Increased ocean CO2 has already caused worldwide reef coral to DIE. That is an established FACT. Just like worldwide glaciers are retreating. And large areas of Arctic peat-covered lands are burning adding more CO2. Just more FACTS.

The Weather Club does not throw anything, but instead examines data. In this case the EPA Endangerment Finding gives Congress the legal basis to implement the Green New Deal, because it "claims" CO2 and other greenhouse gases are harming the climate -- and that Finding lists specific claims -- which are easily checked against the government's own official data. Anyone who looks at the "data" as compared to the "claims" can see a problem. Would like the URL to see the EPA IG Report?

While facts can be fun, data trumps facts all the time. You know people are dying all the time -- everyday -- and yet the world population keeps growing. And corals, they die too, as they have been doing for millions of years. How do you think the coral foundations can be thousands of feet thick? Plus, the data shows coral are doing just fine because they love warm water -- which is why they grow in the world's warmest waters ... https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...eid=2757d1864c

Why are you worried about more CO2? It is plant food, and it helps keep the earth warm. Each time over the past several thousand years, the climate has been warmer than today, and they are called the climatic optimums, because those were the times when civilizations thrived, while during the intermediate cooling periods, there was famine and depopulation -- like during the Little Ice Age.

The AP is a great source of climate misinformation #3. Regarding numbers of Florida hurricanes -- and those that attend the Weather Club already know this -- in 1947 (when CO2 levels were much lower) Florida was hit 6 times by 4 hurricanes! No one back then complained about climate change. Why didn't the AP story mention that?

Garbage in, garbage out.
 

https://towardsdatascience.com/hypot...w-8c36ddde4cd2

The data really depends on your hypotheses. Or in computer parlance-- Garbage in, garbage out.

The data determines if a theory is right or wrong. Richard Feynman says it nicely in 60 seconds ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxvQMhttq4

And all the damage to peoples property is the only concern. What’s to debate!

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

What's to debate? There's no debate -- but there are consequences -- depending on which groups you hang out with. Just Google "landfalling hurricanes" (with quotes) and you get 30,000 hits. Landfalling hurricanes are one of many trigger-points for children who throw paint on artwork and stand in the middle of roads to stop traffic and stand on blocks of ice on makeshift gallows to protest a non-problem -- called global warming. So now, officially, there is one more landfall hurricane -- but it is another in a long list of junk-science statistics -- Nicole did not hit Florida as a hurricane. In fact, there are many who don't even think Nicole ever attained hurricane strength to begin with -- because there is no validated supporting evidence -- unless you can find some. People and offices and media can say anything -- but when you ask them to provide supporting data, they change the subject, or call you a denier. And this is why the Weather Club keeps growing in size because they want to see the "data," so can see for themselves what is going on. You don't need to be a scientist to read temperature and wind data.

Where can I find the validated supporting evidence that Ian was a hurricane? That might be a good place to start looking for the Nicole evidence.

Alternately, where is the validated supporting evidence that Nicole was not a hurricane? Surely there must be data to show the wind speed was under hurricane rating throughout the entire life of the storm.

For Ian, or any storm, just go to the WeatherUnderground" and see the historic wind data for the location where the storm made landfall -- that is the easiest starting point. From there, you go the National Hurricane Center website, and then look into the actual aircraft recon data.

Regarding whether a storm was a hurricane or not, it's just a matter of using available data. For times and locations with no data, you are welcome to theorize all you want, but unless you are seasoned professional with accomplished experience in that field, your opinions will not go very far. But as for me, I'm just a data guy. Like my dad would always say, where's the beef. Anyway, enjoy tomorrow's global warming -- but it's just a 7-year trend -- going on 8.

Parsing of words is not important. What is important is why people continue to build on sandbars, in flood plains, next to volcanoes, fault zones, etc. Public education is failing society.

?? The data shows a four year warming trend -- going on five

Here is a graph of global surface (NOAA) temperature and satellite (UAH) temperature -- as compared to CO2. When you draw a linear trend line, the surface and satellite temperature shows slight cooling. Year 2022 continues the linear trend downward.

Yes, I agree that the excess CO2 that we have today is making the earth warmer. THAT is NOT a GOOD thing! It is a VERY bad thing. because of TODAY'S global warming, farmers in South America are migrating north to the US and adding to population pressure...........because we are the number 2 polluter in the world. That will make more pollution going to the upper atmosphere and thus more HEATING of the earth. The US may end up in a Climate Heating feedback loop (like a tightening vise) that we can't extract ourselves from. it is a bad situation for the US and a bad situation for the migrants.

Meanwhile, poor farmers and goat herders of central Africa are TODAY migrating toward Europe. Again, bad for the migrating people and BAD for Europe.

Please don't tell me that EXCESS CO2 is good for either the land or the oceans. I know better. I know a TRAIN WRECK when I see one developing.

That's true about public education. I would add that it is foolish to build on the ocean shoreline since the glaciers are melting and the oceans are rising. In 20 or 30 years Miami will be flooded at high tide. People will be swimming in the Miami Dolphins' football field.

If you start from 2018 and include 2022 data there is a slight warming trend.

If you start at any year from 2010 to 2014 there is a significant warming trend. (I got tired of checking after that)

Agree!
So, is it "toe-MAY-toe" or "toe-MAH-toe"?
😕 Lives hang in the balance!

No worrie! Dolphins are great swimmers. 🐬🐬

Weather Club
 

Just follow the money.

The current slight longer-term warming trend is because we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age. But why is there a slight 7-year cooling trend (going on 8) now?

Nothing to see here said the man behind the curtain, if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water until it boils to death.
Similar to global climate change

Anyone with a modicum of skills can make a graph, what is the origin/source of this one? Since the difference between a hurricane and a tropical storm boils down to a negligible 1mph, of which the unfortunate people who had their property destroyed don't really care, what is the real reason for this thread?

It's not the who -- it's the data.

The UAH satellite data is here ... https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

The NOAA surface data is here ... Global Time Series | Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

That sounds political to me. More conspiracy theories. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to listen to conspiracy theories I'll watch Fox News.

Confirmation bias - you chose the small window that confirmed what you were looking for.

Remove the influence of a particularly warm 2016 and your 7-year cooling trend turns into 7-year (going on 8) warming trend.

We have a one-day trend of significant cooling - should I plan for snow on Thanksgiving? On the other hand, the temperature trend from September until yesterday shows significant warming and suggests a very hot December. Perhaps the timeline for a "trend" needs to be a tad bit longer.

I am suspicious of why you still don't understand this.

I’ll take the NASA for $500 john

How is weather data political? Science is not political -- unless you are talking about political science -- but that's not science either. The Weather Club examines claims using government generated data. If you don't like the data, complain to the government -- not the Weather Club.

NASA alters data like NOAA does. They say it's for a good cause -- but you decide ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Rc301T-hY

So the Weather Club examines claims using government generated data then disputes the data when it doesn't lead to the desired conclusion.

Again, twisting my words does not work. I did not dispute what NOAA and NASA do, I only inform people what is happening. At the Weather Club we actually use the "altered" data during the data comparisons -- we don't dismiss it. Note that only the "surface" temperature data is altered -- but not the satellite data -- at least not yet. But as for all the other forms of data, sea ice, winds, glaciers, volcanoes, and solar and oceanic cycles -- there is no altering as far as I know. Bottom line -- all available government data is used -- altered or not. It's really quite amazing to see what the media will not show you.

Did not twist your words at all - I quoted them exactly as you wrote them.

Forgive my ignorance—but what is the purpose of the weather club? Activity clubs (poetry, chess, writing, astronomy, etc. etc.) I can understand. But what does the weather club do?

Even more precisely, what does it accomplish?

Are you sure of your conclusion. The wind speed estimate at landfall may have been a best professional judgement (BPJ) based on several data sources. Sometimes a human makes the call. Hopefully the meeting includes representatives of the decision making/reporting meteorology staff. They can explain the basis for the news release.

I look forward to hearing from OP the names of people located precisely at the point of peak winds taking wind measurements with scientifically calibrated instruments to measure wind speeds. Almost certainly, there were none. Remote sensors or sensors not at the precise location cannot resolve whether the peak winds at landfall were 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 … mph. Consequently, there is a margin of error around published speed reports for peak winds at landfall for Nicole.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much ado about nothing.

The better (and more important with respect to killer hurricanes) question to ask .........is WHY is the Gulf of Mexico water showing a pattern of record temperatures in recent years. And WHY are world temperatures predicted to increase for the next 30 years? And why is the CO2 increasing in the upper atmosphere AND in the world's oceans?

Personally, I wonder why MORE members of the Villages Weather Club are NOT commenting and giving THEIR opinions on THIS forum? There must be OTHER points of view.

Just to throw out suggestions.......IMO a weather club might work with an agriculture club to grow trees from seeds and have as a club activity, the planting of small trees around the local area. This would be a good response to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. They could advocate for electric-powered cars, boats, motorcycles, bicycles, golf carts, and lawnmowers here locally. They could advocate for locally-grown farm produce instead of produce TRUCKED in from long distances..........thus adding to the excess CO2. The US is the 2nd LARGEST polluting country on the planet so we are in a unique position to DO something about pollution (excess CO2). Pollution is a 1st world PROBLEM, so a Weather Club could be part of the SOLUTION. The large polluting countries are MAKING the WEATHER of the FUTURE.

A weather club could advocate against WARS which waste energy and cause excess pollution (CO2) production. A Weather Club could advocate FOR the prevention of old-growth forest destruction in the US and the Amazon Rain Forest. Weather is NOT just a LOCAL phenomenon, it is part of a large CHAIN of GLOBAL considerations

Great analogy !

Thank you

Yes, I agree. And I would like to hear from other members of the Weather Club to find out as a matter of transparency what the other members think. If the Weather Club is trying to recruit new members from The Village Forum, it would be nice to hear the philosophies of multiple members.