NEEM - The Greatest Climate Secret

[sounding]

Learn what the climate alarmists are trying to hide from you - NEEM. Find out the scary details of what's really causing today's weather -- the sun. If you don't know what NEEM means, then please attend the next meeting of the Weather Club on Jan 18 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor.

[Moderator]

If the usual list of sniping posters appears with their usual lists of snipes, this thread will be closed. There will be zero tolerance.

[Two Bills]

Going to be a very short thread then.

[ThirdOfFive]

learn what the climate alarmists are trying to hide from you - neem. Find out the scary details of what's really causing today's weather -- the sun. If you don't know what neem means, then please attend the next meeting of the weather club on jan 18 at 1:30 pm at laurel manor.
neem?

[Keefelane66]

neem?
Ice core drilling in Greenland.
NEEM | NSF Ice Core Facility (https://icecores.org/indepth/topic/neem)

[PugMom]

i looked it up, all i could find was an Indian herb used for medicine. can you give us a brief definition? i can search from there. thx

[PugMom]

found it, has to do with global warming. no comment

[Byte1]

Ice core drilling in Greenland.
NEEM | NSF Ice Core Facility (https://icecores.org/indepth/topic/neem)

Yes, they have some very interesting research papers. Just started browsing through them.

[Keefelane66]

Yes, they have some very interesting research papers. Just started browsing through them.
I’m glad you are taking the time to read the research reports most wouldn’t.

[Blackbird45]

This argument over if man can control climate change and what causes it will continue over and over again. They way I look at it you have two groups of people standing over a person laying in the street bleeding to death arguing what type of bandage should be applied if any until the person passes away.

Look I don’t care who is right or wrong, but if there is the slightest chance something can be done to save the planet for future generations, we should go for it. It's better than doing nothing.

[Two Bills]

This argument over if man can control climate change and what causes it will continue over and over again. They way I look at it you have two groups of people standing over a person laying in the street bleeding to death arguing what type of bandage should be applied if any until the person passes away.

Look I don’t care who is right or wrong, but if there is the slightest chance something can be done to save the planet for future generations, we should go for it. It's better than doing nothing.

Precisely.

"What if we cleaned up the planet and the environment, made the world a better, healthier place, and it all turned out to be a hoax?"

anon.

[Sandy and Ed]

I just would like to know what the acronymn “N.E.E.M” converts to? I couldn’t find anything on line.

[dewilson58]

I just would like to know what the acronymn “N.E.E.M” converts to? I couldn’t find anything on line.

North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling,

[Retiredsteve]

This argument over if man can control climate change and what causes it will continue over and over again. They way I look at it you have two groups of people standing over a person laying in the street bleeding to death arguing what type of bandage should be applied if any until the person passes away.

Look I don’t care who is right or wrong, but if there is the slightest chance something can be done to save the planet for future generations, we should go for it. It's better than doing nothing.. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

[Byte1]

. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

You can have a "cleaner planet" without wasting trillions and bankrupting the country in the attempt to PROVE something that can't be proven. Kind of like looking into the sky and making the statement that the sky is blue therefore the air is blue. Making folks rich when they produce nothing seems pretty wrong to me.

[ithos]

This argument over if man can control climate change and what causes it will continue over and over again. They way I look at it you have two groups of people standing over a person laying in the street bleeding to death arguing what type of bandage should be applied if any until the person passes away.

Look I don’t care who is right or wrong, but if there is the slightest chance something can be done to save the planet for future generations, we should go for it. It's better than doing nothing.

I agree. There are negative consequences for using carbon based fuels other than those predicted by the dubious government funded climate models. The same government that fires experts who have alternative views. That is why prioritizing mini nukes makes much more sense than relying on extremely expensive and unreliable wind and solar power generation.

This is because the draconian measures to abandon oil and gas would result in a dramatic lowering of the standard of living for all except the uber rich. And in developing and third world countries it would undoubtedly result in an rise in their mortality rate. It would also significantly increase the governments role in regulating our personal lives and diminish the freedom of movement that we take for granted.

So if you truly care about the plight of the least among us, you would not be advocating for a premature departure from extremely reliable energy.

[Blackbird45]

Precisely.

"What if we cleaned up the planet and the environment, made the world a better, healthier place, and it all turned out to be a hoax?"

anon.
So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

[Byte1]

So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

Saved the planet from what? Now, we are justifying the waste of money for a "bridge to nowhere?" Like I said before, it's not the government's job to waste taxpayer money. "Given a choice.?" Sorry, but if given a choice, I'd rather spend my money on the tangible, not someone else's pipe dreams. No one has proven that man has any ability to influence climate change, therefore I say use the taxpayer funding logically, not frivolously. Maybe a rain dance or shooting fireworks into the air will have more chance of changing the weather than burning a trillion bucks.

[DonnaNi4os]

After doing a quick google search the only info I found on NEEM is ads for an essential oil and its benefits. There were also articles on the trees from which it is harvested. So please fill us in.

[dougjb]

I would just hope that the presenter can present at least one peer reviewed journal article citation that backs up the presenter's opinion. Otherwise, we shall hear only an opinion, not science. Unfortunately, that seems to be the orientation of the presenter, no science, just opinion!

[Byte1]

I would just hope that the presenter can present at least one peer reviewed journal article citation that backs up the presenter's opinion. Otherwise, we shall hear only an opinion, not science. Unfortunately, that seems to be the orientation of the presenter, no science, just opinion!

I seem to recall quite a few graphs with stats that prove the statements of the presenter in past threads. Are those stats based on "opinions" or facts? I believe that the premise of the presenter has always been that Climate Change is real, but that there is no evidence that mankind has been instrumental in the periodic changes(If I am not mistaken in what I gleaned from his posts).

[PersonOfInterest]

What happened to in God we Trust? Don't you think he/she has things under control?

[Haggar]

Learn what the climate alarmists are trying to hide from you - NEEM. Find out the scary details of what's really causing today's weather -- the sun. If you don't know what NEEM means, then please attend the next meeting of the Weather Club on Jan 18 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor.

Just a question? Does the "weather club" take only one side? that climate change is all a hoax or are there presentations or members who believe that climate change is real.

[Justputt]

The ice core data is DATA, not opinion, and it shows that over hundreds of millions of years there have been long periods where CO2 & temps were flipped from what the fear mongers tell us will bring an end to the world. No, it doesn't fit the narrative, so they reject it. I'm all for a cleaner plant, reduction in plastics, reduction in pollution in general, but the rush to be free of fossil fuels is to little bang for way too much buck!!! Go to central AZ around Sedona and you'll find the park that shows what it looked like 275 MILLION years ago, i.e. COASTAL WETLANDS..... long before mankind.

[Keefelane66]

What happened to in God we Trust? Don't you think he/she has things under control?
Not really.

[Byte1]

What happened to in God we Trust? Don't you think he/she has things under control?

Yes, I believe that HE has things under control.:thumbup:

[Old Bob]

Saved the planet from what? Now, we are justifying the waste of money for a "bridge to nowhere?" Like I said before, it's not the government's job to waste taxpayer money. "Given a choice.?" Sorry, but if given a choice, I'd rather spend my money on the tangible, not someone else's pipe dreams. No one has proven that man has any ability to influence climate change, therefore I say use the taxpayer funding logically, not frivolously. Maybe a rain dance or shooting fireworks into the air will have more chance of changing the weather than burning a trillion bucks.

I agree that we have climate change, it has been changing for millions of years. I just think that it is foolish to think that we have any control over it. Mother nature is going to do whatever it wants to, no matter what we do.

[Keefelane66]

After doing a quick google search the only info I found on NEEM is ads for an essential oil and its benefits. There were also articles on the trees from which it is harvested. So please fill us in.
Same happened with me changed my search “NEEM CLIMATE, NEEM ICE etc.
About NEEM – University of Copenhagen (https://neem.dk/about_neem/)

[Blackbird45]

Saved the planet from what? Now, we are justifying the waste of money for a "bridge to nowhere?" Like I said before, it's not the government's job to waste taxpayer money. "Given a choice.?" Sorry, but if given a choice, I'd rather spend my money on the tangible, not someone else's pipe dreams. No one has proven that man has any ability to influence climate change, therefore I say use the taxpayer funding logically, not frivolously. Maybe a rain dance or shooting fireworks into the air will have more chance of changing the weather than burning a trillion bucks.

Save the planet for future generations. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but is this I got mine screw everyone else. Let me rephrase save the planet, to instead leaving a habitual place for the people who come after me when I'm gone. The way I see it the planet has been pretty good to me, and I want to leave it that way for others. Think of it this way it's like flushing the toilet in a public restroom before you leave. As I stated in earlier postings I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but to try do nothing is selfish and irresponsible.

[fdpaq0580]

Yes, I believe that HE has things under control.:thumbup:

Look at the world around you. Now say that again with a straight face.

[fdpaq0580]

What happened to in God we Trust? Don't you think he/she has things under control?

Trust God all you want. "He" gave us this planet to live on and made us stewards to care for it. Look what we have done to it.
Trust God? Perhaps. Trust your fellow "man"? No.

[fdpaq0580]

I agree that we have climate change, it has been changing for millions of years. I just think that it is foolish to think that we have any control over it. Mother nature is going to do whatever it wants to, no matter what we do.

Open eyes. Look at world around you. Open mind. Humans: capable of anything they can concieve of.

[fdpaq0580]

Save the planet for future generations. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but is this I got mine screw everyone else. Let me rephrase save the planet, to instead leaving a habitual place for the people who come after me when I'm gone. The way I see it the planet has been pretty good to me, and I want to leave it that way for others. Think of it this way it's like flushing the toilet in a public restroom before you leave. As I stated in earlier postings I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but to try do nothing is selfish and irresponsible.

Wise and compassionate.

I like your public restroom analogy. Very appropriate.

[Vermilion Villager]

If the usual list of sniping posters appears with their usual lists of snipes, this thread will be closed. There will be zero tolerance.
So my question to you the moderator is if you know this individual's posts always causes controversy then why do you allow it to stay on? I believe you have the ability to remove it. Is that correct.:posting:

[Vermilion Villager]

I would just hope that the presenter can present at least one peer reviewed journal article citation that backs up the presenter's opinion. Otherwise, we shall hear only an opinion, not science. Unfortunately, that seems to be the orientation of the presenter, no science, just opinion!
AGREED!!!!!:bigbow:

[fdpaq0580]

So my question to you the moderator is if you know this individual's posts always causes controversy then why do you allow it to stay on? I believe you have the ability to remove it. Is that correct.:posting:

True, if the rules are broken. Moderator has (I assume) some leeway. He,she,they are the moderator, not dictator. They (again, I presume) do their job pretty darn well, imho.

Discussions often have various points of view. Discussions become arguments as you (figurative "you") present your "arguments" to support your view. Even heated debate can occur without breaking the rules.

Moderator, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.

[NJRICHARD]

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor | The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-10&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-10&utm_medium=email&est=Avy4RtntmnU7egC1I8Cwf7EY%2FPfWSl3dljo4JXCmoriy wn81p2xG1jRT%2FjvhS1ZOlsmJDA%3D%3D)

[fdpaq0580]

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor | The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-10&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-10&utm_medium=email&est=Avy4RtntmnU7egC1I8Cwf7EY%2FPfWSl3dljo4JXCmoriy wn81p2xG1jRT%2FjvhS1ZOlsmJDA%3D%3D)

Didn't Al Gore win a Nobel? Hmm.

I've got appointments to get to. See ya'll later, maybe.

[jjombrello]

At what cost?

[Byte1]

Save the planet for future generations. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but is this I got mine screw everyone else. Let me rephrase save the planet, to instead leaving a habitual place for the people who come after me when I'm gone. The way I see it the planet has been pretty good to me, and I want to leave it that way for others. Think of it this way it's like flushing the toilet in a public restroom before you leave. As I stated in earlier postings I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but to try do nothing is selfish and irresponsible.

Like I said and I will repeat it; save the planet from what? In what way have we influenced Climate Change? If you wish to address air pollution and man's contribution toward it, then I can see some merit in the purposed goal of cleaning up the world. If you are suggesting that we can in any way/manner change the climatic cycles that have been recurring since the beginning of time, then I believe you are talking pure folly. Throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at research to prove that man has or can influence climate change, is about as ludicrous as giving money to criminals to prevent them from committing crime. Since NO ONE has been able to prove that mankind has any effect on the cyclic changes in climate, I see absolutely no legitimate reason for American citizens to waste money by giving it to someone that produces absolutely nothing lucrative or productive, just to prove the negative. If you believe so sincerely about making the world a better place, do something productive like planting a tree, or you can do something else like one joker said a few years ago, by putting more air in your tires so that you get more miles per gallon of fuel. :1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

In before lockdown. Quoting from "Epoch Times" is equal to announcing that you believe conspiracy theories, you are an extremist, you don't believe in compromise, you don't believe in science, you don't believe in anything factual unless your favorite youtube conspiracy theorist states that they agree with the facts. Which - they don't.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Climate change exists. Normal people around the world know this is a fact, it's not an opinion. The contribution of human activities to this climate change is what's debated.

My opinion: we contribute to it. We don't cause it. But we certainly contribute to it. We contribute to pollution significantly. We cause most of the planet's waste. We contribute to most of the planet's destruction of rainforests, which is a main component of our planet's ecosystem. We contribute 100% to the depletion of natural gas and oil deep within the planet. All of that oil and gas is then used for plastics - which doesn't decompose, or for fuel, which is exhausted into the air, which pollutes the planet.

I am not opposed to using fossil fuels for plastics production, though I am also in favor of seeking alternatives to it. I'm in favor of leaving less waste, and creating less toxic exhaust in the air. But I also recognize that there's no way we'll really be capable of ditching fossil fuels entirely. So I think we just need to be more prudent in how it's used, AND we need to work more on alternative energy and preservation sources such as hydropower, thermal heating, more efficient insulation, solar and wind energy. We already have nuclear energy. We need to continue to study it and make it more efficient, safer, and find safer methods of elimination of nuclear waste. We need more scientists for that. That means stronger education, and the means for students who don't have money, but show interest in ability in the sciences, to get those advanced courses and degrees.

Climate change isn't a one-cause, one-solution situation. The sooner we can get people on board with this fact, the sooner we can come up with solutions that improve our planet, with the least negative impact on our daily lives.

[Elixir34]

. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

We shouldn’t be turning the USA into a socialist American dictatorship or world into a socialist global dictatorship on the advice of those who want assume the roles of the dictators.

[Ladays1978@gmail.com]

. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

And broke.

[sounding]

In before lockdown. Quoting from "Epoch Times" is equal to announcing that you believe conspiracy theories, you are an extremist, you don't believe in compromise, you don't believe in science, you don't believe in anything factual unless your favorite youtube conspiracy theorist states that they agree with the facts. Which - they don't.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Climate change exists. Normal people around the world know this is a fact, it's not an opinion. The contribution of human activities to this climate change is what's debated.

My opinion: we contribute to it. We don't cause it. But we certainly contribute to it. We contribute to pollution significantly. We cause most of the planet's waste. We contribute to most of the planet's destruction of rainforests, which is a main component of our planet's ecosystem. We contribute 100% to the depletion of natural gas and oil deep within the planet. All of that oil and gas is then used for plastics - which doesn't decompose, or for fuel, which is exhausted into the air, which pollutes the planet.

I am not opposed to using fossil fuels for plastics production, though I am also in favor of seeking alternatives to it. I'm in favor of leaving less waste, and creating less toxic exhaust in the air. But I also recognize that there's no way we'll really be capable of ditching fossil fuels entirely. So I think we just need to be more prudent in how it's used, AND we need to work more on alternative energy and preservation sources such as hydropower, thermal heating, more efficient insulation, solar and wind energy. We already have nuclear energy. We need to continue to study it and make it more efficient, safer, and find safer methods of elimination of nuclear waste. We need more scientists for that. That means stronger education, and the means for students who don't have money, but show interest in ability in the sciences, to get those advanced courses and degrees.

Climate change isn't a one-cause, one-solution situation. The sooner we can get people on board with this fact, the sooner we can come up with solutions that improve our planet, with the least negative impact on our daily lives.

CO2 is part of the solution -- and more is better -- which is why greenhouses apply CO2 enrichment. It is the gas of life.

[Keefelane66]

CO2 is part of the solution -- and more is better -- which is why greenhouses apply CO2 enrichment. It is the gas of life.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
And too much CO2 has an opposite effect in greenhouse it also requires correct light nutrients and water

[Whitley]

So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

It is not simply a matter of wasting money, but of lowering the standard of living, increase the gap between the have and have nots, and very likely decrease the life span of those in developing countries. Were it like betting a 100 chip on a blackjack hand, I may feel differently BUT it is very different than that. It is not simply about risking money.

[Whitley]

The study I just read was done in 2008. Has this been publicized?

[Topspinmo]

So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

We all like to waste someone else’s money. Why? cause we don’t have to work for it.

[sounding]

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
And too much CO2 has an opposite effect in greenhouse it also requires correct light nutrients and water

Zeke likes to make up scary stuff. I prefer actual data. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

[jimjamuser]

Yes, I believe that HE has things under control.:thumbup:
I wonder what is the chance in % that God is a HE. And what is the chance that God is a SHE?

[jimjamuser]

Like I said and I will repeat it; save the planet from what? In what way have we influenced Climate Change? If you wish to address air pollution and man's contribution toward it, then I can see some merit in the purposed goal of cleaning up the world. If you are suggesting that we can in any way/manor change the climatic cycles that have been recurring since the beginning of time, then I believe you are talking pure folly. Throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at research to prove that man has or can influence climate change, is about as ludicrous as giving money to criminals to prevent them from committing crime. Since NO ONE has been able to prove that mankind has any effect on the cyclic changes in climate, I see absolutely no legitimate reason for American citizens to waste money by giving it to someone that produces absolutely nothing lucrative or productive, just to prove the negative. If you believe so sincerely about making the world a better place, do something productive like planting a tree, or you can do something else like one joker said a few years ago, by putting more air in your tires so that you get more miles per gallon of fuel. :1rotfl::1rotfl:
Underinflated tires cause accidents from bad steering AND lower the miles per gallon for a vehicle.

[jimjamuser]

In before lockdown. Quoting from "Epoch Times" is equal to announcing that you believe conspiracy theories, you are an extremist, you don't believe in compromise, you don't believe in science, you don't believe in anything factual unless your favorite youtube conspiracy theorist states that they agree with the facts. Which - they don't.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Climate change exists. Normal people around the world know this is a fact, it's not an opinion. The contribution of human activities to this climate change is what's debated.

My opinion: we contribute to it. We don't cause it. But we certainly contribute to it. We contribute to pollution significantly. We cause most of the planet's waste. We contribute to most of the planet's destruction of rainforests, which is a main component of our planet's ecosystem. We contribute 100% to the depletion of natural gas and oil deep within the planet. All of that oil and gas is then used for plastics - which doesn't decompose, or for fuel, which is exhausted into the air, which pollutes the planet.

I am not opposed to using fossil fuels for plastics production, though I am also in favor of seeking alternatives to it. I'm in favor of leaving less waste, and creating less toxic exhaust in the air. But I also recognize that there's no way we'll really be capable of ditching fossil fuels entirely. So I think we just need to be more prudent in how it's used, AND we need to work more on alternative energy and preservation sources such as hydropower, thermal heating, more efficient insulation, solar and wind energy. We already have nuclear energy. We need to continue to study it and make it more efficient, safer, and find safer methods of elimination of nuclear waste. We need more scientists for that. That means stronger education, and the means for students who don't have money, but show interest in ability in the sciences, to get those advanced courses and degrees.

Climate change isn't a one-cause, one-solution situation. The sooner we can get people on board with this fact, the sooner we can come up with solutions that improve our planet, with the least negative impact on our daily lives.
I believe that the oil and gas industry is like the tobacco industry, in that, they DO know that the fossil fuel burning is responsible for Climate Change problems. It is just easier for the oil and gas industry to pretend that there is NOT a problem than it would be to admit a problem and revamp their industry toward less pollution. They are a HUGE industry and like a HUGE ocean liner, it is difficult for them to change course.
.........And like the tobacco industry, it will require a strong government and social response to cause them to change.

[jimjamuser]

CO2 is part of the solution -- and more is better -- which is why greenhouses apply CO2 enrichment. It is the gas of life.
That is true - up to a POINT. And like ALL things.........too MUCH of a good thing is a BAD THING.

[fdpaq0580]

Climate change isn't a one-cause, one-solution situation. The sooner we can get people on board with this fact, the sooner we can come up with solutions that improve our planet, with the least negative impact on our daily lives.

All True!

[fdpaq0580]

CO2 is part of the solution -- and more is better -- which is why greenhouses apply CO2 enrichment. It is the gas of life.

For plants.?.?. Don't see many HUMANS choosing to live in greenhouses. Do you?

[fdpaq0580]

Zeke likes to make up scary stuff. I prefer actual data. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

If you really preferred ACTUAL dara, I would think you would choose to get it from the 97% of scientists worldwide instead of the "freaky fringe". Just mho.
And if you agree that seeing is believing, like I said earlier in the thread, then travel extensively and witness the glaciers melting, permafrost thawing, coral reefs dying, rivers drying, farm land turning to desert. I have seen enough evidence first hand, and I have seen and read far more from legitament sources. Our species is responsible for global warming. It is NOT a hoax. It is real.

[Topspinmo]

I wonder what is the chance in % that God is a HE. And what is the chance that God is a SHE?


Ask devil where you see him…:p

[PersonOfInterest]

I wonder what is the chance in % that God is a HE. And what is the chance that God is a SHE?

Very possibly a 'She'.

And 'She' could be a Lesbian as well.

[Blackbird45]

We all like to waste someone else’s money. Why? cause we don’t have to work for it.

When the government waste money, it not someone else money it's everyone's money.
And this is not a political issue there are always two sides the ones that believe in spend, spend, spend and the other side who don't want to spend a dime on anything unless it affects themselves directly. The unfortunate thing at the end of the day is politicians control the purse strings. And no matter what they tell you why they are taking one position or another, the truth is they just want to be reelected.
I believe spending money on cleaning up the planet is a good thing if not for future generations, but for us and if it cost responsible spending and time, I'm alright with that. I know there are people on the other side of this that believe man has no affect on the climate change and even if they did there is nothing, we can do about it.
For good or bad that is how democracy works.

[jimjamuser]

If you really preferred ACTUAL dara, I would think you would choose to get it from the 97% of scientists worldwide instead of the "freaky fringe". Just mho.
And if you agree that seeing is believing, like I said earlier in the thread, then travel extensively and witness the glaciers melting, permafrost thawing, coral reefs dying, rivers drying, farm land turning to desert. I have seen enough evidence first hand, and I have seen and read far more from legitament sources. Our species is responsible for global warming. It is NOT a hoax. It is real.
To add to "farm land turning to desert", that is the DRIVING FORCE for illegal migrants crossing our southern border and then some getting bused to NY City and Chicago.
......So, it is a NOW problem, not a future problem.

[jimjamuser]

For plants.?.?. Don't see many HUMANS choosing to live in greenhouses. Do you?
Speaking of where to live or what structure people should live in. Most everything in nature is round. Nature does NOT like straight lines. What do Eskimo homes look like? They are round to maximize volume while minimizing precious natural material.

[Regorp]

Learn what the climate alarmists are trying to hide from you - NEEM. Find out the scary details of what's really causing today's weather -- the sun. If you don't know what NEEM means, then please attend the next meeting of the Weather Club on Jan 18 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor.

One thing on Earth we can count on is the knowledge that climate will constantly change, permanently in flux, for billions of years.

[fdpaq0580]

Very possibly a 'She'.

And 'She' could be a Lesbian as well.

It really depends on what you believe. If one were a Christian, God has to be a male human at conception. Rational: if Jesus is the son of God, that explains the "Y" chromosome. Additionally, Mary could not have been a virgin.
But this would be a great philosophical discussion for another thread. Back on track.

[gorillarick]

Do you expect climate to never change ?
We've had seriously colder climates twice in the past 500 years.

[JRcorvette]

Climate change is not real and man can not control the climate… it will never happen.

[mntlblok]

. If the deniers are wrong we are screwed. If the climate change people are wrong we wind up with a cleaner planet

If PZ's info is accurate from today's post, then both would seem likely moot. Starting at the 6:30 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4ct2yCQOK0

[mickey100]

One thing on Earth we can count on is the knowledge that climate will constantly change, permanently in flux, for billions of years.

Reminder - the climate change crisis is about the RATE of change, which we DO have control over.. :faint:

[SHIBUMI]

Bigfoot, the Lockness Monster, Aliens landing and re=engineering their space craft, the tooth fairy, global warming? Wow do we like to imagine. There have many many many ice ages over time, No one has found Bigfoot, the lockness monster, aliens, not even alien scat and how to change temperatures. Dream a little dream, BUT, I do think the tooth fairy exists, I still have my dollar bill from when it happened. Too bad it doesn't happen when you get older...............

[fdpaq0580]

Do you expect climate to never change ?
We've had seriously colder climates twice in the past 500 years.

The concern isn't that climate changes. The concern is the rate of change due to the distruction/loss of habitat caused by human activities, particularly since the industrial revolution. Well documented and studied with overwhelming evidence globally.

[fdpaq0580]

Bigfoot, the Lockness Monster, Aliens landing and re=engineering their space craft, the tooth fairy, global warming? Wow do we like to imagine. There have many many many ice ages over time, No one has found Bigfoot, the lockness monster, aliens, not even alien scat and how to change temperatures. Dream a little dream, BUT, I do think the tooth fairy exists, I still have my dollar bill from when it happened. Too bad it doesn't happen when you get older...............

Too, too bad. Indeedie! 🙃

[Byte1]

The concern isn't that climate changes. The concern is the rate of change due to the distruction/loss of habitat caused by human activities, particularly since the industrial revolution. Well documented and studied with overwhelming evidence globally.

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is absolutely NO/NO proof that man has any effect on the "rate of change." The ONLY/ONLY thing mankind has any effect on is air pollution.

[fdpaq0580]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is absolutely NO/NO proof that man has any effect on the "rate of change." The ONLY/ONLY thing mankind has any effect on is air pollution.

Just like back in kindergarten? Your wrong! No, your wrong!

There is. It is real. And no bigfoots (or should that be bigfeet?) were harmed in this word exchange.

[Laraine]

Save the planet for future generations. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but is this I got mine screw everyone else. Let me rephrase save the planet, to instead leaving a habitual place for the people who come after me when I'm gone. The way I see it the planet has been pretty good to me, and I want to leave it that way for others. Think of it this way it's like flushing the toilet in a public restroom before you leave. As I stated in earlier postings I don't know if man is responsible for climate change, but to try do nothing is selfish and irresponsible.

For those who say that it's a choice of saving money or saving the planet for future generations, that's a false choice. Other than the money angle that's been mentioned, the current plans of eliminating fossil fuels, going to electric cars, renewable energy, etc., will not necessarily result in a cleaner planet, but it most definitely will result in millions or billions of deaths worldwide. Fossil fuels are a major component of many products, including fertilizer, medicines, plastics, etc. By taking relatively cheap fertilizer away, and also making transportation more expensive, things like food become much more expensive, and a good number of those in third world countries die of starvation. Many are even starving now, because we use about half of our corn to make inefficient ethanol, rather than using it as food, substantially raising the price (both for eating corn and for feeding animals).

In the US, we have a very fragile electric grid. Aside from the issues of EVs not working or even charging in the cold, adding that much more to the grid makes us even more susceptible to total collapse of society if the grid breaks, or is broken by terrorism. Also, China is the leading producer of EVs and rare earth minerals that are used in battery production. Other than the problems of just relying on them, they are also major polluters in mining the minerals, etc., so we aren't really cleaning things up anyway.

I would much rather gradually transition to new technologies, as the market determines they are ready, continue to reduce pollution as we have been doing for decades (CO2 is not pollution), and not waste trillions of dollars, rather than the alternative of spending those trillions and causing certain death and destruction. This is particularly true, when considering the ice core data which shows that our current warming trend started from the coldest climate period in the last 10,000 years.

[Byte1]

Just like back in kindergarten? Your wrong! No, your wrong!

There is. It is real. And no bigfoots (or should that be bigfeet?) were harmed in this word exchange.

Prove it. No, forget it because I figure that my kids will suffer more from trillions of bucks frivolously wasted and putting them in debt than by the myth of man caused climate change research(that goes nowhere). And like I have said many times, when asked for ANY proof, I only get responding excuses from those that can't prove anything so they rely on the media instead of hard, solid facts. Man made pollution (which has been proven) does not cause any change in cyclic climate deviations. The only proof of anything by scientists is that the world has ALWAYS been subject to climate change.
And by the way, you can eliminate all Humans from the world and you will still have pollution by volcanoes, animals, vegetation, mold and decay. And all those listed also create heat in the atmosphere too.

[jimjamuser]

Reminder - the climate change crisis is about the RATE of change, which we DO have control over.. :faint:
Well, the "RATE of change" is increasing faster than most Climate Scientists expected. In the last 10 or 11 years the measurements of ocean levels and their change (due to melting glaciers) have increased significantly more each year. Recently scientists have been focused in on Greenland and satellite photos over about 20 years show a decrease in glacier ICE of about 10 %.
.........A graph of world population shows a high rate of change which leads to more fossil fuel usage - thus, more CO2 production, thus more HEAT reflection from the upper atmosphere back to earth.

[jimjamuser]

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is absolutely NO/NO proof that man has any effect on the "rate of change." The ONLY/ONLY thing mankind has any effect on is air pollution.
Air pollution from industrial factories AND lots of ICE vehicles IS the mechanism as to how CO2 gets to the upper atmosphere causing reflected HEAT coming back and raising the AVERAGE temperatures.
.........NOTE.......This winter in the US may be colder than average (????) in the US (and Canada). But, be aware that the majority of the Earth is WARMER than average this winter. The Australian Open tennis tournament is WARMER than usual. India, Africa, and South America are warmer.
.........Much of the Arctic ice is melted and an unusual weather pattern is spinning cold air south through Canada into the US. Much of the snow is due to WARMER air holding MORE MOISTURE.

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=Byte1;2292512]Prove it. /QUOTE]

Already been done. Someone just didn't get the memo, orrr refuses to accept any truth that doesn't fit with their beliefs.

[fdpaq0580]

Air pollution from industrial factories AND lots of ICE vehicles IS the mechanism as to how CO2 gets to the upper atmosphere causing reflected HEAT coming back and raising the AVERAGE temperatures.
.........NOTE.......This winter in the US may be colder than average (????) in the US (and Canada). But, be aware that the majority of the Earth is WARMER than average this winter. The Australian Open tennis tournament is WARMER than usual. India, Africa, and South America are warmer.
.........Much of the Arctic ice is melted and an unusual weather pattern is spinning cold air south through Canada into the US. Much of the snow is due to WARMER air holding MORE MOISTURE.

You realize that telling some people something that is true, but seems counterintuitive, may be beyond their ability to truly grasp the concept explanation. Kind of like explaining to flat earthers why people in Australia don't fall off the bottom of the planet. Beyond their comprehension.

[Topspinmo]

Underinflated tires cause accidents from bad steering AND lower the miles per gallon for a vehicle.


If that was case half vehicles on road would be gone.

[ithos]

So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

No, you would have increased the mortality rate and reduced standard of living for most people on the planet. Cheap and abundant energy has made life on earth much much better for everyone.

[Byte1]

You realize that telling some people something that is true, but seems counterintuitive, may be beyond their ability to truly grasp the concept explanation. Kind of like explaining to flat earthers why people in Australia don't fall off the bottom of the planet. Beyond their comprehension.

"Beyond comprehension?" "flat earthers?" Is that how you shut up any opposition to your OPINION? You have proved nothing to prove your point, yet. I suppose lighting a candle will warm the air around me, but it does not change the cyclic climate changes. The problem many on here have is that even though EVERYONE agrees that there is Climate Change, some believe man has no control over changing it one way or another. Of course, if you can't prove your OPINION that we should waste trillions of tax revenues on research to prove your opinion, then it's better to squelch anyone else's questions, such as "please provide some evidence that man is responsible for climate change." A very simple request, that many are not equipped to provide such evidence. On the other hand, a really great answer to why we might have a colder winter than seen in decades, is that Global Warming is causing the frigid temperatures. Instead of acknowledging that the oceans are warmer and underwater volcano eruptions may contribute to the warming, we get the unfounded response that man is warming the air, combined with cow flatulence. I guess that is proven by the fact that we had tropical temperatures when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
I am open minded when it comes to REAL evidence that man is responsible for Climate Change. But, so far no one has provided such evidence. Saying that the climate changes and man exists, therefore man must be in control of the climate is kind of arrogant, in my opinion. On the other hand, I believe that man is responsible partially for air pollution. But, NOT all air pollution.
If you cannot prove your view that man is responsible for climate change, then you are merely expressing your opinion. An opinion that is only reinforced by folks titled as "scientists" that are being subsidized by the government to provide so-called "expert" opinions, based on theory, not tangible evidence.
According to some on here, when the rotation of Earth around the Sun changes or when we move further or closer to the sun, the days don't get shorter or longer. The reason the daylight changes is because we change our clocks. Therefore man is changing the length of daylight.

[mntlblok]

According to some on here, when the rotation of Earth around the Sun changes or when we move further or closer to the sun, the days don't get shorter or longer.

Uh oh. . .

[biker1]

The evidence of anthropogenic warming is both extensive and pervasive. Unfortunately, most people fail to understand the basics. As a retired research meteorologist with undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and as a developer of atmospheric models at NASA and the National Weather Service, I will try to explain the basics to you. You start with a theory and collect evidence to either support or disprove the theory. In the case of anthropogenic warming from the release of CO2, the theory has been around for some time. I think Manabe's 1967 paper is perhaps the best place to start. Essentially, if anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an impact you will see the lower troposphere warm and the stratosphere cool. Increasing CO2 impacts the net long wave radiation budget. A more detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this post. Again, there is extensive observational data that shows this effect. You can do literature searches fairly easily but the best place to start is AR6. Roy Spencer has a 40+ year tropospheric satellite dataset that shows significant warming (and he is not a doom and gloomer by any stretch of the imagination). What most people get wrong is the impact and time scale. It is about 1C for the global average surface temperature anomaly. This is in the last 100 years. The issue is time scale. Climatic changes driven by the three Milankovitch cycles have much longer time scales: 20,000 to 100,000 years. The concern is not what will happen in 40,000 years but what will happen by the end of the century. Predictions for the remainder of the century come from coupled climate modeling, which is still an area of research. Retrospective integrations seem to be a bit warm. The biggest issue, IMO, is that the press and politicians appear to have chosen to focus on the most pessimistic 8.5 scenario that shows the global average surface temperature anomaly as high as 10C. That would be a big problem. I don't think there is much doubt that the temperature anomaly will grow to 2C or more. I believe that negative feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic/land surface system reduce the probability of a 10C temperature anomaly by the end of the century. Modeling these systems is difficult and getting all the positive and negative feedback correct is a challenge (which is why it is still an area of research). However, a couple of degrees will have geopolitical consequences which is what many Governments may be worried about. The other issue is that I just don't believe we (the world) can do anything to substantially cut CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. For example, the US emits about 11% of the global CO2. Even if we dropped to zero tomorrow, it would not have much of an impact. Doing what we can within practical limits is a good idea. I would put most efforts into remediating coastal regions for the continued rise in ocean levels. The world is not going to end but it will continue to get warmer and the impact varies geographically.

"Beyond comprehension?" "flat earthers?" Is that how you shut up any opposition to your OPINION? You have proved nothing to prove your point, yet. I suppose lighting a candle will warm the air around me, but it does not change the cyclic climate changes. The problem many on here have is that even though EVERYONE agrees that there is Climate Change, some believe man has no control over changing it one way or another. Of course, if you can't prove your OPINION that we should waste trillions of tax revenues on research to prove your opinion, then it's better to squelch anyone else's questions, such as "please provide some evidence that man is responsible for climate change." A very simple request, that many are not equipped to provide such evidence. On the other hand, a really great answer to why we might have a colder winter than seen in decades, is that Global Warming is causing the frigid temperatures. Instead of acknowledging that the oceans are warmer and underwater volcano eruptions may contribute to the warming, we get the unfounded response that man is warming the air, combined with cow flatulence. I guess that is proven by the fact that we had tropical temperatures when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
I am open minded when it comes to REAL evidence that man is responsible for Climate Change. But, so far no one has provided such evidence. Saying that the climate changes and man exists, therefore man must be in control of the climate is kind of arrogant, in my opinion. On the other hand, I believe that man is responsible partially for air pollution. But, NOT all air pollution.
If you cannot prove your view that man is responsible for climate change, then you are merely expressing your opinion. An opinion that is only reinforced by folks titled as "scientists" that are being subsidized by the government to provide so-called "expert" opinions, based on theory, not tangible evidence.
According to some on here, when the rotation of Earth around the Sun changes or when we move further or closer to the sun, the days don't get shorter or longer. The reason the daylight changes is because we change our clocks. Therefore man is changing the length of daylight.

[fdpaq0580]

The evidence of anthropogenic warming is both extensive and pervasive. Unfortunately, most people fail to understand the basics. As a retired research meteorologist with undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and as a developer of atmospheric models at NASA and the National Weather Service, I will try to explain the basics to you. You start with a theory and collect evidence to either support or disprove the theory. In the case of anthropogenic warming from the release of CO2, the theory has been around for some time. I think Manabe's 1967 paper is perhaps the best place to start. Essentially, if anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an impact you will see the lower troposphere warm and the stratosphere cool. Increasing CO2 impacts the net long wave radiation budget. A more detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this post. Again, there is extensive observational data that shows this effect. You can do literature searches fairly easily but the best place to start is AR6. Roy Spencer has a 40+ year tropospheric satellite dataset that shows significant warming (and he is not a doom and gloomer by any stretch of the imagination). What most people get wrong is the impact and time scale. It is about 1C for the global surface temperature anomaly. This is in the last 100 years. The issue is time scale. Climatic changes driven by the three Milankovitch cycles have much longer time scales: 20,000 to 100,000 years. The concern is not what will happen in 40,000 years but what will happen by the end of the century. Predictions for the remainder of the century come from coupled climate modeling, which is still an area of research. Retrospective integrations seem to be a bit warm. The biggest issue, IMO, is that the press and politicians appear to have chosen to focus on the most pessimistic 8.5 scenario that shows the global surface temperature anomaly as high as 10C. That would be a big problem. I don't think there is much doubt that the temperature anomaly will grow to 2C or more. I believe that negative feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic/land surface system reduce the probability of a 10C temperature anomaly by the end of the century. Modeling these systems is difficult and getting all the positive and negative feedback correct is a challenge (which is why it is still an area of research). However, a couple of degrees will have geopolitical consequences which is what many Governments may be worried about. The other issue is that I just don't believe we (the world) can do anything to substantially cut CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. For example, the US emits about 11% of the global CO2. Even if we dropped to zero tomorrow, it would not have much of an impact. Doing what we can within practical limits is a good idea. I would put most efforts into remediating coastal regions for the continued rise in ocean levels. The world is not going to end but it will continue to get warmer and the impact varies geographically.

Excellent! Thank you!

[mntlblok]

The evidence of anthropogenic warming is both extensive and pervasive. Unfortunately, most people fail to understand the basics. As a retired research meteorologist with undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and as a developer of atmospheric models at NASA and the National Weather Service, I will try to explain the basics to you. You start with a theory and collect evidence to either support or disprove the theory. In the case of anthropogenic warming from the release of CO2, the theory has been around for some time. I think Manabe's 1967 paper is perhaps the best place to start. Essentially, if anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an impact you will see the lower troposphere warm and the stratosphere cool. Increasing CO2 impacts the net long wave radiation budget. A more detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this post. Again, there is extensive observational data that shows this effect. You can do literature searches fairly easily but the best place to start is AR6. Roy Spencer has a 40+ year tropospheric satellite dataset that shows significant warming (and he is not a doom and gloomer by any stretch of the imagination). What most people get wrong is the impact and time scale. It is about 1C for the global surface temperature anomaly. This is in the last 100 years. The issue is time scale. Climatic changes driven by the three Milankovitch cycles have much longer time scales: 20,000 to 100,000 years. The concern is not what will happen in 40,000 years but what will happen by the end of the century. Predictions for the remainder of the century come from coupled climate modeling, which is still an area of research. Retrospective integrations seem to be a bit warm. The biggest issue, IMO, is that the press and politicians appear to have chosen to focus on the most pessimistic 8.5 scenario that shows the global surface temperature anomaly as high as 10C. That would be a big problem. I don't think there is much doubt that the temperature anomaly will grow to 2C or more. I believe that negative feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic/land surface system reduce the probability of a 10C temperature anomaly by the end of the century. Modeling these systems is difficult and getting all the positive and negative feedback correct is a challenge (which is why it is still an area of research). However, a couple of degrees will have geopolitical consequences which is what many Governments may be worried about. The other issue is that I just don't believe we (the world) can do anything to substantially cut CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. For example, the US emits about 11% of the global CO2. Even if we dropped to zero tomorrow, it would not have much of an impact. Doing what we can within practical limits is a good idea. I would put most efforts into remediating coastal regions for the continued rise in ocean levels. The world is not going to end but it will continue to get warmer and the impact varies geographically.

Was it you who posted a few months back about the feedback loops? I recall that the poster had a similar sounding background.

[Two Bills]

The evidence of anthropogenic warming is both extensive and pervasive. Unfortunately, most people fail to understand the basics. As a retired research meteorologist with undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and as a developer of atmospheric models at NASA and the National Weather Service, I will try to explain the basics to you. You start with a theory and collect evidence to either support or disprove the theory. In the case of anthropogenic warming from the release of CO2, the theory has been around for some time. I think Manabe's 1967 paper is perhaps the best place to start. Essentially, if anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an impact you will see the lower troposphere warm and the stratosphere cool. Increasing CO2 impacts the net long wave radiation budget. A more detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this post. Again, there is extensive observational data that shows this effect. You can do literature searches fairly easily but the best place to start is AR6. Roy Spencer has a 40+ year tropospheric satellite dataset that shows significant warming (and he is not a doom and gloomer by any stretch of the imagination). What most people get wrong is the impact and time scale. It is about 1C for the global surface temperature anomaly. This is in the last 100 years. The issue is time scale. Climatic changes driven by the three Milankovitch cycles have much longer time scales: 20,000 to 100,000 years. The concern is not what will happen in 40,000 years but what will happen by the end of the century. Predictions for the remainder of the century come from coupled climate modeling, which is still an area of research. Retrospective integrations seem to be a bit warm. The biggest issue, IMO, is that the press and politicians appear to have chosen to focus on the most pessimistic 8.5 scenario that shows the global surface temperature anomaly as high as 10C. That would be a big problem. I don't think there is much doubt that the temperature anomaly will grow to 2C or more. I believe that negative feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic/land surface system reduce the probability of a 10C temperature anomaly by the end of the century. Modeling these systems is difficult and getting all the positive and negative feedback correct is a challenge (which is why it is still an area of research). However, a couple of degrees will have geopolitical consequences which is what many Governments may be worried about. The other issue is that I just don't believe we (the world) can do anything to substantially cut CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. For example, the US emits about 11% of the global CO2. Even if we dropped to zero tomorrow, it would not have much of an impact. Doing what we can within practical limits is a good idea. I would put most efforts into remediating coastal regions for the continued rise in ocean levels. The world is not going to end but it will continue to get warmer and the impact varies geographically.

Can't wait for OP's rebuttal.

[biker1]

///

[fdpaq0580]

"Beyond comprehension?" "flat earthers?" Is that how you shut up any opposition to your OPINION? You have proved nothing to prove your point, yet. I suppose lighting a candle will warm the air around me, but it does not change the cyclic climate changes. The problem many on here have is that even though EVERYONE agrees that there is Climate Change, some believe man has no control over changing it one way or another. Of course, if you can't prove your OPINION that we should waste trillions of tax revenues on research to prove your opinion, then it's better to squelch anyone else's questions, such as "please provide some evidence that man is responsible for climate change." A very simple request, that many are not equipped to provide such evidence. On the other hand, a really great answer to why we might have a colder winter than seen in decades, is that Global Warming is causing the frigid temperatures. Instead of acknowledging that the oceans are warmer and underwater volcano eruptions may contribute to the warming, we get the unfounded response that man is warming the air, combined with cow flatulence. I guess that is proven by the fact that we had tropical temperatures when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
I am open minded when it comes to REAL evidence that man is responsible for Climate Change. But, so far no one has provided such evidence. Saying that the climate changes and man exists, therefore man must be in control of the climate is kind of arrogant, in my opinion. On the other hand, I believe that man is responsible partially for air pollution. But, NOT all air pollution.
If you cannot prove your view that man is responsible for climate change, then you are merely expressing your opinion. An opinion that is only reinforced by folks titled as "scientists" that are being subsidized by the government to provide so-called "expert" opinions, based on theory, not tangible evidence.
According to some on here, when the rotation of Earth around the Sun changes or when we move further or closer to the sun, the days don't get shorter or longer. The reason the daylight changes is because we change our clocks. Therefore man is changing the length of daylight.

If that was my attempt to silence opposition to my "opinion", as you put it, it didn't work, did it? Actually, it was a comment ment for the poster I had responded to. But, thanks for your contribution.

[Byte1]

The evidence of anthropogenic warming is both extensive and pervasive. Unfortunately, most people fail to understand the basics. As a retired research meteorologist with undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and as a developer of atmospheric models at NASA and the National Weather Service, I will try to explain the basics to you. You start with a theory and collect evidence to either support or disprove the theory. In the case of anthropogenic warming from the release of CO2, the theory has been around for some time. I think Manabe's 1967 paper is perhaps the best place to start. Essentially, if anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an impact you will see the lower troposphere warm and the stratosphere cool. Increasing CO2 impacts the net long wave radiation budget. A more detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this post. Again, there is extensive observational data that shows this effect. You can do literature searches fairly easily but the best place to start is AR6. Roy Spencer has a 40+ year tropospheric satellite dataset that shows significant warming (and he is not a doom and gloomer by any stretch of the imagination). What most people get wrong is the impact and time scale. It is about 1C for the global average surface temperature anomaly. This is in the last 100 years. The issue is time scale. Climatic changes driven by the three Milankovitch cycles have much longer time scales: 20,000 to 100,000 years. The concern is not what will happen in 40,000 years but what will happen by the end of the century. Predictions for the remainder of the century come from coupled climate modeling, which is still an area of research. Retrospective integrations seem to be a bit warm. The biggest issue, IMO, is that the press and politicians appear to have chosen to focus on the most pessimistic 8.5 scenario that shows the global average surface temperature anomaly as high as 10C. That would be a big problem. I don't think there is much doubt that the temperature anomaly will grow to 2C or more. I believe that negative feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic/land surface system reduce the probability of a 10C temperature anomaly by the end of the century. Modeling these systems is difficult and getting all the positive and negative feedback correct is a challenge (which is why it is still an area of research). However, a couple of degrees will have geopolitical consequences which is what many Governments may be worried about. The other issue is that I just don't believe we (the world) can do anything to substantially cut CO2 emissions for the next 50 years. For example, the US emits about 11% of the global CO2. Even if we dropped to zero tomorrow, it would not have much of an impact. Doing what we can within practical limits is a good idea. I would put most efforts into remediating coastal regions for the continued rise in ocean levels. The world is not going to end but it will continue to get warmer and the impact varies geographically.

Thank you for your response. I am not questioning the data suggesting a period of global warming. I am still waiting for some/ANY proof that man has anything to do with cyclic Climate Change. Seems to me that if man is responsible for warm periods in our world history, then our world should have been in an ICE AGE 100% of the period before man existed. Yes, that's just me being facetious, but the reasoning on this subject seems to be that "man inhabits earth, the temperature is warmer, therefore man is responsible." I don't want an opinion, I want real, substantial physical evidence to justify spending trillions of bucks on the subject.

[kkingston57]

North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling,

Not a good acronym. Just like everyone calls Orlando Airport OIA(Orlando International Airport) but it's call letters are MCO. I know why but it would seem to me that if OIA has not been used, Orlando should use it.

[kkingston57]

So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

Or gone to places like the moon and possibly Mars. Amazing we did it in less than 10 years in the 60's and now they appear to be taking longer.

[mntlblok]

Not a good acronym. Just like everyone calls Orlando Airport OIA(Orlando International Airport) but it's call letters are MCO. I know why but it would seem to me that if OIA has not been used, Orlando should use it.

I don't know. Somebody'd soon be wanting to buy a consonant.

[fdpaq0580]

Thank you for your response. I am not questioning the data suggesting a period of global warming. I am still waiting for some/ANY proof that man has anything to do with cyclic Climate Change. Seems to me that if man is responsible for warm periods in our world history, then our world should have been in an ICE AGE 100% of the period before man existed. Yes, that's just me being facetious, but the reasoning on this subject seems to be that "man inhabits earth, the temperature is warmer, therefore man is responsible." I don't want an opinion, I want real, substantial physical evidence to justify spending trillions of bucks on the subject.

I appreciate what I feel is your genuine lack of understanding of the real and substantial physical evidence. No one can give you that which you, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept. My first suggestion is to look at the fact that 97% of the world's (not just US) scientists believe in human caused global warming is real. That should be clue #1. Is it really possible that this is a world wide hoax by over 200 nations, many of whom don't get along or are at war with one another. Start looking critically at the evidence from both sides of the issue, see which is most convincing, the mountains of data showing it is real, or the smaller, mostly anecdotal or misstatements claims saying it's not real.
Occasionally, Chicken Little is used to discredit a so called alarmist. In a chicken world, who would listen to? The 97% of smartest looking up and warning of the roof caving in, or the 3% with their heads down trying to peck up the most grain saying it's all a lot of bs.

[fdpaq0580]

I don't know. Somebody'd soon be wanting to buy a consonant.

I didn't know consonants were for sale.

[fdpaq0580]

Or gone to places like the moon and possibly Mars. Amazing we did it in less than 10 years in the 60's and now they appear to be taking longer.

The more you know, the more you learn what can kill you. Then you look before you leap.

[mntlblok]

I didn't know consonants were for sale.
If you don't ask. . .

[mntlblok]

Or gone to places like the moon and possibly Mars. Amazing we did it in less than 10 years in the 60's and now they appear to be taking longer.

Amazing, indeed. "Only the United States, Russia, China and India have successfully landed spacecraft on the moon. Three privately-financed landing missions have been launched as commercial ventures, but all three failed." Japanese moon lander touches down, but crippled by mission-ending power glitch - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japanese-moon-lander-reaches-surface-but-fate-uncertain/)

[Byte1]

I appreciate what I feel is your genuine lack of understanding of the real and substantial physical evidence. No one can give you that which you, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept. My first suggestion is to look at the fact that 97% of the world's (not just US) scientists believe in human caused global warming is real. That should be clue #1. Is it really possible that this is a world wide hoax by over 200 nations, many of whom don't get along or are at war with one another. Start looking critically at the evidence from both sides of the issue, see which is most convincing, the mountains of data showing it is real, or the smaller, mostly anecdotal or misstatements claims saying it's not real.
Occasionally, Chicken Little is used to discredit a so called alarmist. In a chicken world, who would listen to? The 97% of smartest looking up and warning of the roof caving in, or the 3% with their heads down trying to peck up the most grain saying it's all a lot of bs.

So, what you are saying is that you believe OPINION over facts. Since a large gathering of scientists (well paid, I'm sure) have a consensus that man is responsible for Global Warming, not with evidence but just their opinion, then they have you convinced. Sorry, but this jury is not going to accept OPINION. We need facts, and so far no one has shown any/ANY facts that man is responsible. Of course, there are a lot of folks that believe man is a god and that man has the ability to change history, therefore we must be able to change weather cycles, the rotation of Earth and the revolving of the planets around the Sun.
You have not answered my question with evidence, just a statement that you believe someone else's opinion without question. I am not a denier, just waiting to be convinced. I am open for evidence/proof that man has any effect on cyclic climate change. I believe that man is partially responsible for air pollution, but only PARTLY responsible. Sorry, but if I invest a lot of money over a period of decades, for research I expect facts NOT theory and/or opinion. Scientists know that they cannot get a medicine approved by the FDA until they show proof by trials that the medicine really does provide relief for ailments that they advertise. Just because someone spends my money, does not make me gullible enough to accept their assurance that they have an answer for my question. I expect factual evidence. Please don't insult me with your "flat earth" or "denier" accusations and I won't insult you by suggesting that anyone that takes someone's word without proof is gullible or a fool.

[fdpaq0580]

So, what you are saying is that you believe OPINION over facts. Since a large gathering of scientists (well paid, I'm sure) have a consensus that man is responsible for Global Warming, not with evidence but just their opinion, then they have you convinced. Sorry, but this jury is not going to accept OPINION. We need facts, and so far no one has shown any/ANY facts that man is responsible. Of course, there are a lot of folks that believe man is a god and that man has the ability to change history, therefore we must be able to change weather cycles, the rotation of Earth and the revolving of the planets around the Sun.
You have not answered my question with evidence, just a statement that you believe someone else's opinion without question. I am not a denier, just waiting to be convinced. I am open for evidence/proof that man has any effect on cyclic climate change. I believe that man is partially responsible for air pollution, but only PARTLY responsible. Sorry, but if I invest a lot of money over a period of decades, for research I expect facts NOT theory and/or opinion. Scientists know that they cannot get a medicine approved by the FDA until they show proof by trials that the medicine really does provide relief for ailments that they advertise. Just because someone spends my money, does not make me gullible enough to accept their assurance that they have an answer for my question. I expect factual evidence. Please don't insult me with your "flat earth" or "denier" accusations and I won't insult you by suggesting that anyone that takes someone's word without proof is gullible or a fool.

There you go again with "so what you are saying is" , which is your way of saying, "I am about to twist your words and, change your message." which is cheap and dishonest. You better re-read my statement. You completely, and I think intentionally, misunderstood and mis-stated my position.
In a nut shell, you do not have all the facts, or knowledge. You are going to have to believe one side or the other. Choose your information source(s) carefully if you really want truth. If someone shoots you in the butt, are you going to believe the 97% of witnesses with security photos and data, or the 3 guys saying "it wasn't me. Its a conspiracy" , while they try to hide the gun.
The facts and information is available if you take the time to investigate. Your choice. And, by the way, of course the scientists get paid for the important work they do. But so do the industrialists and big oil who are funding the other side's misinformation. It's going to cost us all either way. But one path is gonna make the planet better, the other path is more of a dead-end.

[Byte1]

There you go again with "so what you are saying is" , which is your way of saying, "I am about to twist your words and, change your message." which is cheap and dishonest. You better re-read my statement. You completely, and I think intentionally, misunderstood and mis-stated my position.
In a nut shell, you do not have all the facts, or knowledge. You are going to have to believe one side or the other. Choose your information source(s) carefully if you really want truth. If someone shoots you in the butt, are you going to believe the 97% of witnesses with security photos and data, or the 3 guys saying "it wasn't me. Its a conspiracy" , while they try to hide the gun.
The facts and information is available if you take the time to investigate. Your choice. And, by the way, of course the scientists get paid for the important work they do. But so do the industrialists and big oil who are funding the other side's misinformation. It's going to cost us all either way. But one path is gonna make the planet better, the other path is more of a dead-end.

Hah! Now you are upset with how I turned your same method back on you.
Like I said before, give me facts, not opinions. If someone shot me, there would be facts and evidence. Sorry, but your scenario is totally wrong, other than proving my point.
Only fools would think that spending a trillion bucks to prove air pollution when everyone already concedes that fact, is really frivolous spending. Climate Change is already and always has been happening throughout history of the world. With and without mankind inhabiting the world. Scientists couldn't prove that man caused global warming, so they changed the words and submitted their requests for more funding to "research" the possibility of man caused climate change. Kind of easy to prove Climate Change, but impossible to prove that man caused something that has been going on for thousands of years.
But, you go ahead and believe what someone tells you. By the way, I have some lotion made from BS that will cure everything from hiccups to cancer that a TV scientist swears is the real thing. It's called Dr.Smith's sure cure and it's only $300 a bottle. I'm looking to sell some franchises here in the Villages. Get in on the bottom floor, while you can.:$:

[Dusty_Star]

Zeke likes to make up scary stuff. I prefer actual data. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

Good video

[fdpaq0580]

Hah! Now you are upset with how I turned your same method back on you.
Like I said before, give me facts, not opinions. If someone shot me, there would be facts and evidence. Sorry, but your scenario is totally wrong, other than proving my point.
Only fools would think that spending a trillion bucks to prove air pollution when everyone already concedes that fact, is really frivolous spending. Climate Change is already and always has been happening throughout history of the world. With and without mankind inhabiting the world. Scientists couldn't prove that man caused global warming, so they changed the words and submitted their requests for more funding to "research" the possibility of man caused climate change. Kind of easy to prove Climate Change, but impossible to prove that man caused something that has been going on for thousands of years.
But, you go ahead and believe what someone tells you. By the way, I have some lotion made from BS that will cure everything from hiccups to cancer that a TV scientist swears is the real thing. It's called Dr.Smith's sure cure and it's only $300 a bottle. I'm looking to sell some franchises here in the Villages. Get in on the bottom floor, while you can.:$:

Nah! I'm not upset, but I am entertained.
As I learned long ago, people generally don't appreciate things that are given to them as much as what they have to work for. Therefore, even though you want to be given facts, my suggestion is that, if you really want them, do what the rest of us have done. Do a little research of your own. Work for it. Check science journals, textbook, magazines, science info and video, news reports. The facts are there. All you have to do is look.
Good hunting!