There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[billvon 2,400]

12 minutes ago, kallend said:

2019 climate data:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/15/climate/hottest-year-2019.html?auth=login-email&login=email

"There IS  problem with global warming - it stopped in 2016!"

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

There ya go; way to dismiss anything that disturbs your political worldview.  Love to see you try that in Australia.

Did you notice the links showing the greening impact of CO2 actually REDUCES wildfires?  Or would that disturb your political world view?

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Did you notice the links showing the greening impact of CO2 actually REDUCES wildfires?  Or would that disturb your political world view?

For fucks sake man, you and this greening thing.  It's a pretty lame last straw to cling to.

[billvon 2,400]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Did you notice the links showing the greening impact of CO2 actually REDUCES wildfires?

Next time you are in Australia, let them know that.  They will be overjoyed that they are not facing much risk for fires.

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, DJL said:

For fucks sake man, you and this greening thing.  It's a pretty lame last straw to cling to.

It is the one thing that higher levels of CO2 does.  What it doesn’t do is cause more floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes.  

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

Next time you are in Australia, let them know that.  They will be overjoyed that they are not facing much risk for fires.

From arson, not climate change.

[DJL 232]

 

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

16 minutes ago, DJL said:

For fucks sake man, you and this greening thing.  It's a pretty lame last straw to cling to.

It is the one thing that higher levels of CO2 does.  What it doesn’t do is cause more floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes.  

There's an important thing to remember and I'm willing to spend time on it if you're going to honestly apply your reasoning to it.  What you're describing, the increase in photosynthesis because of elevated CO2 is true.  But you also have to remember it's been true for all of history and for entire period in which CO2 levels and global temperatures have been rising and it HAS NOT STOPPED THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE.  Do you understand that?

[turtlespeed 212]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Did you notice the links showing the greening impact of CO2 actually REDUCES wildfires?  Or would that disturb your political world view?

Umm - You do realize that there are seasons, right?  And when the heat in the hottest seasons is higher - there is more drying out, and death of the greened areas, correct?

SO - Yes - the added CO2 can have a bad effect that was as well as green house conditions.

THAT my friend is a two fold issue. 

CO2 creates more green, so that when the heat goes up due to more CO2 in the atmosphere - you get more kindling and bigger fires.

 

Congrats - The deniers win on both fronts.  

 

OH - but Yeah - those fires smell good, so - that's actually a benefit! 

End result is that CO2 is GOOD !!!  Lets make MORE!!!! 

[brenthutch 383]

It is not just increased photosynthesis, higher levels of CO2 help plants use less and retain more water by reducing stoma density.  The more water in a plant the less likely it is to burn.

As far as a warming, I see nothing threatening about a fraction of a degree of warming per decade.

Edited January 15, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is not just increased photosynthesis, higher levels of CO2 help plants use less and retain more water by reducing stoma density.  The more water in a plant the less likely it is to burn.

As far as a warming, I see nothing threatening about a fraction of a degree of warming per decade.

I'm confused - 

Have you finally come to the understanding that Global warming did NOT, in fact, stop in 1998?

[DJL 232]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is not just increased photosynthesis, higher levels of CO2 help plants use less and retain more water by reducing stoma density.  The more water in a plant the less likely it is to burn.

As far as a warming, I see nothing threatening about a fraction of a degree of warming per decade.

Those are two huge leaps.  I had to look it up, it's "stomatal density", the rate at which plants grow pores by which they respire.  In the last 150 years it's been found that this density has decreased by 34%.    Brent, why isn't this stopping forest fires?  Again, you're talking about something that's happened during the entire course of rising CO2 and global temperatures and it HAS NOT STOPPED THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE.  Do you understand that?

[aonsquared 9]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379119301945

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110003768

So it is just a case of weather + arson = wildfires

The fertilization effect of CO2 actually REDUCES the threat of wildfires

 

You pretend to understand scientific writing, but you don't.

1. You trust models now? This paper is about a SIMULATION. But then inconsistency is your thing.
2. You didn't understand the abstract. Read it again.
3. You also didn't understand this abstract. Read it again, ESPECIALLY the last sentence.

Do you even have any scientific training or background? Or is it all just Fox news?

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, DJL said:

Those are two huge leaps.  I had to look it up, it's "stomatal density", the rate at which plants grow pores by which they respire.  In the last 150 years it's been found that this density has decreased by 34%.    Brent, why isn't this stopping forest fires? 

It has reduced them

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

"We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally"

[DJL 232]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It has reduced them

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

"We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally"

And if you wouldn't mind saving me the read, it's because of the increase in stomatal density?

Edit:  HA, didn't take long:  "We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally linked to an increase in net primary productivity observed in northern Africa, along with global agricultural expansion and intensification, which generally reduces fire activity." 

So basically we're turning everything into farmland so no fires if there's nothing to burn.  #lifehacks

Edited January 15, 2020 by DJL

[aonsquared 9]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It has reduced them

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

"We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally"

Again, post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The abstract itself contradicts your argument that CO2 is the cause of this decline.

Edited January 15, 2020 by aonsquared
spelling

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You pretend to understand scientific writing, but you don't.

1. You trust models now? This paper is about a SIMULATION. But then inconsistency is your thing.
2. You didn't understand the abstract. Read it again.
3. You also didn't understand this abstract. Read it again, ESPECIALLY the last sentence.

Do you even have any scientific training or background? Or is it all just Fox news?

Read the link above, it is an OBSERVATION, not a SIMULATION.  Do you realize there is a difference?  AGW theory predicted MORE wildfires, we got less.  As Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science"

[DJL 232]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Read the link above, it is an OBSERVATION, not a SIMULATION.  Do you realize there is a difference?  AGW theory predicted MORE wildfires, we got less.  As Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science"

And the article you linked said it's because of an increase in land used for agriculture not because of any of the reasons you've provided.

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Read the link above, it is an OBSERVATION, not a SIMULATION.  Do you realize there is a difference?  AGW theory predicted MORE wildfires, we got less.  As Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science"

Nope, from your link:

Quote

In this study, we simulate the distribution of vegetation under three CO₂ levels for two climate states, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and Pre-industrial (PI) climate with fire activated or deactivated using the ORCHIDEE-MICT DGVM.

It seems YOU don't know the difference between observation and simulation.

You haven't answered my question, what is your scientific and educational background?

Edited January 15, 2020 by aonsquared

[brenthutch 383]

 

5 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You haven't answered my question, what is your scientific and educational background?

I have a high school diploma and took a science class in tenth grade.

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, DJL said:

And the article you linked said it's because of an increase in land used for agriculture not because of any of the reasons you've provided.

Exactly. He's posting links to articles that contain none of his points...completely misunderstanding the abstracts.

It's sad to watch his brain try to over-exert itself trying to do "research" when he's so condescending towards actual scientists.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 minutes ago, DJL said:

"If it disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science"

No, he didn't say that. He said: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” 

 

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

No, he didn't say that. He said: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.” 

 

https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

 

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

I have a high school diploma and took a science class in tenth grade.

I really appreciate you trying to read proper scientific papers. Really, I do. We need more people doing that.

But you misunderstood them badly, and this is because you need a more solid foundation in analysing these papers and methods. It will take a lot more hard work and years of study - not just an afternoon googling. Hopefully if you do this you'll appreciate more the hard work people put into these studies.

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, aonsquared said:

I really appreciate you trying to read proper scientific papers. Really, I do. We need more people doing that.

But you misunderstood them badly, and this is because you need a more solid foundation in analysing these papers and methods. It will take a lot more hard work and years of study - not just an afternoon googling. Hopefully if you do this you'll appreciate more the hard work people put into these studies.

Can you send me some proper, peer reviewed and published scientific papers on how increased atmospheric CO2 has lead to MORE wildfires MORE hurricanes, MORE drought and MORE floods?  Not predictions, not models, actual observation of phenomenon outside the range of natural variability and ruling out any other driver other than CO2.

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

26 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

Again, post hoc, ergo prompter hoc. The abstract itself contradicts your argument that CO2 is the cause of this decline.

CO2 enables plants to retain more water, plants with more water are less combustible than plants with less water.  It's common sense.