycling between 8.3 and 8.1 for hundreds of thousands of years -- and probably more. The oceans were never acidic even when CO2 levels were 15 times higher than today. In the meantime, no one has ever dissolved while swimming in the ocean.

[tuccillo]

pH is a logarithmic scale (log base 10, not natural log). In case you don't understand logarithms, a logarithm is an exponent. A drop of about 0.1 of pH is about a 20-30% change in the ion concentration. Nobody said the oceans were becoming an acid (pH less than 7). They are becoming less alkaline. The Smithsonian article is correct.


The Smithsonian says pH levels are more acidic and dropped by 30% ... saying it dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 pH. So just how does 30% reflect that 0.1 drop using the 0-14 pH scale? Answer: they failed the "new math" course and now push junk science. And exactly what does a pH of 8.1 mean? Answer: a pH of 8.1 is alkaline -- not acid. Furthermore, a simple scan of historic ocean pH levels shows it has been cycling between 8.3 and 8.1 for hundreds of thousands of years -- and probably more. The oceans were never acidic even when CO2 levels were 15 times higher than today. In the meantime, no one has ever dissolved while swimming in the ocean.

[fdpaq0580]

pH is a logarithmic scale (log base 10, not natural log). In case you don't understand logarithms, a logarithm is an exponent. A drop of about 0.1 of pH is about a 20-30% change in the ion concentration. Nobody said the oceans were becoming an acid (pH less than 7). They are becoming less alkaline. The Smithsonian article is correct.

Thank you. I was going to respond similarly, but without your eloquence.

[sounding]

pH is a logarithmic scale (log base 10, not natural log). In case you don't understand logarithms, a logarithm is an exponent. A drop of about 0.1 of pH is about a 20-30% change in the ion concentration. Nobody said the oceans were becoming an acid (pH less than 7). They are becoming less alkaline. The Smithsonian article is correct.

Perfect pH answer. This is not my first pH rodeo. This is how climate alarmism works -- pick the most alarming scale -- and/or cherry pick data. Yes indeed, the ocean became less alkaline (and not more acidic like the Smithsonian said). This "less alkaline" cycle happens about every 100,000 years during Interglacial Warming Periods -- like the one we are currently in. And here we come to the bottom line -- these changes all fall within historic natural cycles. There is no climate emergency -- and there is no proof "man-made" CO2 has caused any climate to change.

[tuccillo]

Apparently it is your first pH rodeo as your previous post showed that you didn't understand that pH was a logarithmic scale since you accused the authors of the Smithsonian article of not being able to do math. Ironic, don't you think. You should just stop now.

Perfect pH answer. This is not my first pH rodeo. This is how climate alarmism works -- pick the most alarming scale -- and/or cherry pick data. Yes indeed, the ocean became less alkaline (and not more acidic like the Smithsonian said). This "less alkaline" cycle happens about every 100,000 years during Interglacial Warming Periods -- like the one we are currently in. And here we come to the bottom line -- these changes all fall within historic natural cycles. There is no climate emergency -- and there is no proof "man-made" CO2 has caused any climate to change.

[tuccillo]

Thanks. I am continually amazed at the nonsense I see posted.

Thank you. I was going to respond similarly, but without your eloquence.

[fdpaq0580]

Perfect pH answer. This is not my first pH rodeo. This is how climate alarmism works -- pick the most alarming scale -- and/or cherry pick data. Yes indeed, the ocean became less alkaline (and not more acidic like the Smithsonian said). This "less alkaline" cycle happens about every 100,000 years during Interglacial Warming Periods -- like the one we are currently in. And here we come to the bottom line -- these changes all fall within historic natural cycles. There is no climate emergency -- and there is no proof "man-made" CO2 has caused any climate to change.

The proof is there, if you would truly care to research it with an open mind, except the facts, rather than just try to bolster misinformation.

[sounding]

Apparently it is your first pH rodeo as your previous post showed that you didn't understand that pH was a logarithmic scale since you accused the authors of the Smithsonian article of not being able to do math. Ironic, don't you think. You should just stop now.

Why is the title of the Smithsonian article called "Ocean Acidification"? Why not say corals need more CO2 and subsequent carbonates to grow more reefs? Why not say global warming advances coral diversity, because corals love warm waters and their diversity was much greater when CO2 levels were much greater? Why not say the Great Barrier Reef is now at its greatest extent in 37 years. Why not say there is no climate emergency -- just climate alarmism?

[tuccillo]

I personally don't care about the title of the article. A decrease in alkalinity can be referred to as becoming more acidic. Regardless, I was pointing out the obvious error in your post about the Smithsonian authors not being able to do math. Again, you should just stop now. I won't be wasting anymore time here.

Why is the title of the Smithsonian article called "Ocean Acidification"? Why not say corals need more CO2 and subsequent carbonates to grow more reefs? Why not say global warming advances coral diversity, because corals love warm waters and their diversity was much greater when CO2 levels were much greater? Why not say the Great Barrier Reef is now at its greatest extent in 37 years. Why not say there is no climate emergency -- just climate alarmism?

[sounding]

The proof is there, if you would truly care to research it with an open mind, except the facts, rather than just try to bolster misinformation.

That "proof" does not exist. CO2 is not a problem. CO2 is innocent until proven guilty -- that's the law. The core claim is that "man-made" CO2 is causing global warming, but there is no data to support that. See for yourself, just Google this for example ... How much has "man-made" CO2 warmed earth's temperature last year?

[sounding]

I personally don't care about the title of the article. A decrease in alkalinity can be referred to as becoming more acidic. Regardless, I was pointing out the obvious error in your post about the Smithsonian authors not being able to do math. Again, you should just stop now. I won't be wasting anymore time here.

The Smithsonian mathematicians actually achieved their goal -- to alarm the public about a non-existent problem. Just review this thread -- the "man-on-the-street" actually believes the oceans are 30% more acidic -- not realizing the details. Bottom line ... no one can provide data showing that "man-made" CO2 causes global warming.

[Byte1]

And to think that I spent all that time reading about the increase in volcanic activity in our oceans. I am no expert so I will just guess that volcanoes erupting under our oceans cause the oceans to warm, AND also cause "acidity" in the water. Of course, we also have volcanoes on land that also erupt causing more air pollution than mankind (according to what I have read, right or wrong).
I think I will cast my vote for the idea of convenient "alarmism." Granted, I also believe that air pollution exists, but it is not all caused by man. AND like I have said before, the air quality is better in this country now than when I was a child. Even though I have read plenty of posts on here claiming "man caused climate change" the evidence presented by many on has suggested cyclic climate change and NO evidence of man having the ability to change that.

[sounding]

And to think that I spent all that time reading about the increase in volcanic activity in our oceans. I am no expert so I will just guess that volcanoes erupting under our oceans cause the oceans to warm, AND also cause "acidity" in the water. Of course, we also have volcanoes on land that also erupt causing more air pollution than mankind (according to what I have read, right or wrong).
I think I will cast my vote for the idea of convenient "alarmism." Granted, I also believe that air pollution exists, but it is not all caused by man. AND like I have said before, the air quality is better in this country now than when I was a child. Even though I have read plenty of posts on here claiming "man caused climate change" the evidence presented by many on has suggested cyclic climate change and NO evidence of man having the ability to change that.

Ah, a breath of reality. Audiences at the Weather Club know ... (1). There are at least 138 volcanoes under West Antarctica ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raR5YgFcIQQ and (2). There are at least 3 volcanoes under the East Arctic ice along with ongoing thermal venting while only 10% of that region is explored ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_a0exADJtk .

[golfing eagles]

The Smithsonian says pH levels are more acidic and dropped by 30% ... saying it dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 pH. So just how does 30% reflect that 0.1 drop using the 0-14 pH scale? Answer: they failed the "new math" course and now push junk science. And exactly what does a pH of 8.1 mean? Answer: a pH of 8.1 is alkaline -- not acid. Furthermore, a simple scan of historic ocean pH levels shows it has been cycling between 8.3 and 8.1 for hundreds of thousands of years -- and probably more. The oceans were never acidic even when CO2 levels were 15 times higher than today. In the meantime, no one has ever dissolved while swimming in the ocean.

And yet again----stop confusing the true believers with the facts:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: