[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

Paleoclimatolgists look at what has occurred. Projections of anthropogenic warming are based on radiative transfer physics - big difference. Whether the earth warms or cools is a function of the difference between net incoming solar and net longwave loss to space. The physics are indisputable as increased in CO2 and other gasses changes the radiative balance - it impacts both solar and long wave, as do the Milankovitch Cycles. What is still an area of research is "how much"? There is still a considerable range in the estimates. Some of the estimates would be problematic if they verified. The "sky is falling" cry come from left leaning politicians and the press. The scientists working this area are simply reporting what the current state of the science is indicating. There are many international teams working on this. I fail to see the point in attempting to disparage scientists you don't know. Isn't this the same thing you accuse others of doing? Full disclosure - I am a retired atmospheric scientist and developed numerical atmospheric models.

In which case I know you are aware that the most important "greenhouse" gas is not CO2, but water vapor. Hence, after the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky plateaus about 60 million years ago which act as heat sinks by catching atmospheric moisture and creating rain, the planet is about 10 degrees cooler'

And yes, while paleoclimatologists study the past, we don't have any psychic climate experts to predict the future, so to a certain extent we look at the past to create future "models". And yes, these models do vary. I am not "disparaging" those scientists as much as I am concerned that the grant and political climate (pardon the pun) may bias them. Let's face it, when you know that if you conclude and then publicize your model that shows anthropogenic climate change is a myth, you are done receiving any federal grant money, there might be some bias.

If I am way off base on this, let me know, since you clearly have more expertise on this subject than I----as you know, I don't care for amateurs meddling in my field of expertise either.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Laker14

can you provide links to validate that claim about how the "best/most respected paleoclimatologists" feel? I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion?

I already did earlier in this thread---from ABC news, not exactly Breitbart

[bilcon]

Originally Posted by zendog3

This year we have experienced stronger storms, more frequent floods, droughts, forest fires, rising seas, melting glaciers, etc. Most people will agree that global warming, caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the air, is a primary driver of catastrophic weather events that will seriously impact the quality of life our children and grandchildren will inherit from us. The Villages is uniquely positioned to lead the nation in remediating the harmful effects of ongoing carbon dioxide pollution.

It would be a source of pride for all Villagers if the developer of The Villages, the preeminent builder in central Florida, and an enormously profitable business, would announce one of its forthcoming villages would be a “Solar Village.” Every house and public building in the solar village could be partially solar-powered.

As it has led in planned community development, The Villages can lead the nation in sustainable community development.

With all the recent Catastrophes in the world, "Do you really think it's a good time to take "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Hummmm!

[biker1]

What has gone on it the distant past isn't really the issue. The issue is "do anthropogenic increases of CO2 create a problem?". As I wrote in a previous post, if anthrogogenic increases in CO2 are a problem then the mechanism is that it produces some degree of warming which then positively feedbacks to create additional warming. Yes, water vapor is a more important than CO2 (and clouds are even more important) but CO2 caused warming can increase the amount of water vapor in the air. That is how it is theorized to work. This is what numerical models are showing. The models are not what you think. They solve the Navier-Stokes fluid equations on a rotating sphere while incorporating the physics of radiative transfer, water phase change, and turbulence, also while interacting with an ocean circulation model. The models are dynamical. The scientists working in this area are pretty clear about their results and the uncertainties in the models. The accuracy of the models can certainly be questioned but suggesting that scientists are essentially fudging the results is not reasonable. The real problem, that doesn't appear to get much attention, is that the various models used in the IPCC reports are not independent of each other and therefore all show the same trends. The reason they are not independent of each other is that the various models solve essentially the same equations. The models do have some "knobs to turn" and the developers do "turn those knobs" to understand how sensitive the models are. Do we have a problem? I am not sure anybody really knows. Also, if there is a problem, there isn't much anyone can do about it with the possible exception of starting to build CO2 sequestering machines at a very rapid rate.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

In which case I know you are aware that the most important "greenhouse" gas is not CO2, but water vapor. Hence, after the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky plateaus about 60 million years ago which act as heat sinks by catching atmospheric moisture and creating rain, the planet is about 10 degrees cooler'

And yes, while paleoclimatologists study the past, we don't have any psychic climate experts to predict the future, so to a certain extent we look at the past to create future "models". And yes, these models do vary. I am not "disparaging" those scientists as much as I am concerned that the grant and political climate (pardon the pun) may bias them. Let's face it, when you know that if you conclude and then publicize your model that shows anthropogenic climate change is a myth, you are done receiving any federal grant money, there might be some bias.

If I am way off base on this, let me know, since you clearly have more expertise on this subject than I----as you know, I don't care for amateurs meddling in my field of expertise either.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

What has gone on it the distant past isn't really the issue. The issue is "do anthropogenic increases of CO2 create a problem?". As I wrote in a previous post, if anthrogogenic increases in CO2 are a problem then the mechanism is that it produces some degree of warming which then positively feedbacks to create additional warming. Yes, water vapor is a more important than CO2 (and clouds are even more important) but CO2 caused warming can increase the amount of water vapor in the air. That is how it is theorized to work. This is what numerical models are showing. The models are not what you think. They solve the Navier-Stokes fluid equations on a rotating sphere while incorporating the physics of radiative transfer, water phase change, and turbulence, also while interacting with an ocean circulation model. The models are dynamical. The scientists working in this area are pretty clear about their results and the uncertainties in the models. The accuracy of the models can certainly be questioned but suggesting that scientists are essentially fudging the results is not reasonable. The real problem, that doesn't appear to get much attention, is that the various models used in the IPCC reports are not independent of each other and therefore all show the same trends. The reason they are not independent of each other is that the various models solve essentially the same equations. Do we have a problem? I am not sure anybody really knows. Also, there isn't much anyone can do about it with the possible exception of starting to build CO2 sequestering machines at a very rapid rate.

I think we pretty much agree on this issue. While I doubt any of these scientists are intentionally "fudging" their results, I still think it is possible for the economic and political bias to filter in to some extent. But even if there is no bias at all, which scientists get published and which ones appear on MSNBC may very well be cherry picked by the "powers that be"

[biker1]

The problem is that statements such as "anthropogenic warming is a scam" is no more valid then saying "COVID-19 is a scam". And there are plenty of people saying both of these and neither is true. I really doubt the worst case scenarios of anthropogenic warming will come to pass, and not because we try to reduce CO2 emissions (which we can't to any meaningful degree anytime soon). If they do, man can and will adapt. Despite what AOC says, the world will not end. Sometimes I feel the media portrayal of both is misguided. I enjoyed the discussion.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I think we pretty much agree on this issue. While I doubt any of these scientists are intentionally "fudging" their results, I still think it is possible for the economic and political bias to filter in to some extent. But even if there is no bias at all, which scientists get published and which ones appear on MSNBC may very well be cherry picked by the "powers that be"

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

The problem is that statements such as "anthropogenic warming is a scam" is no more valid then saying "COVID-19 is a scam". And there are plenty of people saying both of these and neither is true. I really doubt the worst case scenarios of anthropogenic warming will come to pass, and not because we try to reduce CO2 emissions (which we can't to any meaningful degree anytime soon). If they do, man can and will adapt. Despite what AOC says, the world will not end. Sometimes I feel the media portrayal of both is misguided. I enjoyed the discussion.

Well, at least empirically, one would have to believe that dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere would contribute to global warming. Probably does to some extent, but as you stated, we just don't know.

However, with COVID, it's not hard to see the body count, mourn for missing family and friends, and realize that it is not a "scam". I don't think anthropogenic warming is a "scam" either, it's just that the media and government are shoving it down our throats so aggressively that it begs the question of what their real agenda is

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I already did earlier in this thread---from ABC news, not exactly Breitbart

Yes, I mentioned a few pages ago that I can't find your post with that link. I just read through the entire thread again, and still can't find the link. I remember seeing it once, but not opening it.
Would you mind posting the link again?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Florida encourages affordable energy for ratepayers. One of the primary reasons Connecticut and many other states energy rates are significantly higher is because regulators mandate utilities include solar and other cost inefficient sources be included in their portfolio of energy sources. Forcing utilities to by back unused energy (net metering) from small solar producers increases their costs, which are passed on to ratepayers.

Not necessarily true. You -can- go "off-grid" and not be hooked up to the utility company at all. There are people who've gone that route. They generate their own electricity, don't pay anything to anyone, don't get anything back from anyone. There are even a few self-sustaining communities that have gone this route scattered around the country.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Yes, I mentioned a few pages ago that I can't find your post with that link. I just read through the entire thread again, and still can't find the link. I remember seeing it once, but not opening it.
Would you mind posting the link again?

I think I found it:

What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured another one? - ABC News

[Win1894]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Not necessarily true. You -can- go "off-grid" and not be hooked up to the utility company at all. There are people who've gone that route. They generate their own electricity, don't pay anything to anyone, don't get anything back from anyone. There are even a few self-sustaining communities that have gone this route scattered around the country.

OrangeBlossomBaby - This comment of yours could be interpreted as somewhat misleading. Here’s why. Below is a summary of the ‘self-sustaining communities’ you allude to that are not connected to the grid. I couldn’t stop laughing while reading through the community summaries. Does The Villages allow outhouses or homes made out of straw bales and mud??

Drum roll please:
Three Rivers (Oregon) - Population - 80, powered by solar panels, wind turbines, and backup generators, water is periodically hauled in. It contains mostly vacation homes.

Greater World Earthship Community (New Mexico) - the world's largest off-grid, legal subdivision, 634 acres contains passive solar houses made of natural materials like adobe, recycled tires, and cans, each with1.8 kilowatts of solar power, solar-powered water collector and self-contained sewage treatment system. Propane powers the stoves. Note: NM is one of the sunniest locations in the US.

Breitenbbush (Oregon) - 85 residents - set on 154 acres doubles as a worker-owned cooperative that runs the Breitenbush Hot Springs Retreat. Geothermal waters help to heat the complex of 100 buildings. The community has a hydropower plant to supply electricity.

Earthaven (NC)- 75 people on 320 acres. 12 "neighborhoods," each containing two to eight homesites. Everything is powered by solar panels and hydropower. Residents catch water off roofs for use in irrigation.

The list goes on.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Laker14

can you provide links to validate that claim about how the "best/most respected paleoclimatologists" feel? I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I already did earlier in this thread---from ABC news, not exactly Breitbart

Originally Posted by Laker14

Yes, I mentioned a few pages ago that I can't find your post with that link. I just read through the entire thread again, and still can't find the link. I remember seeing it once, but not opening it.
Would you mind posting the link again?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I think I found it:

What causes an ice age and what would happen if the Earth endured another one? - ABC News

Well, I just read that article. The "ABC" in that link, BTW, stands for Australian Broadcast Company, I think. The article seems to have been written by a 13 year old, or maybe FOR 13 year olds. Nowhere in the article does it make any claim whatsoever that climate change is not caused by humans.

Nowhere in the article does it make any mention of "the best/most respected paleoclimatologists", in fact it quotes 1 (one) paleoclimatoligist from the University of Tasmania, who states "There's no chance of us going into an ice age now because the greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere during the industrial era have warmed the earth." ()
I could be wrong but it seems to me the article you link to refutes, rather than supports your claims that climate change is not caused by, and has not been caused by human activity.

[markusmom]

When I was in the 3rd grade our "Weekly Reader" article said we were heading for an Ice Age again and said the earth was getting colder and the line of "the freeze" was moving down into Canada and at the rate it was moving it would reach the United States in about 200 years. Pure science.

Study the theory of the polar flip where the center of the North pole is moving off course which is causing severe weather for the entire world. When the center moves far enough the north pole and south pole will flip and cause ocean and land masses to change. This has happened before. Ever wonder why the land masses on earth look like a broken puzzle? Promoting climate change has been a pretty sweet money maker for a lot of scientists and committees.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by markusmom

When I was in the 3rd grade our "Weekly Reader" article said we were heading for an Ice Age again and said the earth was getting colder and the line of "the freeze" was moving down into Canada and at the rate it was moving it would reach the United States in about 200 years. Pure science.

Study the theory of the polar flip where the center of the North pole is moving off course which is causing severe weather for the entire world. When the center moves far enough the north pole and south pole will flip and cause ocean and land masses to change. This has happened before. Ever wonder why the land masses on earth look like a broken puzzle? Promoting climate change has been a pretty sweet money maker for a lot of scientists and committees.

What exactly do you mean when you say it will "cause ocean and land masses to change"? In what way will they change?