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 2153347)

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.

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 sounding (Post 2153193)

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

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 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.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 2153235)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153372)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153374)

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.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 2153242)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153377)

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

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153374)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2153372)

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.

Originally Posted by sounding (Post 2153269)

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."

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2153378)

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂