The Reality Of Climate Change

[Walt In Seattle]

The videos below represent climate reality -- what IS or what PROBABLY will be REAL as time passes. One of the videos below is an episode of Nova funded in part by David Koch. Another is a lecture by Tim Palmer who addresses the probabilistic nature of climate science along with the reliability of ensemble climate models. There's information in another video on the food security threat from climate change as instances of famine in the World are on the rise.

Admittedly, content below will require far more than a few minutes to view and digest. However, you don't have to view it all at once. If you're not familiar with climate science, you'll learn quite a lot!

This material gets deep into the weeds of climate science. Some of this content is more controversial than other videos in the group below. Much of what you'll view below is dependent on projections or an expectation based on developing trends of more severe and more frequently occurring extremes in weather (e.g.. prolonged drought in Africa or the Middle-East in particular which plays a role in burgeoning World famine, large hail that damages crops, record-setting typhoons such as Haiyan in 2013 or hurricanes such as Sandy in 2012 and Patricia in 2015 along with the recent spate of flash-flooding in some regions of the U.S. while other areas of the U.S. often bake in periods of record-breaking heat or extended drought with periods of extreme heat impacting crop yields as was the case in 2012 and 2016) then over-arching climate as we move toward the 22nd century. This only scratches the surface of climate change issues along with the questionable climate policy of President Trump. (see: https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#! topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ for more details)

Climate change deniers will often contend, as has President Trump at least implied in the past, that the prospect of harmful climate change is a "hoax". Despite many years of supporting scientific research, some of them will offer paranoid conspiracy theories which assert climate change is used as the justification to slowly introduce a "New World Order" promulgating a single government that would rule the World. Ergo, they have nothing but suspicion for whatever comes out of the U.N. and particularly the IPCC on climate change.

Then there are the skeptics who reject peer review, saying "group think" or scientist's greed for grant money colors scientific research and ensures the bulk of research will be biased as contrasting research will be blocked from publication or grant money. Yet, (1) there's no credible evidence peer review has failed as a process or that scientists are being systematically blocked from publication by a cabal of climate scientists who previously towed a government line while (2) somehow, they look beyond private sector funding for research and options to publish independently. (e.g. from websites initiated for the purpose if not directly or indirectly supported by the fossil fuel industry in general or the Koch brothers and/or Heartland in particular.

There are scientists, or at least those using a scientific approach, who support skeptics while having gained some prominence. (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., William Happer and others) Then there's Heartland, the mother of all climate skeptic organizations supporting skeptics in much the same way as Heartland supported the tobacco industry in he last century. It's not like there's zero representation of the skeptic's point of view, even if you erased political support in Congress or the White House and even if you could erase the existence of like-minded organizations and their associated websites or BLOGs.

But are the skeptics deluded, some of them maybe being misled and played by those who pander? (i.e. pandered to by those interests who take advantage of skeptics believing in government plots to take their money and property to fight a "hoax" cause) Do they understand what is real as opposed to whatever may or may not be propaganda from some people? Do they really get what Breitbart.com, WUWT, NO TRICKS ZONE, Climate Depot, The GWPF and so many others are doing?

The significant threat of climate change is real! Although the evidence is not absolute -- climate change deniers and minimalists apparently arguing, more often than not, that nothing less than absolute, 100% accuracy in climate models and 100% proof of the threat is acceptable -- but more in the realm of PROBABLE, it's valid to have concern for that which is demonstrated to be PROBABLE. We pass laws on the basis of that which is PROBABLE rather than requiring there be 100%, irrefutable proof that something will happen as a result of some previous action or lackthereof. For severe weather or the potential for same, and despite there's no absolute proof of a personal threat, we take action to protect ourselves when a watch or warning is issued. When the bulk of climate scientists are warning us we may have a problem -- potentially a BIG problem -- if we don't TRANSITION away from burning fossil fuels, why shouldn't we heed and act on that warning, even though the consequences, or what PROBABLY could happen, might not be undeniable for several more years to several decades? Why take the chance that what we don't do could result in devastation and/or death for future generations, even that's generations 80 or 100 years from now?

And now, here is reality -- a reality of probabilistic outcome. It's up to us whether we respond and to what extent.

[Walt In Seattle]

This is the link which was broken by a formatting issue in the 3rd paragraph of the origianal post.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Walt In Seattle
The videos below represent climate reality -- what IS or what PROBABLY will be REAL as time passes. One of the videos below is an episode of Nova funded in part by David Koch. Another is a lecture by Tim Palmer who addresses the probabilistic nature of climate science along with the reliability of ensemble climate models. There's information in another video on the food security threat from climate change as instances of famine in the World are on the rise.
Admittedly, content below will require far more than a few minutes to view and digest. However, you don't have to view it all at once. If you're not familiar with climate science, you'll learn quite a lot!
This material gets deep into the weeds of climate science. Some of this content is more controversial than other videos in the group below. Much of what you'll view below is dependent on projections or an expectation based on developing trends of more severe and more frequently occurring extremes in weather (e.g.. prolonged drought in Africa or the Middle-East in particular which plays a role in burgeoning World famine, large hail that damages crops, record-setting typhoons such as Haiyan in 2013 or hurricanes such as Sandy in 2012 and Patricia in 2015 along with the recent spate of flash-flooding in some regions of the U.S. while other areas of the U.S. often bake in periods of record-breaking heat or extended drought with periods of extreme heat impacting crop yields as was the case in 2012 and 2016) then over-arching climate as we move toward the 22nd century. This only scratches the surface of climate change issues along with the questionable climate policy of President Trump. (see: https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#! topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ for more details)
Climate change deniers will often contend, as has President Trump at least implied in the past, that the prospect of harmful climate change is a "hoax". Despite many years of supporting scientific research, some of them will offer paranoid conspiracy theories which assert climate change is used as the justification to slowly introduce a "New World Order" promulgating a single government that would rule the World. Ergo, they have nothing but suspicion for whatever comes out of the U.N. and particularly the IPCC on climate change.
Then there are the skeptics who reject peer review, saying "group think" or scientist's greed for grant money colors scientific research and ensures the bulk of research will be biased as contrasting research will be blocked from publication or grant money. Yet, (1) there's no credible evidence peer review has failed as a process or that scientists are being systematically blocked from publication by a cabal of climate scientists who previously towed a government line while (2) somehow, they look beyond private sector funding for research and options to publish independently. (e.g. from websites initiated for the purpose if not directly or indirectly supported by the fossil fuel industry in general or the Koch brothers and/or Heartland in particular.
There are scientists, or at least those using a scientific approach, who support skeptics while having gained some prominence. (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., William Happer and others) Then there's Heartland, the mother of all climate skeptic organizations supporting skeptics in much the same way as Heartland supported the tobacco industry in he last century. It's not like there's zero representation of the skeptic's point of view, even if you erased political support in Congress or the White House and even if you could erase the existence of like-minded organizations and their associated websites or BLOGs.
But are the skeptics deluded, some of them maybe being misled and played by those who pander? (i.e. pandered to by those interests who take advantage of skeptics believing in government plots to take their money and property to fight a "hoax" cause) Do they understand what is real as opposed to whatever may or may not be propaganda from some people? Do they really get what Breitbart.com, WUWT, NO TRICKS ZONE, Climate Depot, The GWPF and so many others are doing?
The significant threat of climate change is real! Although the evidence is not absolute -- climate change deniers and minimalists apparently arguing, more often than not, that nothing less than absolute, 100% accuracy in climate models and 100% proof of the threat is acceptable -- but more in the realm of PROBABLE, it's valid to have concern for that which is demonstrated to be PROBABLE. We pass laws on the basis of that which is PROBABLE rather than requiring there be 100%, irrefutable proof that something will happen as a result of some previous action or lackthereof. For severe weather or the potential for same, and despite there's no absolute proof of a personal threat, we take action to protect ourselves when a watch or warning is issued. When the bulk of climate scientists are warning us we may have a problem -- potentially a BIG problem -- if we don't TRANSITION away from burning fossil fuels, why shouldn't we heed and act on that warning, even though the consequences, or what PROBABLY could happen, might not be undeniable for several more years to several decades? Why take the chance that what we don't do could result in devastation and/or death for future generations, even that's generations 80 or 100 years from now?
And now, here is reality -- a reality of probabilistic outcome. It's up to us whether we respond and to what extent.
http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk
http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM
http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ
http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w
http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk
http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48
http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io

walt...what is your purpose here...to talk about climate change which has been happening since the beginning..for billions or years....or sea level rise...which is not going to be more than a inch or two...which is it...and al gore does not know how much ice is hidden under the water level...it is impossible to know....but it is so much greater than the ice above the sea level...which means that when ice melts..the replacement compacity is so much less..causing the sea level to decrease...ice shrinks in compacity when melted..thats the reason water pipes burst when it freezes...the needed compacity becomes greater when it freezes...and that theory is absolute...as there is nothing can be done to stop it...it is a factor of nature...jon

[Walt In Seattle]

Note what was written in my third post. It would be nice if we gave future generations a better environment in which to live and a better chance simply to live......

Post by j***@gmail.com
walt...what is your purpose here...

[Walt In Seattle]

For the record:

1. Milankovitch cycles may, in the extreme long term, take Earth into the next ice age when humanity might not exist for a myriad of reasons, regardless of whatever happens with ACC in a much shorter term. But the much shorter term, in which a progression to a significantly worse level of ACC could be possible, is the central issue.

2. Clearly, Earth has been hotter in the past and with more CO2 as well as other GHGs in the atmosphere. Yet, in the absence of humanity, along with its burning of fossil fuels and removing from consideration scenarios where there were massive supervolcanic eruptions or deep impact from NEOs if not other sudden as well as catastrophic events, the speed at which warming or cooling in tandem with concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere has occurred has been comparatively slower, thus allowing the various species of animals and plants to adapt. The added warmth of ACC (note the A part of ACC and that humanity's existence, along with its organized civilization, is relatively brief in geological time)is happening so quickly, or is projected to happen so quickly, that many species will not be able to adapt, humanity in particular. View the provided links, including the material cited in the link from my second post, for details.

3. Few people suggest the solution for curbing ACC is for humanity to return to a stone age existence. To the contrary, most, who recognize a problem, recommend creation and transitioning to new technologies which limit or eliminate carbon emissions. However, restricting or eliminating emissions is not a total solution. Although there are some exciting techniques under research, at some point, we may need technology we presently do not have to extract and sequester some of the CO2 residing in the atmosphere -- enough to bring concentrations down to 320 to 350 PPM. We shouldn't go any lower because such could evoke global cooling to an unwarranted and inadvisable extent.

4. But none of the above is meaningful if the bulk of society does not recognize a problem to the extent they're willing to take substantive action, including action to limit their personal carbon footprint.

5. This is not a problem exclusively of concern to those outside President Trump's cabinet. If it were, General James Mattis -- now Secretary of Defense Mattis -- would not see it as the problem it most likely is or will be.

[Walt In Seattle]

Here is information about which everyone should know....

http://theweek.com/articles/712207/donald-trumps-10-trillion-climate-mistake
________________________________________
[...] Climate change skeptics claim that the science is unsettled while simultaneously proposing to end studies that would settle it. This posture would be ironic and slightly amusing if it wasn't so flagrantly dangerous to the future of human civilization on Earth. The latest iteration of this ludicrous hypocrisy was on full display last week when the House appropriations committee carved another $50 million from NASA's Earth science division, on top of the already severe 2018 cuts requested by the Trump administration. If eventually endorsed by Congress, the reductions will leave Earth scientists unable to fill gaps in data considered crucial to understanding the state of the planet, thus perpetuating the "unsettled science" that deniers profess to abhor. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-San-Mateo-County-sue-big-oil-over-climate-11294549.php
________________________________________
[...] Two Bay Area counties and a Southern California city concerned about rising sea levels sued 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies Monday, claiming the fossil fuel giants are literally putting them under water and should pay for the damage. Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices. The suits are the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Lawyers for the three communities worked together to make the case that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel development are directly tied to the climate-related problems facing coastal areas, from more frequent flooding and beach erosion to the possibility that water will inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate. The defendants had no immediate response to the suits. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-stronger-west-antarctic-ice.html
________________________________________
[...] Researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science found that the winds in East Antarctica can generate sea-level disturbances that propagate around the continent at almost 700 kilometers per hour via a type of ocean wave known as a Kelvin wave. When these waves encounter the steep underwater topography off the West Antarctic Peninsula they push warmer water towards the large ice shelves along the shoreline. The warm Antarctic Circumpolar Current passes quite close to the continental shelf in this region, providing a source for this warm water. "It is this combination of available warm water offshore, and a transport of this warm water onto the shelf, that has seen rapid ice shelf melt along the West Antarctic sector over the past several decades," said lead researcher Dr Paul Spence. "We always knew warm water was finding its way into this area but the precise mechanism has remained unclear. That remote winds on the opposite side of Antarctica can cause such a substantial subsurface warming is a worrying aspect of the circulation at the Antarctic margin." [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

I reiterate, in conjunction with what is posted above, the following information taken from the inititial post under this discussion topic:

http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk

http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM

http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ

http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w

http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk

http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48

http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io

https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Here is information about which everyone should know....
http://theweek.com/articles/712207/donald-trumps-10-trillion-climate-mistake
________________________________________
[...] Climate change skeptics claim that the science is unsettled while simultaneously proposing to end studies that would settle it. This posture would be ironic and slightly amusing if it wasn't so flagrantly dangerous to the future of human civilization on Earth. The latest iteration of this ludicrous hypocrisy was on full display last week when the House appropriations committee carved another $50 million from NASA's Earth science division, on top of the already severe 2018 cuts requested by the Trump administration. If eventually endorsed by Congress, the reductions will leave Earth scientists unable to fill gaps in data considered crucial to understanding the state of the planet, thus perpetuating the "unsettled science" that deniers profess to abhor. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-San-Mateo-County-sue-big-oil-over-climate-11294549.php
________________________________________
[...] Two Bay Area counties and a Southern California city concerned about rising sea levels sued 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies Monday, claiming the fossil fuel giants are literally putting them under water and should pay for the damage. Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices. The suits are the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Lawyers for the three communities worked together to make the case that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel development are directly tied to the climate-related problems facing coastal areas, from more frequent flooding and beach erosion to the possibility that water will inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate. The defendants had no immediate response to the suits. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-stronger-west-antarctic-ice.html
________________________________________
[...] Researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science found that the winds in East Antarctica can generate sea-level disturbances that propagate around the continent at almost 700 kilometers per hour via a type of ocean wave known as a Kelvin wave. When these waves encounter the steep underwater topography off the West Antarctic Peninsula they push warmer water towards the large ice shelves along the shoreline. The warm Antarctic Circumpolar Current passes quite close to the continental shelf in this region, providing a source for this warm water. "It is this combination of available warm water offshore, and a transport of this warm water onto the shelf, that has seen rapid ice shelf melt along the West Antarctic sector over the past several decades," said lead researcher Dr Paul Spence. "We always knew warm water was finding its way into this area but the precise mechanism has remained unclear. That remote winds on the opposite side of Antarctica can cause such a substantial subsurface warming is a worrying aspect of the circulation at the Antarctic margin." [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk
http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM
http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ
http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w
http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk
http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48
http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io
https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ

could be this twenty year drought in the usa and africa is ready to burst the accumalation of moisture in the atmosphere...and at that time reverse the warming config...and rains will come to these regions for many years making growth of crops in the desert without irrigation...jz

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Walt In Seattle
Here is information about which everyone should know....
http://theweek.com/articles/712207/donald-trumps-10-trillion-climate-mistake
________________________________________
[...] Climate change skeptics claim that the science is unsettled while simultaneously proposing to end studies that would settle it. This posture would be ironic and slightly amusing if it wasn't so flagrantly dangerous to the future of human civilization on Earth. The latest iteration of this ludicrous hypocrisy was on full display last week when the House appropriations committee carved another $50 million from NASA's Earth science division, on top of the already severe 2018 cuts requested by the Trump administration. If eventually endorsed by Congress, the reductions will leave Earth scientists unable to fill gaps in data considered crucial to understanding the state of the planet, thus perpetuating the "unsettled science" that deniers profess to abhor. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-San-Mateo-County-sue-big-oil-over-climate-11294549.php
________________________________________
[...] Two Bay Area counties and a Southern California city concerned about rising sea levels sued 37 of the world’s biggest oil and coal companies Monday, claiming the fossil fuel giants are literally putting them under water and should pay for the damage. Marin County, San Mateo County and Imperial Beach (San Diego County) filed separate but nearly identical lawsuits in their respective Superior Court offices. The suits are the latest in a small but growing effort to hold Chevron, ExxonMobile, BP, Shell and other major energy companies accountable for the effects of climate change. Lawyers for the three communities worked together to make the case that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel development are directly tied to the climate-related problems facing coastal areas, from more frequent flooding and beach erosion to the possibility that water will inundate roads, airports, sewage treatment plants and other real estate. The defendants had no immediate response to the suits. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-stronger-west-antarctic-ice.html
________________________________________
[...] Researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science found that the winds in East Antarctica can generate sea-level disturbances that propagate around the continent at almost 700 kilometers per hour via a type of ocean wave known as a Kelvin wave. When these waves encounter the steep underwater topography off the West Antarctic Peninsula they push warmer water towards the large ice shelves along the shoreline. The warm Antarctic Circumpolar Current passes quite close to the continental shelf in this region, providing a source for this warm water. "It is this combination of available warm water offshore, and a transport of this warm water onto the shelf, that has seen rapid ice shelf melt along the West Antarctic sector over the past several decades," said lead researcher Dr Paul Spence. "We always knew warm water was finding its way into this area but the precise mechanism has remained unclear. That remote winds on the opposite side of Antarctica can cause such a substantial subsurface warming is a worrying aspect of the circulation at the Antarctic margin." [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://youtu.be/gUDEKh2cnOk
http://youtu.be/y09kyx9YgUM
http://youtu.be/3QX9SHfETjQ
http://youtu.be/ITEJG_mLV9w
http://youtu.be/qXNaNXwWvmk
http://youtu.be/dZVDb9XbV48
http://youtu.be/UWunHeFe1Io
https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ

could be this twenty year drought in the usa and africa is ready to burst the accumalation of moisture in the atmosphere...and at that time reverse the warming config...and rains will come to these regions for many years making growth of crops in the desert without irrigation...jz

that is all of the bright side....but..if it happens that way...sadness will be for old journalist dan rather...whom today was on national geografic...pitching what all you liberals are about...and it was obvious that he was really trying hard not to reveal his doubt...but it proves the evolution of folks that everyone on the left is dedicated to...play the music of whatever sounds good at a given time ...and as you go along you lose your common sense and become a sock puppet for crazy ideas....jz

[Walt In Seattle]

Here is MORE news of which everyone should be aware, including a grim study from James Hansen and a team of scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/climate-change-threatens-an-ancient-way-of-life-in-ethiopia/2017/07/16/c2726a4e-658c-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html
________________________________________
[...] NARDO CAMP, Ethiopia — Zeinab Taher once roamed through Ethiopia’s arid Somali region tending a vast herd of 350 sheep, goats and cattle with her nine children. Then the autumn rains failed and the grass that fed her animals didn’t grow. No rain came this spring, either, and then the livestock began to die. Now, wrapped in her orange shawl, the 60-year-old huddles in a makeshift windblown camp along with several thousand others, depending on food and water from international agencies. Another drought has seized the Horn of Africa, devastating the livestock herders in these already dry lands. Even as the government and aid agencies struggle to help them, there is a growing realization that with climate change, certain ways of life in certain parts of the world are becoming much more difficult to sustain. In Ethiopia, which unlike neighboring Somalia or South Sudan has a strong, functioning government, the emergency effort has kept people alive. Authorities and aid agencies are trying to get beyond the immediate humanitarian response and encourage a shift to livelihoods less vulnerable to drought and climate shocks. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/carbon-dioxide-remove-atmosphere-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-scientists-jim-hansen-a7847426.html
________________________________________
[...] Humans must start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as soon as possible to avoid saddling future generations with a choice between extreme climate change or spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to avoid it, according to new research. An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”. But they warned this would not be enough and efforts would need to be made to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent. This, the scientists argued, could be mostly achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility, a relatively low-cost way to remove carbon from the air. Other more expensive methods, such as burning biomass in power plants fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage or devices that can remove carbon from the air directly, might also be necessary and would become increasingly needed if steps were not taken soon. An academic paper in the journal Earth System Dynamics estimated such industrial processes could cost up to $535 trillion this century and “also have large risks and uncertain feasibility”. “Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible clean-up or growing deleterious climate impacts or both,” said the paper. [...] The paper said that the Paris Agreement, the tumbling price of renewable energy and the recent slowdown in the increase of fossil fuel emissions had led to a sense of optimism around the world. [...] But, speaking to The Independent, Professor Hansen said he believed this optimism was misplaced. “The narrative that’s out there now … is that we’ve turned the corner,” he said. “On the contrary, what we show is the rate of growth of climate forcing caused by increased methane [and other gases] is actually accelerating. That’s why it’s urgent.” [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
See also:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Here is MORE news of which everyone should be aware, including a grim study from James Hansen and a team of scientists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/climate-change-threatens-an-ancient-way-of-life-in-ethiopia/2017/07/16/c2726a4e-658c-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html
________________________________________
[...] NARDO CAMP, Ethiopia — Zeinab Taher once roamed through Ethiopia’s arid Somali region tending a vast herd of 350 sheep, goats and cattle with her nine children. Then the autumn rains failed and the grass that fed her animals didn’t grow. No rain came this spring, either, and then the livestock began to die. Now, wrapped in her orange shawl, the 60-year-old huddles in a makeshift windblown camp along with several thousand others, depending on food and water from international agencies. Another drought has seized the Horn of Africa, devastating the livestock herders in these already dry lands. Even as the government and aid agencies struggle to help them, there is a growing realization that with climate change, certain ways of life in certain parts of the world are becoming much more difficult to sustain. In Ethiopia, which unlike neighboring Somalia or South Sudan has a strong, functioning government, the emergency effort has kept people alive. Authorities and aid agencies are trying to get beyond the immediate humanitarian response and encourage a shift to livelihoods less vulnerable to drought and climate shocks. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/carbon-dioxide-remove-atmosphere-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-scientists-jim-hansen-a7847426.html
________________________________________
[...] Humans must start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as soon as possible to avoid saddling future generations with a choice between extreme climate change or spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to avoid it, according to new research. An international team of researchers – led by Professor Jim Hansen, Nasa’s former climate science chief – said their conclusion that the world had already overshot targets to limit global warming to within acceptable levels was “sufficiently grim” to force them to urge “rapid emission reductions”. But they warned this would not be enough and efforts would need to be made to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 12.5 per cent. This, the scientists argued, could be mostly achieved by agricultural measures such as planting trees and improving soil fertility, a relatively low-cost way to remove carbon from the air. Other more expensive methods, such as burning biomass in power plants fitted with carbon-capture-and-storage or devices that can remove carbon from the air directly, might also be necessary and would become increasingly needed if steps were not taken soon. An academic paper in the journal Earth System Dynamics estimated such industrial processes could cost up to $535 trillion this century and “also have large risks and uncertain feasibility”. “Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, implausible clean-up or growing deleterious climate impacts or both,” said the paper. [...] The paper said that the Paris Agreement, the tumbling price of renewable energy and the recent slowdown in the increase of fossil fuel emissions had led to a sense of optimism around the world. [...] But, speaking to The Independent, Professor Hansen said he believed this optimism was misplaced. “The narrative that’s out there now … is that we’ve turned the corner,” he said. “On the contrary, what we show is the rate of growth of climate forcing caused by increased methane [and other gases] is actually accelerating. That’s why it’s urgent.” [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/

i have all these feeds...talk to me about how you feel about climate change...do you think the sea level will rise ...etc...jonZeee

[Walt In Seattle]

Why would/could anyone trust EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt? Why would Donald Trump?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senator-joins-ethics-probe-could-145646593.html

Aside from ethics, does Pruitt really know the climate science he so easily dismisses?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Why would/could anyone trust EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt? Why would Donald Trump?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senator-joins-ethics-probe-could-145646593.html
Aside from ethics, does Pruitt really know the climate science he so easily dismisses?

again i must say ...pruitt..trump ...etc..is not my interest here...that is another issue...the issue here is...the reality of climate change...so i know all the opinions of folks with titles...but i am interested about your interest in the subject and if you have formed an opinion..if you have let me hear about it...i feel you do not have an agenda...ie...job ..future job...in this profession of ideas...if you are a professional weather and climate person..i am not interested in that ...we got thousands of those dawgs around...regards..and if you are professor or school teacher of the last thirty or so years...i will be sceptical....regards..jonZeee

[Walt In Seattle]

In my opinion, people who haven't faced reality and/or gotten a clue should.

Post by j***@gmail.com
again i must say ...pruitt..trump ...etc..is not my interest here...that is another issue...the issue here is...the reality of climate change...so i know all the opinions of folks with titles...but i am interested about your interest in the subject and if you have formed an opinion..if you have let me hear about it...i feel you do not have an agenda...ie...job ..future job...in this profession of ideas...if you are a professional weather and climate person..i am not interested in that ...we got thousands of those dawgs around...regards..and if you are professor or school teacher of the last thirty or so years...i will be sceptical....regards..jonZeee

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Why would/could anyone trust EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt? Why would Donald Trump?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/senator-joins-ethics-probe-could-145646593.html
Aside from ethics, does Pruitt really know the climate science he so easily dismisses?

well if they want to remain active with their millions ...they have learned alot with spending time in starbucks...ya know..sweeping floors and fixin drinks etc...and some of the congressmen are not wealthy...and they can be their supervisors...as at least they have not let us down as bad as the senators...i knew ol eratic mccain would hurt us at the wrong time...he is good on timing though...jz texas is really threatened around the coast line but the rest is around 500 or so feet asl...and most of the western part is high desert above 3000 feet asl...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

Let's get a clue. Many people tend to ignore climate change in the U.S. It's more "comfortable" that way because reality is too harsh for them to accept. Yet, one day, they will have no choice. The only questions now are: Is it already too late to save the human species or will it be too late by the time most people accept we and THEY are in BIG TROUBLE? If we're in big trouble but can get out of it, what do we do?

At bottom, this is about actions implemented by human beings to take undue advantage of natural resources while ignoring what were projected consequences now coming home to roost in real events. Here's a synopsis of the problem as it relates to severe weather.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-the-science-of-extreme-weather/

Notably, there is this as well.

http://time.com/4255428/climate-change-extreme-weather/#.
________________________________________
[...] And for years any reputable scientist, politician or journalist would respond that while global warming might play a role, no specific weather event could be attributed to climate change. That is changing. New research from the National Academy of Sciences suggests that's no longer the case: scientists can now determine with some confidence the degree climate change influenced some extreme weather events. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/climate-change-carbon-emissions-ipcc-extreme-weather
________________________________________
Bob Ward at The Grantham Research Institute
Friday 23 August 2013 06.03 EDT

[...] Shifts in the number, severity and location of extreme weather events are among the most important impacts of climate change. Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather. More energy is being added to the atmosphere, and as it warms, it can hold more water vapour. On this basis alone, cold weather events should decline, heatwaves should increase, and there should be changes in the intensity and frequency of the dry and wet periods that cause droughts and floods. However, the Earth's climate system is very complex and natural variability, including El Niño and La Niña events, as well as important local and regional variations, make it difficult to separate out human influence on extreme weather events from other factors. In addition, extreme weather is, by definition, relatively rare and it can take a long time to identify statistically significant trends from small datasets. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

The numbers are beginning to roll in and the "dataset" grows.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
________________________________________
[...] Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. [...] Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

As to recordbreaking or simply devastating events of severe flooding in the past several years alone, here's a historical sampling with details.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-flooding-20160816-snap-story.html

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/02/record-missouri-flooding-manmade-calamity-scientist-says/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/unprecedented-2-dead-record-rainfall-floods-houston-n557451

http://www.reviewjournal.com/weather/4-rescued-during-record-breaking-rainfall-las-vegas-valley-photos#!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/01/world-weather-2016s-early-record-heat-gives-way-to-heavy-rains

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/us/west-virginia-flooding-deaths/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/maryland-flooding/

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/historic-south-flooding-march-2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2015_North_American_storm_complex

Finally. let's not forget about the increasing intensity of landfalling typhoons and implications for the future...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2792.html

This is NOT representative of NORMAL climate variability. And remember this is only an ABBREVIATED list which -- apart from flooding while the above list only presents information regarding a SAMPLE of events that do not encompass a myriad of flooding events Worldwide -- does not tackle drought, hurricane/typhoon/cyclone activity Worldwide, extreme as well as extended heatwaves, climate-related crop failures, ice sheet loss from glaciers which eventually will contribute so much to sea level rise that a lot of the World's coastal areas will be inundated and so on. However, some of this is addressed below.

The Evidence For Climate Change Or Information That Strongly Implies Climate Change

http://time.com/4156004/animals-climate-change-forests/

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/the-water-table-is-dropping-all-over-the-world-new-nasa-study-reveals-global-drought

What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel
MIT Club of Northern California
Published: Apr 11, 2014

Climate Webinar: Climate Change & Harmful Algal Blooms in Maumee Bay
Ohio Sea Grant at Ohio State University
Published: Jun 26, 2014

On climate change but more generally, climate change deniers or minimalists seem in desperate need for reasons to dismiss climate change and the threat therefrom, possibly because it's too uncomfortable to consider climate change to be a burgeoning problem. Thus, some denialists point to, for example, the work of Valentina Zharkova, a highly talented mathematician, on solar cycles. Solar maximums and minimums are difficult to predict. Zharkova has come up with an innovative approach that might prove out. She has projected from her calculations a Grand Solar Minimum sometime in the 2030s. An associated decrease in solar radiation is thought by many, including Zharkova, to bring a period of global cooling. It should be noted, however, that Valentina Zharkova has stated that, even if there is a GSM beginning in the 2030s, that GSM probably will not stop, only slow down, the progress of warming in global climate. Thus, you will not find from her a recommendation of a stand-down on efforts to control carbon emissions.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

And this is the general expectation of most climate scientists as well. Accordingly, let's not overlook reality in favor of the need for climate change denial which often comes to us courtesy of or through support from fossil fuel interests. Let's also not lose sight of prevailing scientific conclusions.

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-earth-isnt-headed-for-a-mini-ice-age-anytime-soon/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html

Lost in much of the debate over whether Zharkova has been telling us to expect another Little Ice Age (LIA) is the debate over whether the LIA occurred because of a GSM or volcanic activity. But would some people rather folks not notice?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/

On the matter of volcanic activity as an alternative to Grand Solar Minimum significant cooling (e. g. the Little Ice Age), note the following links.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm

At the climate4you link, choose the "General" link and read that entire section then the following item:

"The spatial effect of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption on surface air temperature"

In most instances, volcanic activity of large scale will bring cooling. Yet, warming is possible. Whether it occurs depends on what is emitted in what volume from an eruption. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 is widely thought to have added to the LIA and caused the year without a Summer or "Eighteen-Hundred And Froze To Death".

http://www.milbridgehistoricalsociety.org/previous/no_summer.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity

Warming would probably require a massively HUGE release of CO2 and a relatively low emission of sulfur as well as ash or dust. That's a rare scenario.

Denialists have their excuses for not accepting reality:

{} Perception everything feels fine so why "sweat" ACC?
{} I can't trust scientists; they're in the pocket of big government!
{} Those scientists are corrupting data to match an agenda!
{} Climate is too complex; we just don't know!
{} Computer models are bogus!
{} We can find a way to adapt to ANYTHING!
{} If we're going to die, we're going to die! Don't whine about it!
{} You're asking me to giveup a comfy lifestyle. Not your right!

And on and on it goes. Is any of it true? Are the perceptions valid? If not......

Deniers or minimalists LOVE to forget about or obfuscate, if not distort, what is going on in the Arctic. So, why take note of a village in Alaska which will have to relocate because of climate change, some such people would wonder...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/shishmaref-alaska-elocate-vote-climate-change.html?_r=0

We have to eat, right? That means we have to grow crops for a World population that keeps increasing. Developed nations are barely holding back the negative impact of climate change on our ability to grow food. Yes; some crop yields are still high, thanks to hi-tech farming which includes GM techniques. But for how long? That's what General Mils would like to know. Agriculture across the World is up against increasingly disadvantageous conditions relevant to climate change. Whether modern science can keep pace as ACC worsens is not clear. But it IS clear this will be a battle. The following is about the challenge(s) specific to the U.K.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103504

So, taking it all into consideration: at the end of day, is it reality that interests most of us or something else?

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Let's get a clue. Many people tend to ignore climate change in the U.S. It's more "comfortable" that way because reality is too harsh for them to accept. Yet, one day, they will have no choice. The only questions now are: Is it already too late to save the human species or will it be too late by the time most people accept we and THEY are in BIG TROUBLE? If we're in big trouble but can get out of it, what do we do?
At bottom, this is about actions implemented by human beings to take undue advantage of natural resources while ignoring what were projected consequences now coming home to roost in real events. Here's a synopsis of the problem as it relates to severe weather.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-the-science-of-extreme-weather/
Notably, there is this as well.
http://time.com/4255428/climate-change-extreme-weather/#.
________________________________________
[...] And for years any reputable scientist, politician or journalist would respond that while global warming might play a role, no specific weather event could be attributed to climate change. That is changing. New research from the National Academy of Sciences suggests that's no longer the case: scientists can now determine with some confidence the degree climate change influenced some extreme weather events. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/23/climate-change-carbon-emissions-ipcc-extreme-weather
________________________________________
Bob Ward at The Grantham Research Institute
Friday 23 August 2013 06.03 EDT
[...] Shifts in the number, severity and location of extreme weather events are among the most important impacts of climate change. Basic physics suggest that global warming should affect the occurrence of extreme weather. More energy is being added to the atmosphere, and as it warms, it can hold more water vapour. On this basis alone, cold weather events should decline, heatwaves should increase, and there should be changes in the intensity and frequency of the dry and wet periods that cause droughts and floods. However, the Earth's climate system is very complex and natural variability, including El Niño and La Niña events, as well as important local and regional variations, make it difficult to separate out human influence on extreme weather events from other factors. In addition, extreme weather is, by definition, relatively rare and it can take a long time to identify statistically significant trends from small datasets. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
The numbers are beginning to roll in and the "dataset" grows.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
________________________________________
[...] Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions. [...] Some risks of climate change, such as risks to unique and threatened systems and risks associated with extreme weather events, are moderate to high at temperatures 1°C to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------
As to recordbreaking or simply devastating events of severe flooding in the past several years alone, here's a historical sampling with details.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-louisiana-flooding-20160816-snap-story.html
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/02/record-missouri-flooding-manmade-calamity-scientist-says/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/unprecedented-2-dead-record-rainfall-floods-houston-n557451
http://www.reviewjournal.com/weather/4-rescued-during-record-breaking-rainfall-las-vegas-valley-photos#!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/01/world-weather-2016s-early-record-heat-gives-way-to-heavy-rains
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/us/west-virginia-flooding-deaths/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/maryland-flooding/
https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/historic-south-flooding-march-2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2015_North_American_storm_complex
Finally. let's not forget about the increasing intensity of landfalling typhoons and implications for the future...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2792.html
This is NOT representative of NORMAL climate variability. And remember this is only an ABBREVIATED list which -- apart from flooding while the above list only presents information regarding a SAMPLE of events that do not encompass a myriad of flooding events Worldwide -- does not tackle drought, hurricane/typhoon/cyclone activity Worldwide, extreme as well as extended heatwaves, climate-related crop failures, ice sheet loss from glaciers which eventually will contribute so much to sea level rise that a lot of the World's coastal areas will be inundated and so on. However, some of this is addressed below.
The Evidence For Climate Change Or Information That Strongly Implies Climate Change
http://time.com/4156004/animals-climate-change-forests/
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/the-water-table-is-dropping-all-over-the-world-new-nasa-study-reveals-global-drought
What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel
MIT Club of Northern California
Published: Apr 11, 2014
http://youtu.be/7so8GRCWA1k
Climate Webinar: Climate Change & Harmful Algal Blooms in Maumee Bay
Ohio Sea Grant at Ohio State University
Published: Jun 26, 2014
http://youtu.be/oDrnZasOZro
On climate change but more generally, climate change deniers or minimalists seem in desperate need for reasons to dismiss climate change and the threat therefrom, possibly because it's too uncomfortable to consider climate change to be a burgeoning problem. Thus, some denialists point to, for example, the work of Valentina Zharkova, a highly talented mathematician, on solar cycles. Solar maximums and minimums are difficult to predict. Zharkova has come up with an innovative approach that might prove out. She has projected from her calculations a Grand Solar Minimum sometime in the 2030s. An associated decrease in solar radiation is thought by many, including Zharkova, to bring a period of global cooling. It should be noted, however, that Valentina Zharkova has stated that, even if there is a GSM beginning in the 2030s, that GSM probably will not stop, only slow down, the progress of warming in global climate. Thus, you will not find from her a recommendation of a stand-down on efforts to control carbon emissions.
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming
And this is the general expectation of most climate scientists as well. Accordingly, let's not overlook reality in favor of the need for climate change denial which often comes to us courtesy of or through support from fossil fuel interests. Let's also not lose sight of prevailing scientific conclusions.
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-earth-isnt-headed-for-a-mini-ice-age-anytime-soon/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/natural-cooling-of-the-sun-will-not-be-enough-to-save-earth-from-global-warming-warn-scientists-10340067.html
Lost in much of the debate over whether Zharkova has been telling us to expect another Little Ice Age (LIA) is the debate over whether the LIA occurred because of a GSM or volcanic activity. But would some people rather folks not notice?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volcanoes-may-have-sparked/
On the matter of volcanic activity as an alternative to Grand Solar Minimum significant cooling (e. g. the Little Ice Age), note the following links.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm
"The spatial effect of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption on surface air temperature"
In most instances, volcanic activity of large scale will bring cooling. Yet, warming is possible. Whether it occurs depends on what is emitted in what volume from an eruption. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 is widely thought to have added to the LIA and caused the year without a Summer or "Eighteen-Hundred And Froze To Death".
http://www.milbridgehistoricalsociety.org/previous/no_summer.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity
Warming would probably require a massively HUGE release of CO2 and a relatively low emission of sulfur as well as ash or dust. That's a rare scenario.
{} Perception everything feels fine so why "sweat" ACC?
{} I can't trust scientists; they're in the pocket of big government!
{} Those scientists are corrupting data to match an agenda!
{} Climate is too complex; we just don't know!
{} Computer models are bogus!
{} We can find a way to adapt to ANYTHING!
{} If we're going to die, we're going to die! Don't whine about it!
{} You're asking me to giveup a comfy lifestyle. Not your right!
And on and on it goes. Is any of it true? Are the perceptions valid? If not......
Deniers or minimalists LOVE to forget about or obfuscate, if not distort, what is going on in the Arctic. So, why take note of a village in Alaska which will have to relocate because of climate change, some such people would wonder...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/shishmaref-alaska-elocate-vote-climate-change.html?_r=0
We have to eat, right? That means we have to grow crops for a World population that keeps increasing. Developed nations are barely holding back the negative impact of climate change on our ability to grow food. Yes; some crop yields are still high, thanks to hi-tech farming which includes GM techniques. But for how long? That's what General Mils would like to know. Agriculture across the World is up against increasingly disadvantageous conditions relevant to climate change. Whether modern science can keep pace as ACC worsens is not clear. But it IS clear this will be a battle. The following is about the challenge(s) specific to the U.K.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103504
So, taking it all into consideration: at the end of day, is it reality that interests most of us or something else?

walt...above is an excellent summation of the left side of the political spectrum...but you characterzation of the side is rather immature in my opinion...we the left has been working on this idea since the rocket sent the original climate observation into space...that was the beginning of your new bonuncing baby boy.....but we also on the right are happy that weather scientist can observe the complete total earth staticly..so to speak wher it was a local before...so of course we do not believe what you folks are saying because....and i must note that when trying to spin a new idea..make sure you have all your i.s and t.s crossed and dotted..and of course you havent...ie...al gore is not a good person of example to bring forth an idea..but i suppose at the time he thought he was...but we also note that you folks on the left have the university system in complete control to advocate such shennanagans...the right tries hard to be on the side of a moral oriented base as out favorite baby boy...ie..clinton..gore and on and on with various immoral portrayals immorality..while the republicans have a cleaner record of straight ness and i will admit...could be they do all those things too but just do it more private and hidden.....so without sauntering into a rant...what you have said could have been said by any of your cohorts...i see you are still reluctant to answer the question..if all the ice beneath the ocean water level melted ..would the sea level rise or lower..no or yes would be ok.....see we all know that is the one that makes you guys do long rants and never answer the question...but if you answer it right and with common sense...we would love to hear more from you and al..but this error on you guys part is the one behavior that destructs all new ideas from the start.....regards...jonZeee raw earthy

[Walt In Seattle]

What was above was a statement of climate reality which you did not specifically address rather than go far afield to left versus right nonsequiturs. Perhaps you can't accept reality or perhaps you're playing a troll's game. I don't know which applies. But whichever does, that's your option.

Post by john simmons
walt...above is an excellent summation of the left side of the political spectrum...

[Walt In Seattle]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable. A new report by the Asian Development Bank highlights the impact of climate change on the Asia-Pacific region, noting that it will be among those hardest hit by rising temperatures and the more extreme weather patterns they will create. While governments finally appear to be taking that threat seriously, as was evident in the renewed commitment to the Paris climate accord at this month’s Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, there are quicker moving and more powerful ways to induce changes in behavior to combat this phenomenon. The simplest and most effective are market forces. And indeed, the financial community is waking up to its role in this process. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

As to the evidence for rapid climate change:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/
________________________________________
Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options
Lonnie G Thompson

[Note: Lonnie G. Thompson is a Distinguished University Professor in the School of Earth Sciences and a Research Scientist in the Byrd Polar Research Center at The Ohio State University.]

Abstract

Glaciers serve as early indicators of climate change. Over the last 35 years, our research team has recovered ice-core records of climatic and environmental variations from the polar regions and from low-latitude high-elevation ice fields from 16 countries. The ongoing widespread melting of high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, particularly in low to middle latitudes, provides some of the strongest evidence to date that a large-scale, pervasive, and, in some cases, rapid change in Earth's climate system is underway. This paper highlights observations of 20th and 21st century glacier shrinkage in the Andes, the Himalayas, and on Mount Kilimanjaro. Ice cores retrieved from shrinking glaciers around the world confirm their continuous existence for periods ranging from hundreds of years to multiple millennia, suggesting that climatological conditions that dominate those regions today are different from those under which these ice fields originally accumulated and have been sustained. The current warming is therefore unusual when viewed from the millennial perspective provided by multiple lines of proxy evidence and the 160-year record of direct temperature measurements. Despite all this evidence, plus the well-documented continual increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, societies have taken little action to address this global-scale problem. Hence, the rate of global carbon dioxide emissions continues to accelerate. As a result of our inaction, we have three options: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. [..]
--------------------------------------------------------

See also:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/evidence-on-climate-change-both-clear-convincing/article_9cdf7eb1-a4c3-5dd4-a37b-4a8a9e6f210a.html

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 11:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable.

Yep ... it'll be a good thing ! :-)

[Walt In Seattle]

Post by Mr. B1ack

Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable.

Yep ... it'll be a good thing ! :-)

What, for you, constitutes "a good thing"?
And on what science can you assert "it'll be a good thing"? Or is the smiley to indicate you're just kidding?

[Mr. B1ack]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:37:08 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle

Post by Mr. B1ack

Post by Walt In Seattle
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/07/23/editorials/best-tool-fight-climate-change/
________________________________________
[...] The reality of climate change grows ever more inescapable.

Yep ... it'll be a good thing ! :-)

What, for you, constitutes "a good thing"?

Pole to pole rainforest ... like during the last Big Warm.

There's nothing to be done about GW ... whether
humans are speeding it up or not. It's one of those
natural cycles now (actually "normal", for earth, is
really damned warm - look at the gigayear charts).

The ice IS gonna melt, there WILL be forests in
antarctica again and the polar bears had better
trend towards brown. It's happened before and
it'll happen again. The status-quo isn't sacred ...
it never existed.

Cope.

Post by Walt In Seattle
And on what science can you assert "it'll be a good thing"? Or is the smiley to indicate you're just kidding?

The smiley means I think you're just another
Gore-suckin' panic-monger ..........

[w***@gmail.com]

Post by Mr. B1ack
The ice IS gonna melt, there WILL be forests in
antarctica again and the polar bears had better
trend towards brown. It's happened before and
it'll happen again. The status-quo isn't sacred ...
it never existed.
Cope.

Post by Walt In Seattle
And on what science can you assert "it'll be a good thing"? Or is the smiley to indicate you're just kidding?

The smiley means I think you're just another
Gore-suckin' panic-monger ..........

Your expertise comes from where; the breitbart.com school of climaology? Maybe Prager U.? Go read the several climate-related webpages of the American Institute of Physics for better information.

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm

Perhaps you should read this as well:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

Oh... and there's this too.......

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

Let me know if you need any more RELIABLE information..... ;-)

[Walt In Seattle]

Note that the Trump Administration may soon forge ahead with their "red team" approach to replacement of or attacking scientific peer review of scientific research and research papers. Reportedly, The Heartland Institute -- a stronghold for climate change skeptics and the same organization that defended the tobacco industry's products until medical science as well as insider revelations unmasked what the industry was doing in regard to lack of transparency along with deception on the safety or lackthereof in their products -- will provide advice to the Trump Administration on who should be chosen to serve on such Red Team(s).

I suspect this could herald the creation of what, in effect, shall be a government propaganda bureau which will tell us we can go back to polluting air and water to a much greater extent than in recent years, provided the perps aren't too obvious and in too much disregard for public safety, saying too, whether it's correct or not, that carbon emissions are no big deal. In other words: "Don't worry your pretty little heads! We're going to make America GREAT again!" They'll also say "America is being crippled by rules and regulations. We need less of them to be GREAT!"

Of course, they won't tell you it's "a good thing" for frackers of oil and gas not to inform the public what chemicals and methods they use on federal land to frack, and they won't say it's good for coal mining operations to remove mountaintops to get at coal seams while resulting debris chokes a body or bodies of water below. But Trump already has enabled or endorsed these actions by executive order.

Heartland may become an important tool for the Trump Administration as it looks for ways to say: "You see; a little more CO2 in the atmosphere isn't so bad. We don't have to make manufacturers create products at squeaky-clean factories, and a little mess here and there is a small price to pay for making America GREAT again." They will promise publicly that "REAL" pollution shall be prohibited as we see development of such things as "clean coal". Nevermind the failure of the Kemper project!

All of this will come as insinuation, implied subtext or as direct statements from the Trump Administration while Red Teams will provide sophistry cloaked in the jargon of science to back up what the Trump Administration and Scott will say or tweet regarding climate.

The administration-desired bottom line perception for the public shall be: "It's time to make big piles of money. We'll worry about the environment later when America is GREAT again!" And being "GREAT AGAIN" means making the rich and powerful American oligarchs much richer and more powerful. That's kind of the formula Vladimir Putin used to ensure his rise to power. What else is Trump borrowing from Putin's playbook?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-lining-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Note that the Trump Administration may soon forge ahead with their "red team" approach to replacement of or attacking scientific peer review of scientific research and research papers. Reportedly, The Heartland Institute -- a stronghold for climate change skeptics and the same organization that defended the tobacco industry's products until medical science as well as insider revelations unmasked what the industry was doing in regard to lack of transparency along with deception on the safety or lackthereof in their products -- will provide advice to the Trump Administration on who should be chosen to serve on such Red Team(s).
I suspect this could herald the creation of what, in effect, shall be a government propaganda bureau which will tell us we can go back to polluting air and water to a much greater extent than in recent years, provided the perps aren't too obvious and in too much disregard for public safety, saying too, whether it's correct or not, that carbon emissions are no big deal. In other words: "Don't worry your pretty little heads! We're going to make America GREAT again!" They'll also say "America is being crippled by rules and regulations. We need less of them to be GREAT!"
Of course, they won't tell you it's "a good thing" for frackers of oil and gas not to inform the public what chemicals and methods they use on federal land to frack, and they won't say it's good for coal mining operations to remove mountaintops to get at coal seams while resulting debris chokes a body or bodies of water below. But Trump already has enabled or endorsed these actions by executive order.
Heartland may become an important tool for the Trump Administration as it looks for ways to say: "You see; a little more CO2 in the atmosphere isn't so bad. We don't have to make manufacturers create products at squeaky-clean factories, and a little mess here and there is a small price to pay for making America GREAT again." They will promise publicly that "REAL" pollution shall be prohibited as we see development of such things as "clean coal". Nevermind the failure of the Kemper project!
All of this will come as insinuation, implied subtext or as direct statements from the Trump Administration while Red Teams will provide sophistry cloaked in the jargon of science to back up what the Trump Administration and Scott will say or tweet regarding climate.
The administration-desired bottom line perception for the public shall be: "It's time to make big piles of money. We'll worry about the environment later when America is GREAT again!" And being "GREAT AGAIN" means making the rich and powerful American oligarchs much richer and more powerful. That's kind of the formula Vladimir Putin used to ensure his rise to power. What else is Trump borrowing from Putin's playbook?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-administration-lining-up-climate-change-red-team/article/2629124

walter...when one is trying to offer an idea...is it not feasable or correct to be damned sure you dont add a corney lie that completely makes you look like an idiot...it really is what folks are looking for...to absolutely ignor the fact that if all ice melted uunder the sea and ocean water ..the sea level would go down below its present level...but walt and even you do not want to admit this fact...so why be the idiot you appear to be.... like al gore and all the rest that is looking for a hoax to pitch..jeesh..yes the democrats need money and a something to sell the college students so they will vote for ya...but give it up man and tell em to get a real job ...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

<LO[freakin']L>

On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:

<<<...if all ice melted uunder the sea and ocean water ..the sea level would go down below its present level...>>>

[Walt In Seattle]

Thursday through Saturday, Alaska's Northern-most city, Barrow, will experience what, for them, will be a dramatic heatwave -- in the mid-to-upper 60s on Friday. These temps will be *WAY* off historic averages.

https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USAK0025:1:US

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0025

It's not like Barrow, which is well inside the Arctic Circle, has to deal with dramatic temperature rise every day. And yes; it's true that the number of days Barrow recorded temps way above the norm last year outpaces this year in a big way. But the trend is clear if you run the numbers for a span of several decades. It's not like Barrow is now a vacation resort -- not that it could be as it currently exists because it probably will be flooded by sea level rise before the end of the century. But I expect you'll find, if you run the numbers, that Barrow, over the past 5 to 10 years, has endured what is, for them, extreme heat more frequently than several decades ago.

The trend likely will, at times, be reversed or run neutral. But it's also probable that, over a period of decades, the trend for increasingly frequent heatwaves, lasting longer and getting hotter over the long term, will be evident. Barrow is ahead of the curve for the lower 48 as to the rate for warming of climate. While not a precise analogy, mostly because warming will always be more dramatic at the poles, Barrow is nevertheless a good indicator for what is to come for the lower 48 on rishing temperature. Apparently, warming in the lower 48 will occur at a somewhat slower pace and with less frequency for heatwaves as compared to the Arctic. But warming WILL happen and, by 2100, we'll all consider that wqarming to be dramatic.

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Thursday through Saturday, Alaska's Northern-most city, Barrow, will experience what, for them, will be a dramatic heatwave -- in the mid-to-upper 60s on Friday. These temps will be *WAY* off historic averages.
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/USAK0025:1:US
http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USAK0025
It's not like Barrow, which is well inside the Arctic Circle, has to deal with dramatic temperature rise every day. And yes; it's true that the number of days Barrow recorded temps way above the norm last year outpaces this year in a big way. But the trend is clear if you run the numbers for a span of several decades. It's not like Barrow is now a vacation resort -- not that it could be as it currently exists because it probably will be flooded by sea level rise before the end of the century. But I expect you'll find, if you run the numbers, that Barrow, over the past 5 to 10 years, has endured what is, for them, extreme heat more frequently than several decades ago.
The trend likely will, at times, be reversed or run neutral. But it's also probable that, over a period of decades, the trend for increasingly frequent heatwaves, lasting longer and getting hotter over the long term, will be evident. Barrow is ahead of the curve for the lower 48 as to the rate for warming of climate. While not a precise analogy, mostly because warming will always be more dramatic at the poles, Barrow is nevertheless a good indicator for what is to come for the lower 48 on rishing temperature. Apparently, warming in the lower 48 will occur at a somewhat slower pace and with less frequency for heatwaves as compared to the Arctic. But warming WILL happen and, by 2100, we'll all consider that wqarming to be dramatic.

sooo nature has provided for a regrowth of the forest that has been descimated by man...by slightly warmer temps...higher humidity...and when it is lush with greenery in the jungle regions and the deserts...then the weather will change back the other direction..with out most folks even taking notice...jon

[Walt In Seattle]

Water, water all around you.. But a drop to drink?

https://www.wired.com/story/climate-change-fueled-storms-could-leave-less-water-for-drinking/

And what's to eat?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/27/how-the-climate-crisis-could-become-a-food-crisis-overnight/

While we're thinking about what we'll drink and eat at some point in the future, let's also think about the impact of increasing wildfires. They can destroy food/crops as well.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-climate-wildfires-experts.html

[Walt In Seattle]

Feeling like some music would be nice?

Here's The Greatest Hits Of Climate Change

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Feeling like some music would be nice?
Here's The Greatest Hits Of Climate Change
http://youtu.be/HHP9Rh-ooh0
http://youtu.be/p1RIvTYwPCE
http://youtu.be/skVrKVJb1Sc

go for it...sounds like a man with a plan...start a climate change political party...rock on...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

Are we in greater dire straits as to climate change than previously thought? A West coast team has determined it's unlikely we'll act to mitigate carbon emissions quickly enough and to the extent we'd avoid a rise in global average temperature of 2C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Never mind 1.5C. Is their pessimism warranted as well as supported by good data that has been properly assessed?

http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nclimate3352
________________________________________
[...] Less than 2?°C warming by 2100 unlikely

Adrian E. Raftery,
Alec Zimmer,
Dargan M. W. Frierson,
Richard Startz,
Peiran Liu [...]

[...] [Abstract:] The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections to 2100 give likely ranges of global temperature increase in four scenarios for population, economic growth and carbon use1. However, these projections are not based on a fully statistical approach. Here we use a country-specific version of Kaya's identity to develop a statistically based probabilistic forecast of CO2 emissions and temperature change to 2100. Using data for 1960-2010, including the UN's probabilistic population projections for all countries we develop a joint Bayesian hierarchical model for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and carbon intensity. We find that the 90% interval for cumulative CO2 emissions includes the IPCC's two middle scenarios but not the extreme ones. The likely range of global temperature increase is 2.0-4.9?°C, with median 3.2?°C and a 5% (1%) chance that it will be less than 2?°C (1.5?°C). Population growth is not a major contributing factor. Our model is not a `business as usual' scenario, but rather is based on data which already show the effect of emission mitigation policies. Achieving the goal of less than 1.5?°C warming will require carbon intensity to decline much faster than in the recent past. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

Affiliations:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3352.html?foxtrotcallback=true#affil-auth

[Walt In Seattle]

Looking at Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen, some areas of India and Southeast Asia, areas of South America over the past year-and-a-half such as Bolivia and Brazil or Chile as well as Peru along with crop failure in Texas last year then checking what the future has to offer, folks should be concerned. But most in the U.S. are not so concerned as to act while people in less fortunate regions of the World ARE.

The difference is that WE, in the U.S., aren't feeling the impact of what others experience now. When we do...... And we WILL! It's a matter of WHEN, not IF.

Significantly, that future, I suspect, is ours, whether we had begun to act to mitigate climate change today or do so eight to ten years from now. But, the earlier we start, the better are our chances for long term survival. With this said, I'm far from optimistic, even for mitigation in the long term.

I have no evidence I can post or warnings from scientists I respect, that our demise -- a human demise -- is nearly upon us, in a geological sense of time. But I nevertheless feel it in my gut, and partly because I know human nature. We'll not substantively act until it's WAY too late! But maybe -- hopefully -- I'm wrong....

But let's start analyzing root problems that get in the way of mitigation if mitigation will ever happen in a big way... That's what you do as a first step to solving a problem.

One of many issues to address is the reality that e-commerce entities, along with entities in the brick & mortar sector of commerce, and one E-Commerce giant in particular, are attempting to do some things that are climate-friendly or that show their respect for livable, sustainable (as long as is possible) climate. Yet, what some or many of these entities do, as a business, is part of the problem.

Consumption, at the level many customers of these entities consume, promulgates production of products in a cycle of replacement that's irresponsible. (too many of us have to have the latest and greatest, even though what we have is just fine!) We chase our tails to have the best immediately and do not consider the consequences for climate. (Landfills are full of the consequences!) Reusing and using longer is more of a priority for some people, and some hand down what they no longer use. But that's antithetical to certain business models. Indeed, ever-increasing consumption is considered by many to be crucial to a growing American economy. It may be. However, if we hope to survive, we have to live life on a different scale under different priorities. It's just that difficult and simple all at once.

This is NOT to say free enterprise/capitalism is our death warrant. But it IS to say that it's now essential that we reconceptualize capitalism's role and priorities in a World seemingly threatened by increasing levels of anthropogenic climate change. The industrial revolution enhanced human civilization; that's not debatable. And fossil fuels were a key component in progress made by civilization.

We -- American society or culture -- didn't know or understand the downsides until recently, although scientific communities have at least had a clue for several decades or more. Now, we have to accept the growing body of evidence we've created a problem we must at least attempt to fix if we hope humanity will survive beyond the next two or three centuries. That's to say we have to accept... *IF*.... the next step will be to mitigate our future.

Some people, of course, NEVER will accept! They'll deny and continue in the delusion nothing is wrong or nothing is wrong over which humanity can have a practical impact. And perhaps it's possible there's no having a practical, positive impact on climate at this point. But why quit before we've seriously started? We have kids who will have kids who will have kids who will have kids whose kids will experience the Hell of threatening climate if we don't get serious about mitigation. We don't owe it to them to at least try? It's not certain but highly probable that, if we stay focused on the here and now rather than on a future for generations more than a few decades out from the present, there may be no long term future for the civilization we've struggled to build, not just in America but the World over...... This is a GLOBAL CRISIS. We must act globally if we hope for our species to survive in the long term.

[Albrecht Mehl]

Dear Walt,

Post by Walt In Seattle
The difference is that WE, in the U.S., aren't feeling the impact of what others experience now. When we do...... And we WILL! It's a matter of WHEN, not IF.

This phrase is correct except for 'WE, in the U.S.' This group addresses
politics in general, not just the US one. There are other groups having
USA in their title. So you should better write 'People in the US ...'

Post by Walt In Seattle
Significantly, that future, I suspect, is ours, whether we had begun to act to mitigate climate change today or do so eight to ten years from now. But, the earlier we start, the better are our chances for long term survival. With this said, I'm far from optimistic, even for mitigation in the long term.
I have no evidence I can post or warnings from scientists I respect, that our demise -- a human demise -- is nearly upon us, in a geological sense of time. But I nevertheless feel it in my gut, and partly because I know human nature. We'll not substantively act until it's WAY too late! But maybe -- hopefully -- I'm wrong....

Have a look at

http://gaia.org/

and read books from James Lovelock, especially 'The vanishing face of
gaia, a final warning'.

A. Mehl
--
eBriefe an| mehlBEIiesyPUNKTnet |Spätestens seit der
Fukush.-Katastrophe sollten wir uns alle darüber im Klaren sein, dass
Energie nicht länger endlos zur Verfügung steht, ... Wir werden uns
daran gewöhnen müssen, die anfallenden Kosten zu bedenken, bevor wir ein
elektrisches Gerät in Betrieb nehmen wollen, bzw. bevor wir unser Auto
in Bewegung setzen. Dies wird in den nächsten Jahren ein schmerzhafter,
aber unvermeidlicher Prozess des Umdenkens werden, anders haben unsere
Gesellschaft und unser Planet keine Überlebenschance.
Leserbrf. - nicht von mir - FAZ 26.8.2013

[Walt In Seattle]

The post was intended for readers in the U.S. I don't believe I'm prohibited from addressing Americans on issues that relate to them. But I did not leave the World out the equation, as you should see from text other than what you quoted from my post.

________________________________________
[...] It's not certain but highly probable that, if we stay focused on the here and now rather than on a future for generations more than a few decades out from the present, there may be no long term future for the civilization we've struggled to build, not just in America but the World over...... This is a GLOBAL CRISIS. We must act globally if we hope for our species to survive in the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------

Post by Albrecht Mehl
Dear Walt,

Post by Walt In Seattle
The difference is that WE, in the U.S., aren't feeling the impact of what others experience now. When we do...... And we WILL! It's a matter of WHEN, not IF.

This phrase is correct except for 'WE, in the U.S.' This group addresses
politics in general, not just the US one.

[Walt In Seattle]

By 2100, some areas of South Asia could be unlivable because of climate change. At the least, warming would present significant health risks.

http://time.com/4884648/climate-change-india-temperatures/

Yet, the U.S., according to a Pew Research survey, ranks ISIS and cyberattacks as top threats to national security while most other nations surveyed ranked climate change and ISIS as top threats to national security

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/01/globally-people-point-to-isis-and-climate-change-as-leading-security-threats/

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
By 2100, some areas of South Asia could be unlivable because of climate change. At the least, warming would present significant health risks.
http://time.com/4884648/climate-change-india-temperatures/
Yet, the U.S., according to a Pew Research survey, ranks ISIS and cyberattacks as top threats to national security while most other nations surveyed ranked climate change and ISIS as top threats to national security
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/01/globally-people-point-to-isis-and-climate-change-as-leading-security-threats/

it seems that you are torn between wanting to save the peoples from dying or relocated.vs. creating a political party with climate change being the sole purpose...is it not a 50 50 deal for sure...either way it is a loser...and i must say i am amazed that donald trump is the only leader in the world that seems to be right about the issue...of course the rest of the world is tag along to get along type folks except russia and china...so i can see that the rest of the world will burn out on this issue without the usa going along...jonZeee

[Walt In Seattle]

By 2100, as many as 150,000 in Europe may die each year from extreme weather, mostly heatwaves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
By 2100, as many as 150,000 in Europe may die each year from extreme weather, mostly heatwaves.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663

i know....po little babies die over here just about every day cuz moma left em in the car while she was having her hair fixed...what a shame...extreme heat does kill..jz

[Walt In Seattle]

I'm not a Twitter kind of guy. Donald Trump likes Twitter because it plugs him into a society with progressively shorter attention spans who live their lives on the basis of information in soundbites -- nothing in-depth because that simply takes too much time for short attention spans -- and advice in fortune cookies
fashion. But, if that HAS TO BE the mode of communication and analysis, here is something you can tweet to or in response to Donald Trump!

Mr. Prez: Your "BUSINESS First" policy over dealing with the threats in worsening climate change WILL *KILL* people! You could care less??

And then you could tweet this link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=1

Yes; Trump's illusion or deception is the notion that "business first" is always and necessarily "America First". That's not true. But you won't hear the truth from Donald Trump on many things but this in particular. After all, this is the president who has stuffed his cabinet as well as staff with American oligrachs. What more could you expect from Donald Trump?

[Walt In Seattle]

What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??

http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??
http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html

well after prompting you to simply explain that the sea level rise was not a good thing to talk about because it simply is not true because of the melt effect...but you are not interested in that as i can see and millions of others cant either....so go on and be the al gore you really want to be and see how well it serves you...i am an hon est person and through life i have been made aware of a certain part of my argument that was causing people to turn me off or tune me out...and i retracted what i had previously stated ...and using common sense it ususally works if the rest of your story.... is on solid ground and is correct...but with you guys it seems you just dont want to talk about an issue that is not on solid ground rather to just admit it was not a good idea to push in the first place...regards..jz

[john simmons]

Post by john simmons

Post by Walt In Seattle
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??
http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html

well after prompting you to simply explain that the sea level rise was not a good thing to talk about because it simply is not true because of the melt effect...but you are not interested in that as i can see and millions of others cant either....so go on and be the al gore you really want to be and see how well it serves you...i am an hon est person and through life i have been made aware of a certain part of my argument that was causing people to turn me off or tune me out...and i retracted what i had previously stated ...and using common sense it ususally works if the rest of your story.... is on solid ground and is correct...but with you guys it seems you just dont want to talk about an issue that is not on solid ground rather to just admit it was not a good idea to push in the first place...regards..jz

so to add the obvious like talking to children....sure i am bright enough to realize that you and al gore sez to one another ...hey we can hit em with rising sea level and that is the bulk of the population...and it will scare hell out of em...and then we can watch the results of bullshit turn into many votes for the democrats ...as we gotta have a miracle of some kind..ya know...i guess the chimps are excited now about this post and are celebrating huh...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

Turn you off? You have an off switch, John? ... ;-)

Post by john simmons

Post by Walt In Seattle
What does the American Meteorological Society say about climate change??
http://www.richmond.com/weather/state-of-the-climate-isn-t-just-getting-warmer-scientists/article_f5231868-5470-5968-839e-10d40ca96db5.html

well after prompting you to simply explain that the sea level rise was not a good thing to talk about because it simply is not true because of the melt effect...but you are not interested in that as i can see and millions of others cant either....so go on and be the al gore you really want to be and see how well it serves you...i am an hon est person and through life i have been made aware of a certain part of my argument that was causing people to turn me off or tune me out...and i retracted what i had previously stated ...and using common sense it ususally works if the rest of your story.... is on solid ground and is correct...but with you guys it seems you just dont want to talk about an issue that is not on solid ground rather to just admit it was not a good idea to push in the first place...regards..jz

[Walt In Seattle]

The impact of climate change is a topic of debate in almost every instance where assertions are made as to ACC -- Anthropogenic Climate Change or changes occurring in large measure and by comparison because of what human beings do such as burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon in other ways that add to a growing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn trap heat like a blanket as the Earth warms at a relatively fast pace. Yet, it's more difficult for deniers or minimalists to credibly make their case as weather events become more extreme and a trend is revealed over a period of decades.

If people look at the data with an open mind, they'll see where we are headed in the long term. The article below is mainly about U.S. Pacific Northwest changes in climate and the consequences that have followed on as well as what can be expected in the future. But the most important facts for you to digest are that (1) it's happening all over the World and (2) it's happening NOW! We're in the leading edge of dangerously changing climate that probably is more attributable to human activity than natural variability. Some might say: "we can do this. No big deal. Life is tough and weather, even extreme weather, is just a part of it. You make do as best you can but you don't wuss out and you don't make people pay a price for what you've experienced. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and soldier on." Such would be unfair or disrespectful of those who have been injured and/or lost property or loved-ones if not their own lives in extreme weather when that weather is the byproduct of ACC. It's HERE and it's NOW! It's largely OUR doing. WE have a responsibility to cleanup OUR mess if we can! We at least have to try...... But let's not forget as well the need or responsibility on behalf of the human species to try and save it from extinction, even if such extinction might be some 100, 200 or 300 years further on in consequences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/08/14/daily-202-evidence-of-climate-change-abounds-amid-extreme-weather-in-the-pacific-northwest/59910b8e30fb0462b8e1a9c4/

You want something more that proves relatively rapid climate change is happening NOW? Look to the Arctic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-fast-melting-arctic-sign-bad-global-warming-49199787

Much of what happens in the Arctic -- the trend toward warming -- will NOT stay in the Arctic or apply ONLY to the Arctic. It can't because warming elsewhere in the World exists NOW! Perhaps what happens in the Arctic will be more dramatic there than in other parts of the World. But warming IS underway and what we'll see across the World will be bad enough for concern NOW!

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
The impact of climate change is a topic of debate in almost every instance where assertions are made as to ACC -- Anthropogenic Climate Change or changes occurring in large measure and by comparison because of what human beings do such as burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon in other ways that add to a growing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn trap heat like a blanket as the Earth warms at a relatively fast pace. Yet, it's more difficult for deniers or minimalists to credibly make their case as weather events become more extreme and a trend is revealed over a period of decades.
If people look at the data with an open mind, they'll see where we are headed in the long term. The article below is mainly about U.S. Pacific Northwest changes in climate and the consequences that have followed on as well as what can be expected in the future. But the most important facts for you to digest are that (1) it's happening all over the World and (2) it's happening NOW! We're in the leading edge of dangerously changing climate that probably is more attributable to human activity than natural variability. Some might say: "we can do this. No big deal. Life is tough and weather, even extreme weather, is just a part of it. You make do as best you can but you don't wuss out and you don't make people pay a price for what you've experienced. You pull yourself up by your bootstraps and soldier on." Such would be unfair or disrespectful of those who have been injured and/or lost property or loved-ones if not their own lives in extreme weather when that weather is the byproduct of ACC. It's HERE and it's NOW! It's largely OUR doing. WE have a responsibility to cleanup OUR mess if we can! We at least have to try...... But let's not forget as well the need or responsibility on behalf of the human species to try and save it from extinction, even if such extinction might be some 100, 200 or 300 years further on in consequences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/08/14/daily-202-evidence-of-climate-change-abounds-amid-extreme-weather-in-the-pacific-northwest/59910b8e30fb0462b8e1a9c4/
You want something more that proves relatively rapid climate change is happening NOW? Look to the Arctic.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-fast-melting-arctic-sign-bad-global-warming-49199787
Much of what happens in the Arctic -- the trend toward warming -- will NOT stay in the Arctic or apply ONLY to the Arctic. It can't because warming elsewhere in the World exists NOW! Perhaps what happens in the Arctic will be more dramatic there than in other parts of the World. But warming IS underway and what we'll see across the World will be bad enough for concern NOW!

so who ever owns this data compiling robot...is there lots of money to be made by leasing it out...with an operator or without an operator...or simply purchasing it out right....and of course any computor operator can tinker with it a day or so and have it spitting out what ever their heart desires...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40935252/pen-hadow-sets-sail-for-north-pole-as-arctic-ice-melts
________________________________________
[...] British explorer Pen Hadow and his crew have set sail from Alaska, in an attempt to become the first people ever to sail to the North Pole. With Arctic ice melting at an unprecedented rate, previously inaccessible waters are opening up, creating the potential for their planned 5,500 km (3,500 mile) journey for the first time in human history. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------

[Walt In Seattle]

Hurricane Harvey may well turn out to be a monster hurricane for Texas. But, at category 3 with winds that could reach 125 MPH during landfall along with storm surge of 6 to 12 feet as well as flooding rain of 12 to 20 inches or more, Harvey may be a TASTE and only a TASTE of what's to come in future decades resulting from unmitigated anthropogenic climate change, or at least unmitigated to the extent presently desired by the Trump Administration.

The same will be true of other extreme annual events such as India's Summer Monsoons. Of course, droughts will grow in number, frequency and severity as time passes. Famine will be widespread and the World's capacity to feed the many people who live on Earth will be stressed to the point of collapse, possibly as early as 30 years from now but most likely at least by the end of this century. More and more, the World's populace will retreat to and be compressed into more Northern locations for a RELATIVELY more comfortable existence which won't serve such purpose for long, given Northern latitudes are warming faster than Southern. That trend will speed up more than it already has.

The future noted here is not of what happens tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. It is a decades-long process. And that process will not be linear. In the mix will be periods of time when climate seems comfortable or climate in SOME PLACES seems comfortable for a period of years.

Major Atlantic hurricanes will not suddenly grow in number and immediately destroy towns along the U.S. East coast. In fact, it's expected the number of major hurricanes striking the U.S. East coast may drop in number. Yet, it's also expected that those which become major storms will often enough be far more destructive as well as life-threatening than storms of the past.

In 2015, Hurricane Patricia intensified in the extremely warm water of the Baja Gulf then struck a sparsely populated and mountainous region of Western Mexico with top winds over 160 mph at landfall. This sort of storm is quite possible along the Gulf Of Mexico or even along the U.S. East coast later this century when sea surface temperatures during the Summer reach the lower 90s(f).

In the Pacific, there will be more and much stronger typhoons West and more as well as much stronger cyclones South. The same will be true of cyclones smashing into India. Many, many people will die.

Mitigation of ACC shall not prevent or immediately turn the tide. And, ultimately, we could not expect relief until some CO2 has been drawn from the atmosphere then sequestered underground or deep under oceans. Thus, no matter what, there are dangerous events in our future. But are we willing to begin a process, whatever that process shall be, for ensuring the worst of projected long-term scenarios do not occur? Are we adult enough to make truly adult decisions about climate change or will we remain in childish denial and covering our eyes, plugging our ears or holding our breath until climate science stops telling us what we'd rather not hear or see?

https://www.wunderground.com/news/hurricane-harvey-forecast-gulf-coast-texas-louisiana

https://www.wunderground.com/news/nepal-flooding-landslides-death-toll

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Hurricane Harvey may well turn out to be a monster hurricane for Texas. But, at category 3 with winds that could reach 125 MPH during landfall along with storm surge of 6 to 12 feet as well as flooding rain of 12 to 20 inches or more, Harvey may be a TASTE and only a TASTE of what's to come in future decades resulting from unmitigated anthropogenic climate change, or at least unmitigated to the extent presently desired by the Trump Administration.

It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much
MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not
a "taste" of anything - though it seems you get some
sense of vicarious vengance by thinking so.

In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the
best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves
to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries
and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. Not
really much to DO about GW - except be prepared.

[john simmons]

Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Hurricane Harvey may well turn out to be a monster hurricane for Texas. But, at category 3 with winds that could reach 125 MPH during landfall along with storm surge of 6 to 12 feet as well as flooding rain of 12 to 20 inches or more, Harvey may be a TASTE and only a TASTE of what's to come in future decades resulting from unmitigated anthropogenic climate change, or at least unmitigated to the extent presently desired by the Trump Administration.

It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much
MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not
a "taste" of anything - though it seems you get some
sense of vicarious vengance by thinking so.
In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the
best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves
to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries
and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. Not
really much to DO about GW - except be prepared.

walt ...i am aware of those news feeds and i must ssy the climate czars and your friend al gore have melted down to a lower configuration in the last few days...the problem with most folks rebelling is that the democrats stand to gain by the money and job issues as they are standing naked in the wind with nothing to advocate that will get the mellineals vote...and as black says we have suffered through extreme weather changes before and this could be a litte more horific that others but we will survive...even the ice age was dealt with...and i also note that utah and arizona have a smugness to their attitudes....of a green grass growing in the desert and with plenty of water...if they can keep california from stealing some ot it ...from the colorado river then they are in good shape...so we gonna be ok...a severe climate change would never be as bad for us as the democrats being elected again in the next few years until we can pay the debt off ...regards jz

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:44:55 -0700 (PDT), john simmons

Post by john simmons

Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Hurricane Harvey may well turn out to be a monster hurricane for Texas. But, at category 3 with winds that could reach 125 MPH during landfall along with storm surge of 6 to 12 feet as well as flooding rain of 12 to 20 inches or more, Harvey may be a TASTE and only a TASTE of what's to come in future decades resulting from unmitigated anthropogenic climate change, or at least unmitigated to the extent presently desired by the Trump Administration.

It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much
MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not
a "taste" of anything - though it seems you get some
sense of vicarious vengance by thinking so.
In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the
best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves
to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries
and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. Not
really much to DO about GW - except be prepared.

walt ...i am aware of those news feeds and i must ssy the climate czars and your friend al gore have melted down to a lower configuration in the last few days...the problem with most folks rebelling is that the democrats stand to gain by the money and job issues as they are standing naked in the wind with nothing to advocate that will get the mellineals vote...and as black says we have suffered through extreme weather changes before and this could be a litte more horific that others but we will survive...even the ice age was dealt with...and i also note that utah and arizona have a smugness to their attitudes....of a green grass growing in the desert and with plenty of water...if they can keep california from stealing some ot it ...from the colorado river then they are in good shape...so we gonna be ok...a severe climate change would never be as bad for us as the democrats being elected again in the next few years until we can pay the debt off ...regards jz

A new ice age right now would be a FAR worse threat ...
shrinking viable farming areas to the point where it would
be just impossible to feed the current population. A warmer
spell however ... big tracts of northern Canada and Siberia
will become farmable, without TOO much effect on the
existing farmlands. Food production capacity might double.

Anyway, the AlGore plan is for we horrible evil western
nations to cut our own throats. A 1st-world lifestyle needs
a lot of energy and Al wants to cut most of that off to "save
the world" he says.

Well ... it'll be the 1st-world countries with the best
industrial/agricultural/transportation/energy infrastructures
that will be able to best cope with any GW - human made
or not. Even if the entire 'west' suddenly produced zero
CO2 it wouldn't do much to stop the GW trend ... and
those less-efficient nations would soon surpass our
old CO2 emissions.

SO ... let's NOT cut our own throats. Let's be the
SURVIVORS instead. We'll have the means and
resouces.

[john simmons]

Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:44:55 -0700 (PDT), john simmons

Post by john simmons

Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Hurricane Harvey may well turn out to be a monster hurricane for Texas. But, at category 3 with winds that could reach 125 MPH during landfall along with storm surge of 6 to 12 feet as well as flooding rain of 12 to 20 inches or more, Harvey may be a TASTE and only a TASTE of what's to come in future decades resulting from unmitigated anthropogenic climate change, or at least unmitigated to the extent presently desired by the Trump Administration.

It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much
MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not
a "taste" of anything - though it seems you get some
sense of vicarious vengance by thinking so.
In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the
best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves
to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries
and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. Not
really much to DO about GW - except be prepared.

walt ...i am aware of those news feeds and i must ssy the climate czars and your friend al gore have melted down to a lower configuration in the last few days...the problem with most folks rebelling is that the democrats stand to gain by the money and job issues as they are standing naked in the wind with nothing to advocate that will get the mellineals vote...and as black says we have suffered through extreme weather changes before and this could be a litte more horific that others but we will survive...even the ice age was dealt with...and i also note that utah and arizona have a smugness to their attitudes....of a green grass growing in the desert and with plenty of water...if they can keep california from stealing some ot it ...from the colorado river then they are in good shape...so we gonna be ok...a severe climate change would never be as bad for us as the democrats being elected again in the next few years until we can pay the debt off ...regards jz

A new ice age right now would be a FAR worse threat ...
shrinking viable farming areas to the point where it would
be just impossible to feed the current population. A warmer
spell however ... big tracts of northern Canada and Siberia
will become farmable, without TOO much effect on the
existing farmlands. Food production capacity might double.
Anyway, the AlGore plan is for we horrible evil western
nations to cut our own throats. A 1st-world lifestyle needs
a lot of energy and Al wants to cut most of that off to "save
the world" he says.
Well ... it'll be the 1st-world countries with the best
industrial/agricultural/transportation/energy infrastructures
that will be able to best cope with any GW - human made
or not. Even if the entire 'west' suddenly produced zero
CO2 it wouldn't do much to stop the GW trend ... and
those less-efficient nations would soon surpass our
old CO2 emissions.
SO ... let's NOT cut our own throats. Let's be the
SURVIVORS instead. We'll have the means and
resouces.

walt....yes the texas coast is at great risk...but the rest is at higher mean sea level..the western half is about 3000 feet asl high desert... hurricans dont affect..but hell and tornadoes are bad all over so you get the picture...regards jz

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:48:42 -0700 (PDT), john simmons

Post by john simmons

Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:44:55 -0700 (PDT), john simmons

Post by john simmons

Post by Mr. B1ack
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Hurricane Harvey may well turn out to be a monster hurricane for Texas. But, at category 3 with winds that could reach 125 MPH during landfall along with storm surge of 6 to 12 feet as well as flooding rain of 12 to 20 inches or more, Harvey may be a TASTE and only a TASTE of what's to come in future decades resulting from unmitigated anthropogenic climate change, or at least unmitigated to the extent presently desired by the Trump Administration.

It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much
MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not
a "taste" of anything - though it seems you get some
sense of vicarious vengance by thinking so.
In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the
best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves
to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries
and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. Not
really much to DO about GW - except be prepared.

walt ...i am aware of those news feeds and i must ssy the climate czars and your friend al gore have melted down to a lower configuration in the last few days...the problem with most folks rebelling is that the democrats stand to gain by the money and job issues as they are standing naked in the wind with nothing to advocate that will get the mellineals vote...and as black says we have suffered through extreme weather changes before and this could be a litte more horific that others but we will survive...even the ice age was dealt with...and i also note that utah and arizona have a smugness to their attitudes....of a green grass growing in the desert and with plenty of water...if they can keep california from stealing some ot it ...from the colorado river then they are in good shape...so we gonna be ok...a severe climate change would never be as bad for us as the democrats being elected again in the next few years until we can pay the debt off ...regards jz

A new ice age right now would be a FAR worse threat ...
shrinking viable farming areas to the point where it would
be just impossible to feed the current population. A warmer
spell however ... big tracts of northern Canada and Siberia
will become farmable, without TOO much effect on the
existing farmlands. Food production capacity might double.
Anyway, the AlGore plan is for we horrible evil western
nations to cut our own throats. A 1st-world lifestyle needs
a lot of energy and Al wants to cut most of that off to "save
the world" he says.
Well ... it'll be the 1st-world countries with the best
industrial/agricultural/transportation/energy infrastructures
that will be able to best cope with any GW - human made
or not. Even if the entire 'west' suddenly produced zero
CO2 it wouldn't do much to stop the GW trend ... and
those less-efficient nations would soon surpass our
old CO2 emissions.
SO ... let's NOT cut our own throats. Let's be the
SURVIVORS instead. We'll have the means and
resouces.

walt....yes the texas coast is at great risk...but the rest is at higher mean sea level..the western half is about 3000 feet asl high desert... hurricans dont affect..but hell and tornadoes are bad all over so you get the picture...regards jz

There have been gi-friggin-gantic hurricanes hitting
the Texas coast for as long as anyones been keeping
records. This one is just the latest. Nothing special.
Nothing born of GW.

Walt apparently prefers to think it's some 'punishment
from gawd' (probably Ghia) for not destroying the whole
country by pulling every plug, smashing every car.

[Walt In Seattle]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-7, Mr. B1ack wrote:
_______________________________________
There have been gi-friggin-gantic hurricanes hitting the Texas coast for as long as anyones been keeping records. This one is just the latest. Nothing special.
-------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, Mr. B1ack, you should reread what I've posted. Maybe it would improve your comprehension of what was written. But if not...... The real message in my words is still what it was, regardless of your misunderstanding or.... whatever....

For now, we, as previously stated, don't know the full impact of Harvey. Maybe Harvey will be "nothing special" or....... We'll see. Whatever happens, this will be just a "TASTE" of what's to come.

Now.... and for everyone to take note.....

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCUAT4+shtml/252259.shtml
_______________________________________
]6:00 PM (CDT) Update]
[...] HARVEY BECOMES A CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE [...] Air Force Reserve Reconnaissance aircraft data indicate that Harvey has become a category 4 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 130 mph (215 km/h). [...]
-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT4+shtml/252356.shtml
_______________________________________
[...] BULLETIN -- Hurricane Harvey Intermediate Advisory Number 22A NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL092017 700 PM CDT Fri Aug 25 2017 ...EYE OF CATEGORY 4 HARVEY APPROACHING THE COAST BETWEEN PORT ARANSAS AND PORT O'CONNOR TEXAS... ...CATASTROPHIC FLOODING EXPECTED DUE TO HEAVY RAINFALL AND STORM SURGE... [...] Reports from an Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft indicate that maximum sustained winds remain near 130 mph (215 km/h) with higher gusts. Harvey is a category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Little change in strength is likely before landfall. [...]
-------------------------------------------------------

[Walt In Seattle]

Latest Harvey Info

8:00 PM CDT Fri Aug 25
Location: 27.9°N 96.8°W
Moving: NW at 8 mph
Min pressure: 941 mb
Max sustained: 130 mph

[Walt In Seattle]

It's now uncertain as to whether, at some point, Harvey could return to the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT4+shtml/260301.shtml
_______________________________________
[As of 10:00 PM (CDT)] [...] The initial motion is 325/6, a little slower than before. The eye of Harvey should continue this general motion for the next several hours, which would bring it inland over southeastern Texas. After 12 h or so, the hurricane should become embedded in an area of weak steering currents and become nearly stationary. The track guidance is in good agreement that Harvey will move slowly through at least 72 h, and the new forecast track shows a slow cyclonic loop during that time. After 72 h, an equally slow motion toward the north or northeast appears likely. It is unclear at this time whether the center of Harvey will emerge over the Gulf of Mexico, as the guidance is in poor agreement on that. It is clear, though, that Harvey will remain over southeastern Texas or the adjacent waters through the forecast period, thus producing a major rainfall and flooding threat. [...]
-------------------------------------------------------

[Walt In Seattle]

Today, the building that contains studios and offices of KHOU-TV in Houston was flooded to the extent evacuation was required. This is symptomatic of circumstances that may be unparalleled in Houston's recorded history. Here is a sobering AP report.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/least-2-dead-harvey-slams-texas-coast-causing-052756043.html
________________________________________
[...] HOUSTON (AP) - The remnants of Hurricane Harvey sent devastating floods pouring into the nation's fourth-largest city Sunday as rising water chased thousands of people to rooftops or higher ground and overwhelmed rescuers who could not keep up with the constant calls for help. Helicopters, boats and high-water vehicles swarmed around inundated Houston neighborhoods, pulling people from their homes or from the turbid water, which was high enough in some places to gush into second floors. The flooding was so widespread that authorities had trouble pinpointing the worst areas. They urged people to get on top of their homes to avoid becoming trapped in attics and to wave sheets or towels to draw attention to their location. As the water rose, the National Weather Service offered another ominous forecast: Before the storm passes, some parts of Houston and its suburbs could receive as much as 50 inches (1.3 meters) of rain. That would be the highest amount ever recorded in Texas. [...]
-------------------------------------------------------

With the above in mind and President Trump's praise for FEMA's efforts regarding Harvey, we must not forget that Trump reversed rules, just weeks ago, that would ensure new infrastructure shall be better-placed and constructed with greater resistance to increased flooding which is possible from climate change.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-rescinded-obama-flood-risk-192411092.html
________________________________________
[...] Donald Trump signed away Obama-era flood standards just weeks before Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in a bid to get infrastructure projects approved more quickly. The rule signed by former president Barack Obama in 2015 had not yet come into effect but aimed to make infrastructure more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and flooding. Those who backed Obama's rules believed they would make people safer by putting roads, bridges and other infrastructure on safer ground, NPR reported, but Trump rescinded the rule several weeks ago in an attempt to speed up the time it takes for infrastructure projects to be approved. [...]
-------------------------------------------------------

The NPR report is at:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/16/543712263/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-flood-standards-for-infrastructure-projects

We, many in the general public, see where President Trump's true priorities lie along with his penchant to cut corners he shouldn't -- cut corners with potentially life-threatening consequences. That's the epitome of our President.

Please remember what Harvey brings is JUST a TASTE of what's to come. But what's to come is not JUST increased flooding. See my previous posts for elaboration.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:03:01 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
_______________________________________
There have been gi-friggin-gantic hurricanes hitting the Texas coast for as long as anyones been keeping records. This one is just the latest. Nothing special.
-------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, Mr. B1ack, you should reread what I've posted.

It's JUST ANOTHER HURRICANE Walt ... like tons
of others. PLENTY of horrific hurricanes, going back
as far as records have been kept - going back well
before the SUV, even the locomotive.

GW isn't the problem here. People building tons of
stuff along the Gulf coast is the problem .... should
be a 10-mile buffer zone ............

[Walt In Seattle]

Let's see what the future brings, Mr. B1ack, the future being that from which many people would rather hide or dismiss because it invades their zone of comfort and/or public consideraton of same is not in the best personal interests of some (i.e. possibly, as an example, a certain set of brothers) who may find -- in eror or not -- it's inconvenient or less than profitable to face and deal with reality.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Let's see what the future brings, Mr. B1ack, the future being that from which many people would rather hide or dismiss because it invades their zone of comfort and/or public consideraton of same is not in the best personal interests of some (i.e. possibly, as an example, a certain set of brothers) who may find -- in eror or not -- it's inconvenient or less than profitable to face and deal with reality.

The gigayear climate data shows that the earth has
been abnormally COLD since the ice-age cycles
began. Why do you want to preserve an abnormal
state of nature ? Earth is supposed to be quite warm,
tropical rainforests pole to pole.

[Walt In Seattle]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:44:37 PM UTC-7, Mr. B1ack wrote:
_________________________________________
The gigayear climate data shows that the earth has been abnormally COLD since the ice-age cycles began. Why do you want to preserve an abnormal state of nature ? Earth is supposed to be quite warm, tropical rainforests pole to pole.
--------------------------------------------------------

Oh? Your source for this assertion is..... ???

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 23:18:42 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
_________________________________________
The gigayear climate data shows that the earth has been abnormally COLD since the ice-age cycles began. Why do you want to preserve an abnormal state of nature ? Earth is supposed to be quite warm, tropical rainforests pole to pole.
--------------------------------------------------------
Oh? Your source for this assertion is..... ???

I'll have to dig it up ... but it was the journal SCIENCE.
Had a lovely chart of global temperature going back
a gigayear, using various geochemical, radiological
and biological proxies. Even with the error margins,
earth, up until recently, was a really cookin' place
with CO2 levels averaging about five times as high
as todays.

[Walt In Seattle]

I await your citations, Mr. B1ack, in support of the premise or theory "Earth is supposed to be quite warm, tropical rainforests pole to pole." Until then.....

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Walt In Seattle

Post by Walt In Seattle
Let's see what the future brings, Mr. B1ack,

Nothing that screaming panic-monger Gore is
trying to sell. He's become a disgrace.

[Walt In Seattle]

The following are excerpts from Mr. B1ack's posts to this discussion on the evening of 8-24-2017:
________________________________________
[...] It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not a "taste" of anything [...] In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. [...] Even if the entire 'west' suddenly produced zero CO2 it wouldn't do much to stop the GW trend ... [...] Anyway, the AlGore plan is for we horrible evil western nations to cut our own throats. [...] Not really much to DO about GW - except be prepared. [...] A new ice age right now would be a FAR worse threat ... shrinking viable farming areas to the point where it would be just impossible to feed the current population. [..]
--------------------------------------------------------

Mr. B1ack is, of course, welcome to his delusions where or if what Mr. B1ack writes is his seriously contributed opinion. But is it?

We don't yet know what Harvey will bring because Harvey has not yet brought whatever Harvey will bring. However, the point is and was what the long-term future will bring in a World where there has been no mitigation of ACC, not just Harvey. For better information from scientific sources, I suggest the work of Kerry Emanuel if not James Hansen.

Unless Mr. B1ack has substantive evidence to the contrary, no one should suffer the apparent myth that the "plan", of Al Gore or most climate mitigation activists, is for the developed/industrialized nations of the World to cut their throats economically or otherwise, although some, such as the Koch brothers, David and Charles, might prefer the general public of the U.S. accept such myth as truth.

As noted previously, the solution, if there might some day be a solution discovered through science, is NOT likely to depend entirely on controlled carbon emissions or elimination of ALL emissions in the near future. The ultimate solution, if there can be a solution, shall probably depend on coincident strategies to include extraction of SOME but NOT TOO MUCH CO2 from the atmosphere which shall be sequestered. Certainly, this will be a tremendous technological challenge -- one we might not meet. But we have to try or likely accept as assured human extinction within a couple-of-hundred years.

The notion we can continue to emit huge amounts of carbon and somehow "prepare" to be the "survivors" of what emissions will do to global climate is vastly naive. There's no credible science to support this premise, particularly the idea, if anyone would put it forward, that most regions of the World can maintain sufficient food security to survive, including in the U.S., against the impact of increased heat which will destroy crops, as occurred in 2012 and 2016. CO2 fertilization will NOT overcome the crop destruction from massive hail storms, extreme wind storms or 1,000-year floods. When the World passes 2 degrees (celsius) of averaged warning since the industrial revolution began a massive as well as rapid accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, the World's agriculture will struggle to feed the people of the World. As the World approaches 3 degrees (celsius) of warming, agriculture will fail. The U.S. will not be spared this fate. In the runup, climate refugees will swarm to those places where climate is not so bad and food security is better, just as people now stream out of North Africa, where destabilizing drought has been building for quite some time, into Europe. The competition for agriculturally viable land in a mild climate with potable water will quite likely lead to global war. This is why SecDef James Mattis has described climate change as a national security threat.

If an Ice Age was already upon us and expected to threaten our way of life -- our civilization and means to support it -- we could or should worry about a "New Ice Age". But there's no respectable information that an Ice Age threatens us as does ACC.

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
________________________________________
[...] It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not a "taste" of anything [...] In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. [...] Even if the entire 'west' suddenly produced zero CO2 it wouldn't do much to stop the GW trend ... [...] Anyway, the AlGore plan is for we horrible evil western nations to cut our own throats. [...] Not really much to DO about GW - except be prepared. [...] A new ice age right now would be a FAR worse threat ... shrinking viable farming areas to the point where it would be just impossible to feed the current population. [..]
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B1ack is, of course, welcome to his delusions where or if what Mr. B1ack writes is his seriously contributed opinion. But is it?
We don't yet know what Harvey will bring because Harvey has not yet brought whatever Harvey will bring. However, the point is and was what the long-term future will bring in a World where there has been no mitigation of ACC, not just Harvey. For better information from scientific sources, I suggest the work of Kerry Emanuel if not James Hansen.
Unless Mr. B1ack has substantive evidence to the contrary, no one should suffer the apparent myth that the "plan", of Al Gore or most climate mitigation activists, is for the developed/industrialized nations of the World to cut their throats economically or otherwise, although some, such as the Koch brothers, David and Charles, might prefer the general public of the U.S. accept such myth as truth.
As noted previously, the solution, if there might some day be a solution discovered through science, is NOT likely to depend entirely on controlled carbon emissions or elimination of ALL emissions in the near future. The ultimate solution, if there can be a solution, shall probably depend on coincident strategies to include extraction of SOME but NOT TOO MUCH CO2 from the atmosphere which shall be sequestered. Certainly, this will be a tremendous technological challenge -- one we might not meet. But we have to try or likely accept as assured human extinction within a couple-of-hundred years.
The notion we can continue to emit huge amounts of carbon and somehow "prepare" to be the "survivors" of what emissions will do to global climate is vastly naive. There's no credible science to support this premise, particularly the idea, if anyone would put it forward, that most regions of the World can maintain sufficient food security to survive, including in the U.S., against the impact of increased heat which will destroy crops, as occurred in 2012 and 2016. CO2 fertilization will NOT overcome the crop destruction from massive hail storms, extreme wind storms or 1,000-year floods. When the World passes 2 degrees (celsius) of averaged warning since the industrial revolution began a massive as well as rapid accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, the World's agriculture will struggle to feed the people of the World. As the World approaches 3 degrees (celsius) of warming, agriculture will fail. The U.S. will not be spared this fate. In the runup, climate refugees will swarm to those places where climate is not so bad and food security is better, just as people now stream out of North Africa, where destabilizing drought has been building for quite some time, into Europe. The competition for agriculturally viable land in a mild climate with potable water will quite likely lead to global war. This is why SecDef James Mattis has described climate change as a national security threat.
If an Ice Age was already upon us and expected to threaten our way of life -- our civilization and means to support it -- we could or should worry about a "New Ice Age". But there's no respectable information that an Ice Age threatens us as does ACC.

walt...excellent..thinking...and..now..wifi..is..on...a...tear...with.me...and..i..will..respond...later..spacer...is..out..of...order...jz

[john simmons]

Post by john simmons

Post by Walt In Seattle
________________________________________
[...] It's just another hurricane Walt ... there've been much MUCH bigger ones over the past 100+ years. It's not a "taste" of anything [...] In a warmer world, the richest nations will fare the best. So ... let's stay rich instead of driving ourselves to 2nd/3rd-world status by destroying our industries and infrastructure by freaking out about GW. [...] Even if the entire 'west' suddenly produced zero CO2 it wouldn't do much to stop the GW trend ... [...] Anyway, the AlGore plan is for we horrible evil western nations to cut our own throats. [...] Not really much to DO about GW - except be prepared. [...] A new ice age right now would be a FAR worse threat ... shrinking viable farming areas to the point where it would be just impossible to feed the current population. [..]
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B1ack is, of course, welcome to his delusions where or if what Mr. B1ack writes is his seriously contributed opinion. But is it?
We don't yet know what Harvey will bring because Harvey has not yet brought whatever Harvey will bring. However, the point is and was what the long-term future will bring in a World where there has been no mitigation of ACC, not just Harvey. For better information from scientific sources, I suggest the work of Kerry Emanuel if not James Hansen.
Unless Mr. B1ack has substantive evidence to the contrary, no one should suffer the apparent myth that the "plan", of Al Gore or most climate mitigation activists, is for the developed/industrialized nations of the World to cut their throats economically or otherwise, although some, such as the Koch brothers, David and Charles, might prefer the general public of the U.S. accept such myth as truth.
As noted previously, the solution, if there might some day be a solution discovered through science, is NOT likely to depend entirely on controlled carbon emissions or elimination of ALL emissions in the near future. The ultimate solution, if there can be a solution, shall probably depend on coincident strategies to include extraction of SOME but NOT TOO MUCH CO2 from the atmosphere which shall be sequestered. Certainly, this will be a tremendous technological challenge -- one we might not meet. But we have to try or likely accept as assured human extinction within a couple-of-hundred years.
The notion we can continue to emit huge amounts of carbon and somehow "prepare" to be the "survivors" of what emissions will do to global climate is vastly naive. There's no credible science to support this premise, particularly the idea, if anyone would put it forward, that most regions of the World can maintain sufficient food security to survive, including in the U.S., against the impact of increased heat which will destroy crops, as occurred in 2012 and 2016. CO2 fertilization will NOT overcome the crop destruction from massive hail storms, extreme wind storms or 1,000-year floods. When the World passes 2 degrees (celsius) of averaged warning since the industrial revolution began a massive as well as rapid accumulation of anthropogenic CO2, the World's agriculture will struggle to feed the people of the World. As the World approaches 3 degrees (celsius) of warming, agriculture will fail. The U.S. will not be spared this fate. In the runup, climate refugees will swarm to those places where climate is not so bad and food security is better, just as people now stream out of North Africa, where destabilizing drought has been building for quite some time, into Europe. The competition for agriculturally viable land in a mild climate with potable water will quite likely lead to global war. This is why SecDef James Mattis has described climate change as a national security threat.
If an Ice Age was already upon us and expected to threaten our way of life -- our civilization and means to support it -- we could or should worry about a "New Ice Age". But there's no respectable information that an Ice Age threatens us as does ACC.

walt...excellent..thinking...and..now..wifi..is..on...a...tear...with.me...and..i..will..respond...later..spacer...is..out..of...order...jz

walt...once more with feeling..i guess you have noticed the new california gold rush appearing along...i think the nothern amaxon and mixed in with gold is a horrible ingredient that polutes the water and the fish die and humans to are dying and they dont know what to do....so something else to worry about huh.....so back to the earth problem...yes and our population is too great here..and even if things statyed the way they are i think we are doomed also...sooo i am thinking that the moon is the answer...mars is too far away and it will take too long to get there and not practical....science has now been able to get plant life to fit the soil...instead of fitting the soil to the plantlife....so if we could seed the moon with plants that would fit that soil and a atmosphere should follow ...then it could be regulated over all the sunlight surface to be the same temperature...very suitable for humans with perfect c02...and the dark side ...hydrogen bomb might be able if placement could be found ...that would make it spin like the earth...if not then at least the side we see could be used and then we could squeeze folks together after we fix em up with drugs to get along with one another and still have enough space to grow garden crops...not enough for regular farming money types...so if things keep going as now..then the population will be reduced anyhow so the moon we see would be great and we could walk out and see the old earth where we came from any time day or night...huh...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

I've noticed, John, that California's economy is doing OK, even after legislation designed to address Anthropogenic Climate Change........

Post by john simmons
i guess you have noticed
the new california gold rush
appearing along...i think the
nothern amaxon and mixed in
with gold is a horrible
ingredient that polutes the
water and the fish die and
humans to are dying and they
dont know what to do....

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
I've noticed, John, that California's economy is doing OK, even after legislation designed to address Anthropogenic Climate Change........

Post by john simmons
i guess you have noticed
the new california gold rush
appearing along...i think the
nothern amaxon and mixed in
with gold is a horrible
ingredient that polutes the
water and the fish die and
humans to are dying and they
dont know what to do....

well that figures...the chimpanzees to me to watch faux and i would see all the gold and silver huckters out of california...hooking and scaming folks out of their money...akin to interstate fraud across the state lines...jerry brown must be partying over in the north beach san francisco nightly on his part of that looting..he he..an when they figure a way to steal water from the socialistic colorado river authority from nevada utah and arizona..he can widen his partying area huh...jon

[Walt In Seattle]

It seems Harvey's sustained maximum winds may not be as strong at landfall as previously thought and eyewall replacement is complicating forecasts. But it has been stressed and is still true that Harvey's big threats are more in the realm of storm surge and rainfall.

Harvey is expected, unlike most hurricanes in the past, to stall over Texas, dumping huge amounts of rain over a period of days while winds shall be high for days as well. If this is the case, Texas will suffer greatly from this storm.

From the National Hurricane Cener:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT4+shtml/251453.shtml
_________________________________________
[...] If an eyewall replacement occurs, then Harvey's intensity could decrease a bit while at the same time the overall wind field increases in size. However, the hurricane remains in an environment for intensification, and strengthening beyond the current intensity is still possible before the center reaches land. But in the end, the hurricane's exact intensity at landfall does not change the fact that catastrophic flooding due to a prolonged period of heavy rainfall and/or storm surge is expected at the coast and well inland across much of southern and southeastern Texas. Slow weakening is expected after Harvey crosses the coast since the center is not expected to move very far inland, and the cyclone is likely to maintain tropical storm status through Wednesday. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
It seems Harvey's sustained maximum winds may not be as strong at landfall as previously thought and eyewall replacement is complicating forecasts. But it has been stressed and is still true that Harvey's big threats are more in the realm of storm surge and rainfall.
Harvey is expected, unlike most hurricanes in the past, to stall over Texas, dumping huge amounts of rain over a period of days while winds shall be high for days as well. If this is the case, Texas will suffer greatly from this storm.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT4+shtml/251453.shtml
_________________________________________
[...] If an eyewall replacement occurs, then Harvey's intensity could decrease a bit while at the same time the overall wind field increases in size. However, the hurricane remains in an environment for intensification, and strengthening beyond the current intensity is still possible before the center reaches land. But in the end, the hurricane's exact intensity at landfall does not change the fact that catastrophic flooding due to a prolonged period of heavy rainfall and/or storm surge is expected at the coast and well inland across much of southern and southeastern Texas. Slow weakening is expected after Harvey crosses the coast since the center is not expected to move very far inland, and the cyclone is likely to maintain tropical storm status through Wednesday. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------

walt you are a gem...i bet your moma said he is the most shrewd child in the world...you have already set a worlds record in this discussion group...look at your thread here...it has 140 views on merely 57 post...wow...and now you switch gears and avoid the california thing we were discussing ...and and go into the past of a few thousand years...amd bring up NOAHS FLOOD...even al gore is not bright enough to think of that one...oh mu gawd...how am i to aadvise the republicans of how to deal with this unusally shrewd dude from seattle wa....walt dont treat me this way..be although you are gentle..the LORD GOD...said the earth will never be destroyed again by water....oh i know the democrats and the aclu removed all talk or symbols of christianity from usa landscape and politics...i want to be ypur friend...try to enjoy...jon

[john simmons]

Post by john simmons

Post by Walt In Seattle
It seems Harvey's sustained maximum winds may not be as strong at landfall as previously thought and eyewall replacement is complicating forecasts. But it has been stressed and is still true that Harvey's big threats are more in the realm of storm surge and rainfall.
Harvey is expected, unlike most hurricanes in the past, to stall over Texas, dumping huge amounts of rain over a period of days while winds shall be high for days as well. If this is the case, Texas will suffer greatly from this storm.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT4+shtml/251453.shtml
_________________________________________
[...] If an eyewall replacement occurs, then Harvey's intensity could decrease a bit while at the same time the overall wind field increases in size. However, the hurricane remains in an environment for intensification, and strengthening beyond the current intensity is still possible before the center reaches land. But in the end, the hurricane's exact intensity at landfall does not change the fact that catastrophic flooding due to a prolonged period of heavy rainfall and/or storm surge is expected at the coast and well inland across much of southern and southeastern Texas. Slow weakening is expected after Harvey crosses the coast since the center is not expected to move very far inland, and the cyclone is likely to maintain tropical storm status through Wednesday. [...]
---------------------------------------------------------

walt you are a gem...i bet your moma said he is the most shrewd child in the world...you have already set a worlds record in this discussion group...look at your thread here...it has 140 views on merely 57 post...wow...and now you switch gears and avoid the california thing we were discussing ...and and go into the past of a few thousand years...amd bring up NOAHS FLOOD...even al gore is not bright enough to think of that one...oh mu gawd...how am i to aadvise the republicans of how to deal with this unusally shrewd dude from seattle wa....walt dont treat me this way..be although you are gentle..the LORD GOD...said the earth will never be destroyed again by water....oh i know the democrats and the aclu removed all talk or symbols of christianity from usa landscape and politics...i want to be ypur friend...try to enjoy...jon

walt...i noted this thread was up at top and i have clicked and the only thing i see above ia aug 24 post where you talk about the hurricane ...speaking about things that you would not have know yesterday..so maybe wifi is messing with you...regards jon

[Walt In Seattle]

It's quite clear that, as time passes and climate change brings, enhances or promulgates severe weather events, there will be a social, political and economic price to pay arising from ACC's consequences. There have been many attempts to develop an estimate as to cost. This is just one example.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362

If you look around, you'll find providers of insurance and their supporting professional organizations are beginning to push HARD for efforts to mitigate climate change. They're activists on this issue, as much as is agribusiness, because they know future events could have a tremendous impact on their bottom line. It's possible that, without climate change mitigation, obtaining insurance to compensate for damage from storms or drought will become so expensive the market for such services might be scuttled in future decades.

For now, some insurers advocate for mitigation of climate change while they do their own research to determine what people or businesses can do to minimize their losses in extreme weather events. Insurers take this knowledge and plug it into insurance policies along with client education. The actions of clients are assessed in claims to determine if the client has done what he/she/they should have done to minimize their risk. Such assessments will inevitably control to what extent a client can make an insurance claim. Over time and if climate change generates, enhances or promulgates progressively worse severe weather, it's likely clients will receive less for their claims if such claims are not rejected entirely. Eventually, the market may collapse.

If you believe climate change is not a big deal -- nothing to worry about -- you'll do poorly in any attempt to convince a lot of companies who insure agriculture or critical infrastructure at risk from severe weather -- roads, bridges, above-ground electrical utilities, water utilities/treatment plants or sewage treatment plants as well as sewage systems overall and seawalls. They see the growing risk and they're responding as noted above.

[Walt In Seattle]

Not all deniers of climate change or minimalists of same are fact-impaired or lacking in general as well as higher education. The same is true of those who believe climate change -- anthropogenic climate change -- is a threat. Yet, of those on either side of the issue who are well-educated, there's a tendency to cherrypick information to suit one's pre-existing belief or need to reject an opposing point of view. In general, the divide runs along religious, political or other lines of ideological differences between one group and another group of people. This has been obvious for years. But now, there's evidence emerging to backup the perception.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/08/15/1704882114

Unfortunately, the SCIENCE of climate change, taken in FULL CONTEXT, not cherrpicked, has been lost in debate that's more about judging someone's position as to climate based on their status or ideology as a liberal, conservative or libertarian rather than on the whole of climate science itself. The laws of physics and the functions of atmospheric chemistry have no political ideology. They're not controlled by ideology in the slightest and are not friends to either liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, anarchists or whom/whatever. They just are what they are.

The problem, however, is that the science and those who present it are rejected because they are seen as then labeled as a useful partisan tool out to gore -- no pun intended -- someone's ox (or ideological ox) in order to further an ideology or feather their professional bed. Thus, deniers or minimalists can not be satisfied that even a consensus assessment of climate is real as opposed to manufactured for an ideological purpose if not for personal gain. And round and round we go until it's so obvious anthropogenic climate change is a growing threat that NO ONE can reasonably deny it. But....... by then...... well.... you should be getting my drift.

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Not all deniers of climate change or minimalists of same are fact-impaired or lacking in general as well as higher education. The same is true of those who believe climate change -- anthropogenic climate change -- is a threat. Yet, of those on either side of the issue who are well-educated, there's a tendency to cherrypick information to suit one's pre-existing belief or need to reject an opposing point of view. In general, the divide runs along religious, political or other lines of ideological differences between one group and another group of people. This has been obvious for years. But now, there's evidence emerging to backup the perception.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/08/15/1704882114
Unfortunately, the SCIENCE of climate change, taken in FULL CONTEXT, not cherrpicked, has been lost in debate that's more about judging someone's position as to climate based on their status or ideology as a liberal, conservative or libertarian rather than on the whole of climate science itself. The laws of physics and the functions of atmospheric chemistry have no political ideology. They're not controlled by ideology in the slightest and are not friends to either liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, anarchists or whom/whatever. They just are what they are.
The problem, however, is that the science and those who present it are rejected because they are seen as then labeled as a useful partisan tool out to gore -- no pun intended -- someone's ox (or ideological ox) in order to further an ideology or feather their professional bed. Thus, deniers or minimalists can not be satisfied that even a consensus assessment of climate is real as opposed to manufactured for an ideological purpose if not for personal gain. And round and round we go until it's so obvious anthropogenic climate change is a growing threat that NO ONE can reasonably deny it. But....... by then...... well.... you should be getting my drift.

he he...well gee walt...no one on planet earth is denying that the climate is not changing....i mean hey simply the fact of ice age to ice age gives us assurance of climate change...but alas note my past and your past and everyone elses past...we all have indeed molded our lives around how we can deal with the CLIMATE as to be the least affected by its horrible effects...of course none of us have had not say so on where we were born and raised near the shore line or up on the high plains where earthquakes and flooding is not much of a risk...i was indeed located in a rather safe place for my birth to happen..and so i have always been thankful that it was by coincidence of course but i have always felt watched over because of it....now i am a non insurance person FREAK and a non credit seeker from the loan sharks...all lenders including banks are loan sharks to the degree it is possible for them..and so any idiot can figure that the liability auto insurance now has the department of public safety in their pockets as we are victims of..this conspiracy...if one has multible vehicles..and he always gets a discount for saying he is the only driver...the insurance companys will discount your premimums...and so you say back to the...ok since this vehicle will not have effective insurance as it is being operated only by me...then just one policy is all thats needed for all my vehicles..because i can only operate one at a given time....it dont take rocket science to figure out when they resist even having a conversation about the matter why they dont want to heve the converstion...as i have had this same conversation with state farm...and my insuance was cancelled and i had never had a claim in all those years...you see walt..these are the things that i have experienced in my life to be one of the most skeptical persons alive...and as you see i have a reason to be this way...and so when folks try to tell me ...but there is extreme climate change now happening and we gotta spend money to fix the problem...ref...gore and others...well i am not gonna be like egercito sp..and publich a book on each thread..but you now understand...if everyone was like me they would not live near the coast line...and i really dont think there would be a climate change issue being discussed but all these nuts want us inland folks to help em pay the insurance premiems and we dont get nothing in return...we are safe and they are at risk...but our premiems go up too...now is that better since you now understand...raw earthy..jon

[Walt In Seattle]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:33:08 AM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:
_________________________________________
[...] ...if everyone was like me they would not live near the coast line...and i really dont think there would be a climate change issue being discussed but all these nuts want us inland folks to help em pay the insurance premiems and we dont get nothing in return...we are safe and they are at risk...but our premiems go up too... [...]
----------------------------------------------------------

You're "safe", John, more secure then those on the coast? How so?

https://source.wustl.edu/2016/02/record-missouri-flooding-manmade-calamity-scientist-says/

http://www.reviewjournal.com/weather/4-rescued-during-record-breaking-rainfall-las-vegas-valley-photos#!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/01/world-weather-2016s-early-record-heat-gives-way-to-heavy-rains

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/us/west-virginia-flooding-deaths/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/maryland-flooding/

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/historic-south-flooding-march-2016

Crops in your area are safe from drought, from tremendous hail or wind storms? There's no problem with or expectation there will be increased activity of pests damaging crops? What's the condition of area rivers and how will their condition change as climate change has its impact?

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
_________________________________________
[...] ...if everyone was like me they would not live near the coast line...and i really dont think there would be a climate change issue being discussed but all these nuts want us inland folks to help em pay the insurance premiems and we dont get nothing in return...we are safe and they are at risk...but our premiems go up too... [...]
----------------------------------------------------------
You're "safe", John, more secure then those on the coast? How so?
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/02/record-missouri-flooding-manmade-calamity-scientist-says/
http://www.reviewjournal.com/weather/4-rescued-during-record-breaking-rainfall-las-vegas-valley-photos#!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/01/world-weather-2016s-early-record-heat-gives-way-to-heavy-rains
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/us/west-virginia-flooding-deaths/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/maryland-flooding/
https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/historic-south-flooding-march-2016
Crops in your area are safe from drought, from tremendous hail or wind storms? There's no problem with or expectation there will be increased activity of pests damaging crops? What's the condition of area rivers and how will their condition change as climate change has its impact?

we continue to get enough rain alsong with irrigation to grow great crops..although it is noraml to have crop failures all over this region due to draught..nothing unusuall about that...so climate changle is going along nicely and the houston thing happened parallel in la. so another one or two may occur before the year is out...and as they happen more folks are seen to wise up and get out town and after a this happens ..hopefully every one will leave and have their flood insurance with them...only fifteen percent of home owners have flood incurance...so these are some of the reasons they estimate loses up to one hundred billion witha big b...regards jon

[Walt In Seattle]

Whatever the situation mmay be where you live, John, such is not a situation which likely would exist decades from now. You mentioned drought. When you and I have passed and others replace us, that drought may be more severe, lasting longer each time it happens with recovery lasting a shorter period of time when we are gone. Starting to deal with ACC NOW is about ensuring, if you want to address the utility of the ULTIMATE insurance, the grandkids of our grandkids will live under conditions allowing them to survive and thrive rather than desperately struggling to survive or failing then perish. We might not be able to sufficiently mitigate ACC at this point. But we owe it to future generations to at least TRY!

[Walt In Seattle]

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'm done with posts to this topic for a while. (I may return later) I wish all well, including deniers. We have hard times ahead. It will take ALL OF US to meet the challenge, if we can. Here, more than in other circumstances, it's likely true that, united, we have a chance to stand. But, divided, we'll certainly fall.... Falling could, in the end, mean human extinction. As Edward R. Murrow would say: "Good night and good luck!"

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'm done with posts to this topic for a while. (I may return later) I wish all well, including deniers. We have hard times ahead. It will take ALL OF US to meet the challenge, if we can. Here, more than in other circumstances, it's likely true that, united, we have a chance to stand. But, divided, we'll certainly fall.... Falling could, in the end, mean human extinction. As Edward R. Murrow would say: "Good night and good luck!"

well ...i do not believe God would present us with a planet that through the natural process of living and evolving as humans have done...ie...discovering fire..and the wheel...then the industrial age to make things easier and increase production to accomodate the growing population...and discovering coal as a great way to make trains go and heat our homes...would in the end be a substance of mans wrong doing as the atmosphere is said to not be able to handle the polution...nah you would not believe in a God for things to happen like that...that would represent a God that was a no caring God...i would think...it is sacraligious to me to think that new we have to change our use of natural resourses to accomodate our existence...so like wise on the good nitr bit...jon

[Walt In Seattle]

I'm back to tie up a loose end. There will not be another group of posts, however.

Well before Hurricane Harvey, it was clear that extreme rainfall events are becoming more extreme and are occurring more frequently. Last year provided prime examples in West Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Louisiana with, at the time, Louisiana leading the pack in terms of area covered and how extreme its flooding rainfall events had been. Yet, it's not difficult to reach further back in time for evidence of extreme or recordbreaking extreme events along with tabulation of frequency for such events over a period of decades. If you're already in the weeds of climate science, you know the principal enabler if not direct cause -- Anthropogenic Climate Change. And here is the explanation of what's happening or what PROBABLY is happening.

http://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/increased-extreme-precipitation

In line with the above information and in context to the relationship between rising heat along with its impact on water vapor and ACC, we should pay close attention to the study below in regard to heating Earth up.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7669/full/nature23646.html?foxtrotcallback=true

As pointed out by ARS Technica, in their summary of this study, we're heating up at an unprecedented RATE, which is NOT to say Earth has never been warmer, never warmed abruptly or CO2 levels were never higher. It *IS* to say, simply but significantly, when you remove from consideration events in geologic history when warming happened abruptly due to massive emissions of carbon from large scale volcanic eruptions or impact on Earth of NEOs, warming presently occurs at the speed of a geologic bullet -- certainly faster than during the PETM. And while it might even be possible to find some period in time where Earth warmed at a similar rate in similar levels of atmospheric CO2, it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to find such instance in history where humanity existed with species of life, managing to avoid extinction. This is an IMPORTANT OBSERVATION that many people seem to misunderstand or improperly dismiss.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/new-study-were-outpacing-the-most-radical-climate-event-we-know-of/

At bottom and always to be remembered: It's meaningless or erroneous to cherrypick various eras of geologic time where Earth was warmer or cooler then say Earth and its species of life survived in some measure if human beings did not exist in those eras and, in particular, did not exist in organized cultures dependent on such aspects of culture as agriculture.

Accordingly, the PETM is not a precise parallel to current warming. Key differences are addressed in the ARS Technica article cited above. But the PETM serves as a valid example for what we could expect if we existed during the PETM. That era experienced a rise of as much as 5 degrees celsius in global average temperature and a huge increase in CO2. Some extinctions occurred. But many species survived. Most of those who survived did so because they had time to adapt. At the current rate of change, it doesn't seem as though human beings will have time and enough opportunity to adapt, In other words: we'll have less than half-a-millennia to do what species accomplished over a far greater period of time in the PETM.

We're in trouble and in trouble deep. It's mostly a mess of our making. It will require a herculean effort to substantively address that trouble. We might not be up to the task. But if we are do or die achievers, not automatic quitters, we have to start..... we have to try..... and we have to protect the future of generations to come so they don't die from the mess we've made! It's that simple and that complex.....

End of story!

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
I'm back to tie up a loose end. There will not be another group of posts, however.
Well before Hurricane Harvey, it was clear that extreme rainfall events are becoming more extreme and are occurring more frequently. Last year provided prime examples in West Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Louisiana with, at the time, Louisiana leading the pack in terms of area covered and how extreme its flooding rainfall events had been. Yet, it's not difficult to reach further back in time for evidence of extreme or recordbreaking extreme events along with tabulation of frequency for such events over a period of decades. If you're already in the weeds of climate science, you know the principal enabler if not direct cause -- Anthropogenic Climate Change. And here is the explanation of what's happening or what PROBABLY is happening.
http://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/increased-extreme-precipitation
In line with the above information and in context to the relationship between rising heat along with its impact on water vapor and ACC, we should pay close attention to the study below in regard to heating Earth up.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7669/full/nature23646.html?foxtrotcallback=true
As pointed out by ARS Technica, in their summary of this study, we're heating up at an unprecedented RATE, which is NOT to say Earth has never been warmer, never warmed abruptly or CO2 levels were never higher. It *IS* to say, simply but significantly, when you remove from consideration events in geologic history when warming happened abruptly due to massive emissions of carbon from large scale volcanic eruptions or impact on Earth of NEOs, warming presently occurs at the speed of a geologic bullet -- certainly faster than during the PETM. And while it might even be possible to find some period in time where Earth warmed at a similar rate in similar levels of atmospheric CO2, it is *IMPOSSIBLE* to find such instance in history where humanity existed with species of life, managing to avoid extinction. This is an IMPORTANT OBSERVATION that many people seem to misunderstand or improperly dismiss.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/new-study-were-outpacing-the-most-radical-climate-event-we-know-of/
At bottom and always to be remembered: It's meaningless or erroneous to cherrypick various eras of geologic time where Earth was warmer or cooler then say Earth and its species of life survived in some measure if human beings did not exist in those eras and, in particular, did not exist in organized cultures dependent on such aspects of culture as agriculture.
Accordingly, the PETM is not a precise parallel to current warming. Key differences are addressed in the ARS Technica article cited above. But the PETM serves as a valid example for what we could expect if we existed during the PETM. That era experienced a rise of as much as 5 degrees celsius in global average temperature and a huge increase in CO2. Some extinctions occurred. But many species survived. Most of those who survived did so because they had time to adapt. At the current rate of change, it doesn't seem as though human beings will have time and enough opportunity to adapt, In other words: we'll have less than half-a-millennia to do what species accomplished over a far greater period of time in the PETM.
We're in trouble and in trouble deep. It's mostly a mess of our making. It will require a herculean effort to substantively address that trouble. We might not be up to the task. But if we are do or die achievers, not automatic quitters, we have to start..... we have to try..... and we have to protect the future of generations to come so they don't die from the mess we've made! It's that simple and that complex.....
End of story!

so is mankind really really dedicated to the proposition of saving the planets human species ...er un the ones not yet born....no it does make for a great imagined phrase...but it is not soooo...as saving the planet for future people not yet born is WAY WAY down the list of things to do...rather overcoming harvey and catrina absent of hunger and roof over our heads and adequate transportation...to and from...so you gotta be in a fantasy dream that mankind puts an idea thought u[ by goofy folks like al gore...would ever become something for humans to act on...not going to happen...so walt you can also handle these facts...regards and have a nice weekend...jon

[Walt In Seattle]

Scientifically, it's not just one storm/cyclone or even one season of storms which serve as evidence of climate change. It's in the litany of storms through a trend that stretches over decades of seasons. So, no; Patricia (2015 in the Pacific at the Baja Gulf), Harvey and Irma are not YET to be considered as caused by climate change or probably having become more severe because of climate change. In the future and after a LITANY has been well-established........

It's unfortunate the Atlantic Basin will have to wait for that litany, after which some skeptics may begin to accept, at that future date, what seems to be coming now. But, unlike the Pacific, where a litany is building and with more or less indisputable implications, the Atlantic Basin's circumstances present to us information more difficult to understand as it pertains to Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Hurricane seasons in the Atlantic, it appears, may, on the whole and across decades of storm seasons, produce fewer storms or fewer MAJOR storms by comparison to the Pacific as global climate warms. However, when major storms develop in the Atlantic, they'll more often than now become unusually and increasingly severe as time passes.

Ocean and atmospheric circulation function differently in the Atlantic Basin as opposed to the Pacific. Thus, there's no appreciable, direct equivalent in the Pacific to the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) as well as the extent of pervasive anti-cyclonic dry air and wind shear. Accordingly, many potential cyclones in the Atlantic will be torn apart before they can develop into a tropical storm or a hurricane. Those storms would perhaps have a better shot at becoming major hurricanes or super typhoons if they developed in the Pacific. Even so, ACC will heat up the Atlantic, just as it will heat up the Pacific. That means the water in the Atlantic Basin will have greater capacity than now to nurture the development of catastrophic hurricanes when storm seasons like this one happen under which wind shear is suppressed and convection is enhanced. In those Atlantic Basin seasons, we'll see increasingly severe major hurricanes in more or less direct proportion to rising water temperatures in the Atlantic Basin. Again, for details, I recommend the work of Kerry Emanuel at MIT.

As for Scott Pruitt's notion this is not a good time to discuss climate change: there will NEVER be a good time to discuss climate change from Pruitt's point of view rather than good opportunities to obfuscate the problem.

See Merriam-Webster for definition of "obfuscate"..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate

At least some of the activity described above is seemingly what Pruitt does. History will judge in the future whether Pruitt has the interests of the people-at-large in mind more than the interests of big business mavens, perhaps big oil in particular.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/climate/hurricane-irma-climate-change.html
________________________________________
[...] WASHINGTON - Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it is insensitive to discuss climate change in the midst of deadly storms. Tomás Regalado, the Republican mayor of Miami whose citizens raced to evacuate before Hurricane Irma, says if not now, when? "This is the time to talk about climate change. This is the time that the president and the E.P.A. and whoever makes decisions needs to talk about climate change," Mr. Regalado told the Miami Herald. "If this isn't climate change, I don't know what is. This is a truly, truly poster child for what is to come." [...]
------------------------------------------------------------

And then there's Donald Trump.......

https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ

As the new Miss America put it last night when asked about President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord: "It's a bad decision. There is evidence that climate change is existing and we need to be at that table." Yes, Miss Mund, we do!

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
Scientifically, it's not just one storm/cyclone or even one season of storms which serve as evidence of climate change. It's in the litany of storms through a trend that stretches over decades of seasons. So, no; Patricia (2015 in the Pacific at the Baja Gulf), Harvey and Irma are not YET to be considered as caused by climate change or probably having become more severe because of climate change. In the future and after a LITANY has been well-established........
It's unfortunate the Atlantic Basin will have to wait for that litany, after which some skeptics may begin to accept, at that future date, what seems to be coming now. But, unlike the Pacific, where a litany is building and with more or less indisputable implications, the Atlantic Basin's circumstances present to us information more difficult to understand as it pertains to Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Hurricane seasons in the Atlantic, it appears, may, on the whole and across decades of storm seasons, produce fewer storms or fewer MAJOR storms by comparison to the Pacific as global climate warms. However, when major storms develop in the Atlantic, they'll more often than now become unusually and increasingly severe as time passes.
Ocean and atmospheric circulation function differently in the Atlantic Basin as opposed to the Pacific. Thus, there's no appreciable, direct equivalent in the Pacific to the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) as well as the extent of pervasive anti-cyclonic dry air and wind shear. Accordingly, many potential cyclones in the Atlantic will be torn apart before they can develop into a tropical storm or a hurricane. Those storms would perhaps have a better shot at becoming major hurricanes or super typhoons if they developed in the Pacific. Even so, ACC will heat up the Atlantic, just as it will heat up the Pacific. That means the water in the Atlantic Basin will have greater capacity than now to nurture the development of catastrophic hurricanes when storm seasons like this one happen under which wind shear is suppressed and convection is enhanced. In those Atlantic Basin seasons, we'll see increasingly severe major hurricanes in more or less direct proportion to rising water temperatures in the Atlantic Basin. Again, for details, I recommend the work of Kerry Emanuel at MIT.
As for Scott Pruitt's notion this is not a good time to discuss climate change: there will NEVER be a good time to discuss climate change from Pruitt's point of view rather than good opportunities to obfuscate the problem.
See Merriam-Webster for definition of "obfuscate"..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate
At least some of the activity described above is seemingly what Pruitt does. History will judge in the future whether Pruitt has the interests of the people-at-large in mind more than the interests of big business mavens, perhaps big oil in particular.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/climate/hurricane-irma-climate-change.html
________________________________________
[...] WASHINGTON - Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, says it is insensitive to discuss climate change in the midst of deadly storms. Tomás Regalado, the Republican mayor of Miami whose citizens raced to evacuate before Hurricane Irma, says if not now, when? "This is the time to talk about climate change. This is the time that the president and the E.P.A. and whoever makes decisions needs to talk about climate change," Mr. Regalado told the Miami Herald. "If this isn't climate change, I don't know what is. This is a truly, truly poster child for what is to come." [...]
------------------------------------------------------------
And then there's Donald Trump.......
https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#!topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ
As the new Miss America put it last night when asked about President Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord: "It's a bad decision. There is evidence that climate change is existing and we need to be at that table." Yes, Miss Mund, we do!

yeah well done WALT...i notice you reserve a larger degree of support for the hard clits that you do not get to share with the overwhelming majority...jane fonda..and others of hollywood has about as much credibility as a cute little baby girl sitting in the basket of her dads or mome shopping carriage at the big grocery store...but we all love em....now back to the weather...so one is arguing about climate change..it is always happening...it never semes to stabalize....but i am experiencing lower night temperatures than i can remember in two or three decades...so in my area it has cooled this year for sure in the spring and summer...now i notice you dont talk about the aleutian islands where the usa tought weather begins...should we not have more folks weather men there to give us reports on those islands like they do in the western africa regions where draught has been ocurring for decades...and could it be the near future will bring a reverse climate change to a future ice age...i think so....and as to pruitt he has done the right thing and you give no thoughts to the fact that if there is things that happen to threaten usa...he will respond..but in the meantime back at the ranch...trump did the right thing and most folks approve...i know you are desparate now because coming lefty elections depend on you guys having some kind of hoax to bend the minds of youthful idiots to vote your way...but give it up for now walt and wait for better timeing...regards....jonZeee

[Walt In Seattle]

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 3:21:00 PM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:
________________________________________
[...] trump did the right thing and most folks approve...i know you are desparate now because coming lefty elections depend on you guys having some kind of hoax to bend the minds of youthful idiots to vote your way...
--------------------------------------------------------

<LOL>

KellyAnn Conway you're not, John! :-)

The epitome of desperation and hoaxterism is:

{} The birther hoax
{} The Trump University scam
{} The Inaugural record crowd in attendance lie
{} DIDN'T-GET-MORE-POPULAR-VOTES-DUE-TO-FRAUD BS
{} The ANYONE-WOULD-TAKE-THAT-MEETING blarney
{} "Fire & fury" threat even Bannon won't buy
{} Trump running for re-election immediately

I could go on and on and on and on......

Trump was right to pull us out of the Paris agreement? In what alternate reality can that claim be made? Trump's own SecDef probably would not agree with your assessment. Have you checked ExxonMobil or BP lately to see if THEY would agree or would have agreed before Trump was elected?

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
________________________________________
[...] trump did the right thing and most folks approve...i know you are desparate now because coming lefty elections depend on you guys having some kind of hoax to bend the minds of youthful idiots to vote your way...
--------------------------------------------------------
<LOL>
KellyAnn Conway you're not, John! :-)
{} The birther hoax
{} The Trump University scam
{} The Inaugural record crowd in attendance lie
{} DIDN'T-GET-MORE-POPULAR-VOTES-DUE-TO-FRAUD BS
{} The ANYONE-WOULD-TAKE-THAT-MEETING blarney
{} "Fire & fury" threat even Bannon won't buy
{} Trump running for re-election immediately
I could go on and on and on and on......
Trump was right to pull us out of the Paris agreement? In what alternate reality can that claim be made? Trump's own SecDef probably would not agree with your assessment. Have you checked ExxonMobil or BP lately to see if THEY would agree or would have agreed before Trump was elected?

walt i find it immature to use big oil or big anything to qualify a economic result....we are not proficient enough in their type business to know how they feel threatened one way or the other...jz

[Walt In Seattle]

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 5:35:11 PM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:
__________________________________________
i find it immature to use big oil or big anything to qualify a economic result....we are not proficient enough in their type business to know how they feel threatened one way or the other...
---------------------------------------------------------

If you want to know how they feel, on economics or on the threat from ACC, why not go look at their websites now or news reports as far back as 2015 about their expressed reasons for supporting COP21? You might also look at those companies -- not just big oil -- who urged Trump NOT to pull out of the Paris agreement.

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
__________________________________________
i find it immature to use big oil or big anything to qualify a economic result....we are not proficient enough in their type business to know how they feel threatened one way or the other...
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want to know how they feel, on economics or on the threat from ACC, why not go look at their websites now or news reports as far back as 2015 about their expressed reasons for supporting COP21? You might also look at those companies -- not just big oil -- who urged Trump NOT to pull out of the Paris agreement.

at a time in life i used your perspective...but here is how i do it now...every one has a bottom line and it might not be money in the case of politics..it could be security of job....we as the general population usually has money money and money plus moral ethics...trump and we are in that mindset...however little business and big business may be thinking of growing new growth agendas which is different in perspective..and all is fair in love war and capitalism ie.business and industry....this is the reason for the 14th amendment.. it allows for individual nobodies...to have equal rights...otherwise the whole thing would be out of balance....you tend to cite phd.s with their bottom line being job security...and the same applys to political parties ...ie...lefties with a job security as their bottom line ...translated into votes at election time...and yes lefties can change over like clinton when in office and slip a little to the right...but we nobodies have the genes to pick up on this sneaky movement...and of course trump has no interest in the bottom line security of job factor and that is the reason he is so popular from the beginning....regards...jonZeee

[Walt In Seattle]

The bottom line, John, is whether we'll live or die as a species and whether we'll fight to survive in only the short term of our own lives or for the long term of our offspring and theirs for generations to come. We either care about the latter or we don't.

But if we don't....... the bottom line is that our species will most likely -- little probability involved -- cease to exist. Beyond the here and now along with the immediate comfort it might bring, what good is accumulating money, in the greater scheme of things, when you and yours or those of yours who could have carried on in your future absence, generations beyond your passing, but won't because they will perish or never have a chance to be born? We make money ONLY for the same reason some have sex -- instant gratification? There never is nor won't ever be any thought as to whether that money or other assets will be useful to those who follow us -- people who were just born or who don't yet exist but about whom we nevertheless care because we hope they'll some day exist? That's the real nitty-gritty bottom line!

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
The bottom line, John, is whether we'll live or die as a species and whether we'll fight to survive in only the short term of our own lives or for the long term of our offspring and theirs for generations to come. We either care about the latter or we don't.
But if we don't....... the bottom line is that our species will most likely -- little probability involved -- cease to exist. Beyond the here and now along with the immediate comfort it might bring, what good is accumulating money, in the greater scheme of things, when you and yours or those of yours who could have carried on in your future absence, generations beyond your passing, but won't because they will perish or never have a chance to be born? We make money ONLY for the same reason some have sex -- instant gratification? There never is nor won't ever be any thought as to whether that money or other assets will be useful to those who follow us -- people who were just born or who don't yet exist but about whom we nevertheless care because we hope they'll some day exist? That's the real nitty-gritty bottom line!

well sadly i will admit that ..hey people we gotta think about our children and our childrens children...this comes from a feeling of guilt toward our own children...to make them think that hey we are important and this keeps the self image afloat which is good...but down deep it is really just a guilt trip...humans are good at taking the path of least resistance...and actual behavior is being noted as the childrens children not yet born is way way down on the list to consider....if it was very important ..we would be willing to hold politicians feet to the fire over the national debt..but that is an issue that is so in denial...that you will have to admit that it exist..as individually speaking..it is on the news constantly about the debt being solved by borrow borrow borrow and pay off your credit cards etc. and they do not even think about advertizing big ticket items total price anymore..rather only 99 dollars down and no payments for six months...a hell of a sales pitch to the saps that will go for it...so i could go on and on about this issue...and as for the sex bit..yes it seems every other item of health pills for sale is...and bob dole started it...viagra and now a couple dozen other brands available...so now tell me that CHILDRENS CHILDREN is an important factor when behavior like the above is most prominent...regards..jon

[Walt In Seattle]

The Trump Administration will not say whether climate change was a factor in Hurricane Irma or Hurricane Harvey......

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-declines-climate-change-factor-recent-hurricanes/story?id=49774639

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
The Trump Administration will not say whether climate change was a factor in Hurricane Irma or Hurricane Harvey......
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-declines-climate-change-factor-recent-hurricanes/story?id=49774639

well since the climate is always in a state of change..it was indeed a factor..but it was not because of mans behavior...but i also know that trump must be aggravated by the badgering of the lefties to get him to say it was mans fault...so that was a good answer from his perspective...do you have a further question for him...regards jon

[john simmons]

Post by john simmons

Post by Walt In Seattle
The Trump Administration will not say whether climate change was a factor in Hurricane Irma or Hurricane Harvey......
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-declines-climate-change-factor-recent-hurricanes/story?id=49774639

well since the climate is always in a state of change..it was indeed a factor..but it was not because of mans behavior...but i also know that trump must be aggravated by the badgering of the lefties to get him to say it was mans fault...so that was a good answer from his perspective...do you have a further question for him...regards jon

walt...one could say that friction from a falling tree could start a fire and that would be a natural happening...but if fire was started by a man or woman then that would be a factor in the sky being paluted..and there is penaltes for that behavior..as the results of all things changing the temperature or pressure can cause a climate change and of course the amount of change would be determined by the weather at the time of the fire and the amount of fire..regards..jon

[Walt In Seattle]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:42:08 AM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:
________________________________________
one could say that friction from a falling tree could start a fire and that would be a natural happening...but if fire was started by a man or woman then that would be a factor in the sky being paluted..and there is penaltes for that behavior..as the results of all things changing the temperature or pressure can cause a climate change and of course the amount of change would be determined by the weather at the time of the fire and the amount of fire..
--------------------------------------------------------

One can say a lot of things. Whether they should is another matter. Here is better information on climate change.....

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

[Walt In Seattle]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 5:18:25 AM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:
________________________________________
well since the climate is always in a state of change..it was indeed a factor..but it was not because of mans behavior...
--------------------------------------------------------

If you have scientific evidence to support your premise, please present it. At the moment, I know of no one who has conducted a thorough study of Harvey as well as Irma and there certainly has not been the time needed to analyze data which is only now being compiled or was JUST compiled, I expect, as to Harvey while Irma is still winding down.

One can "surmise" or "speculate" but not "know" or calculate probability for now as to Irma, at least. It's prudent for the Trump Administration not to comment only because there presently are no studies on which to depend, one way or another. Beyond.......... We'll see. Again, the best evidence is in the litany of events, not so much or not without difficulty in general where individual events are concerned.

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
________________________________________
well since the climate is always in a state of change..it was indeed a factor..but it was not because of mans behavior...
--------------------------------------------------------
If you have scientific evidence to support your premise, please present it. At the moment, I know of no one who has conducted a thorough study of Harvey as well as Irma and there certainly has not been the time needed to analyze data which is only now being compiled or was JUST compiled, I expect, as to Harvey while Irma is still winding down.
One can "surmise" or "speculate" but not "know" or calculate probability for now as to Irma, at least. It's prudent for the Trump Administration not to comment only because there presently are no studies on which to depend, one way or another. Beyond.......... We'll see. Again, the best evidence is in the litany of events, not so much or not without difficulty in general where individual events are concerned.

so what you are saying is...the media and politicians has lots of hay in the barn to shove out to the general pop..while they make a lot of money and can use a bale of hay to change subjects if the one being discuaaed become boring or not so apetizing to the viewer..dont touch that remote..hell we gotta pay the bills..ok so that feeds capitalism for another day until tomorrow.and it is a good subject that never gets settled..what a deal...huh..regards jon

[Walt In Seattle]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 8:38:23 AM UTC-7, john simmons wrote:
________________________________________
so what you are saying is...the media and politicians has lots of hay in the barn to shove out to the general pop..while they make a lot of money and can use a bale of hay to change subjects if the one being discuaaed become boring or not so apetizing to the viewer..dont touch that remote..hell we gotta pay the bills..ok so that feeds capitalism for another day until tomorrow.and it is a good subject that never gets settled..what a deal...huh..
--------------------------------------------------------

What I'm saying, John, is what I wrote. On the matter of attempts to change the subject...... well... this morning's exchange is indicative.

[john simmons]

Post by Walt In Seattle
________________________________________
so what you are saying is...the media and politicians has lots of hay in the barn to shove out to the general pop..while they make a lot of money and can use a bale of hay to change subjects if the one being discuaaed become boring or not so apetizing to the viewer..dont touch that remote..hell we gotta pay the bills..ok so that feeds capitalism for another day until tomorrow.and it is a good subject that never gets settled..what a deal...huh..
--------------------------------------------------------
What I'm saying, John, is what I wrote. On the matter of attempts to change the subject...... well... this morning's exchange is indicative.

oh i was not referring to you or i changing subjects...reread...the media is the ones that use various issues to make money...regards...jon

[Walt In Seattle]

There are trends to be seen and those trends matter. They're part of the truth or reality of anthropogenic climate change, right down to a dramatically melting Arctic. (see the initial post under this topic) But who wants to see or remain blind? Who would rather mislead or be deceived? Who is more comfortable with the expediencies or personal advantages of the present than concerned for the future? Whomever is more concerned about what really does make the difference when the issue is ACC........

The "Devil" or, more accurately, the truth, is always in the details -- details people such as John Stossel tend to ignore or obfuscate. We see our future. Some wish not to accept it. But, soon enough, they'll have no choice!

Again, here is the nitty-gritty of climate science from reputable sources.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

http://history.aip.org/history/climate/impacts.htm

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

And in case you hadn't noticed......

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/climate-trends-future-earth-day
________________________________________
[...] There is a vast amount of empirical evidence that proves that human-caused climate change is real and affecting our planet at an alarming rate. While scientists say Earth has experienced cycles of warming and cooling over the ages, the significant warming trend we are now experiencing is nothing like those of the past. The difference, scientists say, is human activity. In fact, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) says the probability that humans are the reason for the rapid warming since the mid-19th century is greater than 95 percent. [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above article cites as support for the "95 percent" assertion:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.c2es.org/publications/extreme-weather-and-climate-change
________________________________________
[...] Thousands of record-breaking weather events worldwide bolster long-term trends of increasing heat waves, heavy precipitation, droughts and wildfires. A combination of observed trends, theoretical understanding of the climate system, and numerical modeling demonstrates that global warming is increasing the risk of these types of events today. Debates about whether single events are "caused" by climate change are illogical, but individual events offer important lessons about society's vulnerabilities to climate change. Reducing the future risk of extreme weather requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to changes that are already unavoidable. [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm
________________________________________
[...] There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves. [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/12/16295000/extreme-weather-climate-change-wildfires-heat-waves-hurricanes
________________________________________
[...] California recently had a deadly heat wave that set all-time heat records in several towns, including San Francisco; and after Hurricane Harvey brought unprecedented raining and flooding to Texas, Hurricane Irma swept through the Caribbean and Florida - the strongest storm ever recorded in the Atlantic Ocean outside of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. Although it's impossible to attribute any one of these single events to climate change, the signals are clear, scientists say. (That kind of attribution may be possible with certain kinds of modeling studies; those studies have not yet been conducted.) These extreme weather events are very consistent with what climate change is expected to bring in the years ahead: global weirding. Extreme weather events become more extreme, and climate change is "`loading the dice' toward more extreme floods, heat waves, droughts and hurricanes," says Michael Mann, a climatologist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, in an email to The Verge. "We shouldn't be surprised we're turning up snake eyes so often now." [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Citations in the above piece
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/sitreprt.pdf
https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/?sensor=modis&extent=conus#
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-six-deaths-heat-wave-bay-area-20170908-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-heat-wave-weekend-20170901-story.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/5/16254858/hurricane-irma-category-5-forecasts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Loading Image...
________________________________________
[Caption:] A vehicle drives through flooded streets caused by the combination of the lunar orbit which caused seasonal high tides and what many believe is the rising sea levels due to climate change on September 30, 2015 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. South Florida is projected to continue to feel the effects of climate change and many of the cities have begun programs such as installing pumps or building up sea walls to try and combat the rising oceans. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo and caption appear at:
https://www.curbed.com/2017/8/29/16218468/hurricane-harvey-flood-insurance-wildfire-climate-change

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/two-catastrophic-floods-in-less-than-two-years-wasn-t/article_33e07bfa-16dd-575b-8e18-9a6e2a2eebd0.html
________________________________________
[By Bryce Gray St. Louis Post-Dispatch May 8, 2017] [...] Residents of waterlogged communities along the Meramec River and other swollen area waterways have experienced something unusual for the region. In a span of just 16 months, the people of cities like Eureka, Pacific and Valley Park have twice braced for and dealt with so-called "100-year" floods that have left damage, financial loss and heartache in their wake. Now, as the floodwater recedes in some communities, residents are left wondering how soon the next catastrophic flood will arrive. [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/kansas-city-flash-flooding-22aug17
________________________________________
[By Jon Erdman August 22 2017 03:30 PM EDT] [...] Three rounds of heavy rain inundated Kansas City Monday into early Tuesday, triggering the second major flash flood in one part of the metro area in less than a month. [...] The floods chased some residents onto the roofs of their homes, as local news footage showed Tuesday morning. [...] The National Weather Service issued a flash flood emergency early Tuesday morning, as Indian Creek in the southern Kansas City metro rose over 17 feet in just over 5 hours early Tuesday to a new record level, swamping an area that had just witnessed severe flash flooding on July 27. [...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Walt In Seattle]

As stated by me on July 16, 2017 in this discussion topic:
________________________________________
Clearly, Earth has been hotter in the past and with more CO2 as well as other GHGs in the atmosphere. Yet, in the absence of humanity, along with its burning of fossil fuels and removing from consideration scenarios where there were massive supervolcanic eruptions or deep impact from NEOs if not other sudden as well as catastrophic events, the speed at which warming or cooling in tandem with concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere has occurred has been comparatively slower, thus allowing the various species of animals and plants to adapt. The added warmth of ACC (note the A part of ACC and that humanity's existence, along with its organized civilization, is relatively brief in geological time) is happening so quickly, or is projected to happen so quickly, that many species will not be able to adapt, humanity in particular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ACC is indeed happening at a rapid pace. Implications are unmistakable, as indicated at the following links.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n9/full/nclimate3352.html?foxtrotcallback=true

http://time.com/4884648/climate-change-india-temperatures/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40835663

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-fast-melting-arctic-sign-bad-global-warming-49199787

[Walt In Seattle]

Some people have not a clue about what constitutes ACC or associated scientific research, yet pretend they do. They'll build a rationale which dismisses all science with which they disagree or, in some cases, the entirety of science and the scientific method. Still others define everyone and every thing in terms of political philosophy and stereotype; nothing escapes the application of a politically-shaped label -- favorable or pejorative, depending on whether the viewer likes or dislikes what he or she sees. Everyone or every thing is thus and such but could never be anything else. Pejoratives are assigned, often without knowledge as to whether they are VALIDLY assigned and mostly or only because the viewer does or doesn't like what he or she sees then ASSUMES he or she knows motivation and perspective of others.

Some people know better but believe, if they're going to marginalize what they see, the best strategy is to assign a negative connotation then do their best to make it stick. For them, there's no need for REALITY or TRUTH.

Finally, there's the person whose political, cultural or financial ox has been gored or could be. They['ll automagically attack what they view as a threat.

In all of this, real science is cast as though it's part of some evil conspiracy or is simply a self-serving effort conducted by scientists individually or collectively for whatever gain. And, of course, it's ASSUMED or asserted they play into a strategy of 'hype" intentionally or just don't bother to fight it. Where this "understanding" of the "way things are" or should be is genuinely held, it derives from a truly warped perspective on humanity, having devolved into pure stereotyping and little need to acquire REAL facts rather than put forward bald ASSUMPTION or assertion; all the easier to slap a label.

There are, of course, people who function differently and with different motivations. This post is NOT about them.

No one should judge science or scientist on the basis described above and the judgment of those who apply labels accordingly should never be trusted. Likewise, those who apply assumptions, assertions and labels for political and/or rhetorical strategy, not much caring or not caring at all about truth or falsity, should be granted little or no credibility in their arguments. If you say it or write it, you should be willing to back it up WITH FACTS or at least reasonable logic that does not depend entirely on bald assumptions or assertions!