Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus ...
https://royalsocietypublishing.org › doi › rstb.2015.0345

by SH Doerr · 2016 · Cited by 240 — Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences ... Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a ... The 'command and control' attitude of most Western societies neglects the ...
"Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. . . . "

 

That's the same graph Willis posted, the EPA found an increase in ACE over recent years and a marked rise in PDI - another metric of storm power - since 1995.

Last year a paper in PNAS found that tropical cyclones are getting stronger in general, and major storms are coming more often, as predicted by the models.

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11975

 

It is true that global area burned has declined, but you need to dig into the data. 70% of wildfires are savannah fires, and it is these that have declined, due to changes in wind and rainfall patterns. But the savannahs are sparsely populated, that decline has been offset by more fires in populated areas. Try telling people in Western Australia, California and parts of Europe and Siberia that wildfires are not an increasing problem.

 

Is the world economies, governments, militaries and consumers etc heavily dependent on fossil fuels? How costly/difficult would it be to transfer to renewable energy? If your answer to the first question is yes, and the second being very costly and difficult to do then we can see a clear motive why there is resistance to move away from fossil fuels. Why it is so important to debunk the science that shows fossil fuels are a major contributor to the change in climate.

 

But you still don't understand what the fallacy is, you need to read the article first.

 

What's your motivation in debunking scientists who have observed changes in climate patterns which have effected the earth's ecosystems? Do you have something to gain or maybe something to lose?

 

They were long predicted by Dr. Grey and other back in the 1980;s, he started the annual Named Tropical storms on 1984, with good results, the 2005 was the main outlier season. It was him who predicted a significant increase for 1995, which came right on schedule.

CO2 the bogeyman molecule is a negligible player in Tropical storm development.


The Science of William M. Gray: His Contributions to the Knowledge of Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones

 

Ha ha, you still don't know who DOCTOR Koonin is and what he used to do as a SCIENTIST in the Obama administration.

Your authority fallacy doesn't work on me, try a better argument.

 

Yeah number of fires increased, FEWER acres burned.


Figure 2. Wildfire occurrence (a) and corresponding area burnt (b) in the European Mediterranean region for the period 1980–2010. Source: San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [37].

===

Small increase in area burned, decrease in number of fires.



Figure 3. Area burned, number of fires and suppression costs (inflation adjusted to 2016 equivalent) for the USA with linear trend lines (1991–2015). Data: National Interagency Fire Center [48].

"Thus, while there are clearly some noteworthy trends in area burned for specific recent periods and regions, the general perception of increasing fire around the world is not supported by the data available to date."

=======

We have so little long term records to know what is really going on, it is cyclic pattern or is higher or lower than the usual?

No evidence that the CO2 bogeyman molecule is burning the world to a cinder, since most of the big fires are in the normally drier western states, where there is no long term change in precipitation trends of the last 100+ years..

 

I've been pro-nuclear energy for a very long time and was sorry to see it's demise. I always believed it was environmentalists who forced the industry to shut down until I started doing research. Turns out it was the big oil industry that paid for the negative propaganda. So again, what is your motivation behind your need to debunk the claims of climate scientists? What do you have to lose if the fossil fuels industry shuts down like nuclear energy?

 

Now you employ the funding fallacy too, apparently you don't want to discuss the article at all.

Not going to play your diversion game.

 

Because fossil fuels do not pose a climate threat, and abandoning them would be a major step backward in human well being and development.
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: Epstein, Alex ... - Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com › Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels

“With more politicians in climate science than scientists, the refining fire of debate has devolved into the burning of heretics. Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for ...

 

That narrative is simply false.

 

The PNAS paper was mere statistical trickery and was quickly shown to be so.

Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception
Hurricanes May 21, 20208
The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study...

 

That's not a climate issue.

 

Tell me about yourself. What motivates you and your belief climate change is a hoax?

 

I have never bought into the "all-ness fallacy" and to say unequivocally that fossil fuels do not pose a climate threat rebukes all science that points towards changes in climate due to fossil fuels. You can't point to one scientific finding that at least makes you question your belief?

 

Every answer you given so far leaves absolutely no room for discussion. There was a time in the 60's, 70's and early 80's when nuclear power was seen as a much better alternative to fossil fuels until the negative propaganda started in the mid 80's. Just follow the money and see who would have been the loser if nuclear energy prevailed.

 

A view I find persuasive is that of Professor Nir Shaviv, Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

 

You may be interested in this thread I started.
The Great Missed Opportunity of Nuclear Power

 

Ah the stage 4 warmist/alarmist narrative shows up, that is blatantly false since I never disputed warming or said climate change is a hoax.

It is clear you have nothing top offer to this at all:

All you offer here are fallacies and irrelevant deflections to post......

 

Professor Henrik Svensmark is the godfather of the solar-climate hypothesis.
Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

 

An excellent post. Thanks for the info and the links. A lot to think about.

 

Rare to see someone jump aboard a sinking ship, but I suppose it takes all kinds.

 

They are a pessimist bunch, but optimistic with their bogus prediction, which commonly fails. They shiver over far into the future wild guesses and think this is science......

They never understand that droughts in the Southwest is a common climate feature, heck you can see it here easily.

Need to enter the website and start the date run from year 2000....



LINK