Global Warming

[Aldebaran]

If you own property on the Gulf Coast, you've already got a catastrophe growing...

Gulf Coast residents crumble under rising homeowners insurance costs
Gulf Coast residents crumble under rising homeowners insurance costs

Building along the coast where it's that a hurricane can do damage to your building is simply foolish. It's no different than increasing building along earthquake fault lines and then citing increased earthquake damage as being the sign of one thing or another. Maybe people should start building home and businesses next to volcanoes and then we can say volcanoes are a major problem because those places would get destroyed when an eruption happens.

If you want to avoid harm, then stay out of harm's way. At least the smart insurance companies understand this. If you want to get insured when you build in a place where damage is likely to happen, then you can do so, but expect to pay higher costs for the higher risks.

 

[AirPo]

Building along the coast where it's that a hurricane can do damage to your building is simply foolish. It's no different than increasing building along earthquake fault lines and then citing increased earthquake damage as being the sign of one thing or another. Maybe people should start building home and businesses next to volcanoes and then we can say volcanoes are a major problem because those places would get destroyed when an eruption happens.

If you want to avoid harm, then stay out of harm's way. At least the smart insurance companies understand this. If you want to get insured when you build in a place where damage is likely to happen, then you can do so, but expect to pay higher costs for the higher risks.

The point is that the risk is getting greater, so the costs are getting greater.

 

[Aldebaran]

The point is that the risk is getting greater, so the costs are getting greater.

The risk of loss to the insurance company is greater because more people build there. They are the ones who can afford to buy property there along with the high insurance cost. They want to live in that location and are willing to pay the price of doing so. Then when the inevitable happens, the insurance companies pay out millions of dollars, and then the people build there again. As long as they can afford to, they will continue to do so. As a result, the cost becomes greater.

 

[Heissonear]

Building along the coast where it's that a hurricane can do damage to your building is simply foolish. It's no different than increasing building along earthquake fault lines and then citing increased earthquake damage as being the sign of one thing or another. Maybe people should start building home and businesses next to volcanoes and then we can say volcanoes are a major problem because those places would get destroyed when an eruption happens.

If you want to avoid harm, then stay out of harm's way. At least the smart insurance companies understand this. If you want to get insured when you build in a place where damage is likely to happen, then you can do so, but expect to pay higher costs for the higher risks.

You bring sound reason to the subject.

The Mississippi's drainage basin is pretty sizeable, and over the centuries a vast amount of muddy Mississippi river sediments fanned out and deposited. The result in our time is to observe the sediment compaction, a natural process in sedimentation.

New Orleans in sections is over 10 to 15 feet below sea level. All the result of natural sedimentary deposits process called compaction.

It only takes common sense to know that New Orleans is set for a natural disaster. The Ivan and Katrina wakeup calls were masked by politic garbage about rebuilding and carring on, rather than moving to higher ground.

Such is ignorance mixed with manipulation.

People think Mother Nature is static and should be kind to their foolishness. Rather, it should be listening and changing way of living as Mother Nature teaches.

 

[Heissonear]

It is interesting how all warming of Earth is within natural variability, what natural solar, ocean currents, and the like can cause.

No CO2 needed.

CO2 has been hyped to extremism, and natural processes which has controlled Earths temperature has been tossed in the ditch.

It is not wise to ignore Mother Nature, like residence in New Orleans are doing.

Climate propaganda has always a negative and alarming measage. Eco-Extremists works are easy to spot. It is extreme negativism.

 

[RickG]

It is interesting how all warming of Earth is within natural variability, what natural solar, ocean currents, and the like can cause.

That is not true. Atmospheric CO2 has increased 44% over the past 100 years, with the majority of that being in the past 50 years. Additionally that full 44% increase due to fossil fuel consumption. How do we know? Fundamental Geochemistry. Here's a few research papers demonstrating this.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

No CO2 needed.

Not true. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well established since the mid 1800's. Let's look at the fundamental physics.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), has a central carbon atom and two oxygen atoms attached. With CO2, there is a central carbon atom and two oxygen atoms attached and an electromagnetic field incorporated into them. This electromagnetic field gently locks the molecule into a specific configuration. That magnetic field also allows the atoms to wobble around a bit (vibrate) as the molecule is floating about in the atmosphere. When Infrared (IR) energy strikes this molecule the two oxygen atoms vibrate, which generates heat. This heat is emitted from the CO2 molecule; as it emits, more IR energy causes the molecule to vibrate and emit heat again and again in a continuous process. When there is more IR energy entering the earths atmosphere than leaves, the over all net activity is a "heat gain"; thus, warming land and sea surface temperatures.

CO2 has been hyped to extremism, and natural processes which has controlled Earths temperature has been tossed in the ditch.

From studying past climates (paleoclimates) we understand the mechanisms (forcings) that effect climate and to what extent. Note my emphasis on the expression we. I emphasize that, as my M.S. in Earth Science was concentrated in the area of Paleoclimatology. Subsequently, I spent almost 30 years as a research chemist (Geochemistry), in part, testing the effects of solar irradiation on specific molecules and polymer chains. I would gratefully appreciate well established fundamental chemistry and physics not being addressed as "hyped extremism".

Climate propaganda has always a negative and alarming measage.

I agree 100%. I think it is very sad that the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they support have engaged in it.

 

[Heissonear]

That is not true. Atmospheric CO2 has increased 44% over the past 100 years, with the majority of that being in the past 50 years. Additionally that full 44% increase due to fossil fuel consumption. How do we know? Fundamental Geochemistry. Here's a few research papers demonstrating this.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79



Not true. The physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is well established since the mid 1800's. Let's look at the fundamental physics.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), has a central carbon atom and two oxygen atoms attached. With CO2, there is a central carbon atom and two oxygen atoms attached and an electromagnetic field incorporated into them. This electromagnetic field gently locks the molecule into a specific configuration. That magnetic field also allows the atoms to wobble around a bit (vibrate) as the molecule is floating about in the atmosphere. When Infrared (IR) energy strikes this molecule the two oxygen atoms vibrate, which generates heat. This heat is emitted from the CO2 molecule; as it emits, more IR energy causes the molecule to vibrate and emit heat again and again in a continuous process. When there is more IR energy entering the earths atmosphere than leaves, the over all net activity is a "heat gain"; thus, warming land and sea surface temperatures.


From studying past climates (paleoclimates) we understand the mechanisms (forcings) that effect climate and to what extent. Note my emphasis on the expression we. I emphasize that, as my M.S. in Earth Science was concentrated in the area of Paleoclimatology. Subsequently, I spent almost 30 years as a research chemist (Geochemistry), in part, testing the effects of solar irradiation on specific molecules and polymer chains. I would gratefully appreciate well established fundamental chemistry and physics not being addressed as "hyped extremism".


I agree 100%. I think it is very sad that the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they support have engaged in it.

Science is observation based.

And this Earth's temperature has been controlled by natural weather factors that transition over time, some in cycles, but never in a static mode.

You should know better that in geology facies is but a remains of an environment of the past that transitioned overtime into another environment in its local.

Quoting papers of studies of change is but elementary to geology.

What is presented as Eco-Extremism is Anthropologic induced increase in atmospheric CO2.

But Mother Nature process rule first, and hold dominance until proven otherwise. This is the issue. Nobody has scientifically showed natural variability except for Alarmist Scientists peddled literature and data. These Alarmists Scientists have not even come near understanding natural variability much les ability to quantify it.

For those who have proposed natural variability is graphs, figures, and calculations are ones who show how little they know and show the world in history their error and arrogance. Silly heads, thinking they are elite in knowledge when they know very little and are infants in what the know.

CO2 radiation physics shows absorption is logarithmic and not linear. Alarmists Scientists then have to resort to "real world" reradition height deviation and increase will occu. Such is tap dance and smoke screen.

Water is the foremost Greenhouse Gas on Earth. And in its different phases dominates all states of Earths temperature transitions to hot to cold, verically, laterally, and over time.

Go ahead an Bandwagon CO2 is a polutant and will dominate Earths future atmospheric temperature. Remember the difference beteween a theory and and what is true science: observation.

And you need to explain what Nature is doing before what little aCO2 is doing. Yes, the horse before the cart in cause and effects, with Natural Variability long here and established before what hyper short sighted Alarmists propose.

Sing it again, Sam. I know you see no different that CO2-centralcism.

 

[Heissonear]

Alarmist are still saying its worst than we think, but ...........

 

[RickG]

CO2 radiation physics shows absorption is logarithmic and not linear.

That is not correctly stated. CO2 as a radiative forcing is linear function, thus the logarithmic relationship, which gives the temperature response for increasing it (doubling) from 200 to 400, or 300 to 600, or 400 to 800, or 500 to 1000 ppmv will be the same. As I have previously mentioned, the molecule of CO2, one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms vibrates when an IR photon is absorbed. After being absorbed, the vibration emits the photon, thus making way for another IR photon to be absorbed. The heat energy is not absorbed and maintained in a static state. It is the vibration of the molecule that re-emits the energy. This is straight forward fundamental physics.

Water is the foremost Greenhouse Gas on Earth. And in its different phases dominates all states of Earths temperature transitions to hot to cold, verically, laterally, and over time.

True water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, the difference is that water vapor is a "feedback" system, not a "forcing" as carbon dioxide is. The entire atmospheric water vapor content overturns completely every 9 to 10 days, while carbon dioxide is a long lived atmospheric gas.[/quote]

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been closed due to continued flaming violations. In future threads, please remember to address the content of a post and not the member personally.
MOD HAT OFF​