Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

So, just for clarity here, this is you denying the science then, right? And specifically, because your timeframe allows you to exclude the most obvious example of why your narrative that you are deeply wedded to is a farce.

 

Sure.

 

It is pretty silly for you to deny what everyone else can read.

 

Everyone else? Who are all these people.
And they can't read it because its not there, which is why you can't show it.

 

Black and white. Here in this thread. Please see #408 and #413.

 

Then post the words. Copy the sentences that make the claims.
You cannot because they are not there
I asked, Did Groundwater wells ran dry, Did fields produce fewer crops, Did trees die in greater numbers, Did fish face disease and famine.
Your link says
Has the state been in a terrible drought that has seriously impacted agriculture, causing fish to face famine, and causing regional water shortages?
Which asks a completely different set of questions.
So where does it say
Groundwater wells did not run dry,
No fields produced fewer crops,
trees did not die in greater numbers,
fish did not face disease and famine.

Where does it say none of these things happened?

 

The author assumes at least a minimum level of intelligence to draw sound inferences.
So are we in some terrible drought that caused state agriculture to fail?
Absolutely not. The 2023 state apple crop was huge under near-perfect conditions (28% above 2022). Apples are the state's number one crop.


The number two WA crop is milk and 2023 tied the record-breaking amounts in 2022.
The number three WA crop is potatoes, which had a 9.5% increase over 2022.
Doesn't sound like agriculture took too much of a hit from the Seattle Times's drought.

Hard to imagine wells running dry with normal precipitation.
So are we in a drought right now?
The accumulated precipitation at Seattle for the past year is nearly normal (green is this year, brown is normal):


Portland was wetter than normal.


What about Yakima on the eastern Cascades slopes? Near normal.


Doesn't look like much of a drought. Yes, the snowpack is less this year because temperatures were warmer than normal for a while (due to El Nino, NOT climate change).
But the amount of water falling from the sky was near normal and many reservoirs stored more water than usual.
Seattle's reservoirs are above normal (see below)

And the same is true for Everett's large Spada Lake reservoir:

Surely, if the Seattle Times is correct, river levels would be at very low "drought" levels.
Maybe not. The streams on the "dry" eastern slopes of the Cascades are running high (see below). Nearly normal streamflow conditions on the western slopes of the Cascades. The only streams running low are around the South Sound area.


In summary, Seattle Times ClimateLab articles are not doing anyone a favor by telling tall tales about drought and climate change. El Nino conditions are evident right now, with low snowpack but near normal precipitation. Agriculture is not collapsing. Precipitation is near normal.
Truth matters. Or at least it should.

 

No. The author seeks to mislead by implication. The best apple crop does not mean other crops didn't fail, it does not even mean that overall crops yields were not seen as a failure.
Picking some reservoirs that are ok does not mean everyone had enough water or that some Ground water wells did not run dry up.

Not very scientific...

 

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Clifford F. Mass is an American professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. His research focuses on numerical weather modeling and prediction, the role of topography in the evolution of weather systems, regional climate modeling, and the weather of the Pacific Northwest. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, past-president of the Puget Sound American Meteorological Society chapter, and past chair of the College of the Environment College Council.

His book The Weather of the Pacific Northwest is one of the best-selling titles from the University of Washington Press.[2] He maintains a popular weather blog and gives frequent public lectures on topics ranging from Washington State weather history to the impact of climate change on global and regional weather patterns. . . .
Cliff Mass

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cliff_Mass

 

Did he right the article? Or did the author just abuse his work to make their fake point.

 

It was written by Mass himself. It's his personal blog. He writes everything on it.

 

ok I'll research him.

 

That is an admirably accurate description of what you offered above it.

 

No, that is false and absurd. Melting was extremely rapid at the end of the last ice age ~12-15Kya, then slowed to almost nothing. You are ignoring the fact that the higher the latitude, the lower the angle of the sun and the less difference albedo makes.

And I predict it won't. I will be proved right and you will be proved wrong.

No it isn't.

 

More accurately, we have written records for more than twice that long, but really complete and reliable written records only go back several hundred years.

So why 1500 years? If we are interested in understanding century- to millennium-scale climate variations like the post-LIA warming, why not the whole Holocene? Is it because it was warmer than now for thousands of years during the Holocene Optimum ~6-8Kya, and that fact refutes the CO2 climate narrative?

 

Do you understand that there is a difference between being a multiplier by 0.1 and being a multiplier by 10?

 

Must be a conspiracy by all those dang scientists trying to spread misinformation. It's all part of the George Soros plan to take over the US and turn it into woke. Robert DeNiro and Taylor Swift are investors in the campaign.

 

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

 

Gosh you're funny.
Anything real to add?

 

Yes, you do understand these are really big numbers? So 0.1 times 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is a really big number

 

<yawn> But 7x10^25 what?

You appear to be very far from having the mathematical chops to say anything interesting on this topic.

 

You appear to have nothing to say on this topic.

 

See posts 464 and 465 just in this thread, and notice how much more objectively informative they are than everything you have "contributed" put together.

 

Sure, you want to go back eons --->

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

We use this record as a baseline to compare current events to, and the post-industrial upward trend in CO2 concentrations is evident. Unfortunately, the trend is recent enough that the results have yet to fully kick in. The time lag between CO2 emission and their pollution and warming effect is around 50 years, and whatever changes we observe now are only the tip of the iceberg.

Looking back at the 2 extra degrees of warmth last time CO2 levels were this high (Pliocene era, 3 million years ago), should be enough of a call to action considering the damage two more degrees would cause today

 

The Holocene Optimum was caused by changes in Earths position in relation to the sun. That is not the cause today.
What the do nothings fail to apply is what the effect of an ever increasing temperature would have on the world we CURRENTLY live in.
That I regularly call the cost of doing nothing.
Further there is nothing to stop the Milankovitch cycles adding to our current temperatures as they did in the Holocene Optimum.