Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2153104)

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2153044)

I'm so disappointed. Never thought you would steal. Borrow, alright. But not steal. Tsk, tsk!
And I thought the post was waaay to long when the point, hidden in all that verbosity was, "I don't care".
Disappointing Post, if you ask me (which you won't because I am one of those "truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer"s).
😎

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager (Post 2152901)

You have anything to back this wild statement up? Reason I'm asking is I've been going to GNP for many years....close to 40 to be exact. I've hiked almost every inch of it......I've NEVER EVER seen any sign claiming there would not be any glaciers in the park come 2020. Surly someone in this weather club could produce ONE sign. I'll wait......:icon_bored:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2152958)

You didn't know that?:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

We built machines, that ran on coal and oil, and put out so called "greenhouse gases" for the last 150-200 years. So now, according to some, the world is going to end in our grandchildren's lifetime. And our influence, our "evil", will destroy the world by overriding millions and millions of years of climate cycles driven by the power of the sun, the Earth's orbit and variations in its axis. And all this is because you bought the latest SUV. Amazing, isn't it????

So let's all go back to living in caves in the dark and hunting our food with a bow and arrow. We will be "saving" the planet :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2153143)

Not that far off base, in the minds of some anyway.

I heard a speaker at a seminar some time back, a self-styled "futurist", who opined that this continent can "sustainably" support only eleven million hunter-gatherers. He quoted some data to give credence to his point.

I have little doubt that there are probably quite a few people who believe such rot, and even scarier--that there are some who are trying to bring such a scenario about.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2153135)

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

Originally Posted by Pairadocs (Post 2152938)

It's become a "disease", a "pandemic" actually; if it supports MY personal view, it's a FACT, if it supports a different view or opinion, then it's "dis-information" ! We don't even question the fallacy of using that method to determine "fact" any more. What will happen to the ACTUAL scientific method of investigation ? Will it not even be taught any more ? Everything seems to have gone emotionally based, all decisions, all facts, all arguments on all subjects from "effectiveness to masks" to the results of warming and cooling trends on earth, seem to be based on just "emotional feelings" ! ! I think we are in real trouble when we confuse science with emotions, and we vote, make purchases, choose our personal philosophy solely on FEELINGS ?

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153101)

That is not correct. This time please display the data "criteria" which is shown to the upper-left of the diagram. The criteria that was used to create the diagram you provided were selected to maximize a "warming" graph. Thank you for showing data, but knowing what data is being used can make a difference.

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153150)

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2153186)

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.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2153173)

Excellent points.

My opinion on just why this is the case corresponds with the rise and scope of the internet, and even more to the point, social media. Back in the day, if someone was doing research on any topic, it meant going to the local library, poring over books for hours on end, then crunching those numbers with (if you were lucky) a electrically-powered mechanical calculator. You then put your thoughts to paper, maybe several drafts on a manual typewriter (mine was an Underwood) before the finished result was ready for whatever it was being prepared for.

Today? Well, today a few mouse clicks can reveal "data" on just about any subject. Not a bad thing if used correctly, but unfortunately one can find "data" to "prove" any hypothesis they might have, no matter how off-the-wall it might be: settlements on the far side of the moon--the Holocaust never happened--the Earth is flat--there are data out there to support those three, plus a whole lot more. That is why this discussion as well as just about all discussions come down to dueling data: one side digs up some numbers to support a point while the other side digs up some more to support the opposite. And usually those duels involve people with little to no knowledge of the subject.

The complicating factor is that, more and more, it appears that all too many people aren't interested in INFORMATION at all, but in VALIDATION. They want to be right and will go through any length to "prove" that. When science becomes dogma--well, we are all in a lot of trouble. And unfortunately with social media, it is no problem to locate like=minded people who will validate your point of view.

As Mark Twain once stated, there are three kinds of untruths: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". And of the three, statistics are the worst, because they can be made to "prove" any lie or damned lie out there.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2153104)

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 2153222)

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 10 inches in the last 100 years or so, will continue to rise. 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. Spencer and Christy also point out that the models tend to run warm, particularly in the tropical troposphere. Model sensitivity to CO2 increases continues to be an area of research.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2153229)

Very good post, imho. As for focusing on the "most dire modeling", makes sense to me. Like finding out a hurricane is heading in your general direction, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, then whatever happens you will be alright. Although you might have some extra toilet paper and water. 😏😑

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153011)

You did not answer the question. How much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153239)

Actually, I DID answer that question in post # 60. I can repeat it. The NOAA scientist stated that the earth warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 until this year. So that's 142 years. So divide 2 degrees F by 142 and that equals 0.014 degrees warmed per year.

Also in that article, the NOAA scientist CLEARLY stated that this warming of the earth was DUE TO MAN'S activities (like the internal combustion engine) causing pollutants to act as a blanket in the upper atmosphere.

If someone thinks that these statements are incorrect, they need NOT argue with ME. They should write to the NOAA scientist that wrote the article. Or if they think that they know more than him.......they should ask to be a paid consultant to the NOAA. I am sure that they will let them work from home if they are retired!

The earth's warming that the NOAA scientists have measured is also CONFIRMED by the measurement of the ocean's water level rising over that same period (from 1880). Also CONFIRMED by the dying of coral reefs to the extent that the reefs will be 90% DEAD by 2090. And also confirmed by the increasingly large and strong killer hurricanes happening around the world. Also CONFIRMED by glaciers melting and disappearing worldwide. And here in Florida we are exceptionally susceptible to killer hurricanes like IAN. Which scientists expect to see continue for the next 30 years as the earth and oceans KEEP WARMING.

The Industrial Revolution brought many advantages to the 1st world. Now the WHOLE WORLD must PAY the PRICE for those CO2 pollutants produced by the Industrial Revolution. The earth's climate (or Global Warming) now REQUIRES mankind to find a way to decrease CO2 pollutants. Which some scientists think is too late because of passing a tipping point. Our sons and daughters will live to see that and will be paying the price.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153239)

Actually, I DID answer that question in post # 60. I can repeat it. The NOAA scientist stated that the earth warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1880 until this year. So that's 142 years. So divide 2 degrees F by 142 and that equals 0.014 degrees warmed per year.

Also in that article, the NOAA scientist CLEARLY stated that this warming of the earth was DUE TO MAN'S activities (like the internal combustion engine) causing pollutants to act as a blanket in the upper atmosphere.

If someone thinks that these statements are incorrect, they need NOT argue with ME. They should write to the NOAA scientist that wrote the article. Or if they think that they know more than him.......they should ask to be a paid consultant to the NOAA. I am sure that they will let them work from home if they are retired!

The earth's warming that the NOAA scientists have measured is also CONFIRMED by the measurement of the ocean's water level rising over that same period (from 1880). Also CONFIRMED by the dying of coral reefs to the extent that the reefs will be 90% DEAD by 2090. And also confirmed by the increasingly large and strong killer hurricanes happening around the world. Also CONFIRMED by glaciers melting and disappearing worldwide. And here in Florida we are exceptionally susceptible to killer hurricanes like IAN. Which scientists expect to see continue for the next 30 years as the earth and oceans KEEP WARMING.

The Industrial Revolution brought many advantages to the 1st world. Now the WHOLE WORLD must PAY the PRICE for those CO2 pollutants produced by the Industrial Revolution. The earth's climate (or Global Warming) now REQUIRES mankind to find a way to decrease CO2 pollutants. Which some scientists think is too late because of passing a tipping point. Our sons and daughters will live to see that and will be paying the price.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2153025)

Once again, I will give you information from the same website that you quote from:

Climate.gov--
"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials. They trigger several feedback loops that amplify the original warming or cooling. During an interglacial,
sea ice and snow retreat, reducing the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects;
warming increases atmospheric water vapor, which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
permafrost thaws and decomposes, releasing more methane and carbon dioxide; and
the ocean warms and releases dissolved carbon dioxide, which traps even more heat.

These feedbacks amplify the initial warming until the Earth’s orbit goes through a phase during which the amount of Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight is minimized. Then these feedbacks operate in reverse, reinforcing the cooling trend."

So, has mankind increased the cycle of climate change, slowed it or made any difference whatsoever? I'd say anyone that supposes that mankind has changed the climate cycles is pretty arrogant to think that man has that much power. Did man cause the ice age or just the tropics? This is getting boring because the fact is that mankind has very little ability to change what is going to happen in this climatic change....if any at all. To be honest with you, I do not know or even care if NOAA is right or not. I have no plans to go back to transportation by horse, the telegraph versus telephone or even radio instead of TV. Man has produced comforts that has made him live a great lifestyle and other than air quality (which as gotten better since I was a child) I don't care. If you are worried about those living in the next century or millennium, I am sure they will be announcing that the "sky is falling" also. Actually, maybe an asteroid will strike the earth by then, anyway. Or maybe the moon and send the moon crashing into the earth, or maybe the great filament in the sun will finally burn out and no one will be around to worry about whether we should use paper or plastic bags when we shop.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153248)

That was interesting. Basically, scientific evidence is QUOTED which explains how and why the earth is warming, and later on in the article, it explains that MAN's polluting activities have caused this warming.
......THEN later in the POST..........we get a LAYMAN'S reasons for NOT believing the scientists and their careful PROFESSIONAL measurements of the warming earth and the CONCLUSION that it is MAN CAUSED.

It seems to me that for many people it is easier to just say that the scientists are lying and Al Gore was a HOAX - than to deal in any way with ANY changes to their life. Some will grit their teeth and hold their breath and go to their graves saying, " I will never buy an electric car or ride an Ebike or trade in my old smelly, polluting golf cart, because I didn't give into any of those crazy, pinko-commies." Archie Bunker was funny because MANY like him exist even today!

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153026)

Not a game. Many claim "man-made" CO2 is causing climate problems. In today's society, one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. I'm just looking for data supporting that claim -- I did not make that claim. Those making the claim must show sources, notes, worksheets, etc. Our climate is in great shape and getting better. All government data reflects that -- and I accept that data which shows severe weather and extreme weather events are decreasing.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153251)

Just write a letter like that to the NOAA and try and change their minds. Tell them and show them how they are wrong about CO2 and other pollutants. Tell them how pollutants are REALLY good for the earth's climate. I am SURE that they will be interested.

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153028)

We have been warming ever since leaving the Little Ice Age -- at about the year 1800 -- and accordingly as the oceans warm also do they release CO2 ... and we are still thawing out from that Little Ice Age. So, how much of today's increasing CO2 is "man-made" versus thawing-made?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2153034)

Actually, wasn't "trying" anything (this time)
Just asking the time frame of the reported 2 degrees

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2153044)

i'm so disappointed. Never thought you would steal. Borrow, alright. But not steal. Tsk, tsk!
And i thought the post was waaay to long when the point, hidden in all that verbosity was, "i don't care".
Disappointing post, if you ask me (which you won't because i am one of those "truly indoctrinated anthropogenic climate change believer"s).
😎

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153046)

And just wait till the chilling 2022 data is compiled. It supports the fact that hurricanes have dramatically decreased the past 2 years -- and yet the UN's IPCC temperature forecasts keep claiming soaring forecasts. I wonder if the GNP glaciers validate those forecasts?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153261)

To answer the question, "how much of the increasing CO2 is man-made, and how much is thawing-made?"........I could NOT answer. But, somewhere there MIGHT (?) be a Climate Scientist that has made that calculation. What I can determine IS that most scientists are WARNING that we have Global Warming and the natural CO2 balance has been thrown off by MAN starting in the Industrial Revolution. The oceans can NO LONGER absorb the excess CO2. And a tipping point may have been reached. This is OBSERVABLE in the VANISHING GLACIERS and DYING coral reefs. Part of the threat to the CO2 cycle is exemplified by the Tundra in Russia that NO LONGER is covered with ice and is self-combusting, which is throwing stored-up CO2 into the atmosphere.

All that I am saying is that scientists are concerned/worried and that concerns me!

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153264)

OK cool ! We have that sorted out. Now we can work toward solving our differences concerning general Climate conclusions.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2153068)

another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : The last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals met office report quietly released... And here is the chart to prove it | daily mail online

take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material it is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk in recent years. The glaciers in greenland, alaska, and antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

Yes it is a fact that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153069)

BELIEFS and CONSENSUS have NO value in science. Beliefs drive religion -- Consensus drives politics -- and DATA drives science.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153268)

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!

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2153104)

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2153135)

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153283)

About midway through the article, this EXPERT states that warming seas and atmospheric conditions will cause increasing MAGNITUDE hurricanes. But here in the Village forum many of the LAYMAN will disagree with him..........just because they CAN. And ignorance is bliss.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153276)

That sounds cute, but does NOT even come CLOSE to being a solid, factual rebuttal of my post. I quoted Scientists, not merely some cute jingle!

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153287)

Just in these several page of posts we have shown 2 reputable Scientists that HAVE SAID that Global Warming is CAUSED by MAN. And I would add that the overpopulation supported by the Industrial Revolution has generated( mainly through the use of the internal combustion engine) the EXCESS CO2, which formed a blanket to increase the earth's heat.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2153148)

We used to call such folks "Tree huggers." They are more concerned about saving the trees than those that might need the wood for said tree to build shelter for their families. Progress has it's cost and man is at the top of the ecology food chain.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153318)

Wow, this is actually VERY INSTRUCTIVE. Knocking "tree huggers". By saying that it is OK to EXCESSIVELY cut down trees (like in the Brazilian rain forest) we are DENYING the earth its oxygen and the ability to absorb CO2 - which is what is causing the dying glaciers and the increases in CO2 in the ocean. Ask yourself why are large cities HOTTER than farming areas? The answer is obviously that cities have fewer TREES than farming areas. Then the cities need more A/C than the farming areas, which means more electricity needs to be produced........and from where ------carbon sources like natural gas and coal, which produce POLLUTION. Currently, smart city planners are trying to plant MORE trees in the city to DROP the temperature down. Smart city planners are calling for a 3 or 4-day work week to have people NOT commuting into the warm city and NOT creating tailpipe exhaust HEAT and pollution.

The 1st world is currently trying to move AWAY from environmental destruction and toward recycling and home construction codes that included better insulation and preventing energy loss. The more trees around a house the cooler it is in the summer and if deciduous, the leaves drop and let in the sun for the winter - thus saving heating AND cooling energy. Trees also slow down winds from tornados and hurricanes.

Basically "tree huggers" are patriotic Americans!

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153150)

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153248)

That was interesting. Basically, scientific evidence is QUOTED which explains how and why the earth is warming, and later on in the article, it explains that MAN's polluting activities have caused this warming.
......THEN later in the POST..........we get a LAYMAN'S reasons for NOT believing the scientists and their careful PROFESSIONAL measurements of the warming earth and the CONCLUSION that it is MAN CAUSED.

It seems to me that for many people it is easier to just say that the scientists are lying and Al Gore was a HOAX - than to deal in any way with ANY changes to their life. Some will grit their teeth and hold their breath and go to their graves saying, " I will never buy an electric car or ride an Ebike or trade in my old smelly, polluting golf cart, because I didn't give into any of those crazy, pinko-commies." Archie Bunker was funny because MANY like him exist even today!