[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by metalic

May be? The data shows very clearly that there IS global warming. While the climate constantly changes, this time it is warming many times faster than in the past and the process started accelerating from the beginning of industrialisation.

Improvements in measuring temperatures (air, land and sea), including from space, have given us much better data than late last century, when it was fairly easy to deny mankind's involvement.

Accepting that the rapid warming is caused by us is hard, because it means we need to take action and be part of the solution but, if you don't do this for yourself, at least do it for your grandchildren. We caused this mess - it is up to us to tackle it.

Excellent post. I agree 100 %.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by suediff

To say that global warming is not a threat is foolish. The glaciers around Mt Baker in Washington state have been surveyed the past 47 years and 12 glaciers have disappeared. 9 in the past 5 years. They supply water for human consumption and watering of crops. We need to take aggressive steps now.

Those glaciers have been "disappearing" for the last 20,000 years. Wait 70,000 years and they'll be back

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by metalic

May be? The data shows very clearly that there IS global warming. While the climate constantly changes, this time it is warming many times faster than in the past and the process started accelerating from the beginning of industrialisation.

Improvements in measuring temperatures (air, land and sea), including from space, have given us much better data than late last century, when it was fairly easy to deny mankind's involvement.

Accepting that the rapid warming is caused by us is hard, because it means we need to take action and be part of the solution but, if you don't do this for yourself, at least do it for your grandchildren. We caused this mess - it is up to us to tackle it.

Nonsense. Yes, we have better data than 100 years ago, and 200 years ago we had none. But we've been warming for the last 20,000 years---where's the "data"???? And before that most of the northern hemisphere was covered in 1+ mile of ice. And before that there was "global warming" about 130,000 years ago. And before that at least 8 major cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws in the past 4.5 million years of our CURRENT ICE AGE (geologic definition, look it up if you doubt it). The power that drives these cycles (the sun, Earth's orbit, and precession of Earth's axis) are a million times+ more powerful that your SUV exhaust. But then again, factual paleoclimatology has no political agenda, right?????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Velvet

I understand I think what you are saying. My thoughts are that, no, we are not going to be able to influence climate change because the forces are much greater than us. Reminds me of when they exploded nuclear bombs in order to try to change volcano flows.

To think that we can, is hubris. This does not mean we can’t be better actors, only that it’s not going to make a significant difference. (And yes, I am familiar exactly, with how statistical models work.)

People can and DO greatly influence Climate Change. It is easy to prove. When we grew up nobody talked about Climate Change. It just wasn't a problem. In 1960 US population was 180 million. Today it is around double that. World population in 1960 was 3 billion people today it is 8.1 billion. The curve of world population began going up rapidly about 25 years ago. Looking at a curve of world temperatures increases, it shows the same relative RECENT increases. Something CAN be done. The 1st world population like Japan and the US are having fewer children. Secondly, people could purchase fewer gasoline engine automobiles and more ELECTRIC vehicles. If that happened, MAYBE in 10 years the oceans would start getting cooler and hurricane intensity would LESSEN. Note: The Chinese are driving more Electric vehicles and their government is supporting that trend. In the US the opposite as far as support is true. Personally, I sometimes wonder if we are living in "backwards World".

[CarlR33]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Note: The Chinese are driving more Electric vehicles and their government is supporting that trend. In the US the opposite as far as support is true. Personally, I sometimes wonder if we are living in "backwards World".

LOL, China is a perfect example, I think not,

Pollution in China - Wikipedia

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Nonsense. Yes, we have better data than 100 years ago, and 200 years ago we had none. But we've been warming for the last 20,000 years---where's the "data"???? And before that most of the northern hemisphere was covered in 1+ mile of ice. And before that there was "global warming" about 130,000 years ago. And before that at least 8 major cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws in the past 4.5 million years of our CURRENT ICE AGE (geologic definition, look it up if you doubt it). The power that drives these cycles (the sun, Earth's orbit, and precession of Earth's axis) are a million times+ more powerful that your SUV exhaust. But then again, factual paleoclimatology has no political agenda, right?????

That strikes me as a "rationalization" designed to advocate "no action to solve no problem". That boat has sailed years ago. Today scientists all around the world know that Global Warming is settled Science. In 1960 when there were 3 billion people on Earth, we had no Global Warming. Today with 8.1 billion people, we have a problem. Talking about the Earth 100,000 or more years ago is an exercise in futility, also an attempt to distract from the obvious cause of TODAY'S global warming problem - namely massive human production of methane and CO2 gases. That is why today there is great worry about increased hurricane strength. People need to know about the ROOT of this problem in order to become part of the solution.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

That strikes me as a "rationalization" designed to advocate "no action to solve no problem". That boat has sailed years ago. Today scientists all around the world know that Global Warming is settled Science. In 1960 when there were 3 billion people on Earth, we had no Global Warming. Today with 8.1 billion people, we have a problem. Talking about the Earth 100,000 or more years ago is an exercise in futility, also an attempt to distract from the obvious cause of TODAY'S global warming problem - namely massive human production of methane and CO2 gases. That is why today there is great worry about increased hurricane strength. People need to know about the ROOT of this problem in order to become part of the solution.

#1) That's because there is NO PROBLEM, at least not one caused by humans
#2) It is only "settled science" among those that depend on the universities or the government to put food on their table. Retired and independent climatologists do not agree
#3) We've been through this CO2 and methane nonsense before on dozens of threads, our CO2 levels are lower than 50,000 years ago. Besides, the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2
#4) Just as a memory refresher, in the mid 1970's, an imminent ice age was "settled science"
#5) Buy and drive all the EVs you want to your heart's content. Just don't tell me you are "saving the planet" or that I have to buy one.
#4)

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The United Nations and the majority of scientists in the WORLD believe that Global Warming is "settled Science". There are a few naysayers that repeat the doctrine put out by the gas and oil conglomerate simply because, for them, billions of dollars are at stake. They buy and control whole TV networks in the US so that they can maintain their ANTIQUATED industry.

Science, put simply, is the formulation of hypotheses based on best available data. But data changes, and an objective scientist must be willing to change or revise his or her hypotheses if new or additional data is located or if information is acquired that contraindicates current data.

Taking a well-known example from not too many centuries ago, geocentrism was "settled science". I mean, you could SEE it! Everything revolved around the Earth--the sun, the moon, everything. To deny that, to the supposed scientists of that day, was to deny the reality of one of the most settled and obvious truths of the science of the time. Until the advent of Copernicus, and later Galileo, that is. Galileo's observations with that newfangled data-collection instrument called the telescope proved that the "settled science" of geocentrism was anything but, at least as far as the solar system went. The theory of heliocentrism thus replaced geocentrism as the truth du jour, albeit not without a whole lot of opposition from those who accepted geocentrism as dogma, up to and including threatening Galileo with torture and possibly even death if he didn't recant his support for geocentrism.

Psychology Today (February 20, 2023) had an article, "How Einstein Shattered the Myth of "Settled Science" that deals with just this topic, how "settled scientists" are in fact justificationists, seeking information that supports their hypotheses but seeing any data that contraindicates it as dangerous to their particular science. Key points made:

"The Einsteinian revolution showed, however, that not only is unsettled science not destined to collapse, but it is primed to grow." and

"Today, the lingering desire for settled science threatens to shackle scientific growth"

One can conclude from this article, then, that "settled science" is the antithesis of REAL science. If a person accepts any science as "settled", then what he or she is accepting is really no different from dogma.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

People can and DO greatly influence Climate Change. It is easy to prove. When we grew up nobody talked about Climate Change. It just wasn't a problem. In 1960 US population was 180 million. Today it is around double that. World population in 1960 was 3 billion people today it is 8.1 billion. The curve of world population began going up rapidly about 25 years ago. Looking at a curve of world temperatures increases, it shows the same relative RECENT increases. Something CAN be done. The 1st world population like Japan and the US are having fewer children. Secondly, people could purchase fewer gasoline engine automobiles and more ELECTRIC vehicles. If that happened, MAYBE in 10 years the oceans would start getting cooler and hurricane intensity would LESSEN. Note: The Chinese are driving more Electric vehicles and their government is supporting that trend. In the US the opposite as far as support is true. Personally, I sometimes wonder if we are living in "backwards World".

Well, let’s assume that we could “save” the planet. Keep it as it is, or as it was 100 years ago. Why would we do it? It seems that what is advocated IS to try to live in a “backwards World”.

We, humans, are part of evolution. We are not in a museum to hold time still. Perhaps it’s time to focus on other planets. It is true the Sandhill crane might become extinct if the earth goes back to its volcanic state, but the bird might be replaced by seraphim on the next planet.

[Rainger99]

Interesting newscast by Dan Rather on global warming. It is from the early 1980s. Watch at the 55 second mark where they predict that about 25% of Florida will be in underwater in the “next century.” So they have until 2099 for the prediction to come true.

The problem with making predictions that won’t occur for more than 100 years is that there is no left to challenge them.

https://youtu.be/45rJrYm5saA?si=Tv_i32VzEbIfyfJB

[ByebyeMichigan]

Irrelevant…..

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

#1) That's because there is NO PROBLEM, at least not one caused by humans
#2) It is only "settled science" among those that depend on the universities or the government to put food on their table. Retired and independent climatologists do not agree
#3) We've been through this CO2 and methane nonsense before on dozens of threads, our CO2 levels are lower than 50,000 years ago. Besides, the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2
#4) Just as a memory refresher, in the mid 1970's, an imminent ice age was "settled science"
#5) Buy and drive all the EVs you want to your heart's content. Just don't tell me you are "saving the planet" or that I have to buy one.
#4)

So you’re saying releasing 37 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year isn’t heating the planet??!!

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2024| Statista

Joe

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Fastskiguy

So you’re saying releasing 37 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year isn’t heating the planet??!!

Global CO2 emissions by year 1940-2024| Statista

Joe

Correct

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by JWinATL

My late husband was with the National Flood Insurance Program for 25 years covering the entire Southeastern US. The best I can tell you is (a) that’s why I don’t live on either coast; and (b) they really have no clue what a hurricane is actually going to do day to day.

Be alert. That’s about the size of it.

Great post. Hurricanes are unpredictable. No two are alike. Their size, intensity, and direction of movement change frequently. Cold fronts slow them down, or dissipate them. However, when a hurricane meets a warm mass, it is game on! They can increase in size and intensity quickly. They will change their movement following the path of least resistance. It is impossible for meteorologists to accurately predict their behavior. I have lived in Florida for 40 yrs. Many times, we went to bed comforted that a hurricane was going to miss Florida. Wake up, turn on the news, and instantly our eyes pop open. Overnight, the storm grew immensely and is now headed towards us. A direct hit will occur within the next 24 hours. Like this poster stated BE ALERT.

[BillyGrown]

It’s too early and the cooler waters have slowed the inner winds down on this storm. It looks as though Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are in her crosshairs now.