Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

I am not aggrieved.
Your responses show you do not understand the issues or have read what you presented.
Your belief that I am upset flows from your belief that what you think or write means anything to me which is false.

On that note I forgot to put you on ignore. Thanks for reminding me.

 

Antarctic ice is back!
Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery Surprises Scientists… Classic Disinformation Technique Of Not Reporting
By P Gosselin on 15. August 2021

 

Meanwhile you IGNORED numerous research on wildfires, this means you are not credible on this subject.

I will enjoy your silence, cheers.

 

There are 3 false claims being raised on this thread

1-global warming precipitates rain which should reduce forest fires

This is patently false:

https://www.nature.com/articles/news040329-10

https://gpm.nasa.gov/resources/faq/how-does-climate-change-affect-precipitation

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall

In fact global warming increases increased density of rain. It rains more in shorter time periods and while some areas will flood and be damaged by hurricanes/typhoons and extreme bursts of rain, other areas will undergo draught.

2-global warming is not related to forest fires

3-Wildfires have declined as the planet has warmed. Thus, warming does not increase wildfires.

Cites were already provided to prove 2 and 3 above are patently false. Interestingly Jack Hays who denied he argued global warming is not related to forest fires suddenly has remembered lol. While his amnesia war off, Binginton did not keep up with him and claimed he never said that. Lol. Sheer genius.

When people make patently false statements after denying they made them, I can only counter with cites proving their comments to be nonsensical and what the hell why not some additional ones other than the ones being ignored with no rebuttal of them:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/climate-feedback-climate-change-forest-fires

https://www.edf.org/climate/heres-how-climate-change-affects-wildfires

https://theconversation.com/how-wildfires-affect-climate-change-and-vice-versa-158688

https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp254-e.htm

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural...s-insects-disturban/climate-change-fire/13155

https://thenarwhal.ca/opinion-wildfires-climate-change-relationship/

cont.

 

I see the Cut/paste and post master is back, with no quotes from all those links to make his case, thus nothing to see here while he keeps ignoring solid evidence that global wildfires are NOT in the increase in the last 20 years according to Satellite data:



LINK

Ignored the other published reports too, LINK LINK LINK LINK LINK

 

The tactic of global warming deniers as seen in this thread i s to take side effects of global warming such as forest fires and remove them from their relationship to global warming by trying to argue they are unrelated. They take a snapshot bof an arbitrary a specific time period thenconclude because they think forest fires "declined" during that specific time period there is no global warming as Jack Hays has repeatedly done and interestingly finally admitted after denying he did.

Yet this is the same Jack Hays who started his initial denial argument of global warming arguing that the time periods used for extrapolation to determine patterns of increasing warming temperatures was not long enough BUT as it now appears when it comes for forest fires, he can invent whatever time period he wants to use to determine his measurements.

We also get idiotic inference that changes in precipitation from global warming (which is at the same time denied) l magically only increases when and where there are forest fires so it can be assumed to put them out.

All I can do is point out the inherent stupidity of these inferences and contradictions with citations which you can see the deniers will ignore.

Here again are the words showing how Jack Hays deliberately misrepresented a Royal Society report on forest fire levels to argue decreased forest fires means there is no global warming and it comes from the very Royal Society he misappropriated to advance his false conclusion you can find it at:

https://royalsociety.org/blog/2020/10/global-trends-wildfire/

Based on this global(wildfire) decline, your study has been used by some to argue that climate change has not made fires worse or even to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Does your study provide any evidence to prove that?


Not at all. The decline in global average area burned has indeed been misused to support false claims numerous times. There is strong evidence that the increase in fire activity we are seeing in many forested regions is indeed linked to climate change. Even the decrease in fire in tropical savannas that we just mentioned does not mean that climate change is not having an impact there too; actually, quite the opposite. This reduction has been in part attributed to conversion of savanna to agricultural land but, also, to shifting rainfall patterns that reduce the overall flammability of grasslands.

It could not be any clearer from the above comments how not only is Jack Hays wrong in his assumptions but he misappropriated and changed the actual conclusions of the Royal Society.

and just in the US alone there is proof forest fires have increased up until the end of the study in 2020 from th e 1980's:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires

AND since we all have heard of the horrific fires in Australia, here is an explanation that explains while the total area of land burned from wildfires has decreased in Australia the forest fires of 2019-2020 which continue have been studied and the data indicates because of global warming those fires are 30% more likely:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-affecting-wildfires-around-the-world

I appreciate the global warming deniers on this thread aren’t exactly good with paradoxes and will not be able to grasp h how its possible that even though the amount of land that burns can go down it doesn’t also necessarily mean global warming is not increasing the likelihood of forest fires but this article explains it.

The bottom line in explaining why it is an out and out patent falsehood to say if forest fires decrease there is no global warming please go to:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2912/satellite-data-record-shows-climate-changes-impact-on-fires/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...ppening-more-often-and-more-places-180955917/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/world/wildfires-siberia-us-canada-climate-intl/index.html

https://www.givingcompass.org/artic...eSBxOclyMpRf9vO5G_2LDDz0yGKSeYMhoCC5wQAvD_BwE

Have a nice day or if you want deny the day is nice or deny I even sent this.

 

I have never said warming and wildfires are related -- the opposite in fact. As temperatures have warmed, wildfires have declined, as demonstrated by Royal Society data.

 

Another copy/paste from a discredited blog

How many times has WUWT been caught publishing suspect “science” and misleading misinformation?

now the author of this piece has impeccable credentials - as a massage therapist
Now let us start at that first paragraph - pretty pathetic if the author’s source of information is “asking around on Internet forums” and he probably did not get an answer because the question is one giant strawman

Then there is the “where did he get it and what was it made from” graph

it is certainly at odds with more reputable sources

https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

but that first graphic is not the first time it has been used on WUWT - Anthony Watts himself has used it but this is what Watts said

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01...h-risk-for-an-individuals-down-99-since-1920/

There is more - a lot more but I will wait for rebuttals

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001210

 

Why not just say, "Here's another post hoc fallacy"?

 

Because it is satisfying to point out how big the fail is

 

Ummm you DO realise there is a difference between sea ice and permanent ice don’t you ?
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

 

Antarctic ice simply won't conform to the alarmist narrative.

Increased snowfall will offset sea level rise from melting Antarctic ice sheet
Charles Rotter
Using modern methods to calculate projected changes to sea levels, researchers discovered that the two ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica respond differently, reflecting their very distinct local climates. . . .

 

You didn’t read it did you? In fact I can pretty well bet that Anthony Watts didn’t read past the title either

I went to the original article

https://phys.org/news/2021-08-snowfall-offset-sea-antarctic-ice.html

 

But the fail is yours.

 

And so big you are able to refute my points with devastating links to validated research

 

Jack's been doing that for years. I prefer to use your own sources to prove your claims are garbage.

 

Actually, that is cited in the WUWT article.
“There is little change, however, in projected sea level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet. This is because increased mass loss triggered by warmer oceans is countered by mass gain by increased snowfall which is associated with the warmer Polar atmosphere.”

 

Greta and the lemmings are on the march again. Humorous, really.

Global Climate Strike: If you don’t pay Climate Reparations, All the Useless People Will Walk Out Until Their Demands are Met
Eric Worrall
Greta Thunberg’s band of future burger flippers have reaffirmed their determination to ensure the children of evil exploiters get the best jobs and university courses. . . .

 

This is how climate science has been poisoned.

Cancel culture in climate change
Posted on September 7, 2021 by curryja | Leave a comment
by Robert Wade

A microcosm on the ‘morality’ of cancel culture: the aborted conference on ‘Global Warming: Mitigation Strategies’, hosted by the Italian scientific academy the Lincei.



Continue reading →

 

And yet global fire has declined.

 

Every now and then the truth breaks through.
Wall Street Journal Gets the Facts About Temperature Related Deaths Straight
UNCATEGORIZED SEPTEMBER 16, 2021
". . . Climate Realism is quick to castigate the mainstream media when it publicizes false claims made by climate alarmists that climate change is a catastrophe. We should be just as quick to praise mainstream media outlets when they get climate science right, as the Wall Street Journal has done today. Bravo!"

 

Dr. Hansen doesn't have a climate based degree either, it is Physics. He was trained to be an astronomer and was appointed Director to support NASA in spare exploration (The original mission started by Dr. Jastrow), but he changed the mission to push a global warming/climate change paradigm instead and greatly politicized it in the process.

He has been wrong too many times now to be credible here.

LOL

 

Fake News:

Nut ball idiot crazed rights violating left-wing former college professor charged with arson spree

​

"This summer the Dixie Fire burned more than 950,000 acres and 1,329 structures in California. It was the largest standalone fire in state history and the second largest fire of any type in state history. Gary Maynard, a former sociology professor who taught criminology classes, was accused of setting multiple fires nearby which potentially could have trapped firefighters trying to fight the Dixie Fire. He was discovered at the scene of one fire because his car got stuck:"

Not Climate Change, but, a Radical Left-Wing Professor.

Another Left Wing Nut Burger Also Charged:

She was 600 miles from the Canadian border at the time.

​

 

There have been a lot of Arson fires in California, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Greece which are routinely ignored by the warmist/alarmist crowd.

It is why they end up looking foolish when reports like those Zorro posted showing that it is warmist/alarmists who are starting some of the fires.......