[sounding]

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.

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

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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.

Very well stated, imho. Shows why we will not be changing any minds here.

[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.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

[fdpaq0580]

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 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.

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. 😏😑

[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.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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. 😏😑

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

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

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.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

When did the "thawing" from the Little Ice Age end?

[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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

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.

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!

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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!

What caused the Little Ice Age to begin thawing?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

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.

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.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

Notice they never say why we are thawing out from the Little Ice Age.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

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?

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!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

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

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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).
😎

great post !!!!!!!!!!