The China Flu.

Because of a Cold Front ... The Dec 15 Weather Club meeting is cancelled due to the threat of severe weather. However, the same talk (How The Oceans Influence Our Weather) will be given Dec 16 (Friday) at 4 PM at the Lake Miona Recreation Center for the Philosophy Club.

When looking at any set of data, it is important to take notice of inflection points. There are several studies now that indicate the inflection point occurred at the start of the industrial age. While we can argue whether this is an artifact due to other causes, we should consider the impact of different paths. For example, if you believe that climate change is not real, you can assign it a value of 1 (out of 10) However, that doesn't change the potential impact which would be very large. (10) . In a failure mode analysis, you would apply the resources to make sure that the negative impact doesn't happen. All the glib statements about Fred Flintstone's SUV will not help if the impact of climate change really occurs. Conversely, what happens if we take steps to minimize climate change? We will have spent resources on solar and wind power which will make us less dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, our cities will have fewer IC engines contributing to air pollution. To me, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions is a much less risky path for the coming generations.

Global warming
 

Here is a quick solution to your concerns.
In the 1960's Global Cooling was the new WORRY of the climate group, they were on most radio stations spreading FEAR that the ice cap was growing so fast it would flip the world off its axis.
Find out how they solved that state of "PANIC" and DIAL IT BACK THE 0.02 deg. You are concerned about..

The sun controls our climate -- except for short term affects of volcanoes. Also, we are in a CO2 famine, so the more greenhouse emissions we create the better.

I 5hought this forum is to be FREE OF POLITICS.
Why is this rant allowed?

First, politics is controlling agent behind the "man-made" climate change narrative, because the data says otherwise. Second, if this type of politics is being allowed, then we must ask -- is the Talk of The Villages platform being controlled by the global warming establishment.

Probably because he is expressing an opinion, and there is no mention of politics, unless somebody is inferring something that is not there

PS: I don't concur with that opinion, but I'll defend his right to express it

Nicely put.

Agreed. All science is, is the formulation of hypotheses based on assumedly-legitimate data, always with the possibility that the hypotheses will change as new data becomes available. Science is NOT dogma.

Science is not political, unless we make it so. And as soon as we make it so, we cheapen it.

Wrong on both counts.
First, scientific data is the "agent" that first brought the fact of human effect on climate change, NOT politics.

Second, politics IS likely an "agent" behind deniers narrative.

It is a mess in psychology and psychiatry but meteorology is rather settled. Even if they still have a lot of problems predicting where hurricanes will land.

If it's settled, then reliable forecasting will be forever limited to just a couple days. So sad.

All you have to do is listen to who claims the science is settled.

I think it’s a bunch of Hooie. When Al Gore made his hundreds of millions of dollars our present administration thought they would get some of our tax dollars too! 50 to 70 yrs. ago there were 130,000 glaziers & today there’s still
130,000 glaziers this is just a hundred yr. cycle. I say don’t fall for it. We would have to get the whole world to go along with us & you know that’ll never happen. But your article makes since. This is just a money grab BS!

We know glaciers are growing because we keep hearing about glacier calving. Advancing glaciers calve (like cows) ... retreating glaciers melt (like ice cream).

Report: Al Gore's net worth at $200 million - CBS News

Where Al Gore got his $200 million.

As usual too many over-generalizations. Fact check: No, the glaciers are not growing in Glacier National Park >> Yale Climate Connections

CBS is not known for accuracy ... All Fake News – All The Time | Real Climate Science

Too many variables to make accurate weather forecasts more than a few days out. It is physics and mathematics. They have gotten a lot better at upcoming weather over the next few days. They can go by patterns for predictions for future weather events.

How Reliable Are Weather Forecasts? | NOAA SciJinks – All About Weather

Sorry ... the provided reference only points to old reports! Note ... the USGS has stopped reporting on glacier status after 2015 ... USGS glacier inventory data | U.S. Geological Survey . Why did they stop? In 2017 the USGS removed signs saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Why did they take them down? What are they hiding? Funny how our tax dollars only work when glaciers are melting.

Invalid comparison. Or apples to oranges to use the cliche.

The point is ... it's far from settled -- especially climate change.

I sent GE a PM saying I'm done posting the truth about Climate Change. Well, since he and another misinformed individual seem to be hijacking this thread, I will repost what I already have posted and will continue to do this when I see them doing it again:

I see there are some posters here who continually trumpet the false narrative that Climate Change is a hoax like their buddy Donald Trump and other climate-change deniers. My and others have pointed them to those who are expert and organizations which specialize in the science of climate change and yet they continually look for exceptions that suggest they are right and those who have studied the environment and the science about how it functions are wrong.

They say those who claim Climate Change is happening have an agenda. Well, I'd like to know what their motive is?

If anyone has a motive to deny it, it's those who are causing it: the fossil fuel industry. Why? Because it's going to affect their bottomline and in essence end their obscene profits. Tell me, what motive does a scientist have in maintaining the narrative of Climate Change. Do they stand to make more money from it? Are they getting paid by corporate entities and foundations supported by the fossil fuel industry which does pay scientists to lie about climate change?

No, they have no motive. They aren't getting paid. They are simply telling the truth.

But no matter what we tell these deniers, they insist on ignoring it. Why? Because they refuse to accept the world is changing. But that is life; it is constantly changing and evolving. Just look at human society today. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but can you imagine same sex marriages 50 years ago?

Climate Change is happening, worldwide -- by the way, the anomaly sometimes mentioned about Greenland in the Middle Ages was region specific and not global.

Here's a few of the anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change denying rebuttals:

1. It's caused by changes in heat from the sun -- debunked, the sun is actually giving off less heat; in turn, they then say an Ice Age is approaching

2.There have been periods when the earth's atmosphere was hotter -- yes, but they occurred after some catastrophic event like the earth colliding with an asteroid, like the one that killed off the dinosaurs

3. CO2 does not create heat -- yes, but it seals it in the atmosphere, which is its Green House Effect (GHE)

4. The Antarctic icecap is growing -- yes, but that's a superficial effect of the warming that is increasing a thin layer of snow but the actual truth is that it's melting the eons old icebergs are decreasing.

5. Weather is variable and there always have been extreme weather events -- yes, but the extreme weather events have begun to show a pattern of increasing intensity because of the increased moisture caused by the warming, especially in the oceans. For instance, while the number of hurricanes has not increased, their intensity and the damage they cause has increased because of the increased moisture caused by the warming.

6. While the earth does undergo changes, never in geological history (except for catastrophic events like an asteroid hitting the earth) has the warming increased so fast as it has since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the pace of this warming has become even faster in recent years. Why do you think the following has been occurring:

A. Record breaking high temperatures in Siberia
B. The melting of the icebergs at the poles and the melting of the permafrost in Greenland and Siberia
C. Global outbreaks of wild forest fires
D. Global drying up of massive lakes
E. Rising sea levels, especially in the southern hemisphere
F. Displacement of wildlife and disruption of their living patterns, causing many extinctions
G. Because of these changes to the ecosystem, some believe it's causing greater susceptibility to pandemics.

Go to NASA, the NOAA websites. See what the scientists are saying. Watch the weather channel. Watch some videos online showing how the rising sea levels are causing poor people in the southern hemisphere to migrate, that show the melting icebergs and permafrost, that show the now navigable Arctic Ocean and decreasing habitat of the polar bears. There are plenty of videos showing this.

But how will the Climate Deniers respond to this? Just complain about rising gas prices, sit in their cars in parking lots with the motor running, not try to conserve or recycle. Hey, we're all going to die some day so why should we worry about the future of our planet or those who come after us. The problem is they don't care and they are offended that someone is trying to make them change. Whatever. I and others have tried to get them to listen, but they won't. That's human nature.

So why no global warming on Mars with all the CO2, where the CO2 concentration is more than 2,300 times greater than on Earth? Where's the runaway greenhouse affect? Why isn't Al Gore on this hot topic? OMG ... no wonder there's no sign of life on Mars.

Hahaha! Sorry I laughed, but that is just plain wrong and down right silly, imHo. 🙈🙈🙈

Good post about Climate Change.

Laughing won't stop advancing glaciers calve. Two well known examples are Hubbard and Petermann -- and many more can be found on the Internet -- or at the Weather Club.

Actually, those posts were done telling "the truth" after the first word. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

There are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles backing climate change. These are articles to which recognized experts are willing to lend their name in support of the conclusions presented in the articles. This is what serves as the basis in modern scientific thought.

To date, I do not believe there are ANY peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific publications supporting climate deniers. That leads to the result that climate deniers are mere charlatans espousing their own opinion not supported by experts in the scientific community.

Can any climate deniers (some of whom are found in the Villages so-called "science" clubs) cite any peer review article supporting their position in any reputable scientific publication?

Scientific data is what showed us the "inconvenient truth."

Politics is what showed us that it is inconvenient because it affects the bottom line of its constituents. Politics is notoriously dishonest. Everyone knows that because it does not fight for truth, but only self interest. Science only has one agenda to determine the facts, to learn what is true.

Sometimes politics can pollute science by making it political and spreading lies. But that's the subjective nature of politics not science whose nature is objectivity.

Again, what will climate change theorists clamor about if the newly announce fusion energy discovery is a home run?

Want to know what raises my eyebrows? Huge tracks of beautiful, farmable land gobbled up by rows and rows of wind turbines and solar panels. Who cares about climate change if we’re unable to produce enough food?

Apples to oranges. The comparison is invalid because these are two completely different examples with a plethora of different conditions. It's like comparing what happens to a fish underwater to what happens to a human who remains underwater without life support.

Every word I post is the truth to the best of my knowledge. Are you now insulting my intelligence?

Will you ever consider or respond to the points I and others have made about the errors of your posts instead of ignoring those points and acting as if we never made them?

Not at all, I actually think you are fairly intelligent. You just happen to be on the wrong side of this issue. Remember what I wrote in the PM-----my posts deny any significant impact on climate from human activity TO DATE. When it comes to predicting the future, you might be right, and then again might not be. We simply don't have enough data compiled for 50-100 years to predict the next 10,000 years. Those who lack intelligence are those that think Florida will be under 100 feet of water 5 years from now.

Denier?
 

No one (that you are claiming or are calling one) is denying climate change. It always has and always will occur. The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim humans are affecting the climate in a dangerous manner. This whole eco-fear program is a power and control grab by goverment.

What is funny is you discount the article without reading it.
You continue to accuse the USGS of no longer reporting when it is evident from your link that the USGS never provided yearly reporting at all. This has been brought to your attention twice before yet you disregard that and continue to misrepresent the facts.

I've pointed out before how similar this argument about climate change is to the argument about Covid vaccines. Just a small change to the wording of the quote above:

The "Denier" name is made up by and used by fear mongers to slander those that do not believe the government-supported 'studies' that claim the so-called "vaccines" are effective. This whole vaccine program is a power and control grab by goverment(sic).

Some on this thread believe both statements.

Some on this thread appear to wholeheartedly agree with the first but have spent endless paragraphs disputing the second.

I disagree with the second which causes me to sincerely question the first due to the essentially identical arguments.

Very good and well-worded thread starter. Kudos. I agree with 95% of everything stated there. I am definitely NOT a climate denier (see my other posts). However, I prefer to use the term Global Warming. As you say it was the original term. I like it, personally, because the words seem to have more "punch and pizzaz" than Climate Change, which seems a little "wimpy" and a cop-out to dumb down the immediacy of the problem. This is nothing more than a personal preference for me - I don't want to die on a hill debating the word choice. Climate Change is really fine with me and may better widen people's focus to include rivers and lakes drying up and species going extinct or losing population. For example, boats in the Mississippi which are a key part of the Us supply line were slowed due to low river conditions. The same situation has happened to the Rhine River which affects all of western Europe. The water is so low that a 2,500 metric ton freighter can ONLY carry 500 metric tons.

I prefer the term Global Warming because it shows the direct cause and effect between glaciers melting and rising ocean levels - between heating the earth and earthworm habitat moving steadily northward. The term GW better describes the increased absorption of CO2 into ocean water and bleaching and killing reef coral, which is a building block for fish species and the fishing industry. That is a good example of human fossil fuel combustion activity where humans are THEIR OWN worst enemy.