Eschatology and Global Warming

I don't need a counterpoint for two reasons. First, the overwhelming majority of science and scientists that have anything to do with weather and climate say you and your teeny minority of deniers are wrong, and secondly I don't need to "correct" you or to persuade you because you deniers are of nearly zero consequence. So I can sit back a d watch the science develop and the public outcry grow as the conditions I listed grow in severity.

I KNOW you're both wrong from not only the science, but it is also backed up by my own experience: I LIVE WITH THE INCREASING DANGER OF WILDFIRE.

If as he said, "there has been no increase in wildfires" then explain why insurance companies like State Farm are dropping fire coverage in certain areas while saying that the coverage they do provide is subject to recall or revocation as wildfires grow more common and more destructive.

GOTCHYA

 

1. That links is 8 years old and there has been lots of advances in the science since then.

2. That article also says :
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France."

Thanks for the link that devastates your argument!

 

Yet you can't even begin to form a counterpoint, your insults doesn't help you either as you scored zero on them.

Try a real debate instead......

 

Yawn..... another I don't want to debate anything rant, no wonder warmist/alarmists are losing supporters over time.

I have posted first line evidence you dismiss it out of hand because of your closemindedness and fear.

 

NO you didn't because NASA does show the plants is expanding their plant range and growth as I stated:

You bring up this propaganda drivel that NASA routinely add to many of their reports because they are wedded to the government propaganda of a dire warming trend, it is all so medieval.

The planet biota is getting healthier and more abundant due to the warming, that CO2 as a molecule nearly done as a warm forcer which is already negligible at the 420 ppm level which is 101 stuff yet you still show you don't know what the science says about it.

This all B.S. as it is well known plants grow much better at 1200 ppm level as greenhouse growers know by more than 50 years of experience and been addressed by many published papers over the last 20 years.

 

Garbage. Jack has provided more links to peer-reviewed science than anyone else in this forum, by far.

That far right line is a figment of your imagination.

 

That is nothing more than cherry-picked empiricism. There is no contradiction between expanding plant range and wildfires worsening.

You bring up this RW propaganda drivel that is promoted by anti-science dentists and landfill experts who call themselves "scientists" because it is all promoted by the worst RW lying talking heads and RW think tanks. Face it. The right is struggling as hard as they can right now to destroy democracy, the Constitution, elections, abortion, etc., and doing it all against what the majority of America wants. And the only way the right can do that is to spread lies, distortion, and spin to trick the people and divide with hate. So whatever they pitch is bullshit to be polite. And the left has truth is on our side because the truth is what will move us forward and solve problems. Notice that the Republicans seem completely unable to put forward any positive, beneficial legislation so they occupy themselves with concocting attacks of lies against Democrats and the DOJ. The right is bankrupt! And they can't even articulate WHY the left and the scientists would lie about climate change. They just say they do.

Wait a minute. You just said I didn't offer any argument. No, with no argument to look at you say I "don't know what the science says about it"!! LOL!!!! Which is it??

Meanwhile, WTF does "that CO2 as a molecule nearly done as a warm forcer which is already negligible at the 420 ppm level" mean? Care to translate?

"1200 ppm" of what? Oxygen? Nitrogen? H2S? CH4? You would make quite the "scientist". And all while you scrupulously avoid any reference to earth science and history of past periods of elevated CO2 and what it caused, like extinctions.

And as I said, plants can grow well and wildfire can grow much more severe at the same time. duh

 

"This is all B.S."

So you cherry-pick passages of NASA reports to sort out what you like versus what you need to say is "BS". And you say you accept the "science" while rejecting selected bits of science because you read something a RW think tank published.

Wow.

 

And yet you are wrong about the data on every question. My positions are all data-based.

 

Turning the discussion on Climate change to a left v right battle is ignorant and obstructive to future progress. To assume we know everything that is to be known is the height of ignorance.

 

Partly because there has been significant building into fire danger areas. But mainly because some states have so mismanaged their insurance requirements that business cannot be done. Some further data:

Right, Wall Street Journal, Wildfires Are Declining as Climate Changes
Extreme Weather August 7, 20231
Writing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bjorn Lomborg, Ph.D., discusses the fact that, despite near constant media reports to the contrary, amid recent modest...

Writing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bjorn Lomborg, Ph.D., discusses the fact that, despite near constant media reports to the contrary, amid recent modest warming the number of wildfires and the acreage lost to them has declined dramatically over the past few decades. Lomborg is right, as data cited in dozens of Climate Realism stories in the past few years have consistently shown. Globally, the number and scope of wildfires have fallen sharply from earlier decades and centuries.

In the WSJ article “Climate Change Hasn’t Set the World on Fire,” Lomborg writes:

One of the most common tropes in our increasingly alarmist climate debate is that global warming has set the world on fire. But it hasn’t. For more than two decades, satellites have recorded fires across the planet’s surface. The data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3% of the world’s land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.

In 2022, the last year for which there are complete data, the world hit a new record-low of 2.2% burned area.

Lomborg is correct. As Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed here, here, and here, for example, NASA’s satellites have measured a 25 percent decrease in acreage lost to wildfires since 2003.

And what is true of the world as a whole is also true of Canada, Australia, and the United States, all regions discussed by Lomborg because the media has mispresented the scope and causes of wildfires there in recent years. . . .

 

Then I'll ask you to take a crack at the same question I asked Sunset: Why are the insurance companies cancelling wildfire insurance in selected regions in the west? Maybe they don't know what they're doing, eh?

 

Already answered in #211.

 

So you oppose adherence to known science and advocate confusion? You want the liars to be concealed to do their dirty work?

BTW, nobody ever said anyone assumes anyone knows everything that is to be known. Care to rephrase your statement to make sense? . . . because it doesn't.

By the way again, there's a new report out this week - https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2625/2024/

It shows that the rate of global warming reached an all-time high in the 10 years up to and including 2023 and that the record-breaking heat of last year was primarily due to that human-caused heating rather than other factors such as El Niño.

NEVER in any previous ten-year period has the global average change in temperature changed so much.

 

Right wing WSJ. Great.

We have NEVER had heavy wildfire smoke choking us and requiring we change our furnace filters every couple of weeks until 2020 when we could barely see the sun on a cloudless day.

Meanwhile, regarding your WSJ claim of wildfires in decline, a Spokane publication says "The Pacific Northwest has a long history of devastating wildfires, but today's megafires are something entirely new". - https://www.inlander.com/comment/th...megafires-are-something-entirely-new-22556489

The underlying report says "The devastation wrought by wildfires, drought, flooding, and heatwaves the world saw in 2023 must not become the new normal". - https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2625/2024/


So I asked ChatGPT about it. I asked: "Have wildfires become more destructive, or has the occurrence of wildfires been in decline for a decade or more? I see both being reported."

ChatGPT replied:

So climate change is a significant factor and in some locales, like here in the Oregon and Washington Pacific Northwest, wildfires ARE increasing in both number and in destructiveness independent of other factors you and the WSJ mentioned.

 

Seriously. If Columbus hadn't opposed "know scientists where would we be? IF Lister hadn't opposed know science where would we be? Science is exploring the unknown.

Huh?

 

The data are the data. They don't have wings. Here are some posts from a University of Washington professor who specializes in weather and climate of the Northwest.

July 09, 2023
Wind and Wildfire

When one reads about the potential for Northwest and California wildfires, the media and others tend to dwell on temperature and moisture.

Surely, warm temperatures, lack of precipitation, and dry fuels contribute to wildfire (although excessive precipitation during a preceding period can lead to bountiful fuels and wildfire).

But there is another critical parameter for wildfire initiation and growth: strong winds. And in the western U.S., strong easterly (from the east) winds descending regional terrain are of particular importance.

Wind plays a central role in Northwest wildfires, with nearly all of the major events associated with strong winds or rapid wind shifts. . . .

May 23, 2023
Are the Large Alberta Fires the Result of Climate Change?

During the last few weeks, large fires have initiated and grown over northern Alberta, resulting in massive smoke plumes (see the image below from one week ago). Here in Washington State, we experienced a few days of smoke aloft from these fires last week. . . .

For all of Canada, the number of fires is DECREASING, and there is no obvious trend in the area burned.

What about Alberta, where the current batch of wildfires are burning?
Lots of variability but little upward trend (see below). The biggest fire was in the early 1980s.



The lack of a long-term trend in wildfires is important: one WOULD expect an upward trend if global warming/climate change was a significant contributor. . . .

December 10, 2017
Are California Coastal Wildfires Connected With Global Warming: The Evidence Says No[/paste:font]

California's coastal mountains have been hit by two major wildfire events, resulting in dozens of deaths and billions of dollars of damage.

The first occurred on October 8-9th in the "Wine Country" north of San Francisco. The second started on December 4th in Ventura County and now has spread south to Los Angeles and San Diego.

A number of political leaders, media outlets, and activist groups have boldly stated that these fires were caused by, enhanced by, or consistent with climate change forced by anthropogenic global warming. . . .

The trouble is that these claims are not correct. A reading of the peer-reviewed literature on California fires and an examination of observations and prior climate information can easily show that these claims are baseless, if not outright wrong. . . .

 

Without an ID your author is highly suspect. You could have included his name so I could investigate him and his history, but you chose not to, and THAT is also highly suspect.

The author didn't say winds have gotten stronger, so I assume he found they haven't. Yet wildfires have become severe in my region (PNW). And he didn't mention that these huge wildfires create their own weather and high winds along with tornadoes.

The remainder of your post is a contradiction of the data to which I linked in my previous post and what I gave you from ChatGPT.

In addition, it's not just wildfires but also drought, flooding, and heatwaves. Average world temperatures ARE increasing, the South has endured record floods that they've never seen before, an here in the PNW I can tell you with certainty that drought is getting worse. It is frequently mentioned on local weather shows that we are well below normal again for annual rainfall.

So the science is clear and your sources cherry-pick their information. Typical of the right. The question on my mind is why you do it. Why does the right want so desperately to play down climate change when most of us feel it and see it. ("Don't believe your lying eyes.")

 

His name was in the link. You're just denying now.
Cliff Mass is a meteorologist who specializes in weather prediction and modeling. A particular emphasis of his research has been the weather features of the western United States. The Seattle Times has called him the “closest thing to a celebrity scientist in Seattle,” and he is the author of The Weather of the Pacific Northwest—one of the best-selling books from the University of Washington Press. He also writes a popular blog about meteorological phenomena, among other weather-related musings, and he has a regular weather segment on one of the local NPR affiliates. Model simulations have been key tools for him and his group, which now runs the most extensive local high-resolution prediction system in the United States. He has received the Max Eaton Award from the American Meteorological Society, of which he is also a Fellow.
Cliff Mass - College of the Environment

College of the Environment
https://environment.uw.edu › faculty › clifford-mass


Professor ... Cliff Mass is a meteorologist who specializes in weather prediction and modeling. A particular emphasis of his research has been the weather ...

 

You included a link???????? Funny I missed it!

Ok. Clifford Mass. Well pally, it looks like you did another hit job. You cherry-picked him apart like you've done before! He is VERY concerned about climate change!

"Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is a major cause of warming trend in the late 20th and 21st centuries. According to Mass, "Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue." He has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change."

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

So you shot yourself in the foot and have discredited your entire BS theory as far as I'm concerned.

I'm done wasting time opposing bullshit. Bye.

 

You are misled by your assumptions. Our discussion was about wildfires. Mass is quite clear that climate change is not increasing wildfires. That he is a climate change believer actually makes him more credible when he concludes that there's no climate change/wildfires nexus.
Like James Coburn said in The Magnificent Seven: You lost.


The Magnificent Seven (1960) James Coburn: Knife Scene | HD 1080p

YouTube

 

As I said and will say again for the last time, different regions have different experiences with each type of disastrous effect of climate change. There is no question that wildfires have greatly increased in both intensity and frequency in western Oregon, Washington, and California.

Meanwhile, good for you: you found someone who has an opinion you like on wildfires.

 

Actually, what you said (#215) was "So climate change is a significant factor . . . ."
That was false. I don't care about the rest.
You lost.

 

It was not false. You don't seem to be able to process anything if it doesn't agree with your biases. Western Washington, Oregon, and California are all experiencing significant decreases in precipitation, and therefore significant increases in measurable drought, measurably drier conditions, and measurable increases in wildfires due to these changes. You don't know because you don't live here and you haven't objectively examined the data for this area.

And to you, this is about "winning" and not discovery. So if anyone "lost" it is you.

 

I follow the science.
Whatever is happening regarding wildfires where you live has nothing to do with climate change, as I have demonstrated.
And Professor Mass says there's no drought.
A Wet "Drought"

If society and an informed electorate are going to make good decisions about environmental matters, they require accurate information.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of poor information about climate change, extreme weather, and drought being distributed by certain government agencies and some media.

One example is the nearly constant talk about drought here in the Northwest and the western U.S. in general, often with a suggestion of a climate change origin.

The most problematic source of the drought claims is the U.S. Drought Monitor graphic produced by a collection of governmental agencies. This is a subjective graphic, with no rigorous methodology based on objective information. And it exaggerates drought. . . .

So there is really no evidence of regional drought based on precipitation or impacts. . . .