Glacier Silence

[sounding]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

[Taltarzac725]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

[ThirdOfFive]

Dunno. Some of that "science" resembles the Wicked Witch of the West consulting her crystal ball.

[sounding]

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

Why are the GNP folks hiding the last 7 years of glacier data, especially when they previously produced those reports every year?

[Byte1]

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

Ahhh, but they claim the statement is only PARTLY FALSE. The decimal point was in the wrong place, BUT it still shows some cooling, even if not as much as stated. AND there is no absolute proof that suggests that it is mankind's cause that any change has occurred.

[sounding]

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

The article you reference only produces more misinformation and DOES NOT discount the FACT that the earth has been in a 7-year cooling trend. Just click on the NOAA Temperature link which that article provides, and look at the temperature DATA (and not the narrative) -- and be sure you look at the "Annual" data (not just one particular month). Then plot the temperature data from 2015 to 2021, then add a linear trend line -- and behold reality. I plot this data monthly, both NOAA and and Satellite data (both government data) -- and they both show the same cooling trend. Scientists worldwide are analyzing the same, with the same results -- but the media refuses to acknowledge DATA -- because data always exposes propaganda. You'll will also see that this cooling trend will become an 8-year cooling trend by Dec 31st, because the 2022 data also shows cooling -- which is part of the reason why hurricanes have dramatically dropped during the last 2 years. This and much more DATA is presented in the Weather Club.

[Bill14564]

The article you reference only produces more misinformation and DOES NOT discount the FACT that the earth has been in a 7-year cooling trend. Just click on the NOAA Temperature link which that article provides, and look at the temperature DATA (and not the narrative) -- and be sure you look at the "Annual" data (not just one particular month). Then plot the temperature data from 2015 to 2021, then add a linear trend line -- and behold reality. I plot this data monthly, both NOAA and and Satellite data (both government data) -- and they both show the same cooling trend. Scientists worldwide are analyzing the same, with the same results -- but the media refuses to acknowledge DATA -- because data always exposes propaganda. You'll will also see that this cooling trend will become an 8-year cooling trend by Dec 31st, because the 2022 data also shows cooling -- which is part of the reason why hurricanes have dramatically dropped during the last 2 years. This and much more DATA is presented in the Weather Club.

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.

[sounding]

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

[golfing eagles]

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

This must be the fifth or sixth time, so PLEASE, stop confusing the indoctrinated die-hard climate change activists WITH THE FACTS

[Tvflguy]

Things are getting a bit hot here… might add to Global Warming. err I mean Climate Change. I forgot that they switched…. That way, any Up/Down would apply then.

[Bill14564]

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.

Short, because I don't want to be part of this argument....

- If the last 7 year shows cooling and there is no doubt it will show warming again then it certainly isn't a data point for your argument.

- Yes, it is curious, but it does not show a conspiracy. There could be other explanations like a lack of budget to provide the data, a lack of interest, or a suspicion that the data is being intentionally misinterpreted and misused. It is also possible that it could be an attempt to hide the data but asserting only that possibility seems very much like confirmation bias.

- Why is cooling happening yet CO2 is skyrocketing? By your own admission and, I believe previous assertions, climate change cannot be measured over a small number of years. One cold winter is not an indication of an impending ice age any more than one hot summer is an indication of global climate change. Small cycles are not significant.

[Number 10 GI]

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

And Fact Check is totally correct and accurate all the time! It's on the internet so it has to be legitimate and truthful. :a20::a20::a20::a20:

[fdpaq0580]

Many years ago, Carl Sagan demonstrated the difference between climate and weather. A man walking slowly and steadily up a beach represented the climate, while his dog , represented weather, ran ahead of him then behind in a random pattern. Weather can be local and seem erratic and change rapidly over short periods of time. Climate is more stable and changes over longer time periods.
Some are using short term weather phenomena to debunk climate change. Cherry picking weather data to disprove climate change is misusing and misrepresenting the reality of what has been going on with climate change globally.

[sounding]

Short, because I don't want to be part of this argument....

- If the last 7 year shows cooling and there is no doubt it will show warming again then it certainly isn't a data point for your argument.

- Yes, it is curious, but it does not show a conspiracy. There could be other explanations like a lack of budget to provide the data, a lack of interest, or a suspicion that the data is being intentionally misinterpreted and misused. It is also possible that it could be an attempt to hide the data but asserting only that possibility seems very much like confirmation bias.

- Why is cooling happening yet CO2 is skyrocketing? By your own admission and, I believe previous assertions, climate change cannot be measured over a small number of years. One cold winter is not an indication of an impending ice age any more than one hot summer is an indication of global climate change. Small cycles are not significant.

So why is the earth cooling?

[Pairadocs]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Could be a variety of explanations, but, if you have been a careful observer of the dissemination of "statistics" on a wide variety of subjects and areas of interest, be it weather, the economy, immigration, Covid information, etc. etc. etc., you have surely noticed that the "flow" of accurate statistical information depends on if supports the political policy of the day, or runs counter to the desired "official" policy. Or to put it another way, it's more the George Orwell world of statistics control. In other words, maybe right now it would not be "good" for common folk in the masses, to know all the details of exactly what the situation is concerning glaciers of North America. As tax payers, we undoubtedly finance a great deal of statistical measuring and recording concerning celestial bodies also, but what part of the would be "good" for us to know, and what would be considered "unwise" to share with the masses, who knows ? That's why we have such a wide, deep, gulf in our political views in this country: the difference in the classic sense of the "progressive", in which the elite own a kind of debt to society in general (the masses) to guide them in the correct direction, to make decisions for their own good, in a kind of government/citizen relationship modeled after a benevolent parent/child relationship. The opposite philosophy would be to promote universal education, and create not just a "democracy", but a government format that promotes individual decision making and personal responsibility, could be called a democratic REPUBLIC to distinguish it from a "democracy" ? Long answer but, that may be why we the people, we the tax payers, have "parents" (government) who protect us by selectively choosing which information it would be best for us to have, and which would not.

[sounding]

Could be a variety of explanations, but, if you have been a careful observer of the dissemination of "statistics" on a wide variety of subjects and areas of interest, be it weather, the economy, immigration, Covid information, etc. etc. etc., you have surely noticed that the "flow" of accurate statistical information depends on if supports the political policy of the day, or runs counter to the desired "official" policy. Or to put it another way, it's more the George Orwell world of statistics control. In other words, maybe right now it would not be "good" for common folk in the masses, to know all the details of exactly what the situation is concerning glaciers of North America. As tax payers, we undoubtedly finance a great deal of statistical measuring and recording concerning celestial bodies also, but what part of the would be "good" for us to know, and what would be considered "unwise" to share with the masses, who knows ? That's why we have such a wide, deep, gulf in our political views in this country: the difference in the classic sense of the "progressive", in which the elite own a kind of debt to society in general (the masses) to guide them in the correct direction, to make decisions for their own good, in a kind of government/citizen relationship modeled after a benevolent parent/child relationship. The opposite philosophy would be to promote universal education, and create not just a "democracy", but a government format that promotes individual decision making and personal responsibility, could be called a democratic REPUBLIC to distinguish it from a "democracy" ? Long answer but, that may be why we the people, we the tax payers, have "parents" (government) who protect us by selectively choosing which information it would be best for us to have, and which would not.

Why is the earth now cooling?

[Worldseries27]

in 2019 glacier national park (gnp) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the weather club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years gnp has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.
call a meeting and your entire group can vote its outrage next tuesday

[skarra]

Why is it sunny today when yesterday it was raining?

Must be a conspiracy.

[PersonOfInterest]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Get out and play a little more Golf, then some pickleball and finish up with some Bocce', and stop worrying about Glaciers and GNP.

[Love2Swim]

Many years ago, Carl Sagan demonstrated the difference between climate and weather. A man walking slowly and steadily up a beach represented the climate, while his dog , represented weather, ran ahead of him then behind in a random pattern. Weather can be local and seem erratic and change rapidly over short periods of time. Climate is more stable and changes over longer time periods.
Some are using short term weather phenomena to debunk climate change. Cherry picking weather data to disprove climate change is misusing and misrepresenting the reality of what has been going on with climate change globally.

Thank you. Some common sense on this thread for a change. And for what its worth, NASA says the earth is not cooling. Despite short-term ups and downs, the evidence shows that our planet is steadily accumulating heat. And what scientists have found is that the balance of energy in the Earth system is out of whack: Our lower atmosphere is warming, the ocean is accumulating more energy, land surfaces are absorbing energy, and Earth’s ice is melting. I believe in the scientists, not some Villages club that clearly has an agenda.

[Love2Swim]

call a meeting and your entire group can vote its outrage next tuesday

:1rotfl: Good one.

[golfing eagles]

Many years ago, Carl Sagan demonstrated the difference between climate and weather. A man walking slowly and steadily up a beach represented the climate, while his dog , represented weather, ran ahead of him then behind in a random pattern. Weather can be local and seem erratic and change rapidly over short periods of time. Climate is more stable and changes over longer time periods.
Some are using short term weather phenomena to debunk climate change. Cherry picking weather data to disprove climate change is misusing and misrepresenting the reality of what has been going on with climate change globally.

Thank you. Some common sense on this thread for a change.

This can't be serious. No way. This is the complete antithesis of "common sense"

The analogy describing the difference between weather and climate is fine. But then........

"Cherry picking weather data" ---All we've heard from the climate change advocates is "the last 15 years are the warmest on record", over, and over, and over again. Now they criticize the opposition for using short term weather to describe a trend????? Can anyone spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?????? I believe it was Gozer the Gozerian in the original Ghostbusters that condemned the team by their own words--no sorry, thoughts. (It was Rameses in "The Ten Commandments" that condemned his own people by his words)

The reality: The last 7, or 15, or 150 years tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about 100,000-year cycles occurring within the last 4 million years of our current ice age.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

This can't be serious. No way. This is the complete antithesis of "common sense"

The analogy describing the difference between weather and climate is fine. But then........

"Cherry picking weather data" ---All we've heard from the climate change advocates is "the last 15 years are the warmest on record", over, and over, and over again. Now they criticize the opposition for using short term weather to describe a trend????? Can anyone spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?????? I believe it was Gozer the Gozerian in the original Ghostbusters that condemned the team by their own words--no sorry, thoughts. (It was Rameses in "The Ten Commandments" that condemned his own people by his words)

The reality: The last 7, or 15, or 150 years tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about 100,000-year cycles occurring within the last 4 million years of our current ice age.

Here he goes again. :rolleyes:

A fool will never admit his foolishness. What does it matter. He will die before things get serious enough for him to worry about it. It's his grandchildren's problem. The thing is the 150 years mark the time when the Industrial Revolution began and that's the problem.

[golfing eagles]

Here he goes again. :rolleyes:

A fool will never admit his foolishness. What does it matter. He will die before things get serious enough for him to worry about it. It's his grandchildren's problem. The thing is the 150 years mark the time when the Industrial Revolution began and that's the problem.

First of all, keep your personal insults to yourself, the moderators tend to frown on that.

So, once again, I'll try to educate the indoctrinated:

The premise seems to be "the last 150 years is the problem" because there is a slight warming trend.

What about the 150 year period from 34,850 t0 34,700 BC? From 345,250 to 345,100 BC? From 2,657,550 to 2,657,400 BC???????

Oh, no data???? Yet no problem drawing a "conclusion" about the last 150 years????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

And they draw that conclusion since that is when man started burning fossil fuels.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc---which translates as "after this, therefore because of this". It is the battle cry of those who embrace faulty cause and effect "reasoning"

But I certainly agree with one thing----"a fool will never admit his foolishness":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Halbraun]

Will the glaciers be gone by 2020?
You may have heard about Glacier National Park updating some exhibits that referenced research that indicated that the park's glaciers could be gone by 2020 or 2030. Those exhibits were updated in 2019 to better reflect the latest science.

In 2003, researchers published an academic paper about two of the park's glaciers in the Journal of BioScience. They used a geospatial computer model to predict the advance or retreat of Blackfoot Glacier and Jackson Glacier for each decade from 1990 to 2100 based on melting rates from historical data. Since Blackfoot and Jackson are relatively large glaciers, many people hypothesized that if those two glaciers were completely melted then all the other glaciers in the park likely would be as well. A few years later the researchers looked again at how fast Blackfoot and Jackson were shrinking and found that they seemed to be melting faster than they first predicted. Informally, the researchers moved their 2030 date up to 2020. These predictive dates spread widely and were featured on various exhibits around the park. Since then, the exhibits have been updated to reflect more recent research.

Though the park's glaciers are all getting smaller, variations in snow avalanches, ice flow dynamics, and ice thickness cause some glaciers to shrink faster than others. Sometimes a glacier will retreat very quickly where it was thinly and widely spread, only to shrink much more slowly when only the shaded, high elevation ice remains.

[NoMo50]

Follow the money.

[Byte1]

Climate.gov--
"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling. During an interglacial,
sea ice and snow retreat, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects;
warming increases atmospheric water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
permafrost thaws and decomposes, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide; and
the ocean warms and releases dissolved carbon dioxide, which traps even more heat.

These feedbacks amplify the initial warming until the Earth’s orbit goes through a phase during which the amount of Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight is minimized. Then these feedbacks operate in reverse, reinforcing the cooling trend."

[rogerrice60]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

In the 60's "Global Cooling" was a MAJOR CONCERN for the environmentalist; they claimed the build up of ice would tip the earth off it's axis. All is well, God is in control!

[fdpaq0580]

First of all, keep your personal insults to yourself, the moderators tend to frown on that.

So, once again, I'll try to educate the indoctrinated:

The premise seems to be "the last 150 years is the problem" because there is a slight warming trend.

What about the 150 year period from 34,850 t0 34,700 BC? From 345,250 to 345,100 BC? From 2,657,550 to 2,657,400 BC???????

Oh, no data???? Yet no problem drawing a "conclusion" about the last 150 years????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

And they draw that conclusion since that is when man started burning fossil fuels.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc---which translates as "after this, therefore because of this". It is the battle cry of those who embrace faulty cause and effect "reasoning"

But I certainly agree with one thing----"a fool will never admit his foolishness":1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

??? You complain about insult, then immediately insult everyone who accepts mainstream science and the finest minds and latest findings by calling us "the indoctrinated". Now that is an insult.
Climatologists have the data you claim doesn't exist. It is written in the earth itself. In the rocks, the fossils.
And, "cause and effect" is not always faulty. You use it every time you play golf. We all do.
So, believe what you wish, and be content with the probability that the ocean will not drown us in our beds. And, let those of us who accept the finding of those scientists actually working in the field of climatology believe what we do.

[golfing eagles]

??? You complain about insult, then immediately insult everyone who accepts mainstream science and the finest minds and latest findings by calling us "the indoctrinated". Now that is an insult.
Climatologists have the data you claim doesn't exist. It is written in the earth itself. In the rocks, the fossils.
And, "cause and effect" is not always faulty. You use it every time you play golf. We all do.
So, believe what you wish, and be content with the probability that the ocean will not drown us in our beds. And, let those of us who accept the finding of those scientists actually working in the field of climatology believe what we do.

To quote someone above, "Here we go again"

First of all, calling an individual a fool is an insult, referring to a large group of people who embrace a myth "indoctrinated" is simply factual. You are in essence objecting to someone calling Jim Jones' followers "cultists".

So accept the conclusions of WHICH scientists? Obviously, the ones that promulgate the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Then marginalize the rest???? And don't quote that bogus 90% agree garbage. We all know who gets the government grants and who gets the tenured university positions. Even a college student who raises his hand and states he doesn't believe in climate change caused by man will get slammed by the professor.

[fdpaq0580]

To quote someone above, "Here we go again"

First of all, calling an individual a fool is an insult, referring to a large group of people who embrace a myth "indoctrinated" is simply factual. You are in essence objecting to someone calling Jim Jones' followers "cultists".

So accept the conclusions of WHICH scientists? Obviously, the ones that promulgate the myth of anthropogenic climate change. Then marginalize the rest???? And don't quote that bogus 90% agree garbage. We all know who gets the government grants and who gets the tenured university positions. Even a college student who raises his hand and states he doesn't believe in climate change caused by man will get slammed by the professor.

Which scientists? The ones you don't want to believe.
Embracing a myth? What if you are wrong and it isn't a myth, but truth? Would it be an insult then? Since we accept the evidence as correct, then your "indoctrinated" comment is an insult.
Government grants? Hmm? Are you intimating an International Climate Conspiracy? That is kind of what it seems like to me.
One thing we can both agree on is, I will not change what you believe, and you will not change what I believe.
So, I wish you a birdie on every hole but one. On that one hole, I wish you an Ace.y

[sounding]

call a meeting and your entire group can vote its outrage next tuesday

Thanks for identifying how science becomes corrupted -- by voting. Voting is not used in the Weather Club -- only data -- and how data confirms or rejects theories. Voting is used in politics to create consensus, which of course is not how science works. As Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

[golfing eagles]

Which scientists? The ones you don't want to believe.
Embracing a myth? What if you are wrong and it isn't a myth, but truth? Would it be an insult then? Since we accept the evidence as correct, then your "indoctrinated" comment is an insult.
Government grants? Hmm? Are you intimating an International Climate Conspiracy? That is kind of what it seems like to me.
One thing we can both agree on is, I will not change what you believe, and you will not change what I believe.
So, I wish you a birdie on every hole but one. On that one hole, I wish you an Ace.y

Thank you for the golfing best wishes:)

And I do accept the evidence as correct----but the evidence shows little to no impact on climate due to human activity---so no "insult" there.

International Climate Conspiracy? I don't think so, but it is pretty clear that government grants, tenured professorships, and even an "A" in a college course is highly dependent on proposing the political "flavor of the month" theories. I guarantee you, that today, if you apply for a grant to prove mankind has nothing to do with climate change, YOU WILL BE DENIED. Same for applying for the chair of the paleoclimatology department at UCLA. Fifty years ago, you would have denied a grant if you proposed that the world would not run out of oil in 20 years. That's just the way it is.

[OhioBuckeye]

You didn’t really think they were paying for it did you? That’s what we’ve been trying to tell everyone, the tax payers pay for everything!

[Vermilion Villager]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.
You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......:icon_bored:

[sounding]

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......:icon_bored:

Everything I say I can back up with data ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afa6mMMuZhg

[Hardlyworking]

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......:icon_bored:

Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020 - CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html)

I’ve been there many times and remember seeing the signs and displays.

[RiderOnTheStorm]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Could it be that the facts don't align with the Left's narrative?

[Two Bills]

Could it be that the facts don't align with the Left's narrative?

And that reply just about describes why it's impossible these days to have a sensible disagreement, or debate, on any subject.
Politics!:shrug:

[sounding]

And that reply just about describes why it's impossible these days to have a sensible disagreement, or debate, on any subject.
Politics!:shrug:

Yes it is possible -- for those who are willing to look at the data -- which is why the Weather Club grows in numbers after each session.

[Rodneysblue]

Ahhh, but they claim the statement is only PARTLY FALSE. The decimal point was in the wrong place, BUT it still shows some cooling, even if not as much as stated. AND there is no absolute proof that suggests that it is mankind's cause that any change has occurred.
And they say it’s too short of a period of time. I say only going back to 1880 is not long enough either in order to get a true picture.

[Pairadocs]

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

It's become a "disease", a "pandemic" actually; if it supports MY personal view, it's a FACT, if it supports a different view or opinion, then it's "dis-information" ! We don't even question the fallacy of using that method to determine "fact" any more. What will happen to the ACTUAL scientific method of investigation ? Will it not even be taught any more ? Everything seems to have gone emotionally based, all decisions, all facts, all arguments on all subjects from "effectiveness to masks" to the results of warming and cooling trends on earth, seem to be based on just "emotional feelings" ! ! I think we are in real trouble when we confuse science with emotions, and we vote, make purchases, choose our personal philosophy solely on FEELINGS ?

[ThirdOfFive]

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.
What matters is whether the "facts" being presented validate the point of view of the person reading them.

Or not.

[Whitley]

Fact check: Misleading data in claim alleging a global cooling trend (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/03/09/fact-check-misleading-data-claim-alleging-global-cooling-trend/6900454001/)

Cherry picking data.

It was recently explained to me on this very site that a fact checker is someone, usually with pink hair, that owns a printer and a computer.

[Whitley]

Here he goes again. :rolleyes:

A fool will never admit his foolishness. What does it matter. He will die before things get serious enough for him to worry about it. It's his grandchildren's problem. The thing is the 150 years mark the time when the Industrial Revolution began and that's the problem.

The industrial revolution is a problem?

[golfing eagles]

The industrial revolution is a problem?

You didn't know that?:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

We built machines, that ran on coal and oil, and put out so called "greenhouse gases" for the last 150-200 years. So now, according to some, the world is going to end in our grandchildren's lifetime. And our influence, our "evil", will destroy the world by overriding millions and millions of years of climate cycles driven by the power of the sun, the Earth's orbit and variations in its axis. And all this is because you bought the latest SUV. Amazing, isn't it????

So let's all go back to living in caves in the dark and hunting our food with a bow and arrow. We will be "saving" the planet :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

Ahhh, but they claim the statement is only PARTLY FALSE. The decimal point was in the wrong place, BUT it still shows some cooling, even if not as much as stated. AND there is no absolute proof that suggests that it is mankind's cause that any change has occurred.
Actually, it DOES ! Go to the link on post # 2 and scroll down almost to the end. Then look right after the bold heading, " Climate Change measured in DECADES, not years. Look for a blue underlined sentence stated by an NOAA Climatologist that reads.........."Earth's global temperatures are RISING due to HUMAN-GENERATED greenhouse gases".

Then if anyone wants to know by how much is the global temperature RISING. The VERY FIRST sentence at the top of the link says, " Global Temperatures have been in increasing at a rate of 2 degrees Farenheight since 1880.

I believe that this link DEFINITIVELY proves that earth temperature is INCREASING and CAUSED by mankind !
(And now I can't wait to hear the rebuttals to the expert by our very own non-experts)

[Two Bills]

Yes it is possible -- for those who are willing to look at the data -- which is why the Weather Club grows in numbers after each session.

Of course!

[jimjamuser]

So a 7-year trend that shows cooling is more significant than a 150-year trend that shows warming but a 150-year trend that shows warming is not more significant than a 4-million year trend that shows cooling? Is it the time span that matters or the trend that matters?

I used to attend the Weather Club but stopped when it became (or I realized that it was) a platform for only a particular point of view.
I attended a Philosophy Club for a short time and found that the same thing happened. One not-so-bright man hogged all the mike time to the point that it got boring. And I had thought that a PHILOSOPHY Club would be filled with people that wanted a vibrant EXCHANGE of ideas. I was SO wrong - 90% of the people were very narrow-minded. It was surprising.
.........So, I can see how the weather club could be dominated by people with their own particular fixed agenda. That is a shame.

[jimjamuser]

The article you reference only produces more misinformation and DOES NOT discount the FACT that the earth has been in a 7-year cooling trend. Just click on the NOAA Temperature link which that article provides, and look at the temperature DATA (and not the narrative) -- and be sure you look at the "Annual" data (not just one particular month). Then plot the temperature data from 2015 to 2021, then add a linear trend line -- and behold reality. I plot this data monthly, both NOAA and and Satellite data (both government data) -- and they both show the same cooling trend. Scientists worldwide are analyzing the same, with the same results -- but the media refuses to acknowledge DATA -- because data always exposes propaganda. You'll will also see that this cooling trend will become an 8-year cooling trend by Dec 31st, because the 2022 data also shows cooling -- which is part of the reason why hurricanes have dramatically dropped during the last 2 years. This and much more DATA is presented in the Weather Club.
The size, power, and devastation of hurricanes have increased for the last 8 years, and since Climatologists predict that the Earth will continue warming for the NEXT 30 years.....it is reasonable to assume that hurricanes will get more devastating with each passing year. And that will make living in Florida especially tough. At least we are not on the coast
........If we could live another 100 years we might be living on the southern tip of Florida (without moving).

[jimjamuser]

Yes, times scales are very important with respect climate, because there are many concurrent cycles which contribute to the earth's climate -- from millions of years to tens of years -- some are in a warming cycle while others are in a cooling cycle -- all sun driven. When taking the summation of all the cycles to the present -- you get the resultant -- which during the last 7 years shows cooling -- and soon to be an 8-year cooling trend. I have no doubt this trend will warm again in the future -- just like it has for millions of years. But isn't it curious that for the past 7 years, glacier data is being withheld, active volcanoes under both the north and south poles are rarely mentioned, record breaking coral growth is rarely mentioned, and the list goes on and on -- but the most telling story is why all this cooling is happening and yet CO2 keeps skyrocketing upwards. Again, the Weather Club presents relevant, government data that you will not hear in the media -- and the attendees can form their own views.
Coral reefs will be 90 % DEAD by 2090. Today they are unhealthful and DYING.

[jimjamuser]

Thank you. Some common sense on this thread for a change. And for what its worth, NASA says the earth is not cooling. Despite short-term ups and downs, the evidence shows that our planet is steadily accumulating heat. And what scientists have found is that the balance of energy in the Earth system is out of whack: Our lower atmosphere is warming, the ocean is accumulating more energy, land surfaces are absorbing energy, and Earth’s ice is melting. I believe in the scientists, not some Villages club that clearly has an agenda.
Clearly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[golfing eagles]

Actually, it DOES ! Go to the link on post # 2 and scroll down almost to the end. Then look right after the bold heading, " Climate Change measured in DECADES, not years. Look for a blue underlined sentence stated by an NOAA Climatologist that reads.........."Earth's global temperatures are RISING due to HUMAN-GENERATED greenhouse gases".

Then if anyone wants to know by how much is the global temperature RISING. The VERY FIRST sentence at the top of the link says, " Global Temperatures have been in increasing at a rate of 2 degrees Farenheight since 1880.

I believe that this link DEFINITIVELY proves that earth temperature is INCREASING and CAUSED by mankind !
(And now I can't wait to hear the rebuttals to the expert by our very own non-experts)

And for your first rebuttal:

Is that 2 degrees/year????? That would make it about 371F today-----But I'll only go out for 12 minutes so I'm medium rare.

2 degrees/ decade????---that would only make it 115.2 today

2 degrees/century?????-- maybe, but even that's high

[jimjamuser]

Thanks for identifying how science becomes corrupted -- by voting. Voting is not used in the Weather Club -- only data -- and how data confirms or rejects theories. Voting is used in politics to create consensus, which of course is not how science works. As Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."
There is nothing wrong with consensus. It represents only one point on a timeline. As long as scientific research continues, a new consensus can be reached. People just need to be open to that new consensus.

[Taltarzac725]

There is nothing wrong with consensus. It represents only one point on a timeline. As long as scientific research continues, a new consensus can be reached. People just need to be open to that new consensus.


Studied this Philosopher of Science in college. Worth a look if you have not read anything by him. Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

He has a lot of critics out there as well.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)

One of the people who taught one of these classes was a Physics professor specializing in the weather. It was taught by three professors-- one in Philosophy, one in History and one in Physics.

[jimjamuser]

The industrial revolution is a problem?
Everything has pluses and minuses, even the industrial revolution. Which delivered a lot of wealth and products to the middle class. But, also delivered pollution, possible overpopulation, and weapons of mass destruction. Also the capacity for a greater spread of disease and Pandemics.
.........And it delivered the subject that we are now talking about..........namely Global Warming and glaciers melting.

[sounding]

There is nothing wrong with consensus. It represents only one point on a timeline. As long as scientific research continues, a new consensus can be reached. People just need to be open to that new consensus.

How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

[jimjamuser]

And for your first rebuttal:

Is that 2 degrees/year????? That would make it about 371F today-----But I'll only go out for 12 minutes so I'm medium rare.

2 degrees/ decade????---that would only make it 115.2 today

2 degrees/century?????-- maybe, but even that's high
Sorry, NOT a good rebuttal. I quoted the article correctly - the earth's temperature increased by 2 degrees F since 1880. That is the rate that the NOAA Climatologist stated. There is nothing there about 2 degrees per year. Just a rate of 2 degrees F since 1880. That would be 2 divided by 142 which equals .014 degrees F per year.

nice try......feel free to try again!

[fdpaq0580]

You didn't know that?:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

We built machines, that ran on coal and oil, and put out so called "greenhouse gases" for the last 150-200 years. So now, according to some, the world is going to end in our grandchildren's lifetime. And our influence, our "evil", will destroy the world by overriding millions and millions of years of climate cycles driven by the power of the sun, the Earth's orbit and variations in its axis. And all this is because you bought the latest SUV. Amazing, isn't it????

So let's all go back to living in caves in the dark and hunting our food with a bow and arrow. We will be "saving" the planet :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Not ,evil". Lack of knowledge, education, understanding of the poisons and pollutants we unleashed upon the world. Not "evil". Just ignorant of the interdependence of all things. Like kids with new toys, no one told us of the harm our toys could do, so we went blindly on our way tearing down the land and polluting our rivers and oceans. Finally, one smart kid sees the smog, sees pollutants in the oceans and connects the dots. Other kids are to oblivious and can't connect the dots. Others are afraid that they are going to have to give up some of their favorite toys, so they balk at what the emerging picture shows. But, little by little, the picture becomes clear enough that all must acknowledge the big picture, whether they like it or not.

[jimjamuser]

How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?
I calculated it to be 0.014 degrees F per year from the NOAA Climatologist.

[jimjamuser]

Studied this Philosopher of Science in college. Worth a look if you have not read anything by him. Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)

He has a lot of critics out there as well.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)

One of the people who taught one of these classes was a Physics professor specializing in the weather. It was taught by three professors-- one in Philosophy, one in History and one in Physics.
Thanks !

[jimjamuser]

Not ,evil". Lack of knowledge, education, understanding of the poisons and pollutants we unleashed upon the world. Not "evil". Just ignorant of the interdependence of all things. Like kids with new toys, no one told us of the harm our toys could do, so we went blindly on our way tearing down the land and polluting our rivers and oceans. Finally, one smart kid sees the smog, sees pollutants in the oceans and connects the dots. Other kids are to oblivious and can't connect the dots. Others are afraid that they are going to have to give up some of their favorite toys, so they balk at what the emerging picture shows. But, little by little, the picture becomes clear enough that all must acknowledge the big picture, whether they like it or not.
Great post !

[sounding]

Sorry, NOT a good rebuttal. I quoted the article correctly - the earth's temperature increased by 2 degrees F since 1880. That is the rate that the NOAA Climatologist stated. There is nothing there about 2 degrees per year. Just a rate of 2 degrees F since 1880. That would be 2 divided by 142 which equals .014 degrees F per year.

nice try......feel free to try again!

You did not answer the question. How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

[sounding]

Thank you. Some common sense on this thread for a change. And for what its worth, NASA says the earth is not cooling. Despite short-term ups and downs, the evidence shows that our planet is steadily accumulating heat. And what scientists have found is that the balance of energy in the Earth system is out of whack: Our lower atmosphere is warming, the ocean is accumulating more energy, land surfaces are absorbing energy, and Earth’s ice is melting. I believe in the scientists, not some Villages club that clearly has an agenda.

NASA has been engaged in data manipulation for many years -- a great way to continue space exploration ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D4jbChREKE

[Worldseries27]

thanks for identifying how science becomes corrupted -- by voting. Voting is not used in the weather club -- only data -- and how data confirms or rejects theories. Voting is used in politics to create consensus, which of course is not how science works. As einstein said, "genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."
so electing politicians who accept and advance your pov is " corrupted science'. Exactly who are you presenting your case to but us voters? IF YOU DON'T WANT VOTERS HELP TRY SKY WRITING

[fdpaq0580]

You did not answer the question. How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

You seem like you might already have an answer you like. Why not share? Why make a game of it?
Remember, only man-made CO2. It can be part of more complex combinations of gasses, consider the chemical interactions. Site your sources, turn in your notes and worksheets. No getting answers from other students.
🙈🙉🙊

[sounding]

so electing politicians who accept and advance your pov is " corrupted science'. Exactly who are you presenting your case to but us voters? IF YOU DON'T WANT VOTERS HELP TRY SKY WRITING

And here's a great example of "corrupted science" which we should worry about ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIu3OGOdN6c

[Byte1]

I calculated it to be 0.014 degrees F per year from the NOAA Climatologist.

Once again, I will give you information from the same website that you quote from:

Climate.gov--
"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling. During an interglacial,
sea ice and snow retreat, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects;
warming increases atmospheric water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
permafrost thaws and decomposes, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide; and
the ocean warms and releases dissolved carbon dioxide, which traps even more heat.

These feedbacks amplify the initial warming until the Earth’s orbit goes through a phase during which the amount of Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight is minimized. Then these feedbacks operate in reverse, reinforcing the cooling trend."

So, has mankind increased the cycle of climate change, slowed it or made any difference whatsoever? I'd say anyone that supposes that mankind has changed the climate cycles is pretty arrogant to think that man has that much power. Did man cause the ice age or just the tropics? This is getting boring because the fact is that mankind has very little ability to change what is going to happen in this climatic change....if any at all. To be honest with you, I do not know or even care if NOAA is right or not. I have no plans to go back to transportation by horse, the telegraph versus telephone or even radio instead of TV. Man has produced comforts that has made him live a great lifestyle and other than air quality (which as gotten better since I was a child) I don't care. If you are worried about those living in the next century or millennium, I am sure they will be announcing that the "sky is falling" also. Actually, maybe an asteroid will strike the earth by then, anyway. Or maybe the moon and send the moon crashing into the earth, or maybe the great filament in the sun will finally burn out and no one will be around to worry about whether we should use paper or plastic bags when we shop.

[sounding]

You seem like you might already have an answer you like. Why not share? Why make a game of it?
Remember, only man-made CO2. It can be part of more complex combinations of gasses, consider the chemical interactions. Site your sources, turn in your notes and worksheets. No getting answers from other students.
🙈🙉🙊

Not a game. Many claim "man-made" CO2 is causing climate problems. In today's society, one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. I'm just looking for data supporting that claim -- I did not make that claim. Those making the claim must show sources, notes, worksheets, etc. Our climate is in great shape and getting better. All government data reflects that -- and I accept that data which shows severe weather and extreme weather events are decreasing.

[sounding]

I calculated it to be 0.014 degrees F per year from the NOAA Climatologist.

We have been warming ever since leaving the Little Ice Age -- at about the year 1800 -- and accordingly as the oceans warm also do they release CO2 ... and we are still thawing out from that Little Ice Age. So, how much of today's increasing CO2 is "man-made" versus thawing-made?

[golfing eagles]

Sorry, NOT a good rebuttal. I quoted the article correctly - the earth's temperature increased by 2 degrees F since 1880. That is the rate that the NOAA Climatologist stated. There is nothing there about 2 degrees per year. Just a rate of 2 degrees F since 1880. That would be 2 divided by 142 which equals .014 degrees F per year.

nice try......feel free to try again!

Actually, wasn't "trying" anything (this time)
Just asking the time frame of the reported 2 degrees

[golfing eagles]

Once again, I will give you information from the same website that you quote from:

Climate.gov--
"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling. During an interglacial,
sea ice and snow retreat, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects;
warming increases atmospheric water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
permafrost thaws and decomposes, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide; and
the ocean warms and releases dissolved carbon dioxide, which traps even more heat.

These feedbacks amplify the initial warming until the Earth’s orbit goes through a phase during which the amount of Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight is minimized. Then these feedbacks operate in reverse, reinforcing the cooling trend."

So, has mankind increased the cycle of climate change, slowed it or made any difference whatsoever? I'd say anyone that supposes that mankind has changed the climate cycles is pretty arrogant to think that man has that much power. Did man cause the ice age or just the tropics? This is getting boring because the fact is that mankind has very little ability to change what is going to happen in this climatic change....if any at all. To be honest with you, I do not know or even care if NOAA is right or not. I have no plans to go back to transportation by horse, the telegraph versus telephone or even radio instead of TV. Man has produced comforts that has made him live a great lifestyle and other than air quality (which as gotten better since I was a child) I don't care. If you are worried about those living in the next century or millennium, I am sure they will be announcing that the "sky is falling" also. Actually, maybe an asteroid will strike the earth by then, anyway. Or maybe the moon and send the moon crashing into the earth, or maybe the great filament in the sun will finally burn out and no one will be around to worry about whether we should use paper or plastic bags when we shop.

To steal a line from a truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer:

GREAT POST!!!!!

[defrey12]

In 2019 Glacier National Park (GNP) quietly removed numerous posters claiming that all glaciers would be gone by 2020. They used our tax monies to create those fake signs (with great public attention) and then removed them -- quietly. And now something else has gone quiet. They would annually post a glacier report listing the status of each mapped glacier. They stopped producing those valuable reports 7 years ago. In essence, they are denying tax payers important glacier status information. For those who attend the Weather Club, you already know that surface and satellite temperature data have shown a slow cooling trend for the last 7 years -- the same years GNP has been silent. We should demand better value for tax monies.

Oh, so we actually have “global cooling”…thanks, Al, for getting everyone’s panties in a twist over nothing…

[fdpaq0580]

To steal a line from a truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer:

GREAT POST!!!!!

I'm so disappointed. Never thought you would steal. Borrow, alright. But not steal. Tsk, tsk!
And I thought the post was waaay to long when the point, hidden in all that verbosity was, "I don't care".
Disappointing Post, if you ask me (which you won't because I am one of those "truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer"s).
😎

[sounding]

Oh, so we actually have “global cooling”…thanks, Al, for getting everyone’s panties in a twist over nothing…

And just wait till the chilling 2022 data is compiled. It supports the fact that hurricanes have dramatically decreased the past 2 years -- and yet the UN's IPCC temperature forecasts keep claiming soaring forecasts. I wonder if the GNP glaciers validate those forecasts?

[blueash]

Another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : the last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

Take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material It is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk in recent years. The glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

yes it is a FACT that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.

[sounding]

Actually, it DOES ! Go to the link on post # 2 and scroll down almost to the end. Then look right after the bold heading, " Climate Change measured in DECADES, not years. Look for a blue underlined sentence stated by an NOAA Climatologist that reads.........."Earth's global temperatures are RISING due to HUMAN-GENERATED greenhouse gases".

Then if anyone wants to know by how much is the global temperature RISING. The VERY FIRST sentence at the top of the link says, " Global Temperatures have been in increasing at a rate of 2 degrees Farenheight since 1880.

I believe that this link DEFINITIVELY proves that earth temperature is INCREASING and CAUSED by mankind !
(And now I can't wait to hear the rebuttals to the expert by our very own non-experts)

BELIEFS and CONSENSUS have NO value in science. Beliefs drive religion -- Consensus drives politics -- and DATA drives science.

[sounding]

Another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : the last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

Take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material It is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk by 1/2 in recent years. The glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

yes it is a FACT that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.

Regarding your attached NOAA temperature graph ... what month(s) does it represent?

[fdpaq0580]

Regarding your attached NOAA temperature graph ... what month(s) does it represent?

All 12 months for each year.

[sounding]

All 12 months for each year.

That is not correct. This time please display the data "criteria" which is shown to the upper-left of the diagram. The criteria that was used to create the diagram you provided were selected to maximize a "warming" graph. Thank you for showing data, but knowing what data is being used can make a difference.

[Taltarzac725]

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://news.mit.edu/2022/kerry-emanuel-climate-scientist-0629)

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

[sounding]

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://news.mit.edu/2022/kerry-emanuel-climate-scientist-0629)

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

And looks can be deceiving. Kerry has a history of creating data to fit his beliefs. 1. He likes to "model" hurricane projections -- and as we all know, those climate models have all failed for the past 35 years because they produce results way too hot and have never verified. 2. The article presented does not show any "historical" hurricane trend data -- and for good reason because it shows decreasing hurricane strength and frequency -- not to mention the dramatic decrease during the last 2 years. Here is data which Kerry, Al Gore, and the media refuse to show ... https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

[Byte1]

I'm so disappointed. Never thought you would steal. Borrow, alright. But not steal. Tsk, tsk!
And I thought the post was waaay to long when the point, hidden in all that verbosity was, "I don't care".
Disappointing Post, if you ask me (which you won't because I am one of those "truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer"s).
😎

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

[ThirdOfFive]

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......:icon_bored:
Quite a few surly someones around these here parts.

[ThirdOfFive]

You didn't know that?:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

We built machines, that ran on coal and oil, and put out so called "greenhouse gases" for the last 150-200 years. So now, according to some, the world is going to end in our grandchildren's lifetime. And our influence, our "evil", will destroy the world by overriding millions and millions of years of climate cycles driven by the power of the sun, the Earth's orbit and variations in its axis. And all this is because you bought the latest SUV. Amazing, isn't it????

So let's all go back to living in caves in the dark and hunting our food with a bow and arrow. We will be "saving" the planet :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Not that far off base, in the minds of some anyway.

I heard a speaker at a seminar some time back, a self-styled "futurist", who opined that this continent can "sustainably" support only eleven million hunter-gatherers. He quoted some data to give credence to his point.

I have little doubt that there are probably quite a few people who believe such rot, and even scarier--that there are some who are trying to bring such a scenario about.

[Byte1]

Not that far off base, in the minds of some anyway.

I heard a speaker at a seminar some time back, a self-styled "futurist", who opined that this continent can "sustainably" support only eleven million hunter-gatherers. He quoted some data to give credence to his point.

I have little doubt that there are probably quite a few people who believe such rot, and even scarier--that there are some who are trying to bring such a scenario about.

We used to call such folks "Tree huggers." They are more concerned about saving the trees than those that might need the wood for said tree to build shelter for their families. Progress has it's cost and man is at the top of the ecology food chain.

[sounding]

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

[ThirdOfFive]

It's become a "disease", a "pandemic" actually; if it supports MY personal view, it's a FACT, if it supports a different view or opinion, then it's "dis-information" ! We don't even question the fallacy of using that method to determine "fact" any more. What will happen to the ACTUAL scientific method of investigation ? Will it not even be taught any more ? Everything seems to have gone emotionally based, all decisions, all facts, all arguments on all subjects from "effectiveness to masks" to the results of warming and cooling trends on earth, seem to be based on just "emotional feelings" ! ! I think we are in real trouble when we confuse science with emotions, and we vote, make purchases, choose our personal philosophy solely on FEELINGS ?
Excellent points.

My opinion on just why this is the case corresponds with the rise and scope of the internet, and even more to the point, social media. Back in the day, if someone was doing research on any topic, it meant going to the local library, poring over books for hours on end, then crunching those numbers with (if you were lucky) a electrically-powered mechanical calculator. You then put your thoughts to paper, maybe several drafts on a manual typewriter (mine was an Underwood) before the finished result was ready for whatever it was being prepared for.

Today? Well, today a few mouse clicks can reveal "data" on just about any subject. Not a bad thing if used correctly, but unfortunately one can find "data" to "prove" any hypothesis they might have, no matter how off-the-wall it might be: settlements on the far side of the moon--the Holocaust never happened--the Earth is flat--there are data out there to support those three, plus a whole lot more. That is why this discussion as well as just about all discussions come down to dueling data: one side digs up some numbers to support a point while the other side digs up some more to support the opposite. And usually those duels involve people with little to no knowledge of the subject.

The complicating factor is that, more and more, it appears that all too many people aren't interested in INFORMATION at all, but in VALIDATION. They want to be right and will go through any length to "prove" that. When science becomes dogma--well, we are all in a lot of trouble. And unfortunately with social media, it is no problem to locate like-minded people who will validate your point of view, as well as the scoundrels who are experts at getting people to think what THEY want people to think.

As Mark Twain once stated, there are three kinds of untruths: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". And of the three, statistics are the worst, because they can be made to "prove" any lie or damned lie out there.

[fdpaq0580]

That is not correct. This time please display the data "criteria" which is shown to the upper-left of the diagram. The criteria that was used to create the diagram you provided were selected to maximize a "warming" graph. Thank you for showing data, but knowing what data is being used can make a difference.

Sorry, You are not correct. Blueash provided the graph and your response was to me. My response was to me. My comment was based on information I just read on a NOAA article on climate.gov.

[Byte1]

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

In that case, perhaps man should not build residential structures either since they will "alter the local wind pattern." Can anyone say "reaching?" Maybe someone is attempting to equate or confuse man caused climate change with simple POLLUTION. If you wish to discuss pollution, I could probably find many points where I agree with you. Still haven't proven man caused climate change. If you wish to suggest that man has changed his environment, I can agree with that.....through pollution.

[sounding]

In that case, perhaps man should not build residential structures either since they will "alter the local wind pattern." Can anyone say "reaching?" Maybe someone is attempting to equate or confuse man caused climate change with simple POLLUTION. If you wish to discuss pollution, I could probably find many points where I agree with you. Still haven't proven man caused climate change. If you wish to suggest that man has changed his environment, I can agree with that.....through pollution.

Agree - pollution and climate and separate issues -- and CO2 is not a pollutant -- it's trace gas necessary for all life on earth.

[fdpaq0580]

Excellent points.

My opinion on just why this is the case corresponds with the rise and scope of the internet, and even more to the point, social media. Back in the day, if someone was doing research on any topic, it meant going to the local library, poring over books for hours on end, then crunching those numbers with (if you were lucky) a electrically-powered mechanical calculator. You then put your thoughts to paper, maybe several drafts on a manual typewriter (mine was an Underwood) before the finished result was ready for whatever it was being prepared for.

Today? Well, today a few mouse clicks can reveal "data" on just about any subject. Not a bad thing if used correctly, but unfortunately one can find "data" to "prove" any hypothesis they might have, no matter how off-the-wall it might be: settlements on the far side of the moon--the Holocaust never happened--the Earth is flat--there are data out there to support those three, plus a whole lot more. That is why this discussion as well as just about all discussions come down to dueling data: one side digs up some numbers to support a point while the other side digs up some more to support the opposite. And usually those duels involve people with little to no knowledge of the subject.

The complicating factor is that, more and more, it appears that all too many people aren't interested in INFORMATION at all, but in VALIDATION. They want to be right and will go through any length to "prove" that. When science becomes dogma--well, we are all in a lot of trouble. And unfortunately with social media, it is no problem to locate like=minded people who will validate your point of view.

As Mark Twain once stated, there are three kinds of untruths: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". And of the three, statistics are the worst, because they can be made to "prove" any lie or damned lie out there.

Very well stated, imho. Shows why we will not be changing any minds here.

[tuccillo]

Kerry Emanuel is, and has been, a well regarded researcher for over 40 years. He is pretty much the smartest guy in the room. I recall meeting him once at a conference and read his papers in graduate school and afterwards. Roy Spencer and John Christy are also researchers that are worth listening to. The fact that anthropogenic CO2 increases have caused some recent warming is not debated by anyone (who actually understands the science). The estimates are from 0.8 to 1.3C and are a perturbation on the longer term warming due to the fact that we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years. We may continue to warm for the next 100,000 years (or so??) and sea levels, which have risen about 6 inches in the last 100 years or so, will continue to rise. The rate of sea level rise, however, appears to be accelerating. The concern is that anthropogenic CO2 increases will create several degrees of additional warming, over and above the warming from being in an interglacial period, over the next 100 years or so. The debate is whether we will be faced with a dire situation due to anthropogenic CO2 increases. Part of the problem is that the press and politicians have zoomed in on the 8.5 modeling scenario (the most dire modeling projection). I, and others such as Spencer and Christy, have doubts whether the 8.5 scenarios is the scenario that we should be focused on. That is a political issue. Spencer and Christy also point out that the models tend to run warm, particularly in the tropical troposphere. Back when I actually did productive work, I developed models for NASA and the NWS. It is a difficult problem. Model sensitivity to CO2 increases continues to be an area of research.

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://news.mit.edu/2022/kerry-emanuel-climate-scientist-0629)

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

[fdpaq0580]

Kerry Emanuel is, and has been, a well regarded researcher for over 40 years. He is pretty much the smartest guy in the room. I recall meeting him once at a conference and read his papers in graduate school and afterwards. Roy Spencer and John Christy are also researchers that are worth listening to. The fact that anthropogenic CO2 increases have caused some recent warming is not debated by anyone (who actually understands the science). The estimates are from 0.8 to 1.3C and are a perturbation on the longer term warming due to the fact that we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years. We may continue to warm for the next 100,000 years (or so??) and sea levels, which have risen about 10 inches in the last 100 years or so, will continue to rise. The concern is that anthropogenic CO2 increases will create several degrees of additional warming, over and above the warming from being in an interglacial period, over the next 100 years or so. The debate is whether we will be faced with a dire situation due to anthropogenic CO2 increases. Part of the problem is that the press and politicians have zoomed in on the 8.5 modeling scenario (the most dire modeling projection). I, and others such as Spencer and Christy, have doubts whether the 8.5 scenarios is the scenario that we should be focused on. Spencer and Christy also point out that the models tend to run warm, particularly in the tropical troposphere. Model sensitivity to CO2 increases continues to be an area of research.

Very good post, imho. As for focusing on the "most dire modeling", makes sense to me. Like finding out a hurricane is heading in your general direction, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, then whatever happens you will be alright. Although you might have some extra toilet paper and water. 😏😑

[tuccillo]

And there lies the debate. Since the models tend to run warm, focusing on the most dire scenario may be overkill. Regardless, it may not really matter since our ability to do anything if the dire projections are accurate, other than remediate coast regions and migrate people, is questionable. We really can't substantially reduce CO2 emissions anytime soon.

Very good post, imho. As for focusing on the "most dire modeling", makes sense to me. Like finding out a hurricane is heading in your general direction, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, then whatever happens you will be alright. Although you might have some extra toilet paper and water. 😏😑

[jimjamuser]

You did not answer the question. How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?
Actually, I DID answer that question in post # 60. I can repeat it. The NOAA scientist stated that the earth warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 until this year. So that's 142 years. So divide 2 degrees F by 142 and that equals 0.014 degrees warmed per year.

Also in that article, the NOAA scientist CLEARLY stated that this warming of the earth was DUE TO MAN'S activities (like the internal combustion engine) causing pollutants to act as a blanket in the upper atmosphere.

If someone thinks that these statements are incorrect, they need NOT argue with ME. They should write to the NOAA scientist that wrote the article. Or if they think that they know more than him.......they should ask to be a paid consultant to the NOAA. I am sure that they will let them work from home if they are retired!

The earth's warming that the NOAA scientists have measured is also CONFIRMED by the measurement of the ocean's water level rising over that same period (from 1880). Also CONFIRMED by the dying of coral reefs to the extent that the reefs will be 90% DEAD by 2090. And also confirmed by the increasingly large and strong killer hurricanes happening around the world. Also CONFIRMED by glaciers melting and disappearing worldwide. And here in Florida we are exceptionally susceptible to killer hurricanes like IAN. Which scientists expect to see continue for the next 30 years as the earth and oceans KEEP WARMING.

The Industrial Revolution brought many advantages to the 1st world. Now the WHOLE WORLD must PAY the PRICE for those CO2 pollutants produced by the Industrial Revolution. The earth's climate (or Global Warming) now REQUIRES mankind to find a way to decrease CO2 pollutants. Which some scientists think is too late because of passing a tipping point. Our sons and daughters will live to see that and will be paying the price.

[sounding]

Actually, I DID answer that question in post # 60. I can repeat it. The NOAA scientist stated that the earth warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 until this year. So that's 142 years. So divide 2 degrees F by 142 and that equals 0.014 degrees warmed per year.

Also in that article, the NOAA scientist CLEARLY stated that this warming of the earth was DUE TO MAN'S activities (like the internal combustion engine) causing pollutants to act as a blanket in the upper atmosphere.

If someone thinks that these statements are incorrect, they need NOT argue with ME. They should write to the NOAA scientist that wrote the article. Or if they think that they know more than him.......they should ask to be a paid consultant to the NOAA. I am sure that they will let them work from home if they are retired!

The earth's warming that the NOAA scientists have measured is also CONFIRMED by the measurement of the ocean's water level rising over that same period (from 1880). Also CONFIRMED by the dying of coral reefs to the extent that the reefs will be 90% DEAD by 2090. And also confirmed by the increasingly large and strong killer hurricanes happening around the world. Also CONFIRMED by glaciers melting and disappearing worldwide. And here in Florida we are exceptionally susceptible to killer hurricanes like IAN. Which scientists expect to see continue for the next 30 years as the earth and oceans KEEP WARMING.

The Industrial Revolution brought many advantages to the 1st world. Now the WHOLE WORLD must PAY the PRICE for those CO2 pollutants produced by the Industrial Revolution. The earth's climate (or Global Warming) now REQUIRES mankind to find a way to decrease CO2 pollutants. Which some scientists think is too late because of passing a tipping point. Our sons and daughters will live to see that and will be paying the price.

When did the "thawing" from the Little Ice Age end?

[tuccillo]

I assume you are calling CO2 a "pollutant"? I would be careful about that characterization. Also, CO2 is actually pretty well mixed (+/- a few PPM out of about 400 PPM) below about 14 kms. I'm not sure where you get this "blanket in the upper atmosphere" terminology.

Actually, I DID answer that question in post # 60. I can repeat it. The NOAA scientist stated that the earth warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 until this year. So that's 142 years. So divide 2 degrees F by 142 and that equals 0.014 degrees warmed per year.

Also in that article, the NOAA scientist CLEARLY stated that this warming of the earth was DUE TO MAN'S activities (like the internal combustion engine) causing pollutants to act as a blanket in the upper atmosphere.

If someone thinks that these statements are incorrect, they need NOT argue with ME. They should write to the NOAA scientist that wrote the article. Or if they think that they know more than him.......they should ask to be a paid consultant to the NOAA. I am sure that they will let them work from home if they are retired!

The earth's warming that the NOAA scientists have measured is also CONFIRMED by the measurement of the ocean's water level rising over that same period (from 1880). Also CONFIRMED by the dying of coral reefs to the extent that the reefs will be 90% DEAD by 2090. And also confirmed by the increasingly large and strong killer hurricanes happening around the world. Also CONFIRMED by glaciers melting and disappearing worldwide. And here in Florida we are exceptionally susceptible to killer hurricanes like IAN. Which scientists expect to see continue for the next 30 years as the earth and oceans KEEP WARMING.

The Industrial Revolution brought many advantages to the 1st world. Now the WHOLE WORLD must PAY the PRICE for those CO2 pollutants produced by the Industrial Revolution. The earth's climate (or Global Warming) now REQUIRES mankind to find a way to decrease CO2 pollutants. Which some scientists think is too late because of passing a tipping point. Our sons and daughters will live to see that and will be paying the price.

[jimjamuser]

Once again, I will give you information from the same website that you quote from:

Climate.gov--
"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling. During an interglacial,
sea ice and snow retreat, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects;
warming increases atmospheric water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
permafrost thaws and decomposes, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide; and
the ocean warms and releases dissolved carbon dioxide, which traps even more heat.

These feedbacks amplify the initial warming until the Earth’s orbit goes through a phase during which the amount of Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight is minimized. Then these feedbacks operate in reverse, reinforcing the cooling trend."

So, has mankind increased the cycle of climate change, slowed it or made any difference whatsoever? I'd say anyone that supposes that mankind has changed the climate cycles is pretty arrogant to think that man has that much power. Did man cause the ice age or just the tropics? This is getting boring because the fact is that mankind has very little ability to change what is going to happen in this climatic change....if any at all. To be honest with you, I do not know or even care if NOAA is right or not. I have no plans to go back to transportation by horse, the telegraph versus telephone or even radio instead of TV. Man has produced comforts that has made him live a great lifestyle and other than air quality (which as gotten better since I was a child) I don't care. If you are worried about those living in the next century or millennium, I am sure they will be announcing that the "sky is falling" also. Actually, maybe an asteroid will strike the earth by then, anyway. Or maybe the moon and send the moon crashing into the earth, or maybe the great filament in the sun will finally burn out and no one will be around to worry about whether we should use paper or plastic bags when we shop.
That was interesting. Basically, scientific evidence is QUOTED which explains how and why the earth is warming, and later on in the article, it explains that MAN's polluting activities have caused this warming.
......THEN later in the POST..........we get a LAYMAN'S reasons for NOT believing the scientists and their careful PROFESSIONAL measurements of the warming earth and the CONCLUSION that it is MAN CAUSED.

It seems to me that for many people it is easier to just say that the scientists are lying and Al Gore was a HOAX - than to deal in any way with ANY changes to their life. Some will grit their teeth and hold their breath and go to their graves saying, " I will never buy an electric car or ride an Ebike or trade in my old smelly, polluting golf cart, because I didn't give into any of those crazy, pinko-commies." Archie Bunker was funny because MANY like him exist even today!

[sounding]

That was interesting. Basically, scientific evidence is QUOTED which explains how and why the earth is warming, and later on in the article, it explains that MAN's polluting activities have caused this warming.
......THEN later in the POST..........we get a LAYMAN'S reasons for NOT believing the scientists and their careful PROFESSIONAL measurements of the warming earth and the CONCLUSION that it is MAN CAUSED.

It seems to me that for many people it is easier to just say that the scientists are lying and Al Gore was a HOAX - than to deal in any way with ANY changes to their life. Some will grit their teeth and hold their breath and go to their graves saying, " I will never buy an electric car or ride an Ebike or trade in my old smelly, polluting golf cart, because I didn't give into any of those crazy, pinko-commies." Archie Bunker was funny because MANY like him exist even today!

What caused the Little Ice Age to begin thawing?

[jimjamuser]

Not a game. Many claim "man-made" CO2 is causing climate problems. In today's society, one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. I'm just looking for data supporting that claim -- I did not make that claim. Those making the claim must show sources, notes, worksheets, etc. Our climate is in great shape and getting better. All government data reflects that -- and I accept that data which shows severe weather and extreme weather events are decreasing.
Just write a letter like that to the NOAA and try and change their minds. Tell them and show them how they are wrong about CO2 and other pollutants. Tell them how pollutants are REALLY good for the earth's climate. I am SURE that they will be interested.

[sounding]

Just write a letter like that to the NOAA and try and change their minds. Tell them and show them how they are wrong about CO2 and other pollutants. Tell them how pollutants are REALLY good for the earth's climate. I am SURE that they will be interested.

Notice they never say why we are thawing out from the Little Ice Age.

[jimjamuser]

We have been warming ever since leaving the Little Ice Age -- at about the year 1800 -- and accordingly as the oceans warm also do they release CO2 ... and we are still thawing out from that Little Ice Age. So, how much of today's increasing CO2 is "man-made" versus thawing-made?
To answer the question, "how much of the increasing CO2 is man-made, and how much is thawing-made?"........I could NOT answer. But, somewhere there MIGHT (?) be a Climate Scientist that has made that calculation. What I can determine IS that most scientists are WARNING that we have Global Warming and the natural CO2 balance has been thrown off by MAN starting in the Industrial Revolution. The oceans can NO LONGER absorb the excess CO2. And a tipping point may have been reached. This is OBSERVABLE in the VANISHING GLACIERS and DYING coral reefs. Part of the threat to the CO2 cycle is exemplified by the Tundra in Russia that NO LONGER is covered with ice and is self-combusting, which is throwing stored-up CO2 into the atmosphere.

All that I am saying is that scientists are concerned/worried and that concerns me!

[jimjamuser]

Actually, wasn't "trying" anything (this time)
Just asking the time frame of the reported 2 degrees
OK cool ! We have that sorted out. Now we can work toward solving our differences concerning general Climate conclusions.

[jimjamuser]

i'm so disappointed. Never thought you would steal. Borrow, alright. But not steal. Tsk, tsk!
And i thought the post was waaay to long when the point, hidden in all that verbosity was, "i don't care".
Disappointing post, if you ask me (which you won't because i am one of those "truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer"s).
😎
great post !!!!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

And just wait till the chilling 2022 data is compiled. It supports the fact that hurricanes have dramatically decreased the past 2 years -- and yet the UN's IPCC temperature forecasts keep claiming soaring forecasts. I wonder if the GNP glaciers validate those forecasts?
The FREQUENCY of hurricanes HAS decreased, but the INTENSITY HAS increased. Thus KILLER hurricanes and more people die. Look at it this way..........logically the Gulf of Mexico had RECORD water temperatures this year and hurricane IAN did RECORD damage to Florida and KILLED many people.

And what happens next year?????? I will go out on a limb (a very sturdy limb) and predict that the Gulf water temperature will be even warmer next summer than it was this year. So, what do we-all think that THAT will do with respect to hurricane magnitude? ........stay tuned Florida and other Gulf states!

[sounding]

To answer the question, "how much of the increasing CO2 is man-made, and how much is thawing-made?"........I could NOT answer. But, somewhere there MIGHT (?) be a Climate Scientist that has made that calculation. What I can determine IS that most scientists are WARNING that we have Global Warming and the natural CO2 balance has been thrown off by MAN starting in the Industrial Revolution. The oceans can NO LONGER absorb the excess CO2. And a tipping point may have been reached. This is OBSERVABLE in the VANISHING GLACIERS and DYING coral reefs. Part of the threat to the CO2 cycle is exemplified by the Tundra in Russia that NO LONGER is covered with ice and is self-combusting, which is throwing stored-up CO2 into the atmosphere.

All that I am saying is that scientists are concerned/worried and that concerns me!

If most scientists claim man-made warming is harming the climate, then they should be able to say how much of current warming is "man-made" and not from Little Ice Age thawing. That data does not exist -- their theory is invalid -- just scare-mongering -- and effective enough to get folks for pay more taxes for no verifiable reason. Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and many other thrillers, said, "Social control is best managed through fear."

[sounding]

OK cool ! We have that sorted out. Now we can work toward solving our differences concerning general Climate conclusions.

Please show source data for that 2 degree claim.

[jimjamuser]

another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : The last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals met office report quietly released... And here is the chart to prove it | daily mail online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-met-office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material it is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk in recent years. The glaciers in greenland, alaska, and antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

Yes it is a fact that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.
GREATER than GREAT post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is a "drop the mike" post !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

BELIEFS and CONSENSUS have NO value in science. Beliefs drive religion -- Consensus drives politics -- and DATA drives science.
That sounds cute, but does NOT even come CLOSE to being a solid, factual rebuttal of my post. I quoted Scientists, not merely some cute jingle!

[sounding]

The FREQUENCY of hurricanes HAS decreased, but the INTENSITY HAS increased. Thus KILLER hurricanes and more people die. Look at it this way..........logically the Gulf of Mexico had RECORD water temperatures this year and hurricane IAN did RECORD damage to Florida and KILLED many people.

And what happens next year?????? I will go out on a limb (a very sturdy limb) and predict that the Gulf water temperature will be even warmer next summer than it was this year. So, what do we-all think that THAT will do with respect to hurricane magnitude? ........stay tuned Florida and other Gulf states!

Like frequency, hurricane intensity (or energy) is down ... https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png The image ups and downs reflect ENSO and AMO/PDO ocean temperature cycles -- driven by the sun. And still as CO2 skyrockets upwards -- hurricanes are on the decline. I guess CO2 is under-performing.

[jimjamuser]

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology (https://news.mit.edu/2022/kerry-emanuel-climate-scientist-0629)

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.
About midway through the article, this EXPERT states that warming seas and atmospheric conditions will cause increasing MAGNITUDE hurricanes. But here in the Village forum many of the LAYMAN will disagree with him..........just because they CAN. And ignorance is bliss.

[jimjamuser]

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.
Just in these several page of posts we have shown 2 reputable Scientists that HAVE SAID that Global Warming is CAUSED by MAN. And I would add that the overpopulation supported by the Industrial Revolution has generated( mainly through the use of the internal combustion engine) the EXCESS CO2, which formed a blanket to increase the earth's heat.

[sounding]

About midway through the article, this EXPERT states that warming seas and atmospheric conditions will cause increasing MAGNITUDE hurricanes. But here in the Village forum many of the LAYMAN will disagree with him..........just because they CAN. And ignorance is bliss.

Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman, said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." You offer expert opinions and I offer data ... Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue (https://climatlas.com/tropical/)

[sounding]

That sounds cute, but does NOT even come CLOSE to being a solid, factual rebuttal of my post. I quoted Scientists, not merely some cute jingle!

So why aren't those glacier status reports being provided?

[golfing eagles]

Just in these several page of posts we have shown 2 reputable Scientists that HAVE SAID that Global Warming is CAUSED by MAN. And I would add that the overpopulation supported by the Industrial Revolution has generated( mainly through the use of the internal combustion engine) the EXCESS CO2, which formed a blanket to increase the earth's heat.

And who supports these "reputable scientists"???? Do they get grant money from the government????? How much grant money would they get if they stated man is NOT causing global warming???? Are they tenured professors??? Would they have got tenure by claiming all global warming is just a continuation of climate cycles than have been going on for 4 million years????? Would they get TV time from the MSM if they did not support anthropogenic climate change????? Would they even get published?????

Let me remind you of the movie "Contact" starring Jodi Foster. She was a brilliant radio astronomer who was left out in the cold because her field of interest was extraterrestrial contact, a topic that was "tantamount to professional suicide". There aren't too many climatologists willing to fall on their sword to tell the truth.

[jimjamuser]

We used to call such folks "Tree huggers." They are more concerned about saving the trees than those that might need the wood for said tree to build shelter for their families. Progress has it's cost and man is at the top of the ecology food chain.
Wow, this is actually VERY INSTRUCTIVE. Knocking "tree huggers". By saying that it is OK to EXCESSIVELY cut down trees (like in the Brazilian rain forest) we are DENYING the earth its oxygen and the ability to absorb CO2 - which is what is causing the dying glaciers and the increases in CO2 in the ocean. Ask yourself why are large cities HOTTER than farming areas? The answer is obviously that cities have fewer TREES than farming areas. Then the cities need more A/C than the farming areas, which means more electricity needs to be produced........and from where ------carbon sources like natural gas and coal, which produce POLLUTION. Currently, smart city planners are trying to plant MORE trees in the city to DROP the temperature down. Smart city planners are calling for a 3 or 4-day work week to have people NOT commuting into the warm city and NOT creating tailpipe exhaust HEAT and pollution.

The 1st world is currently trying to move AWAY from environmental destruction and toward recycling and home construction codes that included better insulation and preventing energy loss. The more trees around a house the cooler it is in the summer and if deciduous, the leaves drop and let in the sun for the winter - thus saving heating AND cooling energy. Trees also slow down winds from tornados and hurricanes.

Basically "tree huggers" are patriotic Americans!

[Byte1]

Wow, this is actually VERY INSTRUCTIVE. Knocking "tree huggers". By saying that it is OK to EXCESSIVELY cut down trees (like in the Brazilian rain forest) we are DENYING the earth its oxygen and the ability to absorb CO2 - which is what is causing the dying glaciers and the increases in CO2 in the ocean. Ask yourself why are large cities HOTTER than farming areas? The answer is obviously that cities have fewer TREES than farming areas. Then the cities need more A/C than the farming areas, which means more electricity needs to be produced........and from where ------carbon sources like natural gas and coal, which produce POLLUTION. Currently, smart city planners are trying to plant MORE trees in the city to DROP the temperature down. Smart city planners are calling for a 3 or 4-day work week to have people NOT commuting into the warm city and NOT creating tailpipe exhaust HEAT and pollution.

The 1st world is currently trying to move AWAY from environmental destruction and toward recycling and home construction codes that included better insulation and preventing energy loss. The more trees around a house the cooler it is in the summer and if deciduous, the leaves drop and let in the sun for the winter - thus saving heating AND cooling energy. Trees also slow down winds from tornados and hurricanes.

Basically "tree huggers" are patriotic Americans!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
You seem to be exaggerating a bit when you INTERPRET my comment. Is this anything like "taking artistic license?"

[jimjamuser]

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.
An excellent example.

[Byte1]

That was interesting. Basically, scientific evidence is QUOTED which explains how and why the earth is warming, and later on in the article, it explains that MAN's polluting activities have caused this warming.
......THEN later in the POST..........we get a LAYMAN'S reasons for NOT believing the scientists and their careful PROFESSIONAL measurements of the warming earth and the CONCLUSION that it is MAN CAUSED.

It seems to me that for many people it is easier to just say that the scientists are lying and Al Gore was a HOAX - than to deal in any way with ANY changes to their life. Some will grit their teeth and hold their breath and go to their graves saying, " I will never buy an electric car or ride an Ebike or trade in my old smelly, polluting golf cart, because I didn't give into any of those crazy, pinko-commies." Archie Bunker was funny because MANY like him exist even today!

Where do you see that? I did not see anywhere in there where man caused climate change. Please give me the words so I can see it YOUR way.
You are putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I called scientists liars. Al Gore is just a drunkin idiot so I discount him totally. I do not call scientists liars. I call those that interpret what scientists say totally different than what they actually say, purveyors of scare tactics. Besides, anyone that does research and experimentation can call themselves scientists so you can take that as you wish.
The quote that I supplied said that the Earth has been going through weather cycles and cold and warm trends for millions of years. It gave reasons for cold and warm periods. But, it did NOT say mankind caused any of it. But, some how you read it differently so I am interested in how you came to your conclusion.

[ThirdOfFive]

The FREQUENCY of hurricanes HAS decreased, but the INTENSITY HAS increased. Thus KILLER hurricanes and more people die. Look at it this way..........logically the Gulf of Mexico had RECORD water temperatures this year and hurricane IAN did RECORD damage to Florida and KILLED many people.

And what happens next year?????? I will go out on a limb (a very sturdy limb) and predict that the Gulf water temperature will be even warmer next summer than it was this year. So, what do we-all think that THAT will do with respect to hurricane magnitude? ........stay tuned Florida and other Gulf states!
Hurricane intensity is measured in one of two ways, not necessarily related.

Which way was used to form the conclusion in red above?

[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/)

This is a good link even if I feel like I am ****ing in the wind-- so to speak-- arguing it on Talk of the Villages.

[sounding]

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

This is a good link even if I feel like I am ****ing in the wind-- so to speak-- arguing it on Talk of the Villages.

That link is a perfect example of misinformation. 1. Notice the hurricane graph in that C2ES article -- the data starts at 1950 when in reality we have hurricane data going back to the mid-1800s. They are hiding data showing high storm levels prior to 1950. 2. That graph only reflects the North Atlantic storms which is not a prime indicator of "global" storms. 3. All hurricane data before 1970 is incomplete, because many storms in the Eastern North Atlantic were not detectable until the global 24/7 use of geostationary (GOES) satellites in the 70s. In other words the C2ES graph shows apples & oranges. 4. Those 2 orange lines drawn across the C2ES graph are opinions -- and they have no scientific meaning. 5. Christiana Figueres is frequently honored and referenced in numerous C2ES events and publications. She was the United Nations' architect of the Paris Climate Agreement. She said this in 2016 about her work ... "Part of my commitment to the public good is through common goals that can only be best reached by working together – if that’s called communism so be it."

[jimjamuser]

In that case, perhaps man should not build residential structures either since they will "alter the local wind pattern." Can anyone say "reaching?" Maybe someone is attempting to equate or confuse man caused climate change with simple POLLUTION. If you wish to discuss pollution, I could probably find many points where I agree with you. Still haven't proven man caused climate change. If you wish to suggest that man has changed his environment, I can agree with that.....through pollution.
Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

[jimjamuser]

Agree - pollution and climate and separate issues -- and CO2 is not a pollutant -- it's trace gas necessary for all life on earth.
If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

[jimjamuser]

Kerry Emanuel is, and has been, a well regarded researcher for over 40 years. He is pretty much the smartest guy in the room. I recall meeting him once at a conference and read his papers in graduate school and afterwards. Roy Spencer and John Christy are also researchers that are worth listening to. The fact that anthropogenic CO2 increases have caused some recent warming is not debated by anyone (who actually understands the science). The estimates are from 0.8 to 1.3C and are a perturbation on the longer term warming due to the fact that we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years. We may continue to warm for the next 100,000 years (or so??) and sea levels, which have risen about 6 inches in the last 100 years or so, will continue to rise. The rate of sea level rise, however, appears to be accelerating. The concern is that anthropogenic CO2 increases will create several degrees of additional warming, over and above the warming from being in an interglacial period, over the next 100 years or so. The debate is whether we will be faced with a dire situation due to anthropogenic CO2 increases. Part of the problem is that the press and politicians have zoomed in on the 8.5 modeling scenario (the most dire modeling projection). I, and others such as Spencer and Christy, have doubts whether the 8.5 scenarios is the scenario that we should be focused on. That is a political issue. Spencer and Christy also point out that the models tend to run warm, particularly in the tropical troposphere. Back when I actually did productive work, I developed models for NASA and the NWS. It is a difficult problem. Model sensitivity to CO2 increases continues to be an area of research.
Thanks, great post !

[jimjamuser]

And there lies the debate. Since the models tend to run warm, focusing on the most dire scenario may be overkill. Regardless, it may not really matter since our ability to do anything if the dire projections are accurate, other than remediate coast regions and migrate people, is questionable. We really can't substantially reduce CO2 emissions anytime soon.
Wars and famine reduce population, which would naturally reduce CO2 production.

[golfing eagles]

Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂

[golfing eagles]

If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

That would be carbon MONOXIDE (CO), not carbon dioxide (CO2). Your premise does not hold water (H2O)😂😂😂

[jimjamuser]

I assume you are calling CO2 a "pollutant"? I would be careful about that characterization. Also, CO2 is actually pretty well mixed (+/- a few PPM out of about 400 PPM) below about 14 kms. I'm not sure where you get this "blanket in the upper atmosphere" terminology.
True, I am assuming that CO2 is a pollutant since no one would want to breathe in 100 % CO2. And I am trying to have a SIMPLE analogy of a blanket to explain the facts that I see such as measurable increased earth HEAT. Measurable ocean level increase. Predictions of heat increase for the next 30 years Coral reefs dying. And hurricanes increasing in magnitude (not frequency). I pretend to be NOTHING MORE than a layman. So, I talk in layman's terms. But, I do read enough and watch TV enough to refer others to Scientist that DO know more than layman do.

I do know that CO2 is increasing to a point of producing acid in the oceans and bleaching and KILLING the coral reefs ( a source of great natural beauty). Dying coral means that the oceans produce less food for mankind. The CO2 cycle has been disrupted due to man's use of IC engines and coal.

[Taltarzac725]

Wars and famine reduce population, which would naturally reduce CO2 production.


But what do nuclear weapons do? How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y)

[tuccillo]

There is the thing called CO, carbon monoxide ...

If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

[sounding]

Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

Sorry -- false association, which is commonly used by the global warming establishment to garner support for a political movement. Highway littering is pollution -- CO2 is primarily plant food and secondarily produces Itsy-Bitsy-Teenie-Weenie warming which is logarithmically diminishing with increasing CO2. Plus CO2's heating ability is essentially saturated. Here is the best scientific explanation of CO2 warming today ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw

[jimjamuser]

If most scientists claim man-made warming is harming the climate, then they should be able to say how much of current warming is "man-made" and not from Little Ice Age thawing. That data does not exist -- their theory is invalid -- just scare-mongering -- and effective enough to get folks for pay more taxes for no verifiable reason. Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and many other thrillers, said, "Social control is best managed through fear."
That is intuitively obvious about social control and FEAR. Just have to look to China to see that. As to the Scientists doing FEAR MONGERING........WELL.......I guess that I have been MONGERED. Sorry !

[ThirdOfFive]

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂
You mean it's NOT cow farts???

[ThirdOfFive]

True, I am assuming that CO2 is a pollutant since no one would want to breathe in 100 % CO2. And I am trying to have a SIMPLE analogy of a blanket to explain the facts that I see such as measurable increased earth HEAT. Measurable ocean level increase. Predictions of heat increase for the next 30 years Coral reefs dying. And hurricanes increasing in magnitude (not frequency). I pretend to be NOTHING MORE than a layman. So, I talk in layman's terms. But, I do read enough and watch TV enough to refer others to Scientist that DO know more than layman do.

I do know that CO2 is increasing to a point of producing acid in the oceans and bleaching and KILLING the coral reefs ( a source of great natural beauty). Dying coral means that the oceans produce less food for mankind. The CO2 cycle has been disrupted due to man's use of IC engines and coal.
Not really. Breathing 100% anything (which, by definition, contains 0% oxygen) is going to kill you. Our air is 70% nitrogen. It is an inert gas but at least one state has an execution protocol for 100% nitrogen to be used in capital punishment cases. It's not the nitrogen that kills, but the lack of oxygen.

That doesn't mean nitrogen is a "pollutant".

[jimjamuser]

Please show source data for that 2 degree claim.
The NOAA. I have made at least 2 prior posts about that.

[tuccillo]

Breathing 100% oxygen is also not without issues. CO2 absorption by the oceans is not turning the oceans to an acid. The pH is dropping so the alkalinity is being reduced, which can be referred to as moving the oceans towards acidity. However, the oceans will not become an acid (a pH less than 7). Trying to draw an analogy of CO2 being a "blanket" is just as bad as calling CO2 a "greenhouse" gas. The physics of a "blanket" and the physics of a "greenhouse" are different than the physics of how CO2 impacts the atmosphere (approximately 1C from anthropogenic sources). We are, however, probably forever stuck with the term "greenhouse" gas.

True, I am assuming that CO2 is a pollutant since no one would want to breathe in 100 % CO2. And I am trying to have a SIMPLE analogy of a blanket to explain the facts that I see such as measurable increased earth HEAT. Measurable ocean level increase. Predictions of heat increase for the next 30 years Coral reefs dying. And hurricanes increasing in magnitude (not frequency). I pretend to be NOTHING MORE than a layman. So, I talk in layman's terms. But, I do read enough and watch TV enough to refer others to Scientist that DO know more than layman do.

I do know that CO2 is increasing to a point of producing acid in the oceans and bleaching and KILLING the coral reefs ( a source of great natural beauty). Dying coral means that the oceans produce less food for mankind. The CO2 cycle has been disrupted due to man's use of IC engines and coal.

[jimjamuser]

And who supports these "reputable scientists"???? Do they get grant money from the government????? How much grant money would they get if they stated man is NOT causing global warming???? Are they tenured professors??? Would they have got tenure by claiming all global warming is just a continuation of climate cycles than have been going on for 4 million years????? Would they get TV time from the MSM if they did not support anthropogenic climate change????? Would they even get published?????

Let me remind you of the movie "Contact" starring Jodi Foster. She was a brilliant radio astronomer who was left out in the cold because her field of interest was extraterrestrial contact, a topic that was "tantamount to professional suicide". There aren't too many climatologists willing to fall on their sword to tell the truth.
Much of what you say is good and interesting. Each of us individually must integrate all the facts and opinions that we have heard and create an individual consensus for ourselves. I choose to believe that in the western world that the majority of scientists are true to themselves and are writing factual material. And the PEER REVIEW system should help keep them honest. Now, in Russia and China scientists may feel hamstrung about telling the truth.

[jimjamuser]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
You seem to be exaggerating a bit when you INTERPRET my comment. Is this anything like "taking artistic license?"
Maybe a little. What's a little exaggeration between friends?

[jimjamuser]

Where do you see that? I did not see anywhere in there where man caused climate change. Please give me the words so I can see it YOUR way.
You are putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I called scientists liars. Al Gore is just a drunkin idiot so I discount him totally. I do not call scientists liars. I call those that interpret what scientists say totally different than what they actually say, purveyors of scare tactics. Besides, anyone that does research and experimentation can call themselves scientists so you can take that as you wish.
The quote that I supplied said that the Earth has been going through weather cycles and cold and warm trends for millions of years. It gave reasons for cold and warm periods. But, it did NOT say mankind caused any of it. But, some how you read it differently so I am interested in how you came to your conclusion.
Actually it IS there and I gave everyone its location in one of my earliest posts. Please just refer back to that post. I guarantee that it is in there. And I believe that that other scientist that we were talking about stated it also.

Actually, it is fairly common knowledge that man caused Global Warming. The U.N. recently stated that same thing.
All the rapid warming occurred after the Industrial Revolution and has increased recently about proportional to the rate of increase of the world's population.

[jimjamuser]

Where do you see that? I did not see anywhere in there where man caused climate change. Please give me the words so I can see it YOUR way.
You are putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I called scientists liars. Al Gore is just a drunkin idiot so I discount him totally. I do not call scientists liars. I call those that interpret what scientists say totally different than what they actually say, purveyors of scare tactics. Besides, anyone that does research and experimentation can call themselves scientists so you can take that as you wish.
The quote that I supplied said that the Earth has been going through weather cycles and cold and warm trends for millions of years. It gave reasons for cold and warm periods. But, it did NOT say mankind caused any of it. But, some how you read it differently so I am interested in how you came to your conclusion.
OK the quote that you supplied WAS from the correct article that I referred people to by the expert NOAA scientist. In that same article, he DID say that MAN caused the WARMING. I SWEAR that it IS in that article. I believe it is near the end and after a LARGE print heading. And you can just refer to one of my earliest posts.

AND ALSO......What is gained by calling Al Gore a "drunkard" at this point in history? Even IF that WERE true, we would all likely be messed up if we just missed being P.resident. Drunkard or NOT, Al Gore was the 1st FAMOUS non-scientist to WARN the world about Global Warming. He was early to the game (which is now universally recognized like recently by the UN).....so he was maligned by the non-believers. The flat earth people laughed at Christopher Columbus who sailed WEST to get to the EAST.

[jimjamuser]

Hurricane intensity is measured in one of two ways, not necessarily related.

Which way was used to form the conclusion in red above?
Damage to the world in terms of deaths and infrastructure destruction. That is INCREASING.

[jimjamuser]

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

This is a good link even if I feel like I am ****ing in the wind-- so to speak-- arguing it on Talk of the Villages.
And the TRUTH shall set us ALL free !

[jimjamuser]

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂
Oh yes, again we can agree. And the older golf carts really SMELL bad!

[jimjamuser]

That would be carbon MONOXIDE (CO), not carbon dioxide (CO2). Your premise does not hold water (H2O)😂😂😂
I believe that BOTH gases exist in IC engine exhaust. But, I will have to look that one up. Also, H2O does come out of the exhaust especially until the engine warms up.

[sounding]

The NOAA. I have made at least 2 prior posts about that.

Please provide a link to the data. Thanks.

[jimjamuser]

But what do nuclear weapons do? How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00794-y)
I read all of that. It is very informative. I liked the part where the coral reefs would be affected. I have talked about that in many posts......how CO2 increasing in the seawater produces an acid that kills the corals. Apparently, the coral reef ecosystem is VERY FRAGILE.

[jimjamuser]

Not really. Breathing 100% anything (which, by definition, contains 0% oxygen) is going to kill you. Our air is 70% nitrogen. It is an inert gas but at least one state has an execution protocol for 100% nitrogen to be used in capital punishment cases. It's not the nitrogen that kills, but the lack of oxygen.

That doesn't mean nitrogen is a "pollutant".
Fair point. I think of CO2 as a pollutant in that it is OUT OF BALANCE with the earth in relatively recent years. Its EXCESS gets into the seawater and causes a weak acid which KILLS (as in POLLUTES) the water and kills the coral reef. Maybe CO2 in its pre-1880 concentration was NOT a POLLUTANT, but today in its EXCESS state, it IS a POLLUTANT.

[ThirdOfFive]

Damage to the world in terms of deaths and infrastructure destruction. That is INCREASING.
Actually hurricane intensity is measured by either by the drop in barometric pressure or wind speed. Damage (either in terms of lives lost or infrastructure destroyed) isn't an accurate measurement of a hurricane's intensity for several reasons; 60% of major Atlantic hurricanes never even make landfall in the United States (NASA dot gov); many of them just blow themselves out over water. And a major hurricane blowing itself out over water or making landfall over a relatively deserted area will not result in much destruction.

Nor are the number of lives lost a true indication of a hurricane's intensity. When most people think of lives lost in a hurricane the word that pops into (I'm assuming) most peoples' minds would be "Katrina", and it was indeed deadly, but the majority of the 1,800 lives lost were lost because of flooding resulting from fatal engineering flaws in the flood protection system. Katrina made landfall on the gulf coast not as a category 5 megastorm, as most people think, but as a category 3.

If we're measuring hurricane deaths, then the most deadly Atlantic hurricane on record was over 240 years ago; Huracán San Calixto, AKA the Great Hurricane of 1780, which killed over 22,000 in the lesser Antilles chain. Actually the toll was probably much larger; the Antilles' main crop was sugar cane which meant that a lot of slaves were killed as well. This is just a guess on my part but I don't think those slaves were counted as "people" at the time.

Much of what we know about hurricanes, and how they are spotted and tracked, is the result of satellite technology and that is only about 60 years old. Records before that cannot be said to be anywhere near as complete as today, and of course counting back the years before the advent of aviation to 1859 (when as I recall the first attempts were made at record-keeping) it is self-evident that the older the record, the less accurate it was likely to be.

Much of what we think we know about hurricanes seems to be based on speculation. Maybe, by 2122, the next hundred years of complete data will yield some reliable science regarding them, but at this point I don't think anyone can claim that hurricane science much more than educated guesses.

[golfing eagles]

Much of what you say is good and interesting. Each of us individually must integrate all the facts and opinions that we have heard and create an individual consensus for ourselves. I choose to believe that in the western world that the majority of scientists are true to themselves and are writing factual material. And the PEER REVIEW system should help keep them honest. Now, in Russia and China scientists may feel hamstrung about telling the truth.

I wish that were true. But when all "the peers" are on the same page for the same reasons...........

[fdpaq0580]

Fair point. I think of CO2 as a pollutant in that it is OUT OF BALANCE with the earth in relatively recent years. Its EXCESS gets into the seawater and causes a weak acid which KILLS (as in POLLUTES) the water and kills the coral reef. Maybe CO2 in its pre-1880 concentration was NOT a POLLUTANT, but today in its EXCESS state, it IS a POLLUTANT.

Just like our bodies need certain vitamins and minerals to function properly, too much or too little can make you ill or even kill you. The chemical balance of our atmosphere and oceans need to be in balance for our world to be healthy. Sounds simple, but it isn't.

[sounding]

Just like our bodies need certain vitamins and minerals to function properly, too much or too little can make you ill or even kill you. The chemical balance of our atmosphere and oceans need to be in balance for our world to be healthy. Sounds simple, but it isn't.

Too simple, because it ignores reality. Life and nature are never in balance. Mother Nature is constantly adjusting its heat transfer processes in response to heating inputs from the sun, volcanism, cosmic radiation, etc. All these inputs are constantly changing and thus so does our climate in response. Even our lives are in constant change -- called aging.

[Taltarzac725]

Climate change conspiracy theory - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_conspiracy_theory)

A lot of this looks like climate change conspiracy theories thrown out by certain media outlets to sell crap in more ways than one.

There is good science out there but Meteorology - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology) is still not that sophisticated a discipline. They did not have that good an idea, for instance, where Hurricane Ian was going. It did a lot of damage though. Hurricane Ian - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ian)

[fdpaq0580]

Too simple, because it ignores reality. Life and nature are never in balance. Mother Nature is constantly adjusting its heat transfer processes in response to heating inputs from the sun, volcanism, cosmic radiation, etc. All these inputs are constantly changing and thus so does our climate in response. Even our lives are in constant change -- called aging.

Sorry you failed to see that it was intended to be a simple, brief analogy. Thinking of the Earth as a " super organism" and using a single organism for comparative functions is common. As we age and go through normal activity, our body's needs constantly change. Same with our planet's oceans and atmosphere, as you pointed out. Also, at the end of my post, I said it sounds simple, but it isn't.
When our system is out of balance or broken, it is time to take our medicine.

[sounding]

Sorry you failed to see that it was intended to be a simple, brief analogy. Thinking of the Earth as a " super organism" and using a single organism for comparative functions is common. As we age and go through normal activity, our body's needs constantly change. Same with our planet's oceans and atmosphere, as you pointed out. Also, at the end of my post, I said it sounds simple, but it isn't.
When our system is out of balance or broken, it is time to take our medicine.

So tell me, what is out of balance?

[sounding]

Climate change conspiracy theory - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_conspiracy_theory)

A lot of this looks like climate change conspiracy theories thrown out by certain media outlets to sell crap in more ways than one.

There is good science out there but Meteorology - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology) is still not that sophisticated a discipline. They did not have that good an idea, for instance, where Hurricane Ian was going. It did a lot of damage though. Hurricane Ian - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ian)

Agree. And when it comes to damage, that is not a good indicator of storm strength, but an excellent indicator of population growth in a specific area. Regarding where Ian was going -- this will be briefly discussed 1 PM on Nov 7 at Everglades Rec Ctr.

[sounding]

I wish that were true. But when all "the peers" are on the same page for the same reasons...........

Ditto -- that's called PAL Review -- created by those in authority to control group think. This is not new and been going on since humans were invented.

[Byte1]

Actually it IS there and I gave everyone its location in one of my earliest posts. Please just refer back to that post. I guarantee that it is in there. And I believe that that other scientist that we were talking about stated it also.

Actually, it is fairly common knowledge that man caused Global Warming. The U.N. recently stated that same thing.
All the rapid warming occurred after the Industrial Revolution and has increased recently about proportional to the rate of increase of the world's population.

Nope, not quite true. Yes, there was warming, AND there was an Industrial Revolution, but if you look at the millenniums of cyclic climate changes, you will see that Earth was warmer and it cooled off and there was little or no humans to cause it. You are making assumptions. A man on the train died, so since there were people on the train, he MUST have been murdered. He couldn't have just died. Sure, he could have died, but someone has to prove it was not a natural occurrence in order to call it "man caused" death.
Sorry if some us do not put much stock in the U.N. As far as I am concerned they could disband and I doubt anyone would miss them.

[Taltarzac725]

TVNope, not quite true. Yes, there was warming, AND there was an Industrial Revolution, but if you look at the millenniums of cyclic climate changes, you will see that Earth was warmer and it cooled off and there was little or no humans to cause it. You are making assumptions. A man on the train died, so since there were people on the train, he MUST have been murdered. He couldn't have just died. Sure, he could have died, but someone has to prove it was not a natural occurrence in order to call it "man caused" death.
Sorry if some us do not put much stock in the U.N. As far as I am concerned they could disband and I doubt anyone would miss them.

A man was murdered and there was no place for anyone to get off the train. This is a better analogy and we all have to live with the murderer free. In this case, the train is earth and the murderer is Global Warming.

[jimjamuser]

Breathing 100% oxygen is also not without issues. CO2 absorption by the oceans is not turning the oceans to an acid. The pH is dropping so the alkalinity is being reduced, which can be referred to as moving the oceans towards acidity. However, the oceans will not become an acid (a pH less than 7). Trying to draw an analogy of CO2 being a "blanket" is just as bad as calling CO2 a "greenhouse" gas. The physics of a "blanket" and the physics of a "greenhouse" are different than the physics of how CO2 impacts the atmosphere (approximately 1C from anthropogenic sources). We are, however, probably forever stuck with the term "greenhouse" gas.
I am sorry, but all my additional reading on the subject of CO2 has CONFIRMED my statements. 2 sources are Corning and RAC in England, among others.
.......Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas from automobile EXHAUST that is a MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to Climate Change. Other greenhouse gases from car EXHAUST are NOx and Benzene........which is a CARCINOGENIC.
......"CO2 has the potential to TRAP energy from the sun and heat the surface of the earth" .........(that sounds like a blanket to me)

I have read MULTIPLE articles that state that CO2 has become excessive and the oceans are storing that excess CO2 as acid that is BLEACHING and killing coral reefs around the world.

[fdpaq0580]

So tell me, what is out of balance?

I'm sorry. You are on post 156 and the information you seek has been mentioned several times already. Since I am not your secretary, I suggest you re-read all posts to find what has already been made available to you, or simply read on.

[sounding]

I am sorry, but all my additional reading on the subject of CO2 has CONFIRMED my statements. 2 sources are Corning and RAC in England, among others.
.......Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas from automobile EXHAUST that is a MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to Climate Change. Other greenhouse gases from car EXHAUST are NOx and Benzene........which is a CARCINOGENIC.
......"CO2 has the potential to TRAP energy from the sun and heat the surface of the earth" .........(that sounds like a blanket to me)

I have read MULTIPLE articles that state that CO2 has become excessive and the oceans are storing that excess CO2 as acid that is BLEACHING and killing coral reefs around the world.

Many years ago many sources said witches caused the glaciers to grow during the Little Ice Age. Do you believe everything you read?

[sounding]

I'm sorry. You are on post 156 and the information you seek has been mentioned several times already. Since I am not your secretary, I suggest you re-read all posts to find what has already been made available to you, or simply read on.

In other words you have no data to support your claim.

[fdpaq0580]

Nope, not quite true. Yes, there was warming, AND there was an Industrial Revolution, but if you look at the millenniums of cyclic climate changes, you will see that Earth was warmer and it cooled off and there was little or no humans to cause it. You are making assumptions. A man on the train died, so since there were people on the train, he MUST have been murdered. He couldn't have just died. Sure, he could have died, but someone has to prove it was not a natural occurrence in order to call it "man caused" death.
Sorry if some us do not put much stock in the U.N. As far as I am concerned they could disband and I doubt anyone would miss them.

Ah! Murder on the Orient Express. The man was murdered. The evidence is clear to anyone who cares to look. Multiple stab wounds, one of which, the last one, was fatal.
Like in that marvelous tale, there is evidence of man's influence on climate change for those who wish to look and understand what they are seeing.
And as for the U. N., I think most of the world would miss them. Kind of like disbanding the U. S. A.. It would be missed very badly, except by the Russians and China.

[Taltarzac725]

Many years ago many sources said witches caused the glaciers to grow during the Little Ice Age. Do you believe everything you read?

Doubt if any scientists believed that one. Clergy grasping at their confiscated property though.

[fdpaq0580]

In other words you have no data to support your claim.

"In other words"? What was wrong with my words? Didn't get your way, so you intentionally misrepresent me and insult me? That is pathetic, imho.
Read what has already been written if you really care. My information comes from qualified scientific sources. I don't know where you get yours. We seem to have some common info, but you don't seem to have it all. If I can find it, so can you, I am sure.

[sounding]

"In other words"? What was wrong with my words? Didn't get your way, so you intentionally misrepresent me and insult me? That is pathetic, imho.
Read what has already been written if you really care. My information comes from qualified scientific sources. I don't know where you get yours. We seem to have some common info, but you don't seem to have it all. If I can find it, so can you, I am sure.

Who determines what "qualified" is? Anyone can claim to be an expert. I only trust valid data. If the data does not support the theory, then the theory is useless. Whenever I see a claim about climate, I look at the data. For example, Al Gore is not qualified because the data shows his forecasts failed.

[jimjamuser]

Nope, not quite true. Yes, there was warming, AND there was an Industrial Revolution, but if you look at the millenniums of cyclic climate changes, you will see that Earth was warmer and it cooled off and there was little or no humans to cause it. You are making assumptions. A man on the train died, so since there were people on the train, he MUST have been murdered. He couldn't have just died. Sure, he could have died, but someone has to prove it was not a natural occurrence in order to call it "man caused" death.
Sorry if some us do not put much stock in the U.N. As far as I am concerned they could disband and I doubt anyone would miss them.
I keep trying, but this is becoming difficult. Basically, the whole KNOWN WORLD of scientists and lay people with open minds believe in MAN MADE Global Warming. It is just Global Misinformation addicts that believe otherwise and actually, the likely start of the misinformation happened back in 1980 when the OIL Companies wanted to protect their stock investments by saying that Global Warming was just a HOAX. So, they got out their large MEGAPHONE and MONEY and created Climate Dis-information and lies. Today, the Russian bots use disinformation to try to confuse America about Global Warming and whatever subject they can conjure up to divide AMERICA. They even start things
like Reptilian Liberals are going around America drinking baby's BLOOD. That is NO JOKE, that is how far disinformation has gone in the US.
.........I am basically knocking myself out to try and beg people to open their minds toward the generally accepted Science of MAN CAUSED Global Warming.

And the UN is trying to help the US strengthen alliances against Russia, China, and North Korea - all of which, would turn the US into SMOKING ASH if they ever got the opportunity to do that.

[jimjamuser]

TV

A man was murdered and there was no place for anyone to get off the train. This is a better analogy and we all have to live with the murderer free. In this case, the train is earth and the murderer is Global Warming.
Good one!

[jimjamuser]

Who determines what "qualified" is? Anyone can claim to be an expert. I only trust valid data. If the data does not support the theory, then the theory is useless. Whenever I see a claim about climate, I look at the data. For example, Al Gore is not qualified because the data shows his forecasts failed.
Actually, his basic forecast has been proven TODAY. He was just AHEAD OF HIS TIME and OUTSPENT by the OIL LOBBY.

[sounding]

I keep trying, but this is becoming difficult. Basically, the whole KNOWN WORLD of scientists and lay people with open minds believe in MAN MADE Global Warming. It is just Global Misinformation addicts that believe otherwise and actually, the likely start of the misinformation happened back in 1980 when the OIL Companies wanted to protect their stock investments by saying that Global Warming was just a HOAX. So, they got out their large MEGAPHONE and MONEY and created Climate Dis-information and lies. Today, the Russian bots use disinformation to try to confuse America about Global Warming and whatever subject they can conjure up to divide AMERICA. They even start things
like Reptilian Liberals are going around America drinking baby's BLOOD. That is NO JOKE, that is how far disinformation has gone in the US.
.........I am basically knocking myself out to try and beg people to open their minds toward the generally accepted Science of MAN CAUSED Global Warming.

And the UN is trying to help the US strengthen alliances against Russia, China, and North Korea - all of which, would turn the US into SMOKING ASH if they ever got the opportunity to do that.

Begging is not science, but data is -- and this data is very important ... If man caused global warming, and since global warming started when the Little Ice Age ended, then how did man end the Little Ice Age?

[fdpaq0580]

Who determines what "qualified" is? Anyone can claim to be an expert.

I'll bet you were that kid that drove your parents nuts by constantly responding with "Why" whenever you were told to do something. You are making me laugh. 😀

[sounding]

I'll bet you were that kid that drove your parents nuts by constantly responding with "Why" whenever you were told to do something. You are making me laugh. 😀

Actually, my parents were impressed with my questions -- which is why the more I asked, the more they assisted ... with chemistry sets, biology kits, microscopes, geology kits, weather stations, library passes, and many books about science -- and I'm still asking questions -- for that's how you learn. By the way ... do you know how much "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?

[fdpaq0580]

Begging is not science, but data is -- and this data is very important ... If man caused global warming, and since global warming started when the Little Ice Age ended, then how did man end the Little Ice Age?

Taking another's comment ot of context then reassembling.them to suit your attemp to discredit that person is, imo, pretty low. And he never said man ended the little ice age. That is your fabrication, again, to try and make someone with valid info look foolish. You twist others words. Just my humble opinion.

[tuccillo]

Wow, quite a rant ;-) You really need to go reread my post. A good portion of it was addressing the silliness of using "greenhouse" and "blanket" as analogies for the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. They are not good analogies. I personally don't buy into the dumbing down of scientific explanations, which "greenhouse" and "blanket" are. Be that as it may, it is almost universally accepted, by those that understand the science, that there has been some anthropogenic warming. This is based on both data (traditional and proxy) and radiative transfer theory. There are numerous peer reviewed journal articles that address this. There is some debate on the magnitude. There is also some debate on the magnitude of future warming (next 100 years or so) from climate models and which CO2 scenario is appropriate for the future. I suspect, but certainly don't know, that the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models are showing. Modeling of non-linear systems is complicated. Analyzing results from these non-linear models is complicated. Sufficient computing power to reduce model resolutions (1km in the horizontal would be helpful) to the point where the closure schemes for parameterizing sub-grid scale processes ceases to become a significant point of uncertainty, and bias, is probably a decade away. Trends are important but so is a lack of bias for analyzing possible tipping points. Will we continue to warm? Yes, from both anthropogenic sources and the fact that we are in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. What can we do about it? Probably not much. We will continue to use fossil fuels, in great amounts, for the foreseeable future. There is just no getting around that. If the most pessimistic modeling projections for anthropogenic warming come to fruition, we will probably see substantial political unrest over the next 100 years or so (the time frame that modeling is looking at) as regional climates are impacted.

I am sorry, but all my additional reading on the subject of CO2 has CONFIRMED my statements. 2 sources are Corning and RAC in England, among others.
.......Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas from automobile EXHAUST that is a MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to Climate Change. Other greenhouse gases from car EXHAUST are NOx and Benzene........which is a CARCINOGENIC.
......"CO2 has the potential to TRAP energy from the sun and heat the surface of the earth" .........(that sounds like a blanket to me)

I have read MULTIPLE articles that state that CO2 has become excessive and the oceans are storing that excess CO2 as acid that is BLEACHING and killing coral reefs around the world.

[sounding]

Taking another's comment ot of context then reassembling.them to suit your attemp to discredit that person is, imo, pretty low. And he never said man ended the little ice age. That is your fabrication, again, to try and make someone with valid info look foolish. You twist others words. Just my humble opinion.

If man caused the start of global warming, then man caused the end of global cooling -- or is that not correct?

[jimjamuser]

Many years ago many sources said witches caused the glaciers to grow during the Little Ice Age. Do you believe everything you read?
"Do I believe what I read?" Let"s analyze that question. I tend to believe statements made by the U.N., the US Government Agencies, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, USA, and articles in the relevant Scientific journals. I tend to NOT believe
CONSPIRACY THEORIES of any origin especially if they are coming from DARK MEDIA and Russian and Chinese BOTS. It is easy to spot OBVIOUS disinformation that is designed to split and carve up various groups in the US.

Conspiracy theories work well in decrying Global Warming because the average America does NOT take the time to read and research things like CO2 pollution and dying coral reefs. Starting about 1980 the OIL LOBBY knew that they needed to use disinformation techniques against the Scientists because they had their large CASH COW of OIL profits to protect. And protect......they have......very successfully. Even today when we are on the brink of a US recession, the OIL companies are showing RECORD profits. They want to keep that a secret to rake in more PROFITS and keep saying HOAX while the environment suffers........arctic ice disappears, Antarctic ice melts into the sea, the coral reefs die, and the US and the world's fishing industry is decimated.

[sounding]

"Do I believe what I read?" Let"s analyze that question. I tend to believe statements made by the U.N., the US Government Agencies, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, USA, and articles in the relevant Scientific journals. I tend to NOT believe
CONSPIRACY THEORIES of any origin especially if they are coming from DARK MEDIA and Russian and Chinese BOTS. It is easy to spot OBVIOUS disinformation that is designed to split and carve up various groups in the US.

Conspiracy theories work well in decrying Global Warming because the average America does NOT take the time to read and research things like CO2 pollution and dying coral reefs. Starting about 1980 the OIL LOBBY knew that they needed to use disinformation techniques against the Scientists because they had their large CASH COW of OIL profits to protect. And protect......they have......very successfully. Even today when we are on the brink of a US recession, the OIL companies are showing RECORD profits. They want to keep that a secret to rake in more PROFITS and keep saying HOAX while the environment suffers........arctic ice disappears, Antarctic ice melts into the sea, the coral reefs die, and the US and the world's fishing industry is decimated.

Ok, you started off by naming the UN. They are not a reliable source of information -- here is just one example ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IlgwmCkFE Tell me one UN climate forecast that has come true.

[Vermilion Villager]

OK....It took awhile but was able to track this down.
In 2017 the Department of Interior, under direction of Ryan Zinke ordered the NPS to remove signs at Glacier National Park that had anything to do with melting of glaciers and climate change. Without getting political it doesn't take much of a search to see who's administration Mr. Zinke served under.. There were some signs in the park that said glaciers in glacier national Park could be gone as early as the year 2020. This is actually a true statement. Several of the 26 named glaciers are at a level that does not qualify them as glaciers anymore, and all 26 glaciers have seen a minimum of 40% and as high as 80% erosion in the last 50 years. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to remove the signs.
So move forward to the OP. A prior administration removes signs for political reasons, and those signs' removal leads the OP to conclude that the science is all wrong because the signs were removed...when in fact they were removed for political reasons. Everyone to get it now?. :ho:

[sounding]

OK....It took awhile but was able to track this down.
In 2017 the Department of Interior, under direction of Ryan Zinke ordered the NPS to remove signs at Glacier National Park that had anything to do with melting of glaciers and climate change. Without getting political it doesn't take much of a search to see who's administration Mr. Zinke served under.. There were some signs in the park that said glaciers in glacier national Park could be gone as early as the year 2020. This is actually a true statement. Several of the 26 named glaciers are at a level that does not qualify them as glaciers anymore, and all 26 glaciers have seen a minimum of 40% and as high as 80% erosion in the last 50 years. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to remove the signs.
So move forward to the OP. A prior administration removes signs for political reasons, and those signs' removal leads the OP to conclude that the science is all wrong because the signs were removed...when in fact they were removed for political reasons. Everyone to get it now?. :ho:

Why was the last update in 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/usgs-glacier-inventory-data)

[Byte1]

TV

A man was murdered and there was no place for anyone to get off the train. This is a better analogy and we all have to live with the murderer free. In this case, the train is earth and the murderer is Global Warming.

Okay.....??? Not sure how that relates, but I guess that might be an assumption on your part. You are assuming that the man was murdered and did not die naturally. That is the same with Climate Change (or Global Warming as you wish to change the terms). I used my analogy (perhaps not the greatest) to suggest that just because man exists and just because the climate changes, does not necessarily mean that man changed the climate. Just because there a people on the train and a person dies, does not mean he was murdered.

[jimjamuser]

Begging is not science, but data is -- and this data is very important ... If man caused global warming, and since global warming started when the Little Ice Age ended, then how did man end the Little Ice Age?
That is some seriously CONVOLUTED logic! The time SCALE of ICE AGES and natural warming periods involving hundreds of thousands of years has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with the time scale that we are living in. The ICE age references are just a DISTRACTOR like people sometimes use in debates to confuse the main issue. In the case that we are talking about the time scale is from the Industrial Revolution to today when the WORLD POPULATION has increased rapidly and MAN has CAUSED the earth to heat up AKA Global Warming.

I for one, don't intend to be distracted or impressed by references to ICE AGES. In fact, I would put that down as purposeful disinformation designed to muddy the issue and prevent social awareness and change toward a cleaner environment as free as possible from earth poisoning GREENHOUSE GASES!

[jimjamuser]

Ok, you started off by naming the UN. They are not a reliable source of information -- here is just one example ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IlgwmCkFE Tell me one UN climate forecast that has come true.
Just pick some detail and PECK AWAY at ALL the logic of my argument found in my post. That just CONFIRMS my overall LOGIC and reasoning! Thanks.

[jimjamuser]

Actually, my parents were impressed with my questions -- which is why the more I asked, the more they assisted ... with chemistry sets, biology kits, microscopes, geology kits, weather stations, library passes, and many books about science -- and I'm still asking questions -- for that's how you learn. By the way ... do you know how much "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?
I answered that question in a previous post.

[Byte1]

I keep trying, but this is becoming difficult. Basically, the whole KNOWN WORLD of scientists and lay people with open minds believe in MAN MADE Global Warming. It is just Global Misinformation addicts that believe otherwise and actually, the likely start of the misinformation happened back in 1980 when the OIL Companies wanted to protect their stock investments by saying that Global Warming was just a HOAX. So, they got out their large MEGAPHONE and MONEY and created Climate Dis-information and lies. Today, the Russian bots use disinformation to try to confuse America about Global Warming and whatever subject they can conjure up to divide AMERICA. They even start things
like Reptilian Liberals are going around America drinking baby's BLOOD. That is NO JOKE, that is how far disinformation has gone in the US.
.........I am basically knocking myself out to try and beg people to open their minds toward the generally accepted Science of MAN CAUSED Global Warming.

And the UN is trying to help the US strengthen alliances against Russia, China, and North Korea - all of which, would turn the US into SMOKING ASH if they ever got the opportunity to do that.

So, in order to be considered by you to have an "OPEN MIND" we have to agree with you? You have not presented adequate data. You have only theory of your so-called "experts/scientists" and incomplete data to make your supposition. I have not argued about air pollution, just the statement that man has caused the climate to change. Like I said, you have not proven your point. I am still waiting. Your using insults by accusing certain stories of accusations that someone is suggesting that certain people are "drinking children's blood." I have "opened" my mind to valid evidence, not some supposed "expert's" opinion or theory. I know that evidence supports the fact that the Earth was once tropical, then the ICE age and glaciers moved and created major earth formations in our country (and elsewhere) and then it warmed up again. I believe we had a "dust bowl" in our country and I also believe we have had a pollution problem in the world, which many folks are attempting to improve upon. Sorry, but someone being adamant about their opinion which is so easily swayed by elitist expert theories/opinions, with the absence of plausible evidence/data, does not easily change my view.
By the way, I DO believe that the Industrial Revolution period did cause a great influx of air pollution. That's a curse of progress, just as cleaning up air pollution by new and innovative means is also due to man's progress. Perhaps you would like to make the supposition that the higher the world's population, the higher the air pollution?

[Bill14564]

Why was the last update in 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/usgs-glacier-inventory-data)

You put a lot of weight on the observation that the last update was in 2015. Where did that number come from? Where is the data for pre-2015?

I suspect the answer to your question could be: The last update was in 2015 because the data was generated for a paper that was published in 2017. No newer papers, no newer data generation. No conspiracy at all, just the last time someone spent the time to do the work.

Perhaps instead of working so hard to identify conspiracies you could spend some time developing a 2021 data set to compare with the 1966, 1998, 2005, and 2015 data sets.

[Vermilion Villager]

Why was the last update in 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey (https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/usgs-glacier-inventory-data)
Simple....The data always is 1 year behind. So 2016 data would've been posted in 2017. Again....do a search of what administration was in power in 2017 to answer why there was no 2016 report. :mademyday:

[sounding]

Simple....The data always is 1 year behind. So 2016 data would've been posted in 2017. Again....do a search of what administration was in power in 2017 to answer why there was no 2016 report. :mademyday:

Why has the government stopped reporting glacier status for the last 7 years, while the earth is a 7-year (soon to be 8-year) cooling trend?

[jimjamuser]

Wow, quite a rant ;-) You really need to go reread my post. A good portion of it was addressing the silliness of using "greenhouse" and "blanket" as analogies for the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. They are not good analogies. I personally don't buy into the dumbing down of scientific explanations, which "greenhouse" and "blanket" are. Be that as it may, it is almost universally accepted, by those that understand the science, that there has been some anthropogenic warming. This is based on both data (traditional and proxy) and radiative transfer theory. There are numerous peer reviewed journal articles that address this. There is some debate on the magnitude. There is also some debate on the magnitude of future warming (next 100 years or so) from climate models and which CO2 scenario is appropriate for the future. I suspect, but certainly don't know, that the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models are showing. Modeling of non-linear systems is complicated. Analyzing results from these non-linear models is complicated. Sufficient computing power to reduce model resolutions (1km in the horizontal would be helpful) to the point where the closure schemes for parameterizing sub-grid scale processes ceases to become a significant point of uncertainty, and bias, is probably a decade away. Trends are important but so is a lack of bias for analyzing possible tipping points. Will we continue to warm? Yes, from both anthropogenic sources and the fact that we are in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. What can we do about it? Probably not much. We will continue to use fossil fuels, in great amounts, for the foreseeable future. There is just no getting around that. If the most pessimistic modeling projections for anthropogenic warming come to fruition, we will probably see substantial political unrest over the next 100 years or so (the time frame that modeling is looking at) as regional climates are impacted.
That WAS a very IMPRESSIVE post. Thank you, keep up the good, intelligent work. It is obvious, to me, that you know this subject well and are able to produce impressive vocabulary and logic on the subject.
.........I believe that we actually AGREE more than we DISAGREE.

I will concede that you are the expert in THIS field and I am but a LAYMAN

[sounding]

Just pick some detail and PECK AWAY at ALL the logic of my argument found in my post. That just CONFIRMS my overall LOGIC and reasoning! Thanks.

I'm not looking for logic. I'm looking for data because data defines science. A good piece of data regarding climate forecasts is finding a source that actually produces verified forecasts. So in order to have faith in a source, it's best to know if that source produces verifiable forecasts -- unless that source is not reliable. Can you identify just one UN forecast that verified?

[Vermilion Villager]

Why has the government stopped reporting glacier status for the last 7 years, while the earth is a 7-year (soon to be 8-year) cooling trend?

That statement is the ultimate in FAKE NEWS!!!:1rotfl:
Here's a post from the NWS in Minneapolis: 95672
One would think a member of the "Weather Club" would be following things like this.

[tuccillo]

I am not actually doing any work, except working on my golf game. I am a retired research meteorologist. I developed atmospheric computer models for NASA and the National Weather Service. While my focus was on short term simulations, the same N-S equations are used for climate models as well as similar treatments of diabatic processes. While I didn't work directly on climate and climate simulations, I do understand the science to some degree and know people who do work on climate. There is a lot that we don't understand.

Those who actually understand the science will generally fall into 3 categories. Those who agree that there has been some anthropogenic warming but believe that the climate is relatively insensitive to increases in CO2 and there will be minimal impact. Those who agree that there has been some anthropogenic warming and we will continue to warm but believe it is not an existential threat and we will adapt. Those who agree that there has been some anthropogenic warming and future warming will pose an existential threat. I am in the middle group because of what I interpret as uncertainty in the computer models and the questionable reliance on the 8.5 scenario.

I hope you realize that the opinion of anyone who is not directly working on the problem is essentially worthless. Nobody who makes decisions cares. While you can attempt to adopt some practices that will reduce your own creation of CO2, you will not have any impact. You can vote for a political party that believes we don't have an issue or a political party that believes there is an existential threat but in reality your one vote is essentially meaningless. Unless you have solar panels on your roof, drive an electric car, avoid airlines, avoid the purchases of products made overseas that must be transported long distance via diesel engines, etc. then you can be accused of being a hypocrite. Solar panels and electric cars are not without a substantial initial CO2 footprint but may become carbon friendly if used long enough. You can try to influence other people's opinion but you have no credibility since you don't work in the field and your audience will primarily be people who already think the same way. In many regards, the political decision as to whether we have an issue has already been decided.

That WAS a very IMPRESSIVE post. Thank you, keep up the good, intelligent work. It is obvious, to me, that you know this subject well and are able to produce impressive vocabulary and logic on the subject.
.........I believe that we actually AGREE more than we DISAGREE.

I will concede that you are the expert in THIS field and I am but a LAYMAN

[sounding]

That statement is the ultimate in FAKE NEWS!!!:1rotfl:
Here's a post from the NWS in Minneapolis: 95672
One would think a member of the "Weather Club" would be following things like this.

1. That didn't answer the glacier question.
2. That Minneapolis information is cherry picking. Just plot the NOAA "global" temperature data and/or the Satellite "global" temperature for the last 7 years -- then draw a trend line. This is frequently presented in the Weather Club.

[Vermilion Villager]

1. That didn't answer the glacier question.
2. That Minneapolis information is cherry picking. Just plot the NOAA "global" temperature data and/or the Satellite "global" temperature for the last 7 years -- then draw a trend line. This is frequently presented in the Weather Club.
10 years of data is not cherry picking. If using your theory that the world is actually cooling then surely you must agree that during a 10 year period It is highly improbable that a city in the northern part of the northern hemisphere does not have one record low temperature in a 10 year period… But does have 14 record high temperatures. Your glacier question demands affirmation of your statement. Sorry....the world is not cooling just because you say it is. I seen people like you before… You try to portray yourself as the educated scientist simply stating facts that the rest of us are too unintelligent to understand. Anyone disputing your statements is immediately branded as someone who doesn't understand the facts. When does this weather club meet? There are several of us that like to attend your next meeting. That should be wild!

[jimjamuser]

That WAS a very IMPRESSIVE post. Thank you, keep up the good, intelligent work. It is obvious, to me, that you know this subject well and are able to produce impressive vocabulary and logic on the subject.
.........I believe that we actually AGREE more than we DISAGREE.

I will concede that you are the expert in THIS field and I am but a LAYMAN
I use the term "blanket" because within my layman's understanding of climate factors........ "blanket" is EASY for me to understand. I concede that it is a "dumbing down of scientific explanations". But, it is useful for me. I can't take the time to dive deeper into further "mysteries of the stratosphere."
........I further concede that I have only a layman's understanding of Climate "tipping point". I wish that I knew more.
.........From my reading, I have concluded that CO2 is not a pollutant when the earth is in NORMAL balance. I believe that it becomes a pollutant (in the ocean killing coral) when it becomes EXCESSIVE compared to normal and can NOT BE absorbed NORMALLY by the earth's trees (Brazilian rainforest destruction) and the OCEANS.
...........I believe that I correctly quoted a Corning Scientist that, "CO2 has the potential to TRAP energy from the sun and heat the surface of the earth".
..........I agree with you that, "we will see SUBSTANTIAL political unrest" and I believe that the US is already seeing illegal CLIMATE migration from South America. The investment analyst known as DR Doom for his unconventional honesty stated that US people should avoid retiring to Florida and Texas due to the increasing HEAT that they will experience that is happening RIGHT NOW. Of course, they won't either hear or take that advice. There are giant areas of Africa that are predicted to become uninhabitable in 30 years.....starting northward migration.
........I believe in the things that I write and I wish I had more than a layman's background to raise the ante in these climate discussions. But, I must keep on keeping on and muddle through it.

[tuccillo]

OK, a teaching moment. Basically, heat is transferred by convection, conduction, and radiation. A blanket traps heat by reducing convective and conductive losses. A greenhouse stays warm by reducing the convective loss of the heat gained from solar radiation. CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the net longwave radiative loss to space. There can also be positive feedbacks such as a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor and therefore have more clouds which will further reduce longwave radiative losses to space but also can reduce incoming shortwave radiation. It gets complicated and, yes, there are lots of equations and we write lots of code to solve those equations. However, the equations are based on first principals, laboratory work, and field studies to collect data.

I use the term "blanket" because within my layman's understanding of climate factors........ "blanket" is EASY for me to understand. I concede that it is a "dumbing down of scientific explanations". But, it is useful for me. I can't take the time to dive deeper into further "mysteries of the stratosphere."
........I further concede that I have only a layman's understanding of Climate "tipping point". I wish that I knew more.
.........From my reading, I have concluded that CO2 is not a pollutant when the earth is in NORMAL balance. I believe that it becomes a pollutant (in the ocean killing coral) when it becomes EXCESSIVE compared to normal and can NOT BE absorbed NORMALLY by the earth's trees (Brazilian rainforest destruction) and the OCEANS.
...........I believe that I correctly quoted a Corning Scientist that, "CO2 has the potential to TRAP energy from the sun and heat the surface of the earth".
..........I agree with you that, "we will see SUBSTANTIAL political unrest" and I believe that the US is already seeing illegal CLIMATE migration from South America. The investment analyst known as DR Doom for his unconventional honesty stated that US people should avoid retiring to Florida and Texas due to the increasing HEAT that they will experience that is happening RIGHT NOW. Of course, they won't either hear or take that advice. There are giant areas of Africa that are predicted to become uninhabitable in 30 years.....starting northward migration.
........I believe in the things that I write and I wish I had more than a layman's background to raise the ante in these climate discussions. But, I must keep on keeping on and muddle through it.

[jimjamuser]

So, in order to be considered by you to have an "OPEN MIND" we have to agree with you? You have not presented adequate data. You have only theory of your so-called "experts/scientists" and incomplete data to make your supposition. I have not argued about air pollution, just the statement that man has caused the climate to change. Like I said, you have not proven your point. I am still waiting. Your using insults by accusing certain stories of accusations that someone is suggesting that certain people are "drinking children's blood." I have "opened" my mind to valid evidence, not some supposed "expert's" opinion or theory. I know that evidence supports the fact that the Earth was once tropical, then the ICE age and glaciers moved and created major earth formations in our country (and elsewhere) and then it warmed up again. I believe we had a "dust bowl" in our country and I also believe we have had a pollution problem in the world, which many folks are attempting to improve upon. Sorry, but someone being adamant about their opinion which is so easily swayed by elitist expert theories/opinions, with the absence of plausible evidence/data, does not easily change my view.
By the way, I DO believe that the Industrial Revolution period did cause a great influx of air pollution. That's a curse of progress, just as cleaning up air pollution by new and innovative means is also due to man's progress. Perhaps you would like to make the supposition that the higher the world's population, the higher the air pollution?
Yes, the higher the world's population (we may have passed that TIPPING POINT) the greater the pollution. Also, not much to brag about IF we say that the US has improved its air quality since the Industrial Revolution............because we just outsourced the bad air to China, which has used the money to build a fleet (really a flotilla) of fishing and canning GIANT vessels that plunder the oceans of fish and dolphins and coral.
..........In 1900 til today the US was busy producing Green House gas. Now we outsource to China and other countries what is, by proxy, our US Green House upper atmosphere pollutants.......AKA.....a blanket.
..........one old famous philosopher once said, "wars and pestilence keep the human population under control" IMO today population IS out of control so I suspect that we will be seeing MORE Pandemics and wars.

[jimjamuser]

Simple....The data always is 1 year behind. So 2016 data would've been posted in 2017. Again....do a search of what administration was in power in 2017 to answer why there was no 2016 report. :mademyday:
Touche !!!!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

I'm not looking for logic. I'm looking for data because data defines science. A good piece of data regarding climate forecasts is finding a source that actually produces verified forecasts. So in order to have faith in a source, it's best to know if that source produces verifiable forecasts -- unless that source is not reliable. Can you identify just one UN forecast that verified?
Got to love that Socratic Method, so cutesy.

[jimjamuser]

10 years of data is not cherry picking. If using your theory that the world is actually cooling then surely you must agree that during a 10 year period It is highly improbable that a city in the northern part of the northern hemisphere does not have one record low temperature in a 10 year period… But does have 14 record high temperatures. Your glacier question demands affirmation of your statement. Sorry....the world is not cooling just because you say it is. I seen people like you before… You try to portray yourself as the educated scientist simply stating facts that the rest of us are too unintelligent to understand. Anyone disputing your statements is immediately branded as someone who doesn't understand the facts. When does this weather club meet? There are several of us that like to attend your next meeting. That should be wild!
And in this corner representing world cooling is.............
And in this corner representing Global Warming is............
Shake hands now and come out debating

[Byte1]

Well, just keep up your "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" and I am sure someone will take notice. Personally, since my choice is to live in this world and because I have already sowed my seed to further the population effort, I will just sit back and enjoy my next 20 years on this great world. Unlike you, I have no intention of trying to convince others that we need to reduce the population. Nature is already doing what it can to assist in that effort. You complain about hurricanes and tornadoes, cars and motorcycles causing deaths and then worry about being over populated. I appreciate what we have done in this country because I have lived in the most polluted cities in the world. I have witnessed airline flights diverted because the air pollution was so bad that there was not enough viability to land safely. I have walked through business areas of cities where you could not see the tops of buildings because of the smog. Our country has cleaned up the air we breath since the 1900's. Scientists are predicting that Earth will be hit by a giant asteroid in our near future. Do you believe them? After all, they are scientists and you believe THOSE experts. If you do believe them, then you can quit worrying about climate control, because there won't be anyone around to benefit from your worry.
Don't get me wrong, even though I believe that we have come a long way in cleaning up the air pollution, I still think we can do better. But, I still plan on smoking my BBQ and driving my fossil fuel burner, as long as I can get away with it.

[jimjamuser]

OK, a teaching moment. Basically, heat is transferred by convection, conduction, and radiation. A blanket traps heat by reducing convective and conductive losses. A greenhouse stays warm by reducing the convective loss of the heat gained from solar radiation. CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the net longwave radiative loss to space. There can also be positive feedbacks such as a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor and therefore have more clouds which will further reduce longwave radiative losses to space but also can reduce incoming shortwave radiation. It gets complicated and, yes, there are lots of equations and we write lots of code to solve those equations. However, the equations are based on first principals, laboratory work, and field studies to collect data.
Thanks, OK I can follow that. Maybe instead of a "blanket", the better analogy of the "shroud" (?) in the upper atmosphere would be something like a reflective net that has gotten out of balance and is reflecting more longwave radiation (heat) back to earth while blocking more or less short wave radiation from the sun.
......Basically from my layman's perspective, I have READ that the OVERALL results are a PREDICTION that the earth will be warming for the next 30 years. Now, however, it is your analysis that there will be manmade heating, but it will or may be inconsequential in degree. I stated that Dr Doom believes in your 3rd outcome of excessive heat. I imagine that Dr.Doom has access to expert opinions and information that I do NOT. It would be nice to know upon WHAT he bases HIS conclusion???????

[tuccillo]

No, CO2 doesn't impact incoming solar radiation, at least not directly - wrong wave lengths. I ambiguously worded a sentence in the previous post. Additional clouds can reduce incoming solar radiation that reaches the ground. CO2 induced warming can lead to additional clouds. At the risk of stating the obvious, modeling the clouds correctly in the climate models is of some importance. It impacts longwave radiation cooling of the atmosphere (yes, longwave flux divergence in the atmosphere is typically negative), the incoming solar that reaches the ground, and incoming solar absorption by the atmosphere which creates heating.

I believe that we will continue to see anthropogenic warming, to some degree, for the foreseeable future. Whether it will turn out to be an existential threat is, in my opinion, to be determined. Those who believe we are facing an existential threat are probably basing it on climate model simulations and probably the 8.5 scenario. To be clear, there are a lot of uncertainties. Nobody knows for sure. As with almost anything that is complex, the odds of it happening are based on a probability function.

Thanks, OK I can follow that. Maybe instead of a "blanket", the better analogy of the "shroud" (?) in the upper atmosphere would be something like a reflective net that has gotten out of balance and is reflecting more longwave radiation (heat) back to earth while blocking more or less short wave radiation from the sun.
......Basically from my layman's perspective, I have READ that the OVERALL results are a PREDICTION that the earth will be warming for the next 30 years. Now, however, it is your analysis that there will be manmade heating, but it will or may be inconsequential in degree. I stated that Dr Doom believes in your 3rd outcome of excessive heat. I imagine that Dr.Doom has access to expert opinions and information that I do NOT. It would be nice to know upon WHAT he bases HIS conclusion???????

[jimjamuser]

Well, just keep up your "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" and I am sure someone will take notice. Personally, since my choice is to live in this world and because I have already sowed my seed to further the population effort, I will just sit back and enjoy my next 20 years on this great world. Unlike you, I have no intention of trying to convince others that we need to reduce the population. Nature is already doing what it can to assist in that effort. You complain about hurricanes and tornadoes, cars and motorcycles causing deaths and then worry about being over populated. I appreciate what we have done in this country because I have lived in the most polluted cities in the world. I have witnessed airline flights diverted because the air pollution was so bad that there was not enough viability to land safely. I have walked through business areas of cities where you could not see the tops of buildings because of the smog. Our country has cleaned up the air we breath since the 1900's. Scientists are predicting that Earth will be hit by a giant asteroid in our near future. Do you believe them? After all, they are scientists and you believe THOSE experts. If you do believe them, then you can quit worrying about climate control, because there won't be anyone around to benefit from your worry.
Don't get me wrong, even though I believe that we have come a long way in cleaning up the air pollution, I still think we can do better. But, I still plan on smoking my BBQ and driving my fossil fuel burner, as long as I can get away with it.
I appreciate your opinion and it is nice that you have traveled the world. And your opinion and views are shared by a large % of the people of our great (after WW2) country. And I am sure that you are putting veggie burgers on the barbie to do your part to decrease cow flatulence which could increase heat reflection from the upper atmosphere. Yes, all the "baby steps" to prevent Global warming and restore the world's glaciers are greatly appreciated.

We are all doing our best to leave the next generations a better world. We don't want a Glacier National park without Glaciers

[jimjamuser]

No, CO2 doesn't impact incoming solar radiation, at least not directly - wrong wave lengths. I ambiguously worded a sentence in the previous post. Additional clouds can reduce incoming solar radiation that reaches the ground. CO2 induced warming can lead to additional clouds. At the risk of stating the obvious, modeling the clouds correctly in the climate models is of some importance. It impacts longwave radiation cooling of the atmosphere (yes, longwave flux divergence in the atmosphere is typically negative), the incoming solar that reaches the ground, and incoming solar absorption by the atmosphere which creates heating.

I believe that we will continue to see anthropogenic warming, to some degree, for the foreseeable future. Whether it will turn out to be an existential threat is, in my opinion, to be determined. Those who believe we are facing an existential threat are probably basing it on climate model simulations and probably the 8.5 scenario. To be clear, there are a lot of uncertainties. Nobody knows for sure. As with almost anything that is complex, the odds of it happening are based on a probability function.
OK thanks, I guess that we can agree on the "indirectly" part. I was hoping that you might want to share an opinion on Dr DOOM's statement about Florida since it MAY (?) start affecting your golf game during increasingly HOT summers starting next summer. of course, if you are a snowbird then it would be just academic.

[tuccillo]

We will probably continue to see global temperatures increase. The real interest, however, is regional in nature. We aren’t really able to do regional climate simulations so far, at least with any fidelity. Nobody knows for sure how serious a problem we have. I wouldn’t stress to much over this. You will be dead before the stuff hits the fan, assuming stuff is going to hit the fan. Your kids, grandkids, I can’t speak for them.


OK thanks, I guess that we can agree on the "indirectly" part. I was hoping that you might want to share an opinion on Dr DOOM's statement about Florida since it MAY (?) start affecting your golf game during increasingly HOT summers starting next summer. of course, if you are a snowbird then it would be just academic.

[Vermilion Villager]

And in this corner representing world cooling is.............
And in this corner representing Global Warming is............
Shake hands now and come out debating

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: I kick his butt back to the ice age!:crap2:

[Byte1]

I appreciate your opinion and it is nice that you have traveled the world. And your opinion and views are shared by a large % of the people of our great (after WW2) country. And I am sure that you are putting veggie burgers on the barbie to do your part to decrease cow flatulence which could increase heat reflection from the upper atmosphere. Yes, all the "baby steps" to prevent Global warming and restore the world's glaciers are greatly appreciated.

We are all doing our best to leave the next generations a better world. We don't want a Glacier National park without Glaciers

Sorry, but I eat rib eye steaks and triple burgers every chance I get. The day I eat a fake burger will be the day that cows, pigs, dogs and any other meat bearing animals are extinct. In my opinion man was not created with K9 teeth to eat grass. Speaking of flatulence, I do my part in the contribution of well digested food to produce a quantity when there are no cows around to blame it on. Like I said before, I have no control over global warming or global cooling, so I see no reason to be concerned about a few warmer or colder degrees in the weather that might/MIGHT happen in the next 20 years of my life. When you all get done with your climate changing and increase the temps up North a few degrees during the winter, I might move back to the woods. This flat, sandy state is kind of boring to look at, but I enjoy the warm weather.

[ThirdOfFive]

Sorry, but I eat rib eye steaks and triple burgers every chance I get. The day I eat a fake burger will be the day that cows, pigs, dogs and any other meat bearing animals are extinct. In my opinion man was not created with K9 teeth to eat grass. Speaking of flatulence, I do my part in the contribution of well digested food to produce a quantity when there are no cows around to blame it on. Like I said before, I have no control over global warming or global cooling, so I see no reason to be concerned about a few warmer or colder degrees in the weather that might/MIGHT happen in the next 20 years of my life. When you all get done with your climate changing and increase the temps up North a few degrees during the winter, I might move back to the woods. This flat, sandy state is kind of boring to look at, but I enjoy the warm weather.
Amen!

If God didn't intend for people to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat!

[jimjamuser]

We will probably continue to see global temperatures increase. The real interest, however, is regional in nature. We aren’t really able to do regional climate simulations so far, at least with any fidelity. Nobody knows for sure how serious a problem we have. I wouldn’t stress to much over this. You will be dead before the stuff hits the fan, assuming stuff is going to hit the fan. Your kids, grandkids, I can’t speak for them.
To a certain extent, the stuff has ALREADY hit the fan. The Gulf was at record temperatures recently and supercharged hurricane IAN. Many people died and monetary losses were at a record high. Property taxes have doubled in the last few years in Florida. When people go to the state park north of Key West to snorkel dive in shallow water, they will find less living Coral on the reefs. The Mississippi River is in a near-record drought and will raise the cost of many items including food for US citizens and will increase food insecurity at countries beyond the US borders.

And I have probably NOT thought of every problem!

[tuccillo]

Supercharged? Really? There have been several cat4 and cat5 hurricanes that have hit Florida in the past. This has been researched. Hurricane intensity might increase in the future. Might increase. Frequency has not increased. Please stop with the nonsense.

To a certain extent, the stuff has ALREADY hit the fan. The Gulf was at record temperatures recently and supercharged hurricane IAN. Many people died and monetary losses were at a record high. Property taxes have doubled in the last few years in Florida. When people go to the state park north of Key West to snorkel dive in shallow water, they will find less living Coral on the reefs. The Mississippi River is in a near-record drought and will raise the cost of many items including food for US citizens and will increase food insecurity at countries beyond the US borders.

And I have probably NOT thought of every problem!

[fdpaq0580]

If man caused the start of global warming, then man caused the end of global cooling -- or is that not correct?

Not correct! Man did not end global cooling or start global warming. Man's pollution, industrial waste, destruction of land and ocean habitat has helped to speed up (not start or create) global warming.
But. I suspect you already know this. I think that you just like yanking others chains. 😎

[jimjamuser]

Sorry, but I eat rib eye steaks and triple burgers every chance I get. The day I eat a fake burger will be the day that cows, pigs, dogs and any other meat bearing animals are extinct. In my opinion man was not created with K9 teeth to eat grass. Speaking of flatulence, I do my part in the contribution of well digested food to produce a quantity when there are no cows around to blame it on. Like I said before, I have no control over global warming or global cooling, so I see no reason to be concerned about a few warmer or colder degrees in the weather that might/MIGHT happen in the next 20 years of my life. When you all get done with your climate changing and increase the temps up North a few degrees during the winter, I might move back to the woods. This flat, sandy state is kind of boring to look at, but I enjoy the warm weather.
True about the FLAT part being boring and no hills weaken the leg muscles.

[jimjamuser]

Supercharged? Really? There have been several cat4 and cat5 hurricanes that have hit Florida in the past. This has been researched. Hurricane intensity might increase in the future. Might increase. Frequency has not increased. Please stop with the nonsense.
I can't stop because I believe what I say. We all have to stand by our beliefs. One man's nonsense is another man's gospel of truth! I am a true believer, but I have an open mind to others' opinions if they back them up with some facts.

[HORNET]

False info on global warming by politicians

[fdpaq0580]

False info on global warming by politicians

The ones that hang out with big oil, industrialists and major polluters. You're right.

[sounding]

The ones that hang out with big oil, industrialists and major polluters. You're right.

All of Al Gore's climate forecasts failed. Name one oil company climate forecast that failed.

[sounding]

I can't stop because I believe what I say. We all have to stand by our beliefs. One man's nonsense is another man's gospel of truth! I am a true believer, but I have an open mind to others' opinions if they back them up with some facts.

Here is more DATA to help explain glacier silence ... Glacier saga | Climate Etc. (https://judithcurry.com/2022/11/10/glacier-saga/)