Just Published!!! Objective scientific proof about global temp surges since the 70's!

[ElDiabloJoe]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)

[golfing eagles]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)

Yet I have no doubt that the indoctrinated, gullible and true believers in global warming will not be convinced. I can almost hear them racing to their keyboards as I type :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

Leading with your bias is no way to prove a point (or to understand the paper).

[ElDiabloJoe]

Leading with your bias is no way to prove a point (or to understand the paper).

Not leading with my bias, simply leading with a synopsis for those too lazy, disinterested, or unable to "follow the science."

[justjim]

This subject (climate change) is like a phoenix. The poor ol’ horse has been beat to death and not one mind has changed.

[BrianL99]

Yet I have no doubt that the indoctrinated, gullible and true believers in global warming will not be convinced. I can almost hear them racing to their keyboards as I type :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

No one is concerned about global warming anymore, that's been pretty much debunked as nonsense.

It's all about "climate change".

That way, the believers are still on point, if we get global warming, global freezing or ... it stays the same, they can still claim "climate change", because it's supposed to either cool or warm!

They have all the bases covered.

[ElDiabloJoe]

This subject (climate change) is like a phoenix. The poor ol’ horse has been beat to death and not one mind has changed.

^ Concur. Seems at least 1-2x/week there's a poster or two that resurrects the subject like Lazarus.

If there is any topic I would love to see Perma-banned from the site, it's ALL things global warming / climate change / other related myths and hysterias.

[fdpaq0580]

^ Concur. Seems at least 1-2x/week there's a poster or two that resurrects the subject like Lazarus.

If there is any topic I would love to see Perma-banned from the site, it's ALL things global warming / climate change / other related myths and hysterias.

You realize that would include golf course conditions and how long we have to wait b4 they open. 😱

[golfing eagles]

You realize that would include golf course conditions and how long we have to wait b4 they open. 😱

Blasphemy!!!!!!!

[fdpaq0580]

Blasphemy!!!!!!!

Hey! Don't kill the messenger! 🫣

[ElDiabloJoe]

Interesting. Usually a lot of noise from certain corners, only crickets now.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

^ Concur. Seems at least 1-2x/week there's a poster or two that resurrects the subject like Lazarus.

If there is any topic I would love to see Perma-banned from the site, it's ALL things global warming / climate change / other related myths and hysterias.

Then why did you bring it up in a whole shiny new thread?

[ElDiabloJoe]

Then why did you bring it up in a whole shiny new thread?
In the (desperate) hope that the Chicken Little Crew can be enlightened and put the topic to bed permanently.

[davefin]

Yes, global warming is real, it has scientific evidence going back billions of years. It's a cycle, about every 26,000 years. Yes, we are still coming off the last Ice Age. "Global Warming" is NOT caused by the human occupation of the Earth. It's a cycle folks and we are just along for the ride. Just deal with it!

[Taltarzac725]

Yes, global warming is real, it has scientific evidence going back billions of years. It's a cycle, about every 26,000 years. Yes, we are still coming off the last Ice Age. "Global Warming" is NOT caused by the human occupation of the Earth. It's a cycle folks and we are just along for the ride. Just deal with it!

Said almost no respected academic weather scientist ever.

[skarra]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)


So you are acknowledging that there is global warming, but as the article points out it's too early to tell if we are currently in the midst of a surge in the warming.

I wonder how many people on this forum have college degrees and could even explain to a lay person what the article says. My guess is very few.

[rsmurano]

Davefin is right on with his reply. This is not new info. Did Gore and Thurnberg write that paper?

[Rocksnap]

Most of us living here in TV have many decades behind us. Therefore, most of us remember all the warnings of ‘global warming, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, then the ‘global cooling, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, coincidentally cycling back and forth every 10 years when we didn’t all die. Yet here we are. Sea levels haven’t budged, and we are all still alive.

[Taltarzac725]

Most of us living here in TV have many decades behind us. Therefore, most of us remember all the warnings of ‘global warming, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, then the ‘global cooling, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, coincidentally cycling back and forth every 10 years when we didn’t all die. Yet here we are. Sea levels haven’t budged, and we are all still alive.

Milton and Helene are obvious indicators of global warming. Especially the heating of the ocean water.

[hypart]

The study compares the rate of warming from 1970-2012 and compares it to the rate of warming from 2013 to the present. It's conclusion is that the warming rate has not increased in recent years.

Just because there isn't an increase in the rate of warming doesn't mean that global temperatures aren't warming. There just isn't enough data to say it's a surge.


Per study:
"In short, a 40% increase in the 2013–2040 warming rate relative to the 1970–2012 rate will be needed to declare a significant warming surge by 2040."

So, basically, the warming trend is steady.

If you have a tumor and it's steadily growing at 10% per year..... Yay?

You still have a problem.

[golfing eagles]

Milton and Helene are obvious indicators of global warming. Especially the heating of the ocean water.

Milton and Helene are merely obvious indicators that hurricanes exist. PERIOD.

PS: The deadliest hurricane known was the "great hurricane of 1780" with 22,000 deaths. Nobody was driving a SUV back then.

[merrymini]

I would be more concerned with the garbage we produce. We could actually do something about that!

[CODYCAT]

No reason to discuss this because Al Gore said the world came to an end in 2014. Just read all the predictions that never come true.

[OnInTwo]

Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari is a fascinating non fiction read that explores information networks and their connections throughout history. Explains a lot of our our good and not so good behaviors throughout history and current events from several angles. Anyone who yearns to understand the what and why of misinformation and disinformation may want to put in the effort it takes to read it.

[Cuervo]

Global warming, global warming, global warming. Is it real or not there are people who have taken a stand that it on our doorstep, others who say it does not exist and others who say it does exist but it's not man made. Now the true believers say it's from all the pollutants that we have been pumping into the air. I don't fall into any one of these camps, but no matter if you believe in global warming or not what can't be denied is humans are polluting machines. We pump fumes into the air that if you were in a confined space would kill you, we have contaminated the soil to the point where it has entered our food system and in many areas in this country it is unsafe to drink the water. Stop arguing about global warming and wake up to the fact that humans are on a suicide mission with all the waste we are producing.

[Taltarzac725]

Milton and Helene are merely obvious indicators that hurricanes exist. PERIOD.

PS: The deadliest hurricane known was the "great hurricane of 1780" with 22,000 deaths. Nobody was driving a SUV back then.

And how many cars were on the roads in 1780?

[Bay Kid]

Maybe we should stop all the burning that goes on. Total pollution.

[Windguy]

In the (desperate) hope that the Chicken Little Crew can be enlightened and put the topic to bed permanently.

How useful do you find insulting people when you are trying to get them to see your side? It’s obvious that you are emotionally invested in this subject and are therefore not a reliable source of information.

[Windguy]

Most of us living here in TV have many decades behind us. Therefore, most of us remember all the warnings of ‘global warming, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, then the ‘global cooling, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, coincidentally cycling back and forth every 10 years when we didn’t all die. Yet here we are. Sea levels haven’t budged, and we are all still alive.
Seriously? There was actually some respected climate scientist who said we were all going to die in 10 years? I think I might have heard about it if it were true.

[Ash Marwah]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)

We have just witnessed two back to back hurricanes. The normal Tropical Windstorms are becoming hurricanes as they approach land and are fed by warm temperatures of the ocean. The result is they are becoming hurricanes. A third tropical storm is forming right now and we will find out this weekend if it is going to become another hurricane going over the warm ocean as a result of climate change.

[opinionist]

Al Gore gave us the "inconvenient truth" that half of Florida would be underwater by now. He correctly said the waters rose, but the tide went out again.

[SaucyJim]

We pump fumes into the air that if you were in a confined space would kill you

By this standard, water should be banned. When put into confined spaces (swimming pools, lakes, flash foods), it kills.

[terryf484]

Yet I have no doubt that the indoctrinated, gullible and true believers in global warming will not be convinced. I can almost hear them racing to their keyboards as I type :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:


Apples and Oranges - The study was concerned about a "surge or acceleration" of global warming not on global warming. Definite difference between the two.

"Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average temperature, while a "surge in global warming" indicates a sudden and significant acceleration in the rate of temperature increase, meaning a rapid jump beyond the typical warming trend, often signifying a more drastic and immediate climate change impact than the gradual warming alone; essentially, a "surge" implies a rapid spike in warming beyond the established rate of increase.

[Keithtama]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)
Heads will explode as the cultists cry foul.

[Cuervo]

By this standard, water should be banned. When put into confined spaces (swimming pools, lakes, flash foods), it kills.

Lakes are in most cases made by nature and if there are pollutants in them it's usually been polluted by man. When it comes to pools my daughter and it is becoming more common where people are using a salt solution instead of chlorine. Look you can make any type of argument, but to deny humans are not leaving a trail of waste behind them is just foolish.

[chuckpedrey]

God is in control ….. of EVERYTHING!!!

[Keithtama]

You do know he is a leading advocate of trans humanism and a first tier Globalist.

[chuckpedrey]

Who is he?

[CybrSage]

Who is he?

Yeah, and what is a man?

[HORNET]

Something that Al Gore started when campaigning for President ! Check it out, that’s a fact.

[golfing eagles]

And how many cars were on the roads in 1780?

None---that's the point

[dtennent]

The data in this paper shows
a) in about 1970, there was a significant increase in the slope of increase of temperature from the previous 100 years;
b) that there has not been an increase in that slope in the past 10-15 years (hence the term surge);
c) that surge (slope) increase would have to be on order of 75% in the past 15 years to be detectable.

This article does not refute the impact of humans on global warming.

[Wondering]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)
It's just one source opinion. Legitimate sources would disagree.

[Karmanng]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)


No there isnt any proof.............and how can you control clouds and sun? The weather club is having a topic that the media again has been fudging numbers on heat to make them be higher than reality.......

[golfing eagles]

It's just one source opinion. Legitimate sources would disagree.

By "legitimate" do you mean university and government climatologists whose very livelihood depends on promoting the current narrative?????

[ElDiabloJoe]

Global warming, global warming, global warming. Is it real or not there are people who have taken a stand that it on our doorstep, others who say it does not exist and others who say it does exist but it's not man made. Now the true believers say it's from all the pollutants that we have been pumping into the air. I don't fall into any one of these camps, but no matter if you believe in global warming or not what can't be denied is humans are polluting machines. We pump fumes into the air that if you were in a confined space would kill you, we have contaminated the soil to the point where it has entered our food system and in many areas in this country it is unsafe to drink the water. Stop arguing about global warming and wake up to the fact that humans are on a suicide mission with all the waste we are producing.

I believe it was Agent Smith that declared we are a virus, replicating ourselves until we exhaust all resources.

[blueash]

This one study decided to look at "surge" which it self defined as requiring a 55% increase in rate of global heating over a chosen time period. In other words a 50% surge in heating rate over the baseline already increased heating would be meaningless and produce a negative result.

These authors do not state there is not global warming. These authors do not state that warming is not accelerating suddenly. They only state that using a particular statistical definition of acceleration which they chose, that data does not show that acceleration.

They further acknowledge that the results for 2023 blow their data out the door and leave it as too short a time frame to be meaningful, which one year certainly is.

Lastly I will mention for all of you who regularly scream that anything that comes from a university professor is garbage because they have to toe the line on human caused climate change... How do you explain this paper which comes from university professors?? Apparently there is not some cabal of publishers and reviewers out to quash contrary thought.

[dfc3008]

"Figures lie and liars figure."

[Cuervo]

My issue has always been less with climate change and more to do with pollution. I also am a big believer if there is any doubt about something you get on the side of caution. If there is a question about something that could affect the health of life until you can prove something is totally safe you try to avoid it or change your habits. Let just look at some of our greatest hits: lead paint (brain damage in children), smoking (cancer), plastics (turning up today in humans), asbestos (fibers cutting the life of many) and let us not forget the medical community, thalidomide (which caused birth defects). The list goes on and on, we just ignore it until people start dropping dead and once, we solve the issue we forget it and find something else that will kill us. Look if there is any doubt about climate change, we should take whatever precautions we can until it is proven one way or another.

[GWilliams]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)

If you back before 1970 then you know that it is all a lie. The earth has seasons.

[cherylncliff]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)


The article does not say there is no global warming. It says there is no change in the RATE of warming! It does note a spike in 2023.

The article also does not address ocean warming which is very serious.

[graciegirl]

As a believer in science, which apparently makes me gullible, I wonder how you, IMO ridiculously, jumped, leapt, rocketed, to the conclusion that this paper in any way refutes that global warming is not real.

The author does not say it is not real. She does not say that global warming is not caused to a significant extent by humans and carbon dioxide. She does not say that the warming is not a threat to humanity. But somehow you, a physician, not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a climate scientist, think it supports your opinion that there is no human caused climate change.

That really deserves derision so here you go:
:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The difference between a doctor and God is;

To change the subject; it appears to not well educated me who by the way votes differently than you do, is that there has been great evidence presented to all of us that in fact that the atmosphere of this earth is getting warmer and causing a lot of problems.

I am not a person with a lot of letters after her name, but I am a pretty smart woman and the globe is warming.

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.

[ken.yotz]

Interesting that in the Results section it says "However, it is somewhat naive to conclude that no surge has occurred...: You did read that part, didn't you?

[Stu from NYC]

You realize that would include golf course conditions and how long we have to wait b4 they open. 😱

Wait? Who waits? I played on my private course with my usual foursome and got a hole in one twice.

[golfing eagles]

As a believer in science, which apparently makes me gullible, I wonder how you, IMO ridiculously, jumped, leapt, rocketed, to the conclusion that this paper in any way refutes that global warming is not real.

The author does not say it is not real. She does not say that global warming is not caused to a significant extent by humans and carbon dioxide. She does not say that the warming is not a threat to humanity. But somehow you, a physician, not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a climate scientist, think it supports your opinion that there is no human caused climate change.

That really deserves derision so here you go:
:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Then clearly return derision is indicated (and deserved):1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::

I DID NOT state the paper refutes global warming or that global warming does not exist. It does, since the planet has been warming for the last 20,000 years, only one part of 1 cycle of glaciation and interglacial thaws that has repeated itself over a dozen times in the last 4.5 million years of our CURRENT ICE AGE (look up the geologic definition of ice age). I agree with you about what the paper stated, simply that there is no recent surge in warming. Do I believe human activity contributes to the current warming cycle that would OCCUR ANYWAY WITHOUT HUMANS, yes, but to what extent is unknown, and most likely minimal considering the forces involve and the climate history of the last 4.5 million years. But regardless, here's the bad news: regardless of human activity, regardless of spending trillions to "combat" global warming, we will continue to warm for about another 25-35,000 years at which point ocean levels will be 200-400 feet higher and coastal cities are doomed---just as coastal cities built in India at the height of the last glacial maximum are now offshore and underwater.

Oh, I almost forgot, return derision:1rotfl::1rotfl:

Don't think you can divine what I thought about anything. What my post actually stated and implied is that there is a "cult" of global warming enthusiasts with no understanding of paleoclimatology who have fallen hook, line and sinker for the "imminent disaster" narrative, and nothing will dissuade them---Not ridiculous Gore predictions, not the concept of cyclical glaciation and warming, not even the fact that the planet is 10F cooler than 65 M years ago. They have no understanding of the immense power of the sun, Earth's orbit and variations in that orbit. They 100% believe that fossil fuels alone are responsible and can only point to 100 years of WEATHER out of the past 4.5 million years as their bell weather event. So I repeat:1rotfl::1rotf::1rotfl:

Clear enough?????

[Velvet]

In the (desperate) hope that the Chicken Little Crew can be enlightened and put the topic to bed permanently.

You can’t change the “religious” conviction of people with facts. They don’t care.

[hypart]

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.


Sure, there is. Humans can get their energy from Nuclear and renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. Also, planting more trees will help. It's not hard or complicated.

The problem is the oil and coal industries are fighting like hell to keep it from happening by spreading misinformation. And so much of that misinformation is spread in posts like these.

[Pugchief]

Milton and Helene are obvious indicators of global warming.

Indeed. A hurricane in FL during hurricane season can only mean global warming. :1rotfl:
I don't care for that emoji, but it seems to be the one of choice in this thread....

[Pugchief]

You do know he is a leading advocate of trans humanism and a first tier Globalist.

Almost no one knows who you are talking about because you did not quote. But you are correct about Harari. See my next post below.

[Pugchief]

Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari is a fascinating non fiction read that explores information networks and their connections throughout history. Explains a lot of our our good and not so good behaviors throughout history and current events from several angles. Anyone who yearns to understand the what and why of misinformation and disinformation may want to put in the effort it takes to read it.

I used to think YNH was a genius after taking some online anthropology classes from him maybe a decade ago. But he has since proved himself to be an elitist shill for the WEF, so I have lost all respect.

[blueash]

I emailed the study's lead author Dr. Claudie Beaulieu as follows: (email slightly edited)

Dear Professor Beaulieu

My interest and reason for emailing is simple. On our local community internet comment website your paper is now being cited as evidence that there is no human induced climate change, it is all just sun spots and the usual climate changes that occur over tens of thousands of years.

From the online discussion: ....

I would love a brief comment from you summarizing that such is not the conclusion to be drawn from you work and perhaps a sentence or two explaining to non-scientists how your work fits into the narrative that greenhouse gases are real (they even deny that) and that global warming is clearly being caused by increased greenhouse emissions.

Thank you "

and here is the reply :

"Dear ....,

Thank you for reaching out, and sorry to hear that our study is being misinterpreted on your community website. Clearly people using our study to deny climate change have not read it!

This UCSC news story (https://news.ucsc.edu/2024/10/global-warming-statistics.html) will provide you with the quotes you need I believe.

Best wishes,
Claudie"

For those who don't do links
Global warming is happening, but not statistically ‘surging,’ new study finds (https://news.ucsc.edu/2024/10/global-warming-statistics.html)

Key quotes from that news article from her university

For example, they identified that, for the year 2012, the rate of warming would have needed to increase by at least 55% before its trajectory could be statistically detectable in 2024—and therefore be called a “surge.” In another example, they show that a change in the warming rate of around 35% in 2010 would become statistically detectable by around 2035.

Although their findings show no statistical evidence that we are in the midst of a warming surge, Beaulieu emphasized that they aren’t refuting the reality of climate change.

“Earth is the warmest it has ever been since the start of the instrumental record because of human activities—and to be clear, our analysis demonstrates the ongoing warming,” Beaulieu said. “However, if there's an acceleration in global warming, we can't statistically detect it yet." 

“When coupled with other studies I've recently done, which include generally declining snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and changes in hurricane and tropical cyclone counts, the work shows that the Earth's climate is changing, and more often than not, the changes are bad for humans,” said co-author Robert Lund, professor and department chair of statistics at the UC Santa Cruz Baskin School of Engineering. my bold added

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The difference between a doctor and God is;

To change the subject; it appears to not well educated me who by the way votes differently than you do, is that there has been great evidence presented to all of us that in fact that the atmosphere of this earth is getting warmer and causing a lot of problems.

I am not a person with a lot of letters after her name, but I am a pretty smart woman and the globe is warming.

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

[graciegirl]

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

I believe that what you just said is pretty close to what I just said,

Only I said it....

Gentler.

[jimbomaybe]

You realize that would include golf course conditions and how long we have to wait b4 they open. 😱
And the ongoing dog poop crisis

[Taltarzac725]

And the ongoing dog poop crisis

Maybe we can get the white footed ants to eat the dog poop.

[jimbomaybe]

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.
Science is all about demonstratable empirical proof, from time to time other facts are determined that supplant that "proof" , I guess its neither here nor there but as I recall many years ago we were projected to be freezing, starving in the dark at this point and they had "proof"

[JMintzer]

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

Nothing you just said is a "fact"...

[davefin]

It's true. I challenge you to fact check your reaponse!

[mtdjed]

No, that's not the problem. The problem is multi-fold:
1) there are people who adamantly deny that it's happening at all.
2) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, but adamantly insist that there's nothing anyone can do about it.
3) there are people who acknowledge that it's happening, and then toss in the red herring that the problem is that no one can STOP it - as if that was the only possible option.

The fact is:

1. It's happening.
2. We are CONTRIBUTING to it, and not causing it. It'd happen whether we contributed or not, but we are, and that leads people to conclude that our contribution is the only thing we can address, which I am sure is true.
3. There are things we absolutely CAN do to slow it down. However, the attempt needs global participation and we can't even agree within our own country that it's something that needs to happen at all, let alone how. There's no way the entire planet will agree that it's a problem, we've contributed to it, and we can slow it down, and then take those steps to slow it down.

ALL of those things must happen. a) we have to ALL see that it's a problem. b) we have to ALL acknowledge that we contributed to it. c) we have to ALL agree that we can slow it down. d) we have to DO those things to slow it down.

If all 4 things don't happen on a global scale, then the entire argument is moot. Pray for the descendants of your great-great grandchildren. They'll be inheriting a damaged planet that can no longer recover, but could've been livable for another 10-100 generations if we had taken steps NOW to slow down the damage.

I agree with much of what you say. Global warming is happening. It has been since the last Ice age. So, without technology and hordes of people the word decided to warm. The glaciers that were comfortable over a good portion of the current US just decided to retreat and start to warm the planet, raise the ocean level.

That actually enhanced the opportunity of Humanoids to expand and develop our civilization.

But this all happened before the human influence. So now we start to blame humans for global warming. I agree that creating large metropolises can create heat sinks, burning down rain forests can cause a loss of cooling, chemical processes and fossil fuels can create possible impacts to the atmosphere that enhance global heating, but that is a consequence of the initial start of global warming.

Yes, we should do our due diligence to minimize our impact, but as you said it is happening.

But, let us not be stupid and initiate programs based upon hope rather than fact.

Expecting that the earth is still the master, we need to do smart things. Example, with the earth having rising oceans for more than 10,000 years, why should we expect change.

Is there any plan that we could establish that will definitely change the trend?

Climate trends can be caused by natural order. We need to continually adapt.

[Rocksnap]

If anyone still believes in global warming, I have a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[LoisR]

Nonsense. Just ask the Easter Bunny and Santa. Anyone can publish anything they want. What scientific group or university reviewed it and approved it for publication? Duh.

[CybrSage]

The big issue for many is that no one can say how much of the increase in temps is caused by humans. 1% or 99%?
How can we say something is increasing the temps if we do not know what the temp would be without the increase?
Not even a rough range is ever stated in any study.
The only amount I have ever actually read was something like "any possible increase by himanity is within the margin of error of the calculations".

[Ptmcbriz]

Here is the problem. For some reason there is a segment of our population that believe no matter what, humankind has zero
Impact on the earth with the billions of pounds of pollution we create. So apparently they think it’s fine to pollute, pollute, pollute. Common sense would tell you that you can’t continue to pollute your backyard and it continues to be pristine and beautiful. So, whether you believe in climate change or not, get on board to helping clean up the earth instead of continuing your dirty deeds that somehow will have zero impact on humanity. That’s what all this is about. Improving ourselves and leaving things better for our descendants.

[Margefrog]

Just published! Wow. Isn't that just amazing. Someone call the League of Nations.

[biker1]

While you cannot run a controlled experiment on the planet, we do know to a high probability that the anthropogenic increase in the global mean surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. Many people don’t understand the concept of time scales. If you don’t know what an FFT is then it may be hard to understand. The natural climatic variations are probably driven primarily from the 3 Milankovitch cycles, which have time scales of about 20K, 40K, and 100K years. Also, volcanic eruptions have played a part due to the release of CO2 and aerosols. The concern is not, and has never been, natural variations on those time scales. The concern is the rapid increase in observed temperatures over a timescale of 100-200 years and where we will be at the end of the century. We could be at 2-3C warmer by the end of the century. That is actually a lot. Presumably, we will have bent the CO2 emissions curve down by the end of the century, although the impacts will continue for some period of time. We know that increasing CO2 levels impacts the longwave radiative transfer budget and results in stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming. These have both been observed. There are also some positive feedbacks such as warming the atmosphere through increased CO2 levels will increase the moisture content and that can further warm the atmosphere through additional impacts on the longwave radiation budget. Also, as the atmosphere warms the planet’s albedo can drop which impacts the shortwave radiation budget and can lead to further warming. There can also be some negative feedbacks; it’s a complex system. There is a substantial amount of literature available that goes into as many details as you would want. Unless you were trained as a scientist, you may have trouble understanding the material. AR6 is a good place to start. You can also start reading the JoC. The major “doom and gloom” fallacy I hear is that the world is going to end. The other fallacy is that anthropogenic warming is a hoax. The world is not going to end but there will need to be remediation efforts in coastal regions (due to both increasing sea levels and subsidence of the coastal plains). Some geopolitical issues will also probably arise as the warming, and the impacts, vary regionally. So, what can we do? Well, it turns out, not much. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons and that ship is hard to turn. I suspect we can make some progress by mid century but that means CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. In the US, we have little ability to impact anything. While the anthropogenic warming has geographical variations, CO2 itself is well mixed in the atmosphere, both horizontally and vertically. CO2 released in the US doesn’t stay in the US; it mixes globally. We only contribute about 15% of the world’s CO2. It really doesn’t matter what we do. US autos only contribute 3% of the world’s CO2. China and India are the long poles in the tent. If you have ever looked into the details of the Paris Accords you will be surprised at what is in there (and not in a good way).


The big issue for many is that no one can say how much of the increase in temps is caused by humans. 1% or 99%?
How can we say something is increasing the temps if we do not know what the temp would be without the increase?
Not even a rough range is ever stated in any study.
The only amount I have ever actually read was something like "any possible increase by himanity is within the margin of error of the calculations".

[Fastskiguy]

Apples and Oranges - The study was concerned about a "surge or acceleration" of global warming not on global warming. Definite difference between the two.

"Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average temperature, while a "surge in global warming" indicates a sudden and significant acceleration in the rate of temperature increase, meaning a rapid jump beyond the typical warming trend, often signifying a more drastic and immediate climate change impact than the gradual warming alone; essentially, a "surge" implies a rapid spike in warming beyond the established rate of increase.

This ^^

Every chart in the article shows warming, they are just saying that they can't prove it is warming at an increasing rate....yet.

I'd say read the paper, it clearly doesn't say what you think it says.

Or read this

Evidence for global warming (https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm)

The science is that the planet is warming. You can debate why but warming is a fact.

Joe

[DonnaNi4os]

Perhaps it’s a combination of a natural global warming of the world that has been expedited by human consumption. Either way, there is no denying that we had an extremely hot summer in Florida. (Signed: captain obvious)

[LarryL]

Here is a link you should check: What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause? | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause)

[Normal]

This research link is just like the major news that violent crime rose more than 4% in 2024 as reported by the FBI, but the stats were released quietly 2 days ago. One thing seems certain, climate data will fit the agenda of the publisher.

[LarryL]

Here is a link that should be helpful. What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause? | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause)

[jimjamuser]

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01711-1)
I just read that article and noticed there was a graph that showed a rapid increase in temperature after 1990. I have seen other graphs like that when I Goggle - earth temperature changes over time. It seems to me that the whole Earth temperatures have increased rapidly in the last 5 years. That can be confirmed by looking at the oceans rapid rise in the last 5 years also. The rise is greater than linear - it is exponential. I would be only guessing, but I believe that the CO2 and methane in the upper atmosphere has increased rapidly (related to world population increases) in recent years and is refracting greater heat energy back to the Earth. And remember the polar regions have seen 4 times the heat as we have in the US. The future is likely to have continued warming and that included the ocean waters round Florida. The heated water could likely produce even stronger hurricanes than we have experienced (so far) this summer.

[jimjamuser]

Yet I have no doubt that the indoctrinated, gullible and true believers in global warming will not be convinced. I can almost hear them racing to their keyboards as I type :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
The race to the keyboards is........ON. To my dedicated keyboard Global Warming fellow soldiers - do NOT fire your TRUTH arrows until you see the whites of their LIES----------tee, hee--------get it Lies - white lies - not eyes. Oh, my funny bone is tingling with joy !!!

[jimjamuser]

Not leading with my bias, simply leading with a synopsis for those too lazy, disinterested, or unable to "follow the science."
Global warming IS settled Science at this point. The Tonga, Tonga, Tonga theory had no merit. Neither does the Earth wobble theory. Nor does the going back to the pre-historic time theory. Neither does the pre-historic discussion of amount of CO2 in the atmosphere mean anything compare to today's man made recent CO2 and methane increases. To fix a problem this IMPORTANT - first US and world governments must admit that it is mankind's biggest future problem. The United Nations is way more aware of this problem than the US. We are spinning our wheels hoping for esoteric solutions to misinformed bogey man theories like Tonga, Tonga, Tonga.

[jimjamuser]

No one is concerned about global warming anymore, that's been pretty much debunked as nonsense.

It's all about "climate change".

That way, the believers are still on point, if we get global warming, global freezing or ... it stays the same, they can still claim "climate change", because it's supposed to either cool or warm!

They have all the bases covered.
Calling a REAL problem a FAKE problem leads to no (ZERO) solutions. They are building seawalls in Broward County. and Miami Beach keeps flooding. Look up conditions about the tundra in Alaska and Russia where problems are 4 times as great as we have it in the lower latitudes.

[jimjamuser]

^ Concur. Seems at least 1-2x/week there's a poster or two that resurrects the subject like Lazarus.

If there is any topic I would love to see Perma-banned from the site, it's ALL things global warming / climate change / other related myths and hysterias.
Advocating banning subjects is a step toward banning books and banning knowledge. That makes for devolution and a sad, sad world.

[jimjamuser]

Yes, global warming is real, it has scientific evidence going back billions of years. It's a cycle, about every 26,000 years. Yes, we are still coming off the last Ice Age. "Global Warming" is NOT caused by the human occupation of the Earth. It's a cycle folks and we are just along for the ride. Just deal with it!
Why then do 95% of all Scientists say that MAN-MADE Global Warming is REAL. The problem is that too many average people want everything to stay the same (it never does) so they PRETEND that Scientists (somehow) are just excitable dummies.
.......Many years ago Al Gore was eviscerated for presenting facts and trends on Global Warming. His warnings have come TRUE. But, the OIL industry had millions of dollars of advertisements that could fight and twist Gores facts. Today many people in the US still are under the SPELL woven by the BIG OIL and BIG automobile manufacturers to confuse the masses in the US. Today there are 8 billion people on Earth producing vast quantities of CO2 and Methane that are polluting the Earth and the negative effects (like hurricanes and tornadoes) will continue and increase.

[jminnis]

Richard Allan, Professor of Climate Science, University of Reading and National Centre for Earth Observations, said: (https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-on-the-rate-of-increase-of-global-warming/)

“In fact, when all lines of evidence are scrutinized it is apparent that climate change is accelerating rather continuing steadily. Halting global warming by stabilizing Earth’s climate and limiting further damage from worsening extreme weather and rising sea levels is only possible through rapid and massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.”

[jimjamuser]

Most of us living here in TV have many decades behind us. Therefore, most of us remember all the warnings of ‘global warming, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, then the ‘global cooling, we will all die within 10 years if we don’t fix this’, coincidentally cycling back and forth every 10 years when we didn’t all die. Yet here we are. Sea levels haven’t budged, and we are all still alive.
Sea levels have risen. Just Google "sea level rise recently". World sea level ROSE 4 INCHES from 1993 to 2023. On a graph the rise is greater than linear, it is exponential.

[jimjamuser]

The study compares the rate of warming from 1970-2012 and compares it to the rate of warming from 2013 to the present. It's conclusion is that the warming rate has not increased in recent years.

Just because there isn't an increase in the rate of warming doesn't mean that global temperatures aren't warming. There just isn't enough data to say it's a surge.


Per study:
"In short, a 40% increase in the 2013–2040 warming rate relative to the 1970–2012 rate will be needed to declare a significant warming surge by 2040."

So, basically, the warming trend is steady.

If you have a tumor and it's steadily growing at 10% per year..... Yay?

You still have a problem.
Every graph from Scientists that I have looked at shows a rapid increase in temperatures in the last 5 years. Read about Alaskan tundra and Russian. Temperature increases there are 4 times that of our latitudes.

[jimjamuser]

Seriously? There was actually some respected climate scientist who said we were all going to die in 10 years? I think I might have heard about it if it were true.
I agree that I doubt the "10 years and all dead " thing was ever stated by Scientists. Scientists tend to disagree about the severity of the Global warming problem - particularly about whether it is REVERSIBLE or NOT. Some believe that we have passed that point or are getting close to that point.

[jimjamuser]

The difference between a doctor and God is;

To change the subject; it appears to not well educated me who by the way votes differently than you do, is that there has been great evidence presented to all of us that in fact that the atmosphere of this earth is getting warmer and causing a lot of problems.

I am not a person with a lot of letters after her name, but I am a pretty smart woman and the globe is warming.

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.
A famous centuries ago philosopher said that "Wars and Pestilence keep the human population under control". If we had a nuclear war the world population would drop to say around 4 billion and not counting radiation sickness and other unforeseen problems - then we could stop worrying about global warming. The point is the World now has 8 billion people and what happens if that population keeps going up?

[jimjamuser]

While you cannot run a controlled experiment on the planet, we do know to a high probability that the anthropogenic increase in the global mean surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. Many people don’t understand the concept of time scales. If you don’t know what an FFT is then it may be hard to understand. The natural climatic variations are probably driven primarily from the 3 Milankovitch cycles, which have time scales of about 20K, 40K, and 100K years. Also, volcanic eruptions have played a part due to the release of CO2 and aerosols. The concern is not, and has never been, natural variations on those time scales. The concern is the rapid increase in observed temperatures over a timescale of 100-200 years and where we will be at the end of the century. We could be at 2-3C warmer by the end of the century. That is actually a lot. Presumably, we will have bent the CO2 emissions curve down by the end of the century, although the impacts will continue for some period of time. We know that increasing CO2 levels impacts the longwave radiative transfer budget and results in stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming. These have both been observed. There are also some positive feedbacks such as warming the atmosphere through increased CO2 levels will increase the moisture content and that can further warm the atmosphere through additional impacts on the longwave radiation budget. Also, as the atmosphere warms the planet’s albedo can drop which impacts the shortwave radiation budget and can lead to further warming. There can also be some negative feedbacks; it’s a complex system. There is a substantial amount of literature available that goes into as many details as you would want. Unless you were trained as a scientist, you may have trouble understanding the material. AR6 is a good place to start. You can also start reading the JoC. The major “doom and gloom” fallacy I hear is that the world is going to end. The other fallacy is that anthropogenic warming is a hoax. The world is not going to end but there will need to be remediation efforts in coastal regions (due to both increasing sea levels and subsidence of the coastal plains). Some geopolitical issues will also probably arise as the warming, and the impacts, vary regionally. So, what can we do? Well, it turns out, not much. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons and that ship is hard to turn. I suspect we can make some progress by mid century but that means CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. In the US, we have little ability to impact anything. While the anthropogenic warming has geographical variations, CO2 itself is well mixed in the atmosphere, both horizontally and vertically. CO2 released in the US doesn’t stay in the US; it mixes globally. We only contribute about 15% of the world’s CO2. It really doesn’t matter what we do. US autos only contribute 3% of the world’s CO2. China and India are the long poles in the tent. If you have ever looked into the details of the Paris Accords you will be surprised at what is in there (and not in a good way).
I agree with most of this post, with one small exception. note : the US releases more than twice the heat-trapping gases than that of all 28 EU counties. The recent graph of the US is dropping while both China and India are increasing CO2 and other gases. About CO2 - I agree that it " is well mixed in the atmosphere". The one exception is that it is important to note that OVER TIME the US has released MORE heat-trapping gas than China and India together. Therefore the US is responsible for the ACCUMULATED CO2 in the upper atmosphere and therefore bears a large responsibility for FIXING the problem. So, the US should be a global leader in dropping our CO2 and methane output by controlling the concrete industries and automobile exhaust CO2 emissions

[jimjamuser]

This ^^

Every chart in the article shows warming, they are just saying that they can't prove it is warming at an increasing rate....yet.

I'd say read the paper, it clearly doesn't say what you think it says.

Or read this

Evidence for global warming (https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm)

The science is that the planet is warming. You can debate why but warming is a fact.

Joe
That is a good article to read.

[jimjamuser]

Here is a link you should check: What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause? | NOAA Climate.gov (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause)
A great article that everyone here should read. None better !!!!!!

[biker1]

I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. You are hardly an expert in any field associated with the topic. As I already stated, the US releases about 15% of the total CO2 each year. What we do doesn’t matter. US autos account for about 3% of the CO2 released each year. What we do doesn’t matter. There is no fixing the problem. Carbon removal is a long way, if ever, from becoming practical. With time, CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 generation may very well continue to increase until the middle of the century, if not beyond. As I have repeated explained to you, CO2 does not accumulate in the upper atmosphere. It is well mixed below 12kms. I fail to understand why you keep saying something that is not true. You should also stop claiming that CO2 reflects or refracts heat. It doesn’t. CO2 absorbs and reemmits long wave radiation. Clearly, you are not a scientist. You should avoid making statements that have been proven incorrect by those who investigate such things.


I agree with most of this post, with one small exception. note : the US releases more than twice the heat-trapping gases than that of all 28 EU counties. The recent graph of the US is dropping while both China and India are increasing CO2 and other gases. About CO2 - I agree that it " is well mixed in the atmosphere". The one exception is that it is important to note that OVER TIME the US has released MORE heat-trapping gas than China and India together. Therefore the US is responsible for the ACCUMULATED CO2 in the upper atmosphere and therefore bears a large responsibility for FIXING the problem. So, the US should be a global leader in dropping our CO2 and methane output by controlling the concrete industries and automobile exhaust CO2 emissions

[Stu from NYC]

I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. You are hardly an expert in any field associated the topic. As I already stated, the US releases about 15% of the total CO2 each year. What we do doesn’t matter. US autos account for about 3% of the CO2 released each year. What we do doesn’t matter. There is no fixing the problem. Carbon removal is a long way, if ever, from becoming practical. With time, CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 generation may very well continue to increase until the middle of the century, if not beyond. As I have repeated explained to you, CO2 does not accumulate in the upper atmosphere. It is well mixed below 12kms. I fail to understand why you keep saying something that is not true. Clearly, you are not a scientist. You should avoid making statements that have been proven incorrect by those who investigate such things.

I will consider taking him seriously when he starts driving an EV.

Also when he seems to understand what he is saying and how wrong he is.

[biker1]

The thing I object to is the constant “we are all going to die” mantra. Also, he doesn’t understand the fundamental physics and keeps making incorrect statements. The fact that we are warming from CO2, he does get that. He doesn’t seem to understand just how much CO2 is released each year and that it will take a long time to turn the ship. Statements such as “you should buy an electric golf cart to save the world” reflects a total lack of understanding of the numbers involved. In the upcoming decades, it will be painful for some parts of the world and the best we can probably do is work on remediation efforts. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons; that won’t change overnight and we should stop assuming that it can.


I will consider taking him seriously when he starts driving an EV.

Also when he seems to understand what he is saying and how wrong he is.

[jimjamuser]

I don’t care whether you agree with me or not. You are hardly an expert in any field associated with the topic. As I already stated, the US releases about 15% of the total CO2 each year. What we do doesn’t matter. US autos account for about 3% of the CO2 released each year. What we do doesn’t matter. There is no fixing the problem. Carbon removal is a long way, if ever, from becoming practical. With time, CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 generation may very well continue to increase until the middle of the century, if not beyond. As I have repeated explained to you, CO2 does not accumulate in the upper atmosphere. It is well mixed below 12kms. I fail to understand why you keep saying something that is not true. You should also stop claiming that CO2 reflects or refracts heat. It doesn’t. CO2 absorbs and reemmits long wave radiation. Clearly, you are not a scientist. You should avoid making statements that have been proven incorrect by those who investigate such things.
I don't see any distinction between reflect, refract, and re-emits long wave radiation. I thought it was IMPORTANT to state that OVER TIME the US has emitted more heat trapping gas than China and India combined.

[biker1]

The fact that you don’t understand reflection, refraction, absorption, and reemmision doesn’t change the fact that they are not the same. The US has bent the curve down while India and China are increasing their rate of emission.

I don't see any distinction between reflect, refract, and re-emits long wave radiation. I thought it was IMPORTANT to state that OVER TIME the US has emitted more heat trapping gas than China and India combined.

[jimjamuser]

The thing I object to is the constant “we are all going to die” mantra. Also, he doesn’t understand the fundamental physics and keeps making incorrect statements. The fact that we are warming from CO2, he does get that. He doesn’t seem to understand just how much CO2 is released each year and that it will take a long time to turn the ship. Statements such as “you should buy an electric golf cart to save the world” reflects a total lack of understanding of the numbers involved. In the upcoming decades, it will be painful for some parts of the world and the best we can probably do is work on remediation efforts. 80% of the world’s energy comes from hydrocarbons; that won’t change overnight and we should stop assuming that it can.
I agree that it will take a long time to turn the ship around, maybe never. I have written that before. I still believe that any person that is in the market for a new automobile should consider and then BUY an E-vehicle. I agree that it probably won't matter, but it is like "baby steps". Doing something is better than doing nothing and Europe is buying more E-vehicles than the US is. Personally, I will be dead and the Earth will have increasing HEAT problems. And I doubt that it will get fixed without a lot of science and LUCK. Maybe in 100 years fusion reactors will supply endless power for all of humanity. And all wars are history.
.......The reason that I write about this subject is because such a large percentage of TOTV people are completely unaware of the Global Warming problem. And it is not just The Villages it is most of the whole US. The scientists have NOT been able to convince the average person about how important Global Warming really is.

[biker1]

Please tell us again which model of EV you drive. So, buying an EV will make a difference even though US autos contribute 3% of the world’s CO2? Even if every US auto was an EV, the CO2 emissions don’t go to zero because 60% of our electricity comes from hydrocarbons. And there is a significant CO2 burden to build the EV, just like virtually every consumer item. Buy an EV because it meets your needs not because of some delusional fantasy that you will single-handedly “save the planet”. I fail to understand why people have such a hard time dealing with and understanding basic facts.

I agree that it will take a long time to turn the ship around, maybe never. I have written that before. I still believe that any person that is in the market for a new automobile should consider and then BUY an E-vehicle. I agree that it probably won't matter, but it is like "baby steps". Doing something is better than doing nothing and Europe is buying more E-vehicles than the US is. Personally, I will be dead and the Earth will have increasing HEAT problems. And I doubt that it will get fixed without a lot of science and LUCK. Maybe in 100 years fusion reactors will supply endless power for all of humanity. And all wars are history.
.......The reason that I write about this subject is because such a large percentage of TOTV people are completely unaware of the Global Warming problem. And it is not just The Villages it is most of the whole US. The scientists have NOT been able to convince the average person about how important Global Warming really is.

[jimjamuser]

The fact that you don’t understand reflection, refraction, absorption, and reemmision doesn’t change the fact that they are not the same. The US has bent the curve down while India and China are increasing their rate of emission.
Well then ,please explain why they are not the same and exactly how they are different and why those differences are important. I am sure that more people here than just myself are interested. This could be informative.

[jimjamuser]

Please tell us again which model of EV you drive. So, buying an EV will make a difference even though US autos contribute 3% of the world’s CO2? Even if every US auto was an EV, the CO2 emissions don’t go to zero because 60% of our electricity comes from hydrocarbons. And there is a significant CO2 burden to build the EV, just like virtually every consumer item. Buy an EV because it meets your needs not because of some delusional fantasy that you will single-handedly “save the planet”. I fail to understand why people have such a hard time dealing with and understanding basic facts.
There are many other reasons to buy an E-vehicle besides saving the planet. I believe that by 2050 over 50% of all US new cars will be ELECTRIC. The electric motor starts off spinning in a circle. The IC engine has reciprocating pistons and must use a crankshaft and flywheel to convert to circular motion - which loses efficiency due to friction. The battery of an E-vehicle makes the vehicle center of gravity lower , which has several advantages. An e-motor starts at high torque instantly, so better acceleration. Braking is better and some energy of braking can be used to charge the battery. The owner can charge up at their own home and NEVER need a charging station as long as they drive locally only. They can do some amount of solar charging. There are lots of advantages to owning an E-vehicle. The earth will run out of OIL before the sun burn out, that's a long term advantage to be sure.

[biker1]

It’s not my job to teach you things you failed to learn in school. Since you obviously don’t know what they mean, I would suggest you stop using them.

Well then ,please explain why they are not the same and exactly how they are different and why those differences are important. I am sure that more people here than just myself are interested. This could be informative.

[biker1]

Tell us again which EV you drive.


There are many other reasons to buy an E-vehicle besides saving the planet. I believe that by 2050 over 50% of all US new cars will be ELECTRIC. The electric motor starts off spinning in a circle. The IC engine has reciprocating pistons and must use a crankshaft and flywheel to convert to circular motion - which loses efficiency due to friction. The battery of an E-vehicle makes the vehicle center of gravity lower , which has several advantages. An e-motor starts at high torque instantly, so better acceleration. Braking is better and some energy of braking can be used to charge the battery. The owner can charge up at their own home and NEVER need a charging station as long as they drive locally only. They can do some amount of solar charging. There are lots of advantages to owning an E-vehicle. The earth will run out of OIL before the sun burn out, that's a long term advantage to be sure.

[blueash]

..The US has bent the curve down while India and China are increasing their rate of emission.

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production: (https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn-XgydmWiQMVrJ9aBR1qwy4pEAAYASAAEgJCaPD_BwE)

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.

[Hoosierb4]

This is an interesting discussion on an important topic. I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but have done some work relating to global warming in a former life, not as an academic or bureaucrat, but working in a technical capacity for private industry. I believe that what the scientists have predicted and measured is real...emissions from human activity have contributed to the warming that has been documented. There is no doubt that other naturally occurring factors also play a role. But, what we do does matter. Whether I drive an EV or not won’t move the needle. But, as a society we need to move in new directions. With today’s electric generation facilities still using a lot of coal and oil, there may be little or no benefit to driving an EV. But, when most of the generating capacity comes from solar, wind and nuclear and most vehicles are electrically powered, then significant reductions will occur.

I think that the largest impact on emissions must come from moving toward these “clean” sources of energy at the power plants because otherwise there will still be a lot of emissions due to the energy used to heat and cool our homes, power computers, and do a thousand other things. Fortunately, some of the new technology is already cost competitive with fossil fuel technology, so it is starting to happen. I hope that we can make it happen fast enough so that our great grandchildren will be able to live in a decent environment.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production: (https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn-XgydmWiQMVrJ9aBR1qwy4pEAAYASAAEgJCaPD_BwE)

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.

I hate hate hate LED lights. My god how I loathe them with every fiber of my being. The light is far too direct and pointed, blinding even if it's aimed downward. They switched from fluorescent to LED back home on the light poles and the light shone in a VERY narrow column straight down. So you'd be driving at the 40mph speed limit and think you were riding through strobe lights. Light dark light dark light dark light dark - very abrupt, very distinctive.

With the older lights, the light was more diffused, the beam was broader and the edges more subtle from one light pole to the next. It was more - light, less light, light, less light.

My flashlight is a bunch of LED bulbs too and I hate it. I want a more subtle wide-angle light, not a sharp brilliant blinding beam.

Fluorescent lights are okay but the color is weird, and they flicker when they get old and take awhile to illuminate when the temperature is cold (such as in a garage in the winter).

Incandescent lights were perfect. I miss them.

[biker1]

Electric power generation from coal is down to about 20% for the US and oil use is very small.


This is an interesting discussion on an important topic. I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but have done some work relating to global warming in a former life, not as an academic or bureaucrat, but working in a technical capacity for private industry. I believe that what the scientists have predicted and measured is real...emissions from human activity have contributed to the warming that has been documented. There is no doubt that other naturally occurring factors also play a role. But, what we do does matter. Whether I drive an EV or not won’t move the needle. But, as a society we need to move in new directions. With today’s electric generation facilities still using a lot of coal and oil, there may be little or no benefit to driving an EV. But, when most of the generating capacity comes from solar, wind and nuclear and most vehicles are electrically powered, then significant reductions will occur.

I think that the largest impact on emissions must come from moving toward these “clean” sources of energy at the power plants because otherwise there will still be a lot of emissions due to the energy used to heat and cool our homes, power computers, and do a thousand other things. Fortunately, some of the new technology is already cost competitive with fossil fuel technology, so it is starting to happen. I hope that we can make it happen fast enough so that our great grandchildren will be able to live in a decent environment.

[jimjamuser]

This is an interesting discussion on an important topic. I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but have done some work relating to global warming in a former life, not as an academic or bureaucrat, but working in a technical capacity for private industry. I believe that what the scientists have predicted and measured is real...emissions from human activity have contributed to the warming that has been documented. There is no doubt that other naturally occurring factors also play a role. But, what we do does matter. Whether I drive an EV or not won’t move the needle. But, as a society we need to move in new directions. With today’s electric generation facilities still using a lot of coal and oil, there may be little or no benefit to driving an EV. But, when most of the generating capacity comes from solar, wind and nuclear and most vehicles are electrically powered, then significant reductions will occur.

I think that the largest impact on emissions must come from moving toward these “clean” sources of energy at the power plants because otherwise there will still be a lot of emissions due to the energy used to heat and cool our homes, power computers, and do a thousand other things. Fortunately, some of the new technology is already cost competitive with fossil fuel technology, so it is starting to happen. I hope that we can make it happen fast enough so that our great grandchildren will be able to live in a decent environment.
Great post. To which, I would like to add one detail. Concrete plants give off a lot of pollution. And since the US is the greatest producer of the problem gases like CO2 and methane PER person. The logical thing is for the US to try to keep its population as low as possible. This would be considered by the average American to be un-American. In America back from the time of the westward expansion, it was considered WONDERFUL for the US population to keep GROWING. To speak otherwise was / is considered BLASPHEMY. What I am saying is - new times need NEW solutions and philosophy.

[fdpaq0580]

Great post. To which, I would like to add one detail. Concrete plants give off a lot of pollution. And since the US is the greatest producer of the problem gases like CO2 and methane PER person. The logical thing is for the US to try to keep its population as low as possible. This would be considered by the average American to be un-American. In America back from the time of the westward expansion, it was considered WONDERFUL for the US population to keep GROWING. To speak otherwise was / is considered BLASPHEMY. What I am saying is - new times need NEW solutions and philosophy.

My hero! Whether you like it or not. 😃😉

[jimjamuser]

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production: (https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn-XgydmWiQMVrJ9aBR1qwy4pEAAYASAAEgJCaPD_BwE)

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.
A brilliant post and I LEARNED a lot. I believe that it is an example of the value of a talk network like TOTV. I used the expression "baby steps" when I write about the value of doing something about the excess CO2 and Methane being produced in the US and worldwide. Since America is still the #1 thought leader in the world, what we do is a serious example to the world. We need to have the "high ground" in the 1st recognition of the problem of excess CO2 and methane production, which is allowing HEAT to be REFLECTED back to Earth. The polar regions with 4 times the heat are just one example that is easy for people to research and understand. The coral reef loss and other problems with ocean fish and mammals is another Global warming problem that is EASY to read about and understand. When PEOPLE cause problems with nature, then nature fights back. Hence stronger Hurricanes, which next summer likely will be stronger. The Villages have a lot of smart people residing here, but as an older population, they are intrinsically resistant to change, which becomes like a "dirty" word.

[Taltarzac725]

A brilliant post and I LEARNED a lot. I believe that it is an example of the value of a talk network like TOTV. I used the expression "baby steps" when I write about the value of doing something about the excess CO2 and Methane being produced in the US and worldwide. Since America is still the #1 thought leader in the world, what we do is a serious example to the world. We need to have the "high ground" in the 1st recognition of the problem of excess CO2 and methane production, which is allowing HEAT to be REFLECTED back to Earth. The polar regions with 4 times the heat are just one example that is easy for people to research and understand. The coral reef loss and other problems with ocean fish and mammals is another Global warming problem that is EASY to read about and understand. When PEOPLE cause problems with nature, then nature fights back. Hence stronger Hurricanes, which next summer likely will be stronger. The Villages have a lot of smart people residing here, but as an older population, they are intrinsically resistant to change, which becomes like a "dirty" word.

Nicely put .

[jimjamuser]

I hate hate hate LED lights. My god how I loathe them with every fiber of my being. The light is far too direct and pointed, blinding even if it's aimed downward. They switched from fluorescent to LED back home on the light poles and the light shone in a VERY narrow column straight down. So you'd be driving at the 40mph speed limit and think you were riding through strobe lights. Light dark light dark light dark light dark - very abrupt, very distinctive.

With the older lights, the light was more diffused, the beam was broader and the edges more subtle from one light pole to the next. It was more - light, less light, light, less light.

My flashlight is a bunch of LED bulbs too and I hate it. I want a more subtle wide-angle light, not a sharp brilliant blinding beam.

Fluorescent lights are okay but the color is weird, and they flicker when they get old and take awhile to illuminate when the temperature is cold (such as in a garage in the winter).

Incandescent lights were perfect. I miss them.
I am confused because LED lights were only about 1/4 of a percent of the excellent article where CO2 per person in the US was the dominant idea. However, I found the idea about the negatives of LEDs to be a legitimate concern. Personally, I like LEDs because they last longer and I have a kitchen fixture that is hard to access. I also like the white light LEDs better than the yellowish ones. I never had a problem with the white light LEDs. It would be interesting if we could make a survey of The Village to find out what % of Villagers dislike LEDs. Please be assured that I find that post to be all positive.

[fdpaq0580]

I am confused because LED lights were only about 1/4 of a percent of the excellent article where CO2 per person in the US was the dominant idea. However, I found the idea about the negatives of LEDs to be a legitimate concern. Personally, I like LEDs because they last longer and I have a kitchen fixture that is hard to access. I also like the white light LEDs better than the yellowish ones. I never had a problem with the white light LEDs. It would be interesting if we could make a survey of The Village to find out what % of Villagers dislike LEDs. Please be assured that I find that post to be all positive.

I like the brightness of LED's when I use them. Not so much when there aimed at me coming down the road. 🙂

[jimjamuser]

I like the brightness of LED's when I use them. Not so much when there aimed at me coming down the road. 🙂
LED headlight are difficult to deal with. I try to look at the white center line or the side of the road while the oncoming car passes. I think that there is some official government attempts at dealing with LED headlights, but I am not aware of the details.

[Byte1]

Sure, there is. Humans can get their energy from Nuclear and renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. Also, planting more trees will help. It's not hard or complicated.

The problem is the oil and coal industries are fighting like hell to keep it from happening by spreading misinformation. And so much of that misinformation is spread in posts like these.
You DO know that "nuclear" energy causes a great deal of heat, right? Just saying.
If one believes that man is causing climate change, ie. global warming, then the ONLY solution is to get rid of all mankind. Since it won't matter anymore, once mankind is gone, then the whole issue is a moot point.

[golfing eagles]

my hero! Whether you like it or not. 😃😉

not!!!!!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

LED headlight are difficult to deal with. I try to look at the white center line or the side of the road while the oncoming car passes. I think that there is some official government attempts at dealing with LED headlights, but I am not aware of the details.

Not fond of having LED headlights either. They aren't broad-beam. They're just bright narrow cones. Incandescent illumination is expansive. LED illumination is restrictive.

[Normal]

We need to have the "high ground" in the 1st recognition of the problem of excess CO2 and methane production, which is allowing HEAT to be REFLECTED back to Earth.

Why even focus on CO2? One large volcanoe eruption and all that of that CO2 problem is wiped out. I would agree that volcanoes do produce CO2 but, eruptions often produce volcanic ash and aerosol particles that reflect solar heat away from the earth for years to come.

Baby steps are wiped out boom, like that. Don’t get me wrong, we can do a better job keeping our place clean, but we won’t stop warming or cooling much. Let’s just make this place a better place to live instead.

Heck, I would be good with people just picking up their trash.

[fdpaq0580]

Heck, I would be good with people just picking up their trash.

That's a good first step. Now expand it to get companies to "pick up" all their trash, clean up all their polution. Clean up the production processes and the products themselves. Hey, it can happen.

[JRcorvette]

Yet I have no doubt that the indoctrinated, gullible and true believers in global warming will not be convinced. I can almost hear them racing to their keyboards as I type :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Oh I definitely agree with you on that! Here is the thing.. We can not control global changes is temperature or storm activity. Let’s concentrate on keeping the air we breath as clean as possible and stop all this Climate Change crap.

[fdpaq0580]

Oh I definitely agree with you on that! Here is the thing.. We can not control global changes is temperature or storm activity. Let’s concentrate on keeping the air we breath as clean as possible and stop all this Climate Change crap.

And I agree with you, except it ain't crap. We don't [control lthe weather, but we do influence it.

[golfing eagles]

And I agree with you, except it ain't crap. We don't [control lthe weather, but we do influence it.

Yes, but to what extent????

That is the $168 TRILLION question

[fdpaq0580]

Yes, but to what extent????

That is the $168 TRILLION question

To a greater extent than many want to believe. And every increase in the world population is another "straw" on the "camel's" already broken back.
And, last I heard on here, it was a mere $93 trillion. But, why quible, it's only money, right? 😄🤭😊

And, is it too soon to say "welcome home!"?

[biker1]

Nations make their own policies based on their own interests. The Paris Accords are essentially meaningless. While we have higher per capita CO2 emissions than China and India, that only means that we have a much higher standard of living and they will be catching up to us (i.e. their per capita emissions will increase while ours are flat or possibly decreasing). As nearly 3 billion Chinese and Indians continue to increase their standard of living, they will continue to be the long poles in the tent. The US can put whatever national policies in place that the current administration and Congress choose but as a nation we will continue to be largely irrelevant when it comes to global CO2 emissions. Choosing national policies that put us at a global disadvantage compared to other nations while we have a marginal impact on global CO2 emissions is questionable. The US has already done a good job of turning the curve down.

It really is not fair to look at CO2 per nation as some nations have a whole lot more people than the USA. A fair comparison would be how much CO2 does each person in that nation produce, or tonnes per capita production: (https://cotap.org/per-capita-carbon-co2-emissions-by-country/?gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn-XgydmWiQMVrJ9aBR1qwy4pEAAYASAAEgJCaPD_BwE)

China 6.18
India 1.64
USA 17.5

So each American produced triple that of one in China and 10x that in India. In fact we have the worst, highest, CO2 per person of any developed country

So whatever all those other countries are doing is making each nation more CO2 responsible than each of us.

China is still burning too much coal but has stopped issuing any new permits. It also has invested heavily in clean energy.. you know all those solar panels they make. Additionally a lot of Chinese manufacturing which produces CO2 is making stuff for us.

Which gets back to the assertion that because we "only" make 15% of the pollution what we do is unimportant. Every step in the right direction helps. Just like more fuel efficient cars, water efficient showers, LED lights instead of incandescent (remember all the screaming by some about how we needed to keep our old light bulbs), every act of kindness or charity. Every step helps so why would anyone fight it? But people do.

[biker1]

There is a high probability that the anthropogenic increase in the global mean surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. That is a large number over a short time scale. The current CO2 concentration is about 420 ppm and that may grow to 600 ppm by the end of the century. CO2 impacts the long wave radiation budget of the atmosphere and causes stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming. There can also be positive feedbacks to further the warming. There is a high probability that it will increase to 2-3C by the end of the century. Remember, while we are in an interglacial period, the time scale of concern is about 200 years and this is well below the time scale of the natural climate forcing from the Milankovitch cycles. Unfortunately, that will cause issues in coastal regions, along with subsidence of some coastal plains. Some geopolitical unrest is likely as some areas of the world are negatively impacted more than others. And, contrary to what some people are fond of suggesting, the world will not be ending as we will do what humans have always done; adapt. If you are looking for references, AR6 is a good place to start.

Oh I definitely agree with you on that! Here is the thing.. We can not control global changes is temperature or storm activity. Let’s concentrate on keeping the air we breath as clean as possible and stop all this Climate Change crap.

[Topspinmo]

Sure, there is. Humans can get their energy from Nuclear and renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. Also, planting more trees will help. It's not hard or complicated.

The problem is the oil and coal industries are fighting like hell to keep it from happening by spreading misinformation. And so much of that misinformation is spread in posts like these.


I agree this post has lot of misinformation :shrug:

[Topspinmo]

We humans could stop this problems tomorrow cause we are the problem. How? self eliminating—our habits. But, we are takers not givers. Greed over rules all good deeds.

[Byte1]

I love global warming! The reason I moved to Florida was because of the warm weather. Once the climate in the mountains up North warms up consistently, I'll move back to the mountains. Unfortunately, temperatures are not rising fast enough for me to enjoy before my expiration date. Since man can change the temps, how about you all try slowing the Earth's spin so I can enjoy more sunlight?