True or False

[sounding]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

[Two Bills]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?:shrug:

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

[Normal]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or maybe a storm and saddened people shouldn’t be used for a political agenda? In a month we will have record cold temps, how convenient that will be…

[golfing eagles]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or....maybe it is somewhat less than scientific to apply a single storm to a 100,000-year climate cycle

[sounding]

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?:shrug:

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.

[sounding]

Or....maybe it is somewhat less than scientific to apply a single storm to a 100,000-year climate cycle

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

[Bill14564]

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

This would be mildly humorous if you had not already made it clear that you are being serious.

[golfing eagles]

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

[Bill14564]

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

[golfing eagles]

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

First, the pandemic was here, it was real, and people were dying----Climate change "calamity" is 20,000 years away, and only the truly indoctrinated would claim people are dying from it (citing storms and droughts---all short-term weather events, not climate change)

Second, we have a pretty extensive knowledge of viruses and vaccines and know how to mitigate a pandemic. On the other hand, we sit here with about 150 years of climate data out of the last 4 million years of climate change, have no perspective, and can only grasp at straws as to what if anything we can do.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

[Two Bills]

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.

That's all well and good.
But, what about the price of butter?
Price was never as high as this before CO2 levels started over performing!

[Bill14564]

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

It is possible that I had that in mind when I used the phrase.

[golfing eagles]

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.

Exactly!!!!!

[Byte1]

I could have sworn that I learned in school that CO2 was used by plants to create oxygen. Without plants, humans and animals cannot exist. Seems like CO2 is good. If CO2 makes the weather better, then that is an added bonus.

[daniel200]

Everyone knows you should not store CO2 near hot sources. They tend blow up. As far as the “true or false”; I plead the fifth. Hmm, i used to believe only crooks plead the fifth.

[sounding]

This would be mildly humorous if you had not already made it clear that you are being serious.

Of course I'm serious. I'm always serious. Life is too short for tom-foolery. It's amazing how the satanic gas, called CO2, is making life on earth so much better. Even before the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant, CO2 was demonstrating its demonic evil powers -- decreasing tornadoes, hurricanes, and even land-falling hurricanes. Data trends for floods, droughts, and wildfires are all decreasing with increasing CO2. Polar bear population is rising as hunting them is expanding -- but at $50,000 a head. And the Great Barrier Reef corals are at a 36-year high. If CO2 is a pollutant, then let's make more -- much more -- and that way commercial greenhouses won't have to spend extra bucks to pump CO2 into them to help plants grow bigger and faster.

[sounding]

Everyone knows you should not store CO2 near hot sources. They tend blow up. As far as the “true or false”; I plead the fifth. Hmm, i used to believe only crooks plead the fifth.

CO2 is used in fire suppression systems for many industrial applications. It's a life-saver in many ways.

[sounding]

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Follow the "data" and not the "science." Science is just someone's opinion of the data -- which has seen numerous forms of corruption throughout history. This is why "data" is presented at the Weather Club. Specifically, several examples of Science .vs. Data will be exposed tomorrow (Oct 20), at 1:30 PM at Bridgeport.

[Bill14564]

Follow the "data" and not the "science." Science is just someone's opinion of the data -- which has seen numerous forms of corruption throughout history. This is why "data" is presented at the Weather Club. Specifically, several examples of Science .vs. Data will be exposed tomorrow (Oct 20), at 1:30 PM at Bridgeport.

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

[ThirdOfFive]

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.



It is possible that I had that in mind when I used the phrase.
You mean it's NOT flatulent cattle??

[sounding]

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

No ... follow-the-data only requires eyes, common sense, and logic. It's easier than you think. Relinquishing "science" to others is extremely dangerous, unless that scientist has a proven track record -- like Al Gore. He had no climate change track record -- and all his forecasts failed. There are many past examples of millions being killed based on corrupted science, which is often associated with the equally dangerous term Consensus ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

[Byte1]

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

Didn't someone say "Trust but verify" a while back? :thumbup:

[sounding]

Didn't someone say "Trust but verify" a while back? :thumbup:

Ditto. And here's a perfect example of the "verification" required when people (so-called scientists and experts) make claims about man-made climate change, and who have NO proven "climate-change" track record ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVh3C73EVLU

[Bill14564]

No ... follow-the-data only requires eyes, common sense, and logic. It's easier than you think. Relinquishing "science" to others is extremely dangerous, unless that scientist has a proven track record -- like Al Gore. He had no climate change track record -- and all his forecasts failed. There are many past examples of millions being killed based on corrupted science, which is often associated with the equally dangerous term Consensus ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

[golfing eagles]

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

20,000 years ago NY City was under 2 miles of ice. The climate changed and now we are ice free----no fossil fuels involved. That's all the "climate change track record" anyone needs. These "experts" that try to extrapolate 150 years of data into 4 million years of climate have a "track record"----wrong most of the time. Remember the impending ice age of the 70's, or the complete melting of the ice caps by 2010?????

[fdpaq0580]

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

First, the pandemic was here, it was real, and people were dying----Climate change "calamity" is 20,000 years away, and only the truly indoctrinated would claim people are dying from it (citing storms and droughts---all short-term weather events, not climate change)

Second, we have a pretty extensive knowledge of viruses and vaccines and know how to mitigate a pandemic. On the other hand, we sit here with about 150 years of climate data out of the last 4 million years of climate change, have no perspective, and can only grasp at straws as to what if anything we can do.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

[golfing eagles]

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

"The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there."
------subject to a wide range of interpretation

"Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam"
----I never posted that----only that they are wrong, misguided, or have an agenda---such as keeping their job

"That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions."
-----no, that insult was directed to those, who at the height of the pandemic ignored a wide variety of experts and instead fancied themselves as having a medical degree (from the University of Google)

Nice try, but I won't allow you to twist my words

I will, however, concede that those catastrophic global warming changes might come sooner---like 19,800 years

[Normal]

If you don’t agree with my opinion or my choice of scientist’s causes of Global Climate change, you are wrong. S/

[sounding]

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

You just made an assumption. In science that is dangerous. For starters, NONE of the UN climate change models are have verified. They all run way too hot for the past 30+ years. Anyone can see that from the plotted data. Second, none of the "climate models" can even be trusted, because NONE have ever replicated past climate changes -- e.g., no track record -- that are just toys because you can play with them. Third, and this is also easy to see ... for those who still believe in man-made global warming, just Google this ... "How much as man-made CO2 altered earth's temperature last year." Let me know when find the answer (keep in mind "man-made" CO2).

[Bill14564]

On second thought, not worth the effort

[Byte1]

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

Are you suggesting that scientists would volunteer to do these studies if they were not getting paid? And do you think that they would stretch out this research if they were not getting paid? Do you believe ALL scientists and their results? You said you believe the information that scientists have provided about the climate changes in the "millions of years" of history, but when someone says that most of that time, humans weren't around, and there was climate change you still feel that mankind has caused climate change? Why is it that so many folks seem to think that man caused pollution is synonymous with man caused climate change?
I guess you can say that I changed the climate from cold winters by moving South to Florida where the winters are warm. That changed the climate for me. But, even though some on here argue that man is responsible for climate change, they have yet to prove that man has contributed to changing the climate. Just stating absolutely that man really has changed the changes or weather cycles, does not prove it. Yes, I believe that scientists that get paid to do research into a subject with the goal of proving a preconceived outcome, are wasting (stealing) taxpayer money, if they are not being honest/honorable about the results. An arson investigator can prove that a man caused a fire, therefore fire was caused by man. However, there can be a forest fire that was caused by lightning also. That investigator cannot say that all fires are caused by man. He cannot say that since man CAN cause fire, a forest fire was caused by man. Not a very good example, but you cannot say that man exists therefore man caused climate change.

[sounding]

On second thought, not worth the effort

It is very worth it, as these issues (like climate change) reflect what Eisenhower warned us about many years ago -- how government increasingly controls "the science" -- and today everyone is "expected" to follow -- or be cancelled ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71-kXuQhTo Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

[MorTech]

Higher global temperatures (Sun activity) causes increased atmospheric CO2 and H2O that act like a blanket to decrease global low/high pressure deltas and thus fewer hurricanes/tornados. This is 5th grade stuff.

[rsmurano]

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Who would ever believe in the cdc or fauci or gore? Which hoax did you believe in during the last 50 years? The hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy us? Global cooling? Global warming? According to some politicians we only have 4 years left before earth is destroyed..

[ChrisTinaBruce]

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

Nailed It!

https://www.usameme.com/leonardo-dicaprio-nailed-it-meme/

[Worldseries27]

exactly!!!!!
why doesn't greenpeace sail over to china, the worlds greatest polluter ,and harass their infrastructure which is polluting the atmosphere
or hire somali pirates to assist them

[Romad]

You could go to the TV Weather Club meeting this afternoon and find out.

[me4vt]

Or just maybe GOD’s in charge as always! Man cannot control GOD’s will…….. Not Political!!

[NoMo50]

Follow the data? As has been shown many, many times, data is easily manipulated. You want to get to ground zero? Follow the money.

[mikempp]

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?:shrug:

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

I think the climate change might be CO2 between the ears? Climate had noithing to do with the price of butter, just an excuse.

[nancyre]

Amazing what can be done, with a Government Grant to prove a specific hypothesis. Also, change the weight of the factors in a model and the model's outcome changes. Noble prize winner planted trees in Africa - FYI they need CO2 to survive and produce Oz. They are finding methane gases being created by certain plants. Wake up to the twisting of reality to meet certain agendas.

[mikempp]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years ago.

[Beyond The Wall]

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Following common sense , usually your own , is the best !

[midiwiz]

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

our leaders couldn't find their left hand if it was in their nose. You have posted nothing that is considered valid reference material, just blurb and opinion. if you'd like reference material from a referenceable source....

Have storms become more intense on the USA east coast in recent decades? Researchers from Cornell University have studied the wind speed of northeastern storms from 1951 through 2006. The scientists, Bernhardt and DeGaetano, 2012, found, “There was no clear trend in speed during the time period, although considerable season-to-season variability was present.” - Ken Gregory.

In another reference, it states that weather changes - that's what weather does.

So this nonsense about CO2 influencing hurricanes is pure rubbish, there has not been one valid and proven study done on it ever.

Thanks for the laugh today I needed one.

[Ptmckiou]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Warm ocean waters means larger storms. Cold waters means no storms. Notice how Ian went from a 1 to a 4 in about 8 hours went it hit the warmest gulf waters. The reason it didn’t make it to a 5, is it ran out of warm water fuel, because it’s outer bands were then reaching over land. Land reduces strength.

Arctic ice cores have been studied and CO2 dramatically increased during the start of the Industrial Age. Prior to that time, studying 100,000+ years of time in deep ice cores, that type of fast ramp up of CO2 has not been since. So, it can be deduced that the Industrial Age was significant and CO2 has continued to rapidly increase compared to past ages. That warming is warming oceans, which in turn changes ocean currents, which brings more unstable weather, and larger storms because warm waters increases sizes of hurricanes. More CO2 means warmer waters, which by the way means many fish have to move farther north because typical food lives in the cooler waters. Everything is going to change with the more CO2. Now common sense would say, do everything we can do to reduce influencing more CO2 in the world. It doesn’t make sense to to ignore the trend of the CO2 in the world , and yet say, “Let’s just keep pumping as much CO2 into the world and ignore the rising levels.” Ya….like that makes sense.

[Larchap49]

It is very worth it, as these issues (like climate change) reflect what Eisenhower warned us about many years ago -- how government increasingly controls "the science" -- and today everyone is "expected" to follow -- or be cancelled ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71-kXuQhTo Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

So much truer now than ever. Cancel Culture is the smoking gun to force any number of lies to be spread

[Petersweeney]

[QUOTE=rsmurano;2148838]Who would ever believe in the cdc or fauci or gore? Which hoax did you believe in during the last 50 … I can’t believe I’m saying this but I would vote for big ALbert in 2024….

[billethkid]

After seeing many barns with a bullseye target painted on them with an arrow right smack dab in the center of the bullseye, one could conclude there is a very adept bow and arrow marksman about...........until coming upon the person who shoots the arrow into the side of the barn and THEN........paints the bulls eye target around the arrow!!!!

Conclusions based on _ _ _?_ _ _.

______________________________________________

:censored:

[Tom M]

Of course I'm serious. I'm always serious. Life is too short for tom-foolery. It's amazing how the satanic gas, called CO2, is making life on earth so much better. Even before the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant, CO2 was demonstrating its demonic evil powers -- decreasing tornadoes, hurricanes, and even land-falling hurricanes. Data trends for floods, droughts, and wildfires are all decreasing with increasing CO2. Polar bear population is rising as hunting them is expanding -- but at $50,000 a head. And the Great Barrier Reef corals are at a 36-year high. If CO2 is a pollutant, then let's make more -- much more -- and that way commercial greenhouses won't have to spend extra bucks to pump CO2 into them to help plants grow bigger and faster.

And there are longer growing seasons, it helps crops grow better, forests are expanding northward, there may be more north sea shipping routes, less heating fuel needed for northern climates (where warming is more impactful than southern climates), more global rainfall. Yes, there are benefits and there are also significant negatives. But it's nice to hear both sides, not just one.

[ex34449]

....

[Byte1]

After seeing many barns with a bullseye target painted on them with an arrow right smack dab in the center of the bullseye, one could conclude there is a very adept bow and arrow marksman about...........until coming upon the person who shoots the arrow into the side of the barn and THEN........paints the bulls eye target around the arrow!!!!

Conclusions based on _ _ _?_ _ _.

______________________________________________

:censored:

Excellent analogy! :thumbup:

[Pegasusprt]

Let's blame California and their mismanagement of their forestry plan. Without the fires in California we would have more trees to take care of the CO2

[Cartybabe]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.



Well I guess that shoots down the climate change theory then huh?

[rogerrice60]

Amen!

[rogerrice60]

Of course I'm serious. I'm always serious. Life is too short for tom-foolery. It's amazing how the satanic gas, called CO2, is making life on earth so much better. Even before the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant, CO2 was demonstrating its demonic evil powers -- decreasing tornadoes, hurricanes, and even land-falling hurricanes. Data trends for floods, droughts, and wildfires are all decreasing with increasing CO2. Polar bear population is rising as hunting them is expanding -- but at $50,000 a head. And the Great Barrier Reef corals are at a 36-year high. If CO2 is a pollutant, then let's make more -- much more -- and that way commercial greenhouses won't have to spend extra bucks to pump CO2 into them to help plants grow bigger and faster.
Excellent commentary!

[jimjamuser]

Or maybe a storm and saddened people shouldn’t be used for a political agenda? In a month we will have record cold temps, how convenient that will be…
I agree that many lives have been significantly and negatively affected by hurricane Ian. (some died) And we should keep that at the top of our minds. But, it may be edifying to discuss what warnings Ian possesses for the Florida coast and the relationship between Global Warming and hurricane intensity (and other issues). My wife suggested that after Floridians get their next homeowners' insurance bill, weather and climate change will start to BITE. Five insurance companies have pulled out of Florida. I would say that that is insurance companies with the best and brightest predicting and forecasting minds available - are saying that the Gulf water temperature is warming (like the rest of the globe) and it will RESULT in more intense hurricanes. They don't care if man or God or a tilt of the earth's axis or the tooth fairy caused the potential intensity increases - they are OUTTA HERE.

By talking about a problem we can honor those that DIED and those that are homeless by talking about the problem and coming to a greater understanding so that we can recognize future problems and be willing to empathetically do something about those future problems.
.......

[jimjamuser]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.
I believe that IAN was only about 2 mph from being a Cat 5 hurricane. Close enough for me, I will consider it a 5.

[jimjamuser]

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.
Besides CO2 increasing the blanket effect in the upper atmosphere, it gets absorbed into the oceans and kills the coral reefs, which decreases the supply of fish to the dinner table. Planting more trees and controlling the world population is the answer (that no one wants to hear) But wars and diseases will have some controlling effect. (not the SMARTEST of ways)

[jimjamuser]

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....
If the US refused to make "green energy" products, that will NOT stop Europe, China, and India from making them. The US would lose all those jobs to other countries. When basically, the whole WORLD has agreed that for ideological and practical purposes green energy products are a needed solution for the planet Earth - I for one will NOT swim against that Global current!

[jimjamuser]

I could have sworn that I learned in school that CO2 was used by plants to create oxygen. Without plants, humans and animals cannot exist. Seems like CO2 is good. If CO2 makes the weather better, then that is an added bonus.
CO2 is fine for the planet EXCEPT when it is out of balance and (due to higher population) forests are all cut down for CONCRETE cities and highways. Now there is not enough trees and other plants to act as a buffer to keep the system in balance. And the oceans then try to absorb the excess CO2, but they are polluted and the coral reefs are dying.

[jimjamuser]

You just made an assumption. In science that is dangerous. For starters, NONE of the UN climate change models are have verified. They all run way too hot for the past 30+ years. Anyone can see that from the plotted data. Second, none of the "climate models" can even be trusted, because NONE have ever replicated past climate changes -- e.g., no track record -- that are just toys because you can play with them. Third, and this is also easy to see ... for those who still believe in man-made global warming, just Google this ... "How much as man-made CO2 altered earth's temperature last year." Let me know when find the answer (keep in mind "man-made" CO2).
That's all fine, BUT it ignores the FACT that the Arctic ice has melted in relatively recent times. and glaciers are disappearing all over the world. And scientists are GREATLY concerned that massive Antarctica ice sheets are melting into the ocean. AND that can be proven by the MEASUREMENTS of ocean rise that have happened in the last 3 years.

I also understand that large areas of the Russian and Alaskan tundra are not covered in ice - so the sun is being absorbed and that is emitting large quantities of gases like CO2 which ends up in the upper atmosphere. This is considered a very dangerous cycle. I believe that some scientists believe that the earth may never be able to stop this cycle. I don't claim to be an expert on the tundra. I just point this out as an area that WE at the Villages MIGHT (?) want to discuss.

[golfing eagles]

That's all fine, BUT it ignores the FACT that the Arctic ice has melted in relatively recent times. and glaciers are disappearing all over the world. And scientists are GREATLY concerned that massive Antarctica ice sheets are melting into the ocean. AND that can be proven by the MEASUREMENTS of ocean rise that have happened in the last 3 years.

I also understand that large areas of the Russian and Alaskan tundra are not covered in ice - so the sun is being absorbed and that is emitting large quantities of gases like CO2 which ends up in the upper atmosphere. This is considered a very dangerous cycle. I believe that some scientists believe that the earth may never be able to stop this cycle. I don't claim to be an expert on the tundra. I just point this out as an area that WE at the Villages MIGHT (?) want to discuss.

Ocean levels for the last 3 years???? 3 whole years???? Maybe I’ll go out and build an ark. You have to be kidding with this one. I guess the beat goes on, and on, and on……

[jimjamuser]

Warm ocean waters means larger storms. Cold waters means no storms. Notice how Ian went from a 1 to a 4 in about 8 hours went it hit the warmest gulf waters. The reason it didn’t make it to a 5, is it ran out of warm water fuel, because it’s outer bands were then reaching over land. Land reduces strength.

Arctic ice cores have been studied and CO2 dramatically increased during the start of the Industrial Age. Prior to that time, studying 100,000+ years of time in deep ice cores, that type of fast ramp up of CO2 has not been since. So, it can be deduced that the Industrial Age was significant and CO2 has continued to rapidly increase compared to past ages. That warming is warming oceans, which in turn changes ocean currents, which brings more unstable weather, and larger storms because warm waters increases sizes of hurricanes. More CO2 means warmer waters, which by the way means many fish have to move farther north because typical food lives in the cooler waters. Everything is going to change with the more CO2. Now common sense would say, do everything we can do to reduce influencing more CO2 in the world. It doesn’t make sense to to ignore the trend of the CO2 in the world , and yet say, “Let’s just keep pumping as much CO2 into the world and ignore the rising levels.” Ya….like that makes sense.
Finally, a post that I can agree with..........now I can sit back and watch others twist themselves into pretzels to ATTEMPT to debunk the post. This climate stuff is more exciting than a pro baseball game.

[jimjamuser]

Ocean levels for the last 3 years???? 3 whole years???? Maybe I’ll go out and build an ark. You have to be kidding with this one. I guess the beat goes on, and on, and on……
No, I am not kidding and neither is the US Navy, which EXPECTS great damage from ocean rise at ALL their East Coast naval yards starting around 2050. Which are located in very low coastal areas. Don't believe me????? Easy enough to Google.

[jimjamuser]

Ocean levels for the last 3 years???? 3 whole years???? Maybe I’ll go out and build an ark. You have to be kidding with this one. I guess the beat goes on, and on, and on……
Cool, Let's get the gang at this forum together and build an arc. I hope it's an arc with a sail because all the gas stations will be underwater. And as for food, we won't be able to fish around here because the coral reefs are all dead. We will have to travel north to get to colder waters to find fish. And bring along a few 5 irons to repel potential boarders and/or kill sharks. What fun! Who said that Global Warming will be a bad thing?

[golfing eagles]

Cool, Let's get the gang at this forum together and build an arc. I hope it's an arc with a sail because all the gas stations will be underwater. And as for food, we won't be able to fish around here because the coral reefs are all dead. We will have to travel north to get to colder waters to find fish. And bring along a few 5 irons to repel potential boarders and/or kill sharks. What fun! Who said that Global Warming will be a bad thing?

Sure 😂😂😂

[B-flat]

Or just maybe GOD’s in charge as always! Man cannot control GOD’s will…….. Not Political!! Excellent comment! God bless you and let's hope I don't get banned for saying God bless you.

[jimschlaefer]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

I read that astronomers detected two massive eruptions of some kind on the far side of the moon and attributed these events to the fact Ian couldn't reach Cat5.

[JMintzer]

Who would ever believe in the cdc or fauci or gore? Which hoax did you believe in during the last 50 years? The hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy us? Global cooling? Global warming? According to some politicians we only have 4 years left before earth is destroyed..

Please stop exaggerating... It's 6 years...

[JMintzer]

Warm ocean waters means larger storms. Cold waters means no storms. Notice how Ian went from a 1 to a 4 in about 8 hours went it hit the warmest gulf waters. The reason it didn’t make it to a 5, is it ran out of warm water fuel, because it’s outer bands were then reaching over land. Land reduces strength.

Arctic ice cores have been studied and CO2 dramatically increased during the start of the Industrial Age. Prior to that time, studying 100,000+ years of time in deep ice cores, that type of fast ramp up of CO2 has not been since. So, it can be deduced that the Industrial Age was significant and CO2 has continued to rapidly increase compared to past ages. That warming is warming oceans, which in turn changes ocean currents, which brings more unstable weather, and larger storms because warm waters increases sizes of hurricanes. More CO2 means warmer waters, which by the way means many fish have to move farther north because typical food lives in the cooler waters. Everything is going to change with the more CO2. Now common sense would say, do everything we can do to reduce influencing more CO2 in the world. It doesn’t make sense to to ignore the trend of the CO2 in the world , and yet say, “Let’s just keep pumping as much CO2 into the world and ignore the rising levels.” Ya….like that makes sense.

You completely ignore underwater volcanos, which go thru periods of increased and decreased activity. It was an increase in activity that caused the most recent decrease in antarctic ice and a recent decrease that has caused the ice to rebound back...

The only thing constant in climate is change...

[JMintzer]

Besides CO2 increasing the blanket effect in the upper atmosphere, it gets absorbed into the oceans and kills the coral reefs, which decreases the supply of fish to the dinner table. Planting more trees and controlling the world population is the answer (that no one wants to hear) But wars and diseases will have some controlling effect. (not the SMARTEST of ways)

You mean like the Great Barrier Reef that has actually INCREASED in size by over 25% in the last decade?

And the fact that the US land covered by forests have been INCREASING for decades?

Stabilization of deforestation happened around 1900 and forests have been stable or have increased ever since...

[JMintzer]

If the US refused to make "green energy" products, that will NOT stop Europe, China, and India from making them. The US would lose all those jobs to other countries. When basically, the whole WORLD has agreed that for ideological and practical purposes green energy products are a needed solution for the planet Earth - I for one will NOT swim against that Global current!

China's current is to build massive amounts of coal fired electricity generators...

Europe is now burning wood to stay warm...

Is that what you're talking about?

[JMintzer]

CO2 is fine for the planet EXCEPT when it is out of balance and (due to higher population) forests are all cut down for CONCRETE cities and highways. Now there is not enough trees and other plants to act as a buffer to keep the system in balance. And the oceans then try to absorb the excess CO2, but they are polluted and the coral reefs are dying.

Wrong again...

[JMintzer]

That's all fine, BUT it ignores the FACT that the Arctic ice has melted in relatively recent times. and glaciers are disappearing all over the world. And scientists are GREATLY concerned that massive Antarctica ice sheets are melting into the ocean. AND that can be proven by the MEASUREMENTS of ocean rise that have happened in the last 3 years.

I also understand that large areas of the Russian and Alaskan tundra are not covered in ice - so the sun is being absorbed and that is emitting large quantities of gases like CO2 which ends up in the upper atmosphere. This is considered a very dangerous cycle. I believe that some scientists believe that the earth may never be able to stop this cycle. I don't claim to be an expert on the tundra. I just point this out as an area that WE at the Villages MIGHT (?) want to discuss.

Exactly...

[JMintzer]

Ocean levels for the last 3 years???? 3 whole years???? Maybe I’ll go out and build an ark. You have to be kidding with this one. I guess the beat goes on, and on, and on……

Yes, maybe 1/8" per year...

And that's the high end estimate... :eek::eek::eek:

[RICH1]

This smells like Q …. time to stop these conspiracy theories! This post has gone on way too long

[Steve]

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

If we could just replace the carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide all our troubles would be over.

[golfing eagles]

This smells like Q …. time to stop these conspiracy theories! This post has gone on way too long

Sorry, didn't realize it was up to you to make that decision :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Actually, it's been quite entertaining

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

The people who have a vested, financial interest are not the people who work for the EPA but the fossil fuel industry that has billions of dollars at stake, and they're the ones funding climate change denial like their funding of conservative think tanks that propagandize and politicize the issue like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Listen to a climate scientist rather than your own rigid political views. But you won't listen despite all the links to scientifically-based information that I have posted in this forum. It won't affect you down the road because you won't be around much longer, so no matter what someone says that is contrary to what you believe, you won't change:

"Would 2022 be considered a typical hurricane season?

It’s a little early to say. So far in 2022, we've had nine named storms. We've had four hurricanes and two major hurricanes, including Ian, which made landfall on the Gulf Coast of Florida as a Category 4. So, if the hurricane season ended today, it would be considered a below-normal hurricane season. But we still have two full months left in the official hurricane season, and it would not be surprising if we saw six more named storms and or four more hurricanes."

There's more: Following Fiona and Ian, what’s next for hurricanes in 2022? | CU Boulder Today | University of Colorado Boulder (https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/10/04/following-fiona-and-ian-whats-next-hurricanes-2022)

[justjim]

Didn’t know we had so many weather scientists here on TOTV. Not!

[golfing eagles]

Listen to a climate scientist rather than your own rigid political views:

Would 2022 be considered a typical hurricane season?

"It’s a little early to say. So far in 2022, we've had nine named storms. We've had four hurricanes and two major hurricanes, including Ian, which made landfall on the Gulf Coast of Florida as a Category 4. So, if the hurricane season ended today, it would be considered a below-normal hurricane season. But we still have two full months left in the official hurricane season, and it would not be surprising if we saw six more named storms and or four more hurricanes."

There's more: Following Fiona and Ian, what’s next for hurricanes in 2022? | CU Boulder Today | University of Colorado Boulder (https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/10/04/following-fiona-and-ian-whats-next-hurricanes-2022)

Ridiculous

This has nothing to do with political views, it's just the pure, unadulterated science that has been pushed aside by those with an agenda. And the sad part is that it's not all that hard to understand. I've tried multiple times to educate some people, but they are so indoctrinated that all they can do is repeat the same old, already proven false, talking points.

The 2022 hurricane season???? Really???? Who cares???? What does that have to do with 100,000-year climate cycles. Same goes for those who repeatedly cite "the last 8 years", or even "since we kept weather records"

Hey, what the heck---let's go and spend $257 trillion by 2050 to "combat" the power of the sun, Earth's orbit, and the tilt of Earth's axis. Actually, the word "tilt" is quite apropos----the whole climate change agenda is totally Quixotic.

[Byte1]

I believe that IAN was only about 2 mph from being a Cat 5 hurricane. Close enough for me, I will consider it a 5.

Since it hardly affected me more than a thunder storm, I will consider it as a shower...:D

[OhioBuckeye]

Well just me Global Warming is a Mother Nature thing, nobody will fix it with money. The whole world have to be on the same page & one country can’t fix it. This happens about every 100 yrs.

[Byte1]

China's current is to build massive amounts of coal fired electricity generators...

Europe is now burning wood to stay warm...

Is that what you're talking about?

Perhaps, they are using GREEN wood to stay warm, thus the label, "Green energy?"

[jimjamuser]

You mean like the Great Barrier Reef that has actually INCREASED in size by over 25% in the last decade?

And the fact that the US land covered by forests have been INCREASING for decades?

Stabilization of deforestation happened around 1900 and forests have been stable or have increased ever since...
Please explain OR give a link about how US forests can possibly be INCREASING in area when we are very aware of all the GREAT forest fires that have occurred in California and other western states. Also, the population of the US is INCREASING, which causes more cities to cut down trees in exchange for concrete buildings and roads. This is also why the large cities had record or near-record temperatures this summer. We can see this process of cutting down trees for homes and roads right here in the south end of The Villages.

I personally have a friend in Wisconsin who after any rain and wind storm the local ASH trees are falling down frequently because they are hallowed out by ASH beetles. The pine bark beetle has ravaged pine trees west of the Rockies. And that beetle has hurt pine trees in Florida even.

In a previous post, I have disagreed and stated that the Great Barrier Reef has its corral dying as stated in an NPR report. NPR can be sued for false reporting. So, I feel that they are the better source. Also, I have seen pictures of bleached WHITE coral dead and bemoaned by divers on the GB Reef. All the world's reefs will be 90% dead in 100 years per scientists' predictions.

[DDToto41]

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

[jimjamuser]

China's current is to build massive amounts of coal fired electricity generators...

Europe is now burning wood to stay warm...

Is that what you're talking about?
I believe that China makes the world's most solar energy panels. And Europe is going to HAVE TO burn some processed wood pellets on a TEMPORARY EMERGENCY basis because they became too dependent on Russian natural gas and Russian cut them off. They will in the future move to nuclear electrical generating plants, solar electrical generation, and get other sources of natural gas.

[jimjamuser]

Ridiculous

This has nothing to do with political views, it's just the pure, unadulterated science that has been pushed aside by those with an agenda. And the sad part is that it's not all that hard to understand. I've tried multiple times to educate some people, but they are so indoctrinated that all they can do is repeat the same old, already proven false, talking points.

The 2022 hurricane season???? Really???? Who cares???? What does that have to do with 100,000-year climate cycles. Same goes for those who repeatedly cite "the last 8 years", or even "since we kept weather records"

Hey, what the heck---let's go and spend $257 trillion by 2050 to "combat" the power of the sun, Earth's orbit, and the tilt of Earth's axis. Actually, the word "tilt" is quite apropos----the whole climate change agenda is totally Quixotic.
"Who cares?????" about 100,000-year climate cycles??? Maybe someone that is immortal or plans on living for 1,000,000 years. But, for a normal senior with around a 20-year lifespan left, they are more likely to care about the scientists' prediction that the earth will continue WARMING for the next 30 years. And the FACT the last 8 years have been the world's warmest on record since 1850. I for one, care about that because it "calls out" the problem, which is the 1st step in finding a solution.

The general framework of the many solutions to the problem of Global Warming is to wean the world AWAY from FOSSIL fuels and toward CLEAN energy sources like nuclear, solar, wind, tides, and waterfalls. Plus yet undiscovered future sources.

[golfing eagles]

"Who cares?????" about 100,000-year climate cycles??? Maybe someone that is immortal or plans on living for 1,000,000 years. But, for a normal senior with around a 20-year lifespan left, they are more likely to care about the scientists' prediction that the earth will continue WARMING for the next 30 years. And the FACT the last 8 years have been the world's warmest on record since 1850. I for one, care about that because it "calls out" the problem, which is the 1st step in finding a solution.

The general framework of the many solutions to the problem of Global Warming is to wean the world AWAY from FOSSIL fuels and toward CLEAN energy sources like nuclear, solar, wind, tides, and waterfalls. Plus yet undiscovered future sources.

Keep repeating the same garbage, it's still WRONG. PERIOD.

And aren't those the same scientists who warned of an impending ice age in the 1970's?
Or are they the same scientists who claimed the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010?

What if I were to say the 8 years from 1842-1849 were even warmer? There's no way to know. But it is IRRELEVANT in the scheme of 100,000 year cycles

[kkingston57]

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.

Just need to keep the Saharan(dry) dust up. August was a quiet month for storms and some days the sky in TV was as clear as mud in August.

[kkingston57]

Let's blame California and their mismanagement of their forestry plan. Without the fires in California we would have more trees to take care of the CO2


Re call a person in a very high office who suggested that if the forestry service raked the leaves out of these areas of California forests fires would not have been so bad. He also suggested California do this even though most of this land is Federal land.

[jimjamuser]

Having just read all the Googled sections about forests in the US, increasing or decreasing - I find there to be many classifications of forests like old growth, canopy coverage area, satellite map area, CO2 production, etc. The lumber advocates consider that after clear-cutting the bare area left over is STILL considered forest because a forest can regrow itself from that area.

So, it becomes difficult to pin down if US forests are REALLY increasing or decreasing. There is no definitive, easy answer. Depending on which articles are selected, a case could be made either way.

I did find these 2 statements to be interesting.......In 2005 the US ranked 7th worldwide in the rate of LOSS of old-growth forests. ...........Also from 2000 to 2020, the US TREE COVER decreased 1.2%, which for all practical purposes means that it stayed the same. So, it's a mixed bag, up for various interpretations.

[The Great Fumar]

Wait a minute, that sounds like a POO-MOO joke !!!!

[DAVES]

Or maybe a storm and saddened people shouldn’t be used for a political agenda? In a month we will have record cold temps, how convenient that will be…

I seem to be in a world of my own-PROUDLY. You are best only worrying about things you can do something about.

Global warming is now spun to Climate Change. Climate has been changing FOREVER.
Roughly 45 years ago global cooling was noted we did not have Al Gore to create a panic while lining his pockets. The balance is INTERESTING. Plants tie up CO2. Plant grow better as heat and CO2 go up. EV cars and that SCREAMING. We and throughout the nation use more energy for heating and cooling our homes.