Global Warming -- LOL

They may be interested if you draw their attention to how it might make a difference in their lives.

Trump proved that.

You haven't addressed the politics and economics around water. How about land use? We could save a lot of good farmland if we stopped building on it. There's plenty more that may impact agriculture.

I didn't trade on what you dislike in the one paragraph cite. What's your problem?

Perhaps you should learn what a straw-man argument is...

"A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support."​

https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/

I didn't say the delay was technical. The new generation of reactors will get around the politics of delay practiced by many of those who oppose using nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

You may not know what a straw man is, but you're not beyond using them. Maybe your water will go another state, not Texas.

Politics and economics may get in the way, but you dismiss their consideration.

Sweeping dismissal of all the issues you don't understand. Egads.

 

You seem to think they aren’t interested. Provide some evidence for your claim please.

Are lies more interesting to you than truth? If so, is it because of Trump?

Certainly I did. I demonstrated how non political local management of water resources results in sustainability of the resource to further stimulate economic benefit to the residents.

Now where someone builds a house somehow is an argument against the FACT climate change is having a net positive impact on food production?

LOL

It’s your cite. You said you are using it to demonstrate your point. I don’t use pieces of literature that are flat out lies to support any argument. You do. It’s a sign you don’t value truth and would rather use lies in your argument than peer reviewed science. It’s fine if that’s how you choose to operate. But it completely destroys your credibility in matters of science.

I’m well aware. It’s why I spot your repeated use of that fallacy. My position here is that climate change is having a net positive effect on agriculture. Every time you change that argument to one specific factor you are presenting a strawman because that’s not my position. My position is NET POSITIVE effect. Not whether some individual effect may or may not have a contribution to that NET POSITIVE.

Also, any mention of economics or politics is a strawman because it does not address my only point here. Any argument you set up to argue against that isn’t specifically addressing NET POSITIVE effect of climate change on agriculture is a strawman argument. Same with nuclear power. Strawman.

LOL. Show me the evidence!

If I had addressed another state instead of Texas that would have been a strawman. I addressed Texas because that was YOUR argument. I simply pointed out Texas is already getting our aquifer water peacefully with our consent and that getting our surface water is not possible. If you don’t like my absurdity in my answers don’t make absurd statements about Texas forcefully taking my water because I’m outnumbered.

Any mention of politics and economics in relation to climate change having a net positive effect on agriculture is a strawman fallacy. Not interested.

LOL. I certainly understand climate change is having a net positive effect on agriculture. I’m uninterested in your strawman arguments at this point. If you want to post more lies from geologists to counter my peer reviewed evidence go ahead. I’ll point out the errors. But I’m bored with your fallacious arguments.

 

Are you okay? Why are you assuming I'm in favor of NAWAPA? Do you dispute my claim NAWAPA would have a significant impact on our water problem?

It's just this sort of making up positions for me why I refuse to discuss science with you.

I dismiss your use of the research as support for you sweeping aside political and economic considerations.

You misuse research to support positions you can't sustain.

No, if you want students to get the truth more often, you need to pay teachers enough to attract talented instructors who won't let folks like you sweep aside factors you refuse to consider.

The average wage in Nebraska is $27/hour.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/--in-Nebraska

If you want lousy schools, you got 'em. You get what you pay for.

You just bellyache about them not presenting the truth as you see it.

You "LOL" when you follow with specious claims I'm trying to get Nebraska teacher salaries raised and saying we should try to get water from Canada? How absurd.

 

Trump made lies more interesting than the truth? No, Trump simply helped prove what we already knew.

You haven't even proved your small, local example works for the economic benefit of the residents.

Who said I don't support efforts to improve crop yields?

And you know for a fact that political and economic exigencies won't actually have a net negative on production in spite of scientific advances?

You know this how?

 

I’m completely uninterested in NAWAPA because it had NOTHING to do with climate change having a net positive effect on agricultural production.

I’m not making up positions. In the majority of cases where you have brought up the subject on PF you have expressed concern some US citizen or politician will torque Canada off and end the possibility of this happening. If you don’t support it, why would you not be ambivalent or glad the plan could be sabotaged by US actions? Since your memory is often sub par here are a few examples.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073678038/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073629370/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073539343/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072043790/

Politics and economics are not relevant to my only point—climate change is having a net positive effect on agricultural. All research I’ve presented supports that. I have no interest in supporting your strawman arguments.

Certainly not. My only position that climate change is having a NET POSITIVE effect on agricultural is supported fully by the research I’ve presented. My research doesn’t address nuclear energy or canals from Canada or teacher salaries because ALL those things are strawmen you introduced to the forum.

You can not address the FACT climate change is a net positive to agriculture so you are presenting fallacious arguments.

Please provide some evidence paying teachers more makes them more honest.

I’m not the one telling lies. Your geologist teacher is. I’ve considered ALL factors of climate change that effect agricultural production. And all considered, there is a NET POSITIVE effect on agricultural.

Well, we have some of the best schools in the nation without spending nearly as much as states with much worse schools. So your theory doesn’t hold up. The average wage is irrelevant. I asked for evidence increasing teacher pay will decrease dishonesty by teachers. Please provide some.

No. I presented peer reviewed evidence—loads of it—showing your source in this thread is a liar of complete incompetent or both. There is no “truth as I see it”. Your position and that of your source deny science. I present scientific evidence that shows yours to be incorrect.

Is AGW an opinion? Is it “truth as you see it”?

LOL. You made specious claims I’m failing at getting media to do a thing I SPECIFICALLY stated I have no interest in getting them to do. Yes that was ABSURD. That’s why I did do you exactly what you did to me. Will you learn anything from it? Doubtful.

You didn’t learn anything from being shown this claim was a lie. Talk about making up positions….

 

But why are you more interested in lies from your link than actual peer reviewed studies I’ve presented?

Why would I? The subject was water availability for crops in relation to climate change!

As someone who claims to understand economics, do areas with natural resources tend to do better economically than places that don’t?

SMH.

Nobody. Your support or non support for efforts to improve crop yields is irrelevant to the FACT climate change is having net positive effects on crop production.

Climate change is having a net positive effect on crop production. The science is clear. I have posted nothing about scientific advances. Only changing climate variables that impact crop production.

Look, if there were such exigencies, crop production (yield) wouldn’t be increasing, would it?

There is NO evidence for your mythical exigencies.

Do you know for a fact the evidence for AGW isn’t actually mind control by aliens and not real evidence at all? That’s essentially your argument

Because critical thinking was part of my education. The link you provided on fallacy confirms what I know is correct.

LOL. I’m not interested in appeal to the stone fallacy either.

 

Faking it in Australia.
Fear, Flooding, Forecasting & Australia’s 2022 Official Rainfall Statistics

January 8, 2023 By jennifer


This year the Australian Bureau of Meteorology waited until after close of business on Friday 6th January 2023 to release the official climate statistics for 2022. After claims of unprecedented extreme rainfall all year, the statistics must be … [Read more...]

 

Adjustments to fit the AGW narrative.
HadCRUT Data Manipulation Changes 2000-2014 Warming Trend From 0.03°C to 0.14°C Per Decade
By Kenneth Richard on 9. January 2023

Share this...
Adjustments add significant warming to 21st century temperature trends.
From 2009 to 2019 there were 90 peer-reviewed scientific papers published on the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” observed over the first 15 years of the 21st century.

The HadCRUT3 global temperature trend was recorded as 0.03°C per decade during the global warming hiatus years of 2000-2014 (Scafetta, 2022).

This was increased to 0.08°C per decade by version 4, as the overseers of the HadCRUT data conveniently added 0.1°C to 0.2°C to the more recent anomalies.

Today, in HadCRUT5, the 2000-2014 temperature trend has been adjusted up to 0.14°C per decade when using the computer model-infilling method.

So, within the last decade, a 15-year temperature trend has been changed from a pause to a strong warming. After all, when the data don’t fit the narrative, it is time to change the data.



Image Source: Scafetta, 2022

 

It's hard to keep up with all the warmists's fraud, they really have no shame, lol...

 

We could sure use a little bit of that global warming today!

 

Solar business failure in Australia.
$30 Billion Sun Cable Solar Mega Project Enters Administration
Eric Worrall
Sun Cable, which planed to export up to 20GW of solar energy from the Australian outback to Singapore, has entered voluntary administration after an unresolvable dispute between backers. . . .

 

Bouncing Off The Little Ice Age And Loving Global Warming

 

So why is it cold at the poles but hot at the equator?

 

Surely you jest???

I suppose the poles don't have any carbon dioxide in the air?

 

You guys are the ones that think that since it gets cold somewhere on earth that that means warming is a hoax.

 

People that believe the Climate Industrial Complex hoax....are the true climate deniers. Alaska was once tropical and camels were indigenous to Northern America and Canada.....and yet we still hear the same bullshit about global warming.....after the scientists said the same thing about the coming ice age in the 1970's.

 

How much CO2 was in atmosphere in 1979?

The 800,000 year ice core was not drilled until 2004. Of course altering thinking as a result of getting new data is totally unscientific so you should not do that.

 

US Climate Is Getting Less Extreme, Not More
Guest Blogger
The fact that the US, and for that matter the UK, is not seeing such effects fundamentally undermines their credibility. . . .

 

We could sure use a little of that global warming, right now!

 

Urbanization Effects on GHCN Temperature Trends, Part I: The Urbanization Characteristics of the GHCN Stations
January 14th, 2023

I’ve previously posted a variety of articles (e.g. here and here) where I address the evidence that land surface temperature trends from existing homogenized datasets have some level of spurious warming due to urban heat island (UHI) effects. While it is widely believed that homogenization techniques remove UHI effects on trends, this is unlikely because UHI effects on trends are largely indistinguishable from global warming. Current homogenization techniques can remove abrupt changes in station data, but cannot correct for any sources of slowly-increasing spurious warming.

Anthony Watts has approached this problem for the U.S. temperature monitoring stations by physically visiting the sites and documenting the exposure of the thermometers to spurious heat sources (active and passive), and comparing trends from well-sited instruments to trends from poorly sited instruments. He found that stations with good siting characteristics showed, on average, cooler temperature trends than both the poorly-sited locations and the official “adjusted” temperature data from NOAA.

I’ve taken a different approach by using global datasets of population density and, more recently, analysis of high-resolution Landsat satellite based measurements of Global Human Settlements “Built-Up” areas. I have also started analyzing weather station data (mostly from airports) which have hourly time resolution, instead of the usual daily maximum and minimum temperature data (Tmax, Tmin) measurements that make up current global land temperature datasets. The hourly data stations are, unfortunately, fewer in number but have the advantage of better maintenance since they support aviation safety and allow examination of how UHI effects vary throughout the day and night.

In this two-part series, I’m going to look at the latest official global GHCN thermometer (Tmax, Tmin) dataset (Version 4) to see if there is evidence of spurious warming from increasing urbanization effects over time. In the latest GHCN dataset version Tmax and Tmin are no longer provided separately, only their average (Tavg) is available.

Based upon what I’ve seen so far, I’m convinced that there is spurious warming remaining in the GHCN-based temperature data. The only question is, how much? That will be addressed in Part II.

The issue is important (obviously) because if observed warming trends have been overstated, then any deductions about the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are also overstated. (Here I am not going to go into the possibility that some portion of recent warming is due to natural effects, that’s a very different discussion for another day). . . .

 

Once again a guest blogger ineffectually tries to refute recognized, credentialed experts in their fields.

The eleventh edition of the report, Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective, presents peer-reviewed analyses of extreme weather and climate across the world during the previous two calendar years. It features the research of scientists from across the globe looking at both historical observations and model simulations to determine whether and by how much climate change may have influenced particular extreme events.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...ng-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

 

These are the cited sources. You lose. My data trump your speculation.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-waves

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/mo...se_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-river-flooding

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data

 

This is a useful review of the way the AGW advocates tie themselves in knots trying to make the data say what they want them to say.
A DIY Guide To Demystifying “Greenhouse Gas” Claims…The Science That Cuts Corners
By P Gosselin on 14. January 2023

Share this...
By Fred F. Mueller

Do you feel helpless when trying to assess the veracity of “climate doom is looming” claims we are constantly bombarded with?

For ordinary citizens not having acquired at least a Ph.d. degree in atmospheric physics or comparable climate-relevant sciences, it seems nearly impossible to tell right from wrong when it comes to assess such claims. Do so-called greenhouse gases really reflect infrared energy back to earth in such quantities that this affects earth’s temperature?

Don’t give up trying to understand the relevant basics: there are rather simple ways to get an idea about what this is all about. Even without a scientific background, most people have at least a good common sense. And that’s all it takes to get a grasp of how vigorously and chaotically enormous energy fluxes slosh up and down, back and forth between earth’s surface and the skies. . . .

 

Absolutely correct. Not only is science with you, but history proves your point as well. The Americas were populated by people who lived on the Bering Land Bridge until the climate changed and the Bering Sea was formed:



You can also correct anyone who refers to indigenous people in the Americas --- there likely were none ,,, just a bunch of Asians who poached our Wooley Mammoths. There is genetic evidence that Europeans and Bering Land Bridge dwellers comingled long before Columbus showed up. Perhaps they walked across the Atlantic before the sealevel rose 400 ft.

In any case, there's alot we don't know ,,, and narratives stand as impediments to learning. Like, who caused megadroughts in the American West and could we have avoided them if the Tesla had come along sooner or if Biden had banned gas stoves in 850AD?


Something has to explain how the Sahara Savannah became the Sahara Desert and how Noah sailed to the to the top of a mountain --- or did he.

 

Exactly right. Now we await yet another round of Foolsplainers to lecture us on how cold is to be welcomed and warmth feared.