[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You don't seem to be paying attention. Perhaps I used too many words.

"blue sky" flooding is happening today and is on the rise.

Standing water in storm drains is happening today. You don't really think the streets were laid out knowing that they would constantly have water in them, do you?

The street flooding in Shore Acres (I know someone who lives there) during regular high tides has become worse over just the past five years.

All these have come to pass due to sea level rise. The rate of sea level rise has been shown to have increased due to manmade influences on climate change. Not weather and not hurricanes but an increasing rate of climate change. There is the reality, there is the science, there is the data, and yet there are still deniers.

If street flooding is the issue, lets use your idea and make an immediate change. ELIMINATE streets! If you are worried that your home is going to flood, then move to higher ground. The weather is going to change and it is going to rain or snow or get hot and dry, whether you stop using fossil fuels or quit eating beef. Remember, you can't change the weather but you CAN change where you live so you won't see street flooding. I've lived through several hurricanes here and my street has yet to flood. We have storm drains.
Regarding "deniers" it seems like you are admitting to being a "denier" because you are denying the science that others are producing to substantiate their view. Why in the world would you demand that other folks "don't listen" to opposing views? Isn't that a form of science? Or, is science where you ignore facts/results that do not support ones agenda?
Personally, I try to do my part in reducing air pollution when possible. I am not about to make believe that I am GOD and that I can influence the changing climate. Perhaps, if someone tells every person in the world to open their windows and crank up their A/C we can cool off the planet? Is that a means of man made climate change?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Byte1

If street flooding is the issue, lets use your idea and make an immediate change. ELIMINATE streets! If you are worried that your home is going to flood, then move to higher ground. The weather is going to change and it is going to rain or snow or get hot and dry, whether you stop using fossil fuels or quit eating beef. Remember, you can't change the weather but you CAN change where you live so you won't see street flooding. I've lived through several hurricanes here and my street has yet to flood. We have storm drains.
Regarding "deniers" it seems like you are admitting to being a "denier" because you are denying the science that others are producing to substantiate their view. Why in the world would you demand that other folks "don't listen" to opposing views? Isn't that a form of science? Or, is science where you ignore facts/results that do not support ones agenda?
Personally, I try to do my part in reducing air pollution when possible. I am not about to make believe that I am GOD and that I can influence the changing climate. Perhaps, if someone tells every person in the world to open their windows and crank up their A/C we can cool off the planet? Is that a means of man made climate change?

Where? Where was there any science showing humans have no influence on climate change? ALL I have seen is denials and the occasional frustratingly-bad attempt at data analysis.

[rsimpson]

Brilliant, Eagles....

[montysl]

It is always easy to use specific subsets of data to prove a predetermined and desired outcome. It is much tougher to look at ALL the data available and attempt to prove the same point. The data available is now representative of MILLENNIA of “climate change” and the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate. Maybe it would also help to understand the Earth’s orbit around the sun is ELIPTICAL and not a circle! The dimensions and the Earth’s proximity to the sun CHANGES over those millennia, thus causing cycles of cooling and warming. Now that is not to say humans might not be contributing a tiny bit to the symptoms of the much larger issue, but given the history of the Earth to this point, and the inevitability of the cycles continuing, the vast majority of what is happening would happen with, or without us. It might also help to realize that it is HIGHLY profitable to pretend you have developed the flavor of snake oil that will prevent the sky from falling. You just have to convince a LOT of people it IS falling!

[cjrjck]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

There is the reality, there is the science, there is the data, and yet there are still deniers.

I asked this same question earlier so I will try again. For the sake of conversation, call me skeptic. Why does that bother you so much? I respect your right to believe anything about any subject, even if I disagree with you on some issues. It's really none of my business otherwise. Yet for some reason I can't understand, when it comes to this issue, bringing skeptics into the "fold" seems to be a paramount concern for many of the "true believers". Why?

[dougjb]

Ever wonder why the deniers cannot provide a single peer review science article supporting their position?

Ever wonder why there are literally thousands and thousands of articles supporting climate change...and how humans are impacting climate change.

The true deniers generally say its a conspiracy. No one will publish their articles. But, maybe because there is absolutely no science backing the denier's claims? Deniers will point to the fact that some will make money...maybe a lot of money on readjusting our way of doing things. But, that is not an argument against the fact that humans are adversely impacting climate change.

When the deniers start coming up with peer reviewed articles, then maybe we should listen to them. Until then, they are merely charlatans. Moreover, the charlatan deniers we have here in The Villages don't even hold degrees in climatology. One is a weatherman (you know...the type that got today's rain forecast wrong...again), another presumably holds a doctorate...in some unidentified field. Yet, these guys continue to give talks and get all irate when asked for even a single peer review article to back their claims. Peer review science articles are the gold standard in science. What these guys do is merely retell their opinion...over and over and over again. Repetition does not provice any basis for adhering to their points of view.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by dougjb

Ever wonder why the deniers cannot provide a single peer review science article supporting their position?

Ever wonder why there are literally thousands and thousands of articles supporting climate change...and how humans are impacting climate change.

The true deniers generally say its a conspiracy. No one will publish their articles. But, maybe because there is absolutely no science backing the denier's claims? Deniers will point to the fact that some will make money...maybe a lot of money on readjusting our way of doing things. But, that is not an argument against the fact that humans are adversely impacting climate change.

When the deniers start coming up with peer reviewed articles, then maybe we should listen to them. Until then, they are merely charlatans. Moreover, the charlatan deniers we have here in The Villages don't even hold degrees in climatology. One is a weatherman (you know...the type that got today's rain forecast wrong...again), another presumably holds a doctorate...in some unidentified field. Yet, these guys continue to give talks and get all irate when asked for even a single peer review article to back their claims. Peer review science articles are the gold standard in science. What these guys do is merely retell their opinion...over and over and over again. Repetition does not provice any basis for adhering to their points of view.

Amazing. This has been explained by myself and others multiple times. I guess some things take longer to sink in than others.

First, the "deniers" are those that ignore the last 4.5 million years of climatology and instead embrace this false narrative of "climate change" being shoved down our throats by the media and government policies, all designed to spend up to 130 trillion on a fool's errand that will enrich very few.

Secondly, it does not require a "conspiracy", it only requires knowing which side your bread is buttered on. If you lived in N Korea and "dear leader" said the sky is yellow, you would also state the sky is yellow. If you are a climatologist at a university or working in government and your livelihood depends on grants and tenure, you know better than to oppose the false climate change agenda.

Third, where did anyone get "irate"?

And lastly, rather than cite a few articles, here is the opinion of 500 respected climatologists and scientists:

"The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.


MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

[sounding]

Originally Posted by blueash

This graph uses as a zero point the temperature average over a 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Of course this was a period when temps were already moving upward as you can see looking at how no years prior to 2002 were warmer than that average. So when a person who regularly posts that we are in a cooling trend selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline, know you are being manipulated and lied to.

ERA5 is modeled data which contains uncertainties and huge gaps in data void areas - which are filled in as fabricated data. On the other hand, here is the raw (observed) unaltered U.S. data, clearly showing no climate crisis - just an alarmism crisis.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Certainly matches my personal experience. I remember snowmobiling most weekends in the 70s, maybe one year in the early 80s, and rarely enough snow to cover the ground now. I also remember not even considering AC in the early 80s but now you can barely live without it.

Good luck with the deniers.

The AMO Index (see atch image) explains most of the climate felt in eastern U.S. - and explains why it snowed in Miami in 1977 and not today. This and more was discussed in detail in the Weather Club's "How the Oceans Influence Our Weather." CO2 just makes plants grow better.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Amazing. This has been explained by myself and others multiple times. I guess some things take longer to sink in than others.

First, the "deniers" are those that ignore the last 4.5 million years of climatology and instead embrace this false narrative of "climate change" being shoved down our throats by the media and government policies, all designed to spend up to 130 trillion on a fool's errand that will enrich very few.

Secondly, it does not require a "conspiracy", it only requires knowing which side your bread is buttered on. If you lived in N Korea and "dear leader" said the sky is yellow, you would also state the sky is yellow. If you are a climatologist at a university or working in government and your livelihood depends on grants and tenure, you know better than to oppose the false climate change agenda.

Third, where did anyone get "irate"?

And lastly, rather than cite a few articles, here is the opinion of 500 respected climatologists and scientists:

"The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.


MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

Excellent post. CLINTEL's Declaration now has 1608 signatures (where 2 are Nobel Prize winners in Physics). I encourage others to also sign - stating there is no climate emergency. Here is the CLINTEL signatory application ... World Climate Declaration Form - Clintel

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by sounding

Excellent post. CLINTEL's Declaration now has 1608 signatures (where 2 are Nobel Prize winners in Physics). I encourage others to also sign - stating there is no climate emergency. Here is the CLINTEL signatory application ... World Climate Declaration Form - Clintel

But don't Greta, Al and Leonardo also have Nobel prizes in a scientific discipline???

[sounding]

Originally Posted by dougjb

Ever wonder why the deniers cannot provide a single peer review science article supporting their position?

Ever wonder why there are literally thousands and thousands of articles supporting climate change...and how humans are impacting climate change.

The true deniers generally say its a conspiracy. No one will publish their articles. But, maybe because there is absolutely no science backing the denier's claims? Deniers will point to the fact that some will make money...maybe a lot of money on readjusting our way of doing things. But, that is not an argument against the fact that humans are adversely impacting climate change.

When the deniers start coming up with peer reviewed articles, then maybe we should listen to them. Until then, they are merely charlatans. Moreover, the charlatan deniers we have here in The Villages don't even hold degrees in climatology. One is a weatherman (you know...the type that got today's rain forecast wrong...again), another presumably holds a doctorate...in some unidentified field. Yet, these guys continue to give talks and get all irate when asked for even a single peer review article to back their claims. Peer review science articles are the gold standard in science. What these guys do is merely retell their opinion...over and over and over again. Repetition does not provice any basis for adhering to their points of view.

Deniers don't have to prove anything. In a civil society, the accuser has the burden of proof. Those who believe man is causing global warming must be able to say how much man-made CO2 has warmed the earth last year ... and -- prove it with your peer-reviewed study.

[twoplanekid]

To fulfill our pubic duty to protect our customers, staff was asked about Potential Impact of Climate Change on Water Utilities

Bruce Brown responded ->

The following is being forwarded to the Board at the request of Bruce Brown…



Board of Supervisors,

At a recent board meeting, a Board Supervisor asked if our Utility Engineers are engaged with our local and national partners in regard to the evaluation of the potential impacts of Climate Change on our Utility Systems/Operations, and if we had completed any internal assessments. Vikus Water monitors the climate change issue, studies, and literature on our behalf; however, they have only minor concerns about utility impacts within our capital planning periods. A summary from Vikus Water is outlined below:

Sea Level Rise/Storm Surge: Because of our location, the utilities will not have issues with sea rise for the foreseeable future.


Water Source: Municipalities most concerned about climate change are those that use surface water. NSCUDD system uses Lower Florida wells (old aquifers) ground water that won’t be affected by seasonal drought conditions.


Severe Weather (Flooding or Droughts):


o Hurricanes: Additional storms could cause electrical outages. However, the treatment plants have onsite backup power, meet class I reliability and most of the electrical grid is below ground, making it more robust. The storm systems have proven reliability to handle intense storm events.



o Drought: If drought conditions were experienced, the water conservation (irrigation systems) would lose much of the source water (stormwater) and would require more use of the wells and groundwater.



Temperature: Moderate temperature increases should not have an impact on ability to treat water or wastewater.


In discussion with SWFWMD, their primary focus on climate change initiatives appears to be concentrated on coastal regions, which is a rational approach, given the pressing issue of rising sea levels and the potential repercussions for coastal communities. The increased risk of intensified storms also holds greater relevance for coastal areas. See link Sea Level Rise and Resiliency | WaterMatters.org. Vikus Water are members of AWWA and FWRC, they have published recent articles primarily deal with rising sea levels and source water issues, which are attached.



We (District Utilities, Vikus Water & Jacobs) do exchange both data and information with SWFMWD and SJWMD. They are actively engaged in conducting research and computer modeling to better predict and reduce uncertainties, analyze vulnerabilities in the current water management system and develop effective adaption strategies for the future; which are shared amongst all Utilities in the State of Florida.



Likewise, numerous studies of the potential impact of Climate Change on Water Utilities have been completed by United States Environmental Protection Agency, & Environmental Defense Fund.
Links are below:



Climate Impacts on Water Utilities | US EPA
Climate Impacts on Water Utilities | US EPA



Ch03-Obey.pdf (floridaclimateinstitute.org)
https://floridaclimateinstitute.org/.../Ch03-Obey.pdf



water_managment.pdf (fau.edu)
https://www.ces.fau.edu/publications..._managment.pdf


Climate Adaptation and Water Utility Operations | US EPA
Climate Adaptation and Water Utility Operations | US EPA


Our next NSCUDD board meeting will be this coming Monday at 3PM at SeaBreeze Rec Center and I will be the chair for this meeting.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Amazing. This has been explained by myself and others multiple times. I guess some things take longer to sink in than others.

First, the "deniers" are those that ignore the last 4.5 million years of climatology and instead embrace this false narrative of "climate change" being shoved down our throats by the media and government policies, all designed to spend up to 130 trillion on a fool's errand that will enrich very few.

Secondly, it does not require a "conspiracy", it only requires knowing which side your bread is buttered on. If you lived in N Korea and "dear leader" said the sky is yellow, you would also state the sky is yellow. If you are a climatologist at a university or working in government and your livelihood depends on grants and tenure, you know better than to oppose the false climate change agenda.

Third, where did anyone get "irate"?

And lastly, rather than cite a few articles, here is the opinion of 500 respected climatologists and scientists:

"The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

Would you like me to find 500 vaccine Covid deniers who are active or retired doctors? Would you find their videos convincing and say that the science is not well founded and that the vaccines were not well designed? Were the models "inadequate" Is Covid a "blessing" I cannot imagine any scientist citing "blessing" as an explanation for a science opinion.

The overwhelming number of people working on climate are on one side of the divide. A few are on the other. You get so upset and get very snarky about non MD on this thread claiming any expertise in medicine yet here you are, no background in climate yet you have the gall to do exactly what the Covid vaccine skeptics did and you soundly condemned them.

You have your mind made up, use the "shoving it down our throats" image, claim it is all a conspiracy of brain washed fools in it for the money. Their Big Pharma is your Big Climate.

And no, another lecture from you about the Pleistocene era does not ring any useful bells here. At least you have finally admitted that global warming is real. And that humans have an affect on what is happening.

The above statement that C02 is not a concern according to your experts is so bizarre that you should have immediately discarded their letter as junk science. Ask the planet Venus about C02. I certainly would call a byproduct of burning fossil fuels a pollutant.

If anyone wants to read the truth about C02 here is a useful website debunking the bunk being spread above.

As to whether climate models have been accurate in their prediction of future temperatures.. just google that question. NASA has a lovely set of graphs you can see Or maybe NASA and Columbia and Harvard and Japan and England and Australia etc etc are all part of the climate cabal that taught the Covid cabal everything about righteous argle bargle

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by blueash

Would you like me to find 500 vaccine Covid deniers who are active or retired doctors? Would you find their videos convincing and say that the science is not well founded and that the vaccines were not well designed? Were the models "inadequate" Is Covid a "blessing" I cannot imagine any scientist citing "blessing" as an explanation for a science opinion.

The overwhelming number of people working on climate are on one side of the divide. A few are on the other. You get so upset and get very snarky about non MD on this thread claiming any expertise in medicine yet here you are, no background in climate yet you have the gall to do exactly what the Covid vaccine skeptics did and you soundly condemned them.

You have your mind made up, use the "shoving it down our throats" image, claim it is all a conspiracy of brain washed fools in it for the money. Their Big Pharma is your Big Climate.

And no, another lecture from you about the Pleistocene era does not ring any useful bells here. At least you have finally admitted that global warming is real. And that humans have an affect on what is happening.

The above statement that C02 is not a concern according to your experts is so bizarre that you should have immediately discarded their letter as junk science. Ask the planet Venus about C02. I certainly would call a byproduct of burning fossil fuels a pollutant.

If anyone wants to read the truth about C02 here is a useful website debunking the bunk being spread above.

As to whether climate models have been accurate in their prediction of future temperatures.. just google that question. NASA has a lovely set of graphs you can see Or maybe NASA and Columbia and Harvard and Japan and England and Australia etc etc are all part of the climate cabal that taught the Covid cabal everything about righteous argle bargle

Please tell me you are not serious about comparing Earth with Venus. Apples and oranges. And I'm sorry that the climatological history of the past 4.5 million years, which explains why we are currently warming doesn't "ring your bell" And you know damn well about amateur physicians spouting out garbage---I don't think you identify with them. And "big pharma" was not something I ever embraced, and I suspect you didn't either. And I never claimed to be a climate expert, although I do have more background in paleoclimatology than most on this site.

As fat as the "graphs" go, as a scientist, you know 80 years is nowhere near enough data to extrapolate to 100,00 years. All along this has been my point----that NOBODY knows if and to what extent human activity is altering the trajectory of an already established natural climate cycle. The data has not been collected for long enough. Yes, the alarmists may be right, the so-called "deniers" may be right, or the truth most likely is somewhere in the middle. And just switching to EVs is unlikely to have any impact whatsoever.

I know we have been on opposite sides of some issues, but why the hostility??