[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

Not really. Breathing 100% anything (which, by definition, contains 0% oxygen) is going to kill you. Our air is 70% nitrogen. It is an inert gas but at least one state has an execution protocol for 100% nitrogen to be used in capital punishment cases. It's not the nitrogen that kills, but the lack of oxygen.

That doesn't mean nitrogen is a "pollutant".

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Please show source data for that 2 degree claim.

The NOAA. I have made at least 2 prior posts about that.

[tuccillo]

Breathing 100% oxygen is also not without issues. CO2 absorption by the oceans is not turning the oceans to an acid. The pH is dropping so the alkalinity is being reduced, which can be referred to as moving the oceans towards acidity. However, the oceans will not become an acid (a pH less than 7). Trying to draw an analogy of CO2 being a "blanket" is just as bad as calling CO2 a "greenhouse" gas. The physics of a "blanket" and the physics of a "greenhouse" are different than the physics of how CO2 impacts the atmosphere (approximately 1C from anthropogenic sources). We are, however, probably forever stuck with the term "greenhouse" gas.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And who supports these "reputable scientists"???? Do they get grant money from the government????? How much grant money would they get if they stated man is NOT causing global warming???? Are they tenured professors??? Would they have got tenure by claiming all global warming is just a continuation of climate cycles than have been going on for 4 million years????? Would they get TV time from the MSM if they did not support anthropogenic climate change????? Would they even get published?????

Let me remind you of the movie "Contact" starring Jodi Foster. She was a brilliant radio astronomer who was left out in the cold because her field of interest was extraterrestrial contact, a topic that was "tantamount to professional suicide". There aren't too many climatologists willing to fall on their sword to tell the truth.

Much of what you say is good and interesting. Each of us individually must integrate all the facts and opinions that we have heard and create an individual consensus for ourselves. I choose to believe that in the western world that the majority of scientists are true to themselves and are writing factual material. And the PEER REVIEW system should help keep them honest. Now, in Russia and China scientists may feel hamstrung about telling the truth.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

You seem to be exaggerating a bit when you INTERPRET my comment. Is this anything like "taking artistic license?"

Maybe a little. What's a little exaggeration between friends?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Where do you see that? I did not see anywhere in there where man caused climate change. Please give me the words so I can see it YOUR way.
You are putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I called scientists liars. Al Gore is just a drunkin idiot so I discount him totally. I do not call scientists liars. I call those that interpret what scientists say totally different than what they actually say, purveyors of scare tactics. Besides, anyone that does research and experimentation can call themselves scientists so you can take that as you wish.
The quote that I supplied said that the Earth has been going through weather cycles and cold and warm trends for millions of years. It gave reasons for cold and warm periods. But, it did NOT say mankind caused any of it. But, some how you read it differently so I am interested in how you came to your conclusion.

Actually it IS there and I gave everyone its location in one of my earliest posts. Please just refer back to that post. I guarantee that it is in there. And I believe that that other scientist that we were talking about stated it also.

Actually, it is fairly common knowledge that man caused Global Warming. The U.N. recently stated that same thing.
All the rapid warming occurred after the Industrial Revolution and has increased recently about proportional to the rate of increase of the world's population.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Where do you see that? I did not see anywhere in there where man caused climate change. Please give me the words so I can see it YOUR way.
You are putting words in my mouth when you suggest that I called scientists liars. Al Gore is just a drunkin idiot so I discount him totally. I do not call scientists liars. I call those that interpret what scientists say totally different than what they actually say, purveyors of scare tactics. Besides, anyone that does research and experimentation can call themselves scientists so you can take that as you wish.
The quote that I supplied said that the Earth has been going through weather cycles and cold and warm trends for millions of years. It gave reasons for cold and warm periods. But, it did NOT say mankind caused any of it. But, some how you read it differently so I am interested in how you came to your conclusion.

OK the quote that you supplied WAS from the correct article that I referred people to by the expert NOAA scientist. In that same article, he DID say that MAN caused the WARMING. I SWEAR that it IS in that article. I believe it is near the end and after a LARGE print heading. And you can just refer to one of my earliest posts.

AND ALSO......What is gained by calling Al Gore a "drunkard" at this point in history? Even IF that WERE true, we would all likely be messed up if we just missed being P.resident. Drunkard or NOT, Al Gore was the 1st FAMOUS non-scientist to WARN the world about Global Warming. He was early to the game (which is now universally recognized like recently by the UN).....so he was maligned by the non-believers. The flat earth people laughed at Christopher Columbus who sailed WEST to get to the EAST.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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

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

Damage to the world in terms of deaths and infrastructure destruction. That is INCREASING.

[jimjamuser]

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.

And the TRUTH shall set us ALL free !

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂

Oh yes, again we can agree. And the older golf carts really SMELL bad!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

I believe that BOTH gases exist in IC engine exhaust. But, I will have to look that one up. Also, H2O does come out of the exhaust especially until the engine warms up.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The NOAA. I have made at least 2 prior posts about that.

Please provide a link to the data. Thanks.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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

I read all of that. It is very informative. I liked the part where the coral reefs would be affected. I have talked about that in many posts......how CO2 increasing in the seawater produces an acid that kills the corals. Apparently, the coral reef ecosystem is VERY FRAGILE.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Not really. Breathing 100% anything (which, by definition, contains 0% oxygen) is going to kill you. Our air is 70% nitrogen. It is an inert gas but at least one state has an execution protocol for 100% nitrogen to be used in capital punishment cases. It's not the nitrogen that kills, but the lack of oxygen.

That doesn't mean nitrogen is a "pollutant".

Fair point. I think of CO2 as a pollutant in that it is OUT OF BALANCE with the earth in relatively recent years. Its EXCESS gets into the seawater and causes a weak acid which KILLS (as in POLLUTES) the water and kills the coral reef. Maybe CO2 in its pre-1880 concentration was NOT a POLLUTANT, but today in its EXCESS state, it IS a POLLUTANT.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Damage to the world in terms of deaths and infrastructure destruction. That is INCREASING.

Actually hurricane intensity is measured by either by the drop in barometric pressure or wind speed. Damage (either in terms of lives lost or infrastructure destroyed) isn't an accurate measurement of a hurricane's intensity for several reasons; 60% of major Atlantic hurricanes never even make landfall in the United States (NASA dot gov); many of them just blow themselves out over water. And a major hurricane blowing itself out over water or making landfall over a relatively deserted area will not result in much destruction.

Nor are the number of lives lost a true indication of a hurricane's intensity. When most people think of lives lost in a hurricane the word that pops into (I'm assuming) most peoples' minds would be "Katrina", and it was indeed deadly, but the majority of the 1,800 lives lost were lost because of flooding resulting from fatal engineering flaws in the flood protection system. Katrina made landfall on the gulf coast not as a category 5 megastorm, as most people think, but as a category 3.

If we're measuring hurricane deaths, then the most deadly Atlantic hurricane on record was over 240 years ago; Huracán San Calixto, AKA the Great Hurricane of 1780, which killed over 22,000 in the lesser Antilles chain. Actually the toll was probably much larger; the Antilles' main crop was sugar cane which meant that a lot of slaves were killed as well. This is just a guess on my part but I don't think those slaves were counted as "people" at the time.

Much of what we know about hurricanes, and how they are spotted and tracked, is the result of satellite technology and that is only about 60 years old. Records before that cannot be said to be anywhere near as complete as today, and of course counting back the years before the advent of aviation to 1859 (when as I recall the first attempts were made at record-keeping) it is self-evident that the older the record, the less accurate it was likely to be.

Much of what we think we know about hurricanes seems to be based on speculation. Maybe, by 2122, the next hundred years of complete data will yield some reliable science regarding them, but at this point I don't think anyone can claim that hurricane science much more than educated guesses.