[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The FREQUENCY of hurricanes HAS decreased, but the INTENSITY HAS increased. Thus KILLER hurricanes and more people die. Look at it this way..........logically the Gulf of Mexico had RECORD water temperatures this year and hurricane IAN did RECORD damage to Florida and KILLED many people.

And what happens next year?????? I will go out on a limb (a very sturdy limb) and predict that the Gulf water temperature will be even warmer next summer than it was this year. So, what do we-all think that THAT will do with respect to hurricane magnitude? ........stay tuned Florida and other Gulf states!

Hurricane intensity is measured in one of two ways, not necessarily related.

Which way was used to form the conclusion in red above?

[Taltarzac725]

Hurricanes and Climate Change - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions

This is a good link even if I feel like I am ****ing in the wind-- so to speak-- arguing it on Talk of the Villages.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Hurricanes and Climate Change - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions

This is a good link even if I feel like I am ****ing in the wind-- so to speak-- arguing it on Talk of the Villages.

That link is a perfect example of misinformation. 1. Notice the hurricane graph in that C2ES article -- the data starts at 1950 when in reality we have hurricane data going back to the mid-1800s. They are hiding data showing high storm levels prior to 1950. 2. That graph only reflects the North Atlantic storms which is not a prime indicator of "global" storms. 3. All hurricane data before 1970 is incomplete, because many storms in the Eastern North Atlantic were not detectable until the global 24/7 use of geostationary (GOES) satellites in the 70s. In other words the C2ES graph shows apples & oranges. 4. Those 2 orange lines drawn across the C2ES graph are opinions -- and they have no scientific meaning. 5. Christiana Figueres is frequently honored and referenced in numerous C2ES events and publications. She was the United Nations' architect of the Paris Climate Agreement. She said this in 2016 about her work ... "Part of my commitment to the public good is through common goals that can only be best reached by working together – if that’s called communism so be it."

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

In that case, perhaps man should not build residential structures either since they will "alter the local wind pattern." Can anyone say "reaching?" Maybe someone is attempting to equate or confuse man caused climate change with simple POLLUTION. If you wish to discuss pollution, I could probably find many points where I agree with you. Still haven't proven man caused climate change. If you wish to suggest that man has changed his environment, I can agree with that.....through pollution.

Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Agree - pollution and climate and separate issues -- and CO2 is not a pollutant -- it's trace gas necessary for all life on earth.

If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Kerry Emanuel is, and has been, a well regarded researcher for over 40 years. He is pretty much the smartest guy in the room. I recall meeting him once at a conference and read his papers in graduate school and afterwards. Roy Spencer and John Christy are also researchers that are worth listening to. The fact that anthropogenic CO2 increases have caused some recent warming is not debated by anyone (who actually understands the science). The estimates are from 0.8 to 1.3C and are a perturbation on the longer term warming due to the fact that we have been in an interglacial period for about 12,000 years. We may continue to warm for the next 100,000 years (or so??) and sea levels, which have risen about 6 inches in the last 100 years or so, will continue to rise. The rate of sea level rise, however, appears to be accelerating. The concern is that anthropogenic CO2 increases will create several degrees of additional warming, over and above the warming from being in an interglacial period, over the next 100 years or so. The debate is whether we will be faced with a dire situation due to anthropogenic CO2 increases. Part of the problem is that the press and politicians have zoomed in on the 8.5 modeling scenario (the most dire modeling projection). I, and others such as Spencer and Christy, have doubts whether the 8.5 scenarios is the scenario that we should be focused on. That is a political issue. Spencer and Christy also point out that the models tend to run warm, particularly in the tropical troposphere. Back when I actually did productive work, I developed models for NASA and the NWS. It is a difficult problem. Model sensitivity to CO2 increases continues to be an area of research.

Thanks, great post !

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

And there lies the debate. Since the models tend to run warm, focusing on the most dire scenario may be overkill. Regardless, it may not really matter since our ability to do anything if the dire projections are accurate, other than remediate coast regions and migrate people, is questionable. We really can't substantially reduce CO2 emissions anytime soon.

Wars and famine reduce population, which would naturally reduce CO2 production.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

That would be carbon MONOXIDE (CO), not carbon dioxide (CO2). Your premise does not hold water (H2O)😂😂😂

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I assume you are calling CO2 a "pollutant"? I would be careful about that characterization. Also, CO2 is actually pretty well mixed (+/- a few PPM out of about 400 PPM) below about 14 kms. I'm not sure where you get this "blanket in the upper atmosphere" terminology.

True, I am assuming that CO2 is a pollutant since no one would want to breathe in 100 % CO2. And I am trying to have a SIMPLE analogy of a blanket to explain the facts that I see such as measurable increased earth HEAT. Measurable ocean level increase. Predictions of heat increase for the next 30 years Coral reefs dying. And hurricanes increasing in magnitude (not frequency). I pretend to be NOTHING MORE than a layman. So, I talk in layman's terms. But, I do read enough and watch TV enough to refer others to Scientist that DO know more than layman do.

I do know that CO2 is increasing to a point of producing acid in the oceans and bleaching and KILLING the coral reefs ( a source of great natural beauty). Dying coral means that the oceans produce less food for mankind. The CO2 cycle has been disrupted due to man's use of IC engines and coal.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Wars and famine reduce population, which would naturally reduce CO2 production.

But what do nuclear weapons do? How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet

[tuccillo]

There is the thing called CO, carbon monoxide ...

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

Sorry -- false association, which is commonly used by the global warming establishment to garner support for a political movement. Highway littering is pollution -- CO2 is primarily plant food and secondarily produces Itsy-Bitsy-Teenie-Weenie warming which is logarithmically diminishing with increasing CO2. Plus CO2's heating ability is essentially saturated. Here is the best scientific explanation of CO2 warming today ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

If most scientists claim man-made warming is harming the climate, then they should be able to say how much of current warming is "man-made" and not from Little Ice Age thawing. That data does not exist -- their theory is invalid -- just scare-mongering -- and effective enough to get folks for pay more taxes for no verifiable reason. Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and many other thrillers, said, "Social control is best managed through fear."

That is intuitively obvious about social control and FEAR. Just have to look to China to see that. As to the Scientists doing FEAR MONGERING........WELL.......I guess that I have been MONGERED. Sorry !

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂

You mean it's NOT cow farts???