[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Would you say that to your grandchildren?

Learn to swim!

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I'm confused. Insurance companies don't pay for damage caused by flooding. The Government operates a national flood insurance program for that. So, how does rising ocean water affect insurance companies?

Insurance companies provide Mortgage reinsurance, catastrophic collapse. The insurance companies just won’t insure for future possible losses making properties uninsurable.

[Taltarzac725]

We will probably have to go to large domed cities in the Midwest and Colorado-Utah-Nevada area.

Water will still be a problem especially with the intense heat outside the dome.

And they have not worked out the physics yet for large domes. Otherwise Winnipeg would probably have one along with Minneapolis and St. Paul.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

Insurance companies provide Mortgage reinsurance, catastrophic collapse. The insurance companies just won’t insure for future possible losses making properties uninsurable.

Still confused. If your house is destroyed by a flood, the insurance company will pay nothing unless you have flood insurance, which is underwritten by the Federal Government.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The Villages will be the new Key West in 2100 and probably have 210, 000 people or more.

Hope I can park my boat next to my house.

[Michael 61]

Are these the same studies quoted by Al Gore?

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

I don't think anyone can honestly debate that the glaciers and ice caps are not melting and the sea level is getting higher (well there is ONE person who will). Say what you want..those pictures of the polar ice cap and Glacier National Park don't lie. Florida will be the hardest hit state from this. Geography doesn't lie either. Four days before hurricane Ian changed course and headed south the villages was staring down the barrel of a category four hurricane. The following question… Before we get to 2100 insurance companies WILL act. Will Florida be the first state you cannot get insurance in?

1 million Florida buildings will be overrun by sea-level rise by 2100, study shows

If you actually believe all that claptrap, WHY DID YOU MOVE TO FLORIDA?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Michael 61

Are these the same studies quoted by Al Gore?

No. His science was outdated by the time his book got to print would be my guess.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

If you actually believe all that claptrap, WHY DID YOU MOVE TO FLORIDA?

It will be a few generations before things really get bad. I do think people like Bill Gates, Elon Musk and many others are looking into how to address the problems.

[Lottoguy]

You'll be dead but your grandchilder will not.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

I don't think anyone can honestly debate that the glaciers and ice caps are not melting and the sea level is getting higher (well there is ONE person who will). Say what you want..those pictures of the polar ice cap and Glacier National Park don't lie. Florida will be the hardest hit state from this. Geography doesn't lie either. Four days before hurricane Ian changed course and headed south the villages was staring down the barrel of a category four hurricane. The following question… Before we get to 2100 insurance companies WILL act. Will Florida be the first state you cannot get insurance in?

1 million Florida buildings will be overrun by sea-level rise by 2100, study shows

(yawn)

[tuccillo]

A lot of people (probably most) get this wrong. Is the planet warming? Yes, because we are in an interglacial period and there has been anthropogenic warming, and we will continue to warm. Nobody, who actually understand the science, debates this. How much anthropogenic warming has there been? Best estimates are about 1C for the global average surface temperature anomaly. You can reference the IPCC AR6 report and subscribe to the AMS JoC. Probably a bit less for the lower tropospheric global temperature anomaly from Roy Spencer and John Christy's satellite-based dataset starting in 1979. How much additional anthropogenic warming will there be? Hard to say and this is an area of continued research. I'll repeat that: nobody really knows. The dire predictions appear to be based on the RCP 8.5 modeling scenario. I suspect that is a bit pessimistic (too high). Again, nobody knows. One of the lower RCP scenarios might be more appropriate. Hard to say, nobody knows. The thing that most people get wrong is the assumption that the Milankovitch cycles are the time scales of concern. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Milankovitch cycles have time scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The current concern is for the next 100 years. I'll repeat that: the concern is for the next 100 years. The real issue is how sensitive is the climate to modest amounts of CO2 induced warming. To be clear, CO2 induced warming, by itself, is not a concern. The real concern is the nonlinear response to the CO2 induced warming. If the climate is relatively insensitive to CO2 induced warming then there is really no dire concern. If the climate has a strong positive feedback to the CO2 induced warming then there is concern. This is an area of research as we really don't know. People can claim they know the answer, particularly people who post on this forum without any domain knowledge, but in reality we don't know.

The following websites are worth visiting, if you actually care about reality.

The first one is from Sabine Hossenfelder. If you aren't going to watch till the end then don't even bother firing it up.

The second link is from Roy Spencer. He works with observational data his perspective is worth listening too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8

GW 101 - Roy Spencer, PhD.

Full disclosure: Undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and retired research meteorologist at NASA and the National Weather Service.

Originally Posted by Tvflguy

…key words…. “Study shows”. I’m a skeptic. Who funded the study. Who took part. Is there a hidden incentive. Is the data substantiated.

I could go on but won’t.

The earth changes over the millennium. Of course we should all take better care of it. But we cannot bankrupt OUR country. Especially when so many other countries do nothing but make climate et al worse. No names but China… whoops.

The sky is NOT falling people.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I don't have specific answers to your questions, but I'll bet you a dollar that the U.S. taxpayers funded some, if not all, of the study. And, there is definitely an incentive for publishing a study that validates climate change. It ensures that they will get additional money for future studies. There is big money in climate change studies.

Have an idea. Since you are an engineer how about you do a study and we will publish it under my name and share the proceeds.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Have an idea. Since you are an engineer how about you do a study and we will publish it under my name and share the proceeds.

If you can get a Federal grant, I will study anything you want and produce any result you want.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

A lot of people (probably most) get this wrong. Is the planet warming? Yes, because we are in an interglacial period and there has been anthropogenic warming, and we will continue to warm. Nobody, who actually understand the science, debates this. How much anthropogenic warming has there been? Best estimates are about 1C for the global average surface temperature anomaly. You can reference the IPCC AR6 report and subscribe to the AMS JoC. Probably a bit less for the lower tropospheric global temperature anomaly from Roy Spencer and John Christy's satellite-based dataset starting in 1979. How much additional anthropogenic warming will there be? Hard to say and this is an area of continued research. I'll repeat that: nobody really knows. The dire predictions appear to be based on the RCP 8.5 modeling scenario. I suspect that is a bit pessimistic (too high). Again, nobody knows. One of the lower RCP scenarios might be more appropriate. Hard to say, nobody knows. The thing that most people get wrong is the assumption that the Milankovitch cycles are the time scales of concern. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Milankovitch cycles have time scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The current concern is for the next 100 years. I'll repeat that: the concern is for the next 100 years. The real issue is how sensitive is the climate to modest amounts of CO2 induced warming. It be clear, CO2 induced warming, by itself, is not a concern. The real concern is the nonlinear response to the CO2 induced warming. If the climate is relatively insensitive to CO2 induced warming then there is really no dire concern. If the climate has a strong positive feedback to the CO2 induced warming then there is concern. This is an area of research as we really don't know. People can claim they know the answer, particularly people who post on this forum with out any domain knowledge, but in reality we don't know.

The following websites are worth visiting, if you actually care about reality.

The first one is from Sabine Hossenfelder. If you aren't going to watch till the end then don't even bother firing it up.

The second link is from Roy Spencer. He works with observational data his perspective is worth listening too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8

GW 101 - Roy Spencer, PhD.

Full disclosure: Undergraduate and graduate degrees in meteorology and retired research meteorologist at NASA and the National Weather Service.

Thanks. Climate change feedback - Wikipedia Now know a lot more than I did before.