Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

@Jack Hays didn't say we can't quantify it. And when we do, it represents somewhere between 3-5% of total CO2 emissions. Which means ... ahem... 95-97% of CO2 emissions is natural. Worse, @Jack Hays is also correct that CO2 by itself is a fraction of a fraction of total atmospheric composition. ie ~400-450 parts per million (PPM) depending on where you take the measurement from. So, in fact, it's a tiny fraction of a fraction of the atmosphere. There is nothing cyclic about the facts. Except if you try, like the AGW crowd do, to imbue the fraction composition with attributes causation. Something NO ONE has actually ever demonstrably shown in a repeatable experiment.

The circular logic is in fact fundamental to the AGW narrative which relies on ignorance and deception to make folks, like you, fearful and compliant.

 

Which is true, especially when you recognize that H2O is the primary driver of that warming. Do your best now to start/launch your war on water....

 

Given that the nice folks at Nature participate in the obstruction of science as documented by the email scandal, how did they get their creds back? I ask, since it is widely understood that the editorial staff there pic what is published, and recognized regardless of merit.

 

Well with no Co2 all the plants would die. Its the growing gap that is the problem, the balance disturbed. AGW.

And we all know its a multiplier. Goodness your arguments are old.

No but there is about the misrepresentation of them.

No.

 

Do you know anything about the link between Co2 and moisture content? Probably not.

 

What Gap? If you're going to assert provide a peer reviewed study as evidence. Similar for "multiplier", show the peer reviewed study that demonstrates that the 3-5% of anthropogenic created CO2 has the ability to, on it's own, "multiply, or in combination what the actual additive forcing is caused by this 3-5%. Since you don't understand the actual dynamic, it makes it hard for any of us to find your posting credible. Which is likely why you still use the circular logic that is produced in the propaganda wing of the AGW church of human destruction.

 

Denial.

 

More lying climate propaganda:
March 26, 2024
The Seattle Times Says Washington State is in a Serious Drought. Is this True?[/paste:font]

It is more than a little disturbing when a major regional newspaper (the Seattle Times) provides demonstrably inaccurate and deceptive weather and climate information.

But yesterday, the infamous Seattle Times ClimateLab did it again.





The first lines of the article describe the past year in apocalyptic terms:

Virtually every aspect of life in Washington suffered during last year’s drought.
Groundwater wells ran dry, fields produced fewer crops, trees died in greater numbers, fish faced disease and famine
And the next paragraph paints a very dark picture of our future:

Now those sectors are bracing for yet another poor water year as El Nino conditions, compounded by climate change, produced well below normal snowpack. The state also has recently hit record-high temperatures for this time of year.

The state’s water woes will continue, even worsen, in the decades ahead.

Has the state been in a terrible drought that has seriously impacted agriculture, causing fish to face famine, and causing regional water shortages? And are other claims of this article true, such as high temperatures causing terrible losses in the State's cherry crops?
Most of the claims are factually wrong. . . . .

 

The gap between the amount the planets systems absorb and the amount produced each year.

NASA do yer? Don't know where your 3-5% matters AGW has increased global Co2 by 150%
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/clim...ter-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/

 

You added the sky if falling, not they?
Are any of the claims lies?
Did:
Groundwater wells run dry, fields produced fewer crops, trees died in greater numbers, fish faced disease and famine
Which didn't happen?

 

So, in your mind there's a gap. That seems like a personal issue. I would point you to the voluminous data that @Jack Hays has posted that addresses this specifically. Your assertion doesn't map. Given that CO2 solubility is dependent on temp, can you explain how having more soluble CO2 that is based on CO2 is possible? That always seems to be the gap in the AGW narrative. And given that CO2 solubility is generally stable, how can it possibly the mechanism that induces the kinds of systemic climate change that y'all associate with it? NASA certainly understands this, your citation actually mostly gets this relationship right. But limited reliable modeling of the atmosphere generally makes this at best a guess. Or didn't that occur to you?

 

And I would point out my argument is with Jack. Feel free to follow it.

 

It was all in the link.

The article was accompanied by a picture of a Rattlesnake Lake, which looked like a scene from the moon. They did not mention that this is an artificial lake controlled by Seattle Public Utilities.


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.
But what about the cherry crop you ask? The Seattle Times states:
sudden melt-off (of snow in May 2023) sent the state’s sweet cherry growers into an early harvest, causing perhaps $100 million in losses.


It turns out the truth was a bit different. The Washington State cherry crop was very large and high quality. The problem was the cool, wet weather resulted in a bumper, late crop in California that suppressed prices.
So low that Washington cherry farmers left a lot of the crop on the trees. So it was the OPPOSITE of drought in California that caused problems for Washington State farmers. Lots of snow and rain in the "Golden State"


The Seattle Times describes famine times for fish, but salmon returns were UP for all areas of Washington State.


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.

 

I repeat.
Are any of the claims lies?
Did:
Groundwater wells run dry, fields produced fewer crops, trees died in greater numbers, fish faced disease and famine
Which didn't happen?

 

None happened, as shown.

 

Yes it is, but there has always been H2O in our atmosphere, so that is a CONSTANT. Like I said, do you really think the 99% haven't thought of that?

 

So. No Ground water wells dried up. No crops were reduced. More trees didn't die. Fish did not face disease or famine.

Hmm. Please confirm this before I waste time researching it. I do hate "I never said that"

 

I think they thought of it and ignored it because an obscure gas like CO2 plays to the panic crowd better.

 

I think you have no idea what you are talking about here.
Co2 traps infrared light and warms the atmosphere, a warmer atmosphere hold more water, atmospheric water also traps infrared heat.
Its a spiral.
Warmer atmosphere also releases trapped Co2 from ice and soil another spiral.
There are other spirals that absorb more Co2. But overall they are losing, which is why the temperature is rising.

 

If you say so.

 

I will type slowly for those . .


Climate Changes,
just like the weather ! & !


Weather / political interference

And so it goes
I enjoy an old fashion
season with well spaces
rain events

I wish "they" seed hill sides
with rye seed like "before"
Rye seeding bad, so bad
but it works!
Bring in the goats & cattle grazing to reduce
fire hazard later. Get It?
Or Not

 

A conspiracy theory argument which basically assumes that all those scientists are out to panic America.

This conspiracy theory is commonplace in denier's arguments. You can replace the bold with any of the following.

• are lying for the money.
• are out to make a political statement.
• etc, etc.

 

And nice and slow for you. Weather changes in both directions AGW only changes in one direction.
There are many ways to tackle it, but it does exist.

 

We'll certainly see if it's just a conspiracy theory if Chevron gets overturned in June.

Then we'll see who's got wild conspiracy theories.

 

It would be more helpful if you could type something that made sense.