And it's been that way for the last 10 days except for when the record high was set in 1934.

Poor logic. He can afford to lose that beachfront property is things don't get turned around. And that's assuming he isn't relying on qualifying for the inevitable bail out.

Lenders offload their loans onto federally backed lenders who currently aren't permitted to look at disaster risks as part of loan issuance: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-could-impact-your-mortgage-even-if-you-live-nowhere-near-a-coast-2019-09-30?fbclid=IwAR0UI0t6KIvcxHCV3klOIGwprFZ9AFLghhFREh4sBj5nXic8YH4GtL_eg9M

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/financial-services/articles/insurance-companies-climate-change-risk.html?fbclid=IwAR1ijsfFfWjcxJXPqDq_oR8nNMTKCTGkOPmNGatWAvXdV-ZQe_v_ZjOPuHE

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2017/03/21/277504.htm?fbclid=IwAR0IhlAz3ZgMpVquDeN4o1vFq8_D7FAYMEhFbFHnZIDW3aj6dPyB4Q-xepQ
Coastal Insurance Costs Increasing as Sea Level Rises

Then why do govt backed loan applications require a flood certificate?

I'm not in the industry, but I would imagine its about the risk of non-payment. Flood insurance would rebuild the house, but if the property ends up literally underwater, or utilities are down, the owner is expected to continue to make payments. If they decide its not worth it to continue to rebuild there and they can't sell the property, they might abandon it rather than make payments, especially if property values drop.

I just saw this which is interesting:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/fema-overhauls-national-flood-insurance-program-for-climate-change.html

"Under the current program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provides $1.3 trillion in coverage for more than 5 million policy holders in 23,500 communities nationwide. Homeowners in FEMA-designated flood zones are required to purchase flood insurance, but others do so voluntarily. Nearly one-third of NFIP policyholders are not mandated to carry it.

Starting on Oct. 1, the program will undergo a complete overhaul to make insurance pricing more accurately reflect each property’s unique flood risk. Finally, climate change will be factored in."

There goes beachfront property

Probably. Its something else for Republican politicians to lie and say they will fix if they get in office, then if they do and a storm does tremendous damage that gets passed to taxpayers through FEMA, somehow blame green energy.

Texas should not have been relying on wind power like that unless they are willing to deal with the power losses.

That again? Texas deregulated in order to get lower prices and then didn't follow regulations (that's the point of deregulating).

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Which-energy-source-was-to-blame-for-the-Texas-16485932.php

"A preliminary report published Thursday by FERC and the electricity reliability nonprofit North American Reliability Corp. found that the two biggest factors contributing to power plants failing during the winter storm were the lack of weatherization of critical equipment at power plants and problems with Texas’ fuel supplies, particularly natural gas. Freezing and fuel issues accounted for three-quarters of the unplanned power plant failures in the Midwest and the South, including in Texas and Louisiana.

FERC said Texas regulators and power generators failed to sufficiently winterize their power plants, leading to frozen sensors, transmitters and wind turbines. The federal agency, which oversees the nation’s power grids and natural gas systems, recommended that power plants and natural gas producers install temporary heaters, insulation and wind barriers to help prevent future freezing.

The second main culprit, FERC said, was the fuel supply to power plants. Natural gas producers temporarily shut down wells to prevent their equipment from freezing, while companies that continued to operate experienced frozen equipment at wellheads, gathering and processing facilities. Icy road conditions also made it difficult to get crews out to make repairs."

Only 13% of TX power losses were due to Wind. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/02/17/texas-energy-wind-power-outage-natural-gas-renewable-green-new-deal/6780546002/

Back in the day it used to be some crazy homeless guy holding a cardboard sign about the world ending no one paid any attention to. How did things changed so rapidly?

That's why they changed the name from global warming to climate change; just in case it got colder or stayed the same.

Kind of like the Dust Bowl in the 1930's. The heat wave and drought of 1906. Then the drought of the 1950s. Mankind and his pesty CO2 destroying the planet for centuries. Actually tomorrow the record high is 46 degrees higher than the forecast, man there must have been a lot of CO2 in 1936. It's time we change the weather for good instead of being shills for big whatever. Only BIG Government can save us now!!

it's called "weather".

Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term variation in minutes to weeks. People generally think of weather as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. ... Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years.

Manmade CO2 is making things hotter right? Feedback loops, greenhouse gas, right? Why do we still have any high temperature records from 1906? 1876? 1893? 1934? Climate or weather? Climate used to be defined as the typical conditions for a region, tropical, equatorial, polar, desert, mountain, etc., now it is defined as any weather event that suits a leftist agenda to tax and destroy business and in my case my career.
CO2 is supposed to be at a climatological ideal of 350 parts per million (350/1,000,000) the planet is being destroyed at 400/1,000,000. 50/1,000,000ths of the atmosphere controls our destiny. Yeah right, simple logic exposes how preposterous that theory is. OSHA doesn't worry about long term exposure to CO2 until it gets over 10,000 ppm. Plants cannot survive with less than 300 ppm. Greenhouses increase food production by elevating CO2 to 2000-3000 ppm.
As a fellow carbon based life form, I would hope you research enough to realize that CO2 is essential for life.
As a former oil and gas worker, I calculated how much CO2 oil and gas could have released to the atmosphere since the oil industry began in the 1850s. Compared to coal, we do have accurate records of production- currently less than a trillion barrels of oil equivalent. If every bit of it was burned and released the highest levels of CO2 into the atmosphere it would be teh equivalent of 8 parts per million (8/1,000,000). Don't worry, climate experts have assured me that plants reject manmade CO2 (acky acky poo poo) yet readily sequester CO2 from massive forest fires that inject more CO2 into the atmosphere in a week than all oil and gas consumed.
Without CO2 we are dead. No food for anything. Dead. The planet needs more CO2.

Increased CO2 is good for plants - no doubt. But changing temperatures and weather patterns can change the climate in a region (your definition is fine). Increased growth will require extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases.

Some plants do well with higher CO2, but some food crops loose nutritional value at higher CO2 levels.

Forest fires - most massive forest fires are caused by man. We often prevent forest fires that would have been smaller and cleared undergrowth until we can't anymore. At that point the ensuing fire is larger and sometimes hot enough to destroy old growth trees that would have survived the smaller natural fires. But cause aside, we can only control what we can control.

Care to share the math or a source on the "all the oil would only increase...by 8 parts per million"?

My understanding is that the issue isn't that plants reject man made CO2 (what's the difference?) its that we are outpacing what can be absorbed due to the other limits on absorption such as available water and other nutrients required for plant growth.

So much of the same bad science in your comment, it is impossible to get through to people who have bought it.
Forest fires? Bad forest management. An old growth forest is a forest in decline. Life is constantly renewing, it never stays static. Old trees produce less O2 and take in less CO2 than new growth trees. What most people consider old growth is actually a forest at it's peak.
The chemistry between nutrient and CO2 is well known, CO2 and H2O combine with photosynthesis to create the most essential components of the food chain.
As for the math- we have produced and used just over 900 billion BOE- I calculated 100% oil and gas production emitting the highest stated volume of CO2 from certain refined oil products listed on EPA charts for 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Divide the tonnage of CO2 by the calculated tonnage of the atmosphere and you get approx 8 ppm. Not all oil and gas use releases CO2, most oil products are used for chemical feedstock. Forgive me if I over simplify this, I presented at a conference and detailed all the math, too much to provide here. No one could refute my research, that's when "experts" started claiming that plants could discern manmade and natural source CO2, therefore all manmade CO2 remains in the atmosphere, preposterous declaration that it was, as are most climate change assertions when they are critically reviewed.
Simply stated CO2 theory is based on a static planet, we are dynamic in every sense. I presented at another conference that most CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere by precipitation (rain, snow etc) as it is proven that CO2 levels exist in aquifers, lakes, the oceans etc. Here's a new article link that discusses some aspects https://principia-scientific.com/how-much-co2-is-in-a-raindrop-the-ocean-the-air/
Geology is a strong part of my background. CO2 has been much higher and the planet thrived, we wouldn't be here if it hadn't. And trying not to run out of space here, Spencer et al conclusively proved that water vapor is a more significant driver of climate than 350/1,000,000ths of the atmosphere that is CO2.
Consider this, if powerful CO2 molecules bounce heat back to earth, they bounce an equal amount of heat from the sun back to space. Equilibrium.
Ask yourself why is the only solution to climate change more government power? It has nothing to do with science.

Speaking of bad science "CO2 bounces heat back into space". Visible light and UV light reach the earth and some of it is reflected as infrared light. Greenhouse gasses absorb the infrared light and emit it in all directions, including outward into space. But it isn't a single molecule thick shield. CO2 acts as an insulator and the more of it their is the less heat escapes. That isn't equilibrium. So, I doubt your credentials.

And based on your link to principia-scientific.com - one of the least credible sites I've ever visited. I don't think I'm going to waste any more time with you. They have a publication instructing people on fighting back against vaccine mandates - that's not science, that's activism.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/

Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change.

whatever. The planet is too fragile to support life, kiss your friends goodbye.

climate change isn't the end of the world. I doubt it will even be the end of human life. But I live in a wealthy nation and enjoy a certain quality of life. I'd very much like to not have to deal with the side effects of shifting weather patterns and changing climate.

Plus, if we develop the green tech the rest of the world uses, that's a win win for us.

Too many responses on this thread I can't reply directly to your ridiculous comments. I've debated the 40% assertion and there is no scientific basis for the claim. When they couldn't win, they started (again with no scientific proof) to say that manmade CO2 is a different isotope that plants reject. Right.
Think about what you said. 3.8% of all CO2 is manmade. Do you honestly think that there is no way nature balances that? 3.8%
I might have a slight advantage in that I dealt with measurement of gas quality in parts per million on a daily basis for decades. OSHA does not get worried until people are exposed to 10,000 ppm on an extended basis. The premise is that the atmosphere is so precariously balanced that 50 ppm- moving us from the bare minimum 350 ppm to 400 ppm (circa 5 years ago) is going to destroy climate. 50 one millionths of the atmosphere will destroy equilibrium? Preposterous.
A few years back when I was publishing research and heavily debating this stuff there was shock and alarm that temperatures were rising so much that primordial forests that had been encapsulated in ice for 10,000 years were being exposed!!!! This proves that the planet is being destroyed by mankind!!!!! We can't have warming that exposes primordial forests!!!! Why that would subject the planet to the higher temperatures from 10,000 years ago!!!! No life can survive that!!!!
Never mind that the primordial forests thrived in a warmer climate, with more CO2 10,000 years ago, before mankind even had a glimmer of fossil fuels (which are comprised primarily of algae and plankton that settled on primordial ocean floors). No, no this is proof positive that mankind is changing the weather. It's never been warmer, no put those trees back in ice.
Rising temperatures. Interesting. Ever hear of the heat island effect? In 1950 there was one paved highway from coast to coast in the US. Hwy 6. In 1950 1/2 of all farms were still farmed with horses, 1/3 of what they grew went to feed the horses. Today there are thousands of miles of paved roads, massive paved parking lots and shopping centers where fields and forests once existed. So when a city records a record high temperature compared to 1950, or 1934 or 1906, the record is meaningless. It is not a direct comparison of anything.
Explain this screenshot from today's Accuweather app

CO2 from fossil fuels has a different isotopic footprint, but I can find nothing about it being absorbed differently.

What is the point of OSHA and air quality - we aren't talking about whether people can breathe, we are talking about the insulating effect of increased CO2.

The heat island effect is taken into account by measuring temperatures in remote locations.

The pic: weather on individual days is not climate. We aren't talking a huge difference in average temperatures, but still an increase. That doesn't mean every day will be hotter. Its the same if I were to point to the temperature being higher on a specific day. That is meaningless if the average temperature is still lower.

Ok, I guess it's okay to crap your pants over natural variation, we aren't talking about huge increases after all. For most of the past 15 years I've checked historic records for the location I'm in and across the board most records predate 1950, and in a surprising number of areas, the record high is an average of 20 degrees warmer this year alone. Never been warmer we're told. Bullshit. Heat wave in the Pacific NW, never happened before- again, bullshit. No matter what facts are presented to global climate warming changers they ignore them and go back to the same propaganda they bought hook line and sinker.
Your case for global climate warming change is the typical pattern, your questions unoriginal, and bland repetition of baseless claims. Like so many, you are convinced that we guide tornados and hurricanes, blizzards and bomb cyclones by our consumption of fossil fuels. Whatever. My guess is you live in an urban area, spend little time in the outdoors and have probably fairly limited travel. I grew up outdoors, lived on a farm where weather (or climate) dictated our livelihood. My adult life has been in an outdoor setting observing natural phenomenon and as a part time rancher. I have paid attention to weather (or climate) all my life. Nothing has changed. Hysteria surrounds normal variations in weather patterns. Droughts are droughts, arctic fronts are arctic fronts, heat waves are heat waves. Compared to the 1960s our pollution levels are provably down. The only place the planet sucks is in heavily industrialized urban areas.
If you want the truth look in the sky. Do you see clouds? Water vapor is a much larger component of the atmosphere than CO2 can ever become, is not uniformly distributed and is a greater contributor to surface temperatures than CO2 is capable of influencing. That's just the facts. If you live another 50 years CO2 will have had no negative impact on the planet. OSHA standards were given for context- 425 ppm is nothing. Four hundred fifty one millionths is undetectable by anything but the most sensitive instruments. Models are suppositions, not reality.
Remember the "ozone hole"? Had to get rid of freon or we all die. Banned in the US in 1985 or so, still used in 85% of the world yet in 1990 the hole was miraculously "healed." Acid rain- shut down high Sulphur coal and save the planet. Never mind the worst areas for acid rain were under the plume of the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Facts, who needs then when you have propogada.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it is also subject to a positive feedback loop - as temperatures rise, more water evaporates. Its a positive feedback loop.

I have traveled quite a lot actually and while I grew un in a city, I spent much of my downtime, summer vacations, etc. visiting my grandmother on a farm. Hunting, fishing, etc. But easier to just assume I guess.

The most frustrating thing is that if we manage to reduce greenhouse gas production and stop the current progression, people like you will just claim it was never going to happen. Ah well, I can live with that.

Pollution has gone down...not enough.

Yes, the plume of a volcano is worse...but it is a natural occurrence we can't control and not as continuous year after year.

Green tech is not "green", nobody addresses the waste stream of green energy. They dismiss the impacts of acquisition of green energy materials. Here's a link on wind turbines
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
I have worked extensively in both Wyoming and Texas where wind farms dotted the landscape well before wind energy became fashionable. Like every airframe, forces exerted in a turbine limited the lifespan for safety. I've seen the landfills. A PV solar panel starts declining production the minute it is installed, and though there are significant improvements, in general solar panels have a 25 year lifespan. Recycling the machinery of green energy isn't all that "green" either.
Don't get me wrong, I lived off the grid for 15 years, years ago. I've installed the latest solar power system on the house I'm building now, I'm totally off the grid again, not as a political statement, but as a practical matter. It would have cost more to run power to my property than a top line off grid system costs. I'm fully aware that the lithium batteries are an environmental hazard when they reach the end of their useful lives, but I didn't want to deal with the periodic maintenance of Nickel hydride batteries with a 50 year life.
Bottom line is anyone who tells you the world has never been warmer is lying or ignorant of scientific facts. Paleontology refutes that. Anyone who tells you an increase of fifty one millionths of the contents of the atmosphere will destroy the planet is lying or ignorant of the facts. Carbon monoxide will kill you, CO2 in the atmosphere is as natural as sunshine and essential for the existence of life. Weather is not static, it runs on longer cycles than the "accurate" satellite data we have only had since the 1990's. Science proves that. You can't forecast 100,000 years of future trends with less than 30 years of data. There are trillions of data points worldwide that affect weather, orographic, cyclical and on and on. To accurately model the future of weather exceeds our computer capacity.
When you turn on tap water you are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. I'd recommend the most authoritative text on hydrology that documented CO2 concentrations in ground water in the first edition over 60 years ago. If you are earnest you'll research natural sources of CO2 and realize mankind "contributes" less than a drop in the bucket.
But I know you won't.

It is true that only 3.8% of released CO2 is man made, but unlike natural events such as volcanic eruptions that happen periodically and can cause spikes in CO2 outpout, our CO2 emissions happen year after year.

Estimates are that only about 40% of the current human output is being absorbed each year. So, yes, its a minimal impact, but over time it matters.

As far as wind turbines, the blades last for years, and they can't be currently recycled (or at least, they aren't). However, the amount of waste produced by blades in landfills doesn't come close to the waste created by fossil fuel power production.

Wind - currently producing much less waste (less than 100,000 tons per year), By 2050 that may have increased to 200,000 to 370,000 tons a year as the current blades in use start to wear out.

But compare that to coal-fired power plants that produce 130 million tons of coal ash each year.

370,000 tons vs 130,000,000 tons. And that doesn't take into account newer designs that can reduce that waste in future generations. It also doesn't look at the amount of CO2 put out by the coal plants, which is a big part of the point.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I have to trust somebody. Arguments that only look at the waste produced by one side are why I lean toward trusting the narrative. Add to that, too much of the counter narrative is contradictory. The people who argue against the climate change narrative aren't interested in correcting the record - they just try to add doubt. They benefit from their being 100's of conflicting theories out there. Because anyone who tries to give equal and fair time to each theory is going to have to give up. They hope people will just throw up their hands and say "the science in inconclusive". But the science really isn't inconclusive. Not everyone agrees, but they never do. We still have flat earthers around. That doesn't mean the "round earth" theory is still being debated.

You are clearly intelligent, and I don't want to sound dismissive. You've probably seen the satellite images NASA publishes of CO2 levels, (urban light, oilfield well flaring, you name it). What most people miss when they see the dramatic color differences is the footnote explaining that the image has been enhanced for clarity. More honestly distorted for deception. Note that the highest concentrations of CO2 are downwind of rain forests, not industrialized areas. look closely at the scale used for each color- in a number of cases the range in ppm is wider for some segments than it is for others making the "problem" seem much larger. There is a lot of distortion of facts to create fear.

The same way it can rain and there is still a drought.

Rain on a specific day is the weather, but if overall rainfall is low there can still be a water shortage.