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

[aonsquared 9]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

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.

First: why are you putting claims in my mouth then demanding proof of it?

Second: I want to explain how you misunderstood your own references. In your first link you said:

34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Read the link above, it is an OBSERVATION, not a SIMULATION.  Do you realize there is a difference?

Let's start with the TITLE of the paper:

"Response of vegetation cover to CO2 and climate changes between Last Glacial Maximum and pre-industrial period in a dynamic global vegetation model"

This model is one of the many computer models that you are so critical of, why use one now?

Edited January 15, 2020 by aonsquared

[aonsquared 9]

In addition to attributing claims to me that I never made, you said:

Quote

Not predictions, not models, actual observation of phenomenon

Right after you link to a MODEL to support your point?

You think you have common sense, but common sense isn't supposed to be contradictory.

[brenthutch 383]

Yep I'm guilty of not reading the entire paper, did a quick lazy google search and found a couple of links.  When I made the comment about observation vs modeling I wasn't referring to that particular paper, I was referring to the observation that the number of fires and the area burned have declined during this century.  Let me say that again, the number of fires and the area burned have declined NOT increased as predicted by AGW theory.  Prediction does not agree with observation? Theory busted.

Edited January 15, 2020 by brenthutch

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yep I'm guilty of not reading the entire paper, did a quick lazy google search and found a couple of links.  When I made the comment about observation vs modeling I wasn't referring to that particular paper, I was referring to the observation that the number of fires and the area burned have declined during this century.  

It wasn't even an entire paper, it was an abstract. And the word "Model" was in the title.

Try harder.

[jakee 1,255]

On 1/14/2020 at 6:50 PM, SkyDekker said:

No such thing.

There is a post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy and there is an ad hoc fallacy.

 

On 1/14/2020 at 6:25 PM, aonsquared said:

whoops, thanks for the correction! It turns out, Latin is not my first language either

Don't feel too bad. It's actually 'ergo propter hoc'

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

 

Don't feel too bad. It's actually 'ergo propter hoc'

edited, no habla latín!

[aonsquared 9]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yep I'm guilty of not reading the entire paper, did a quick lazy google search and found a couple of links.  When I made the comment about observation vs modeling I wasn't referring to that particular paper, I was referring to the observation that the number of fires and the area burned have declined during this century.  Let me say that again, the number of fires and the area burned have declined NOT increased as predicted by AGW theory.  Prediction does not agree with observation? Theory busted.

you are the last person who can disprove a theory you don't understand

You did a quick lazy google search is exactly that - lazy. You're not interested in the truth, you only want snippets that agree with your pre-formed views.

Unless you work MUCH harder, it will remain easy for me to pick your arguments apart. "Lazy google search" is a lame excuse for being wildly wrong.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

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

 

"...if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works."

Because observation could be wrong. The complete Messenger Lectures Feynman gave are available online. Awesome vid, no doubt.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

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

When did Africa move to Australia?

[BIGUN 1,053]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 What it doesn’t do is cause more floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes.

You read absolutely NONE of the scientific data I posted. Kallend's right. No more feeding for you.  

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

First: why are you putting claims in my mouth then demanding proof of it?

Let us talk about your claims for a minute. You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past.  Eagerly awaiting your reply. 

[brenthutch 383]

5 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You read absolutely NONE of the scientific data I posted. Kallend's right. No more feeding for you.  

Sorry I didn't see any scientific data, just the links about flesh eating bacteria and hedge fund managers going green.  I'm taking a lot of incoming so it is hard to keep up.  Could you please send me the link and I will give it a good look. 

[BIGUN 1,053]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I'm taking a lot of incoming so it is hard to keep up.  Could you please send me the link and I will give it a good look. 

Seriously? Brother - all you gots to do is scroll up.

[brenthutch 383]

25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Seriously? Brother - all you gots to do is scroll up.

"In 2019, the ocean temperature was about 0.135 degrees Fahrenheit (0.075 degrees Celsius) higher than the average between 1981 and 2010"

Really? .135? The margin of error is more than that.

 

[brenthutch 383]

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let us talk about your claims for a minute. You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past.  Eagerly awaiting your reply. 

Bump

[billvon 2,400]

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let us talk about your claims for a minute. You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate

Around 280ppm CO2.

 

Quote

and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past.  Eagerly awaiting your reply. 

[billvon 2,400]

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let us talk about your claims for a minute. You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate

Around 280ppm CO2.

 

Quote

and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past.  Eagerly awaiting your reply. 

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Around 280ppm CO2.

 

HA - it even happens to the moderators!!  I don't feel so inept now.

 

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Around 280ppm CO2.

 

 Am still waiting for the evidence that at 280ppm CO2 the weather was stable and predictable.  According to your graph, the "little ice age" occurred when CO2 was at 280ppm. 

"The Little Ice Age is best known for frequent cold winters and cool, wet summers that led to crop failures and famines"

Is that your notion of an "ideal" climate?  I celebrate the elevated CO2 levels for record food production and slight temperature elevation and you want to take us back to crop failures and famines.  

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Am still waiting for the evidence that at 280ppm CO2 the weather was stable and predictable.

While you wait - Please provide proof that it wasn't stable and predictable.

Until then lets just assume it was.

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

While you wait - Please provide proof that it wasn't stable and predictable.

Until then lets just assume it was.

Just ask SkyDekker, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.  I think we can all agree that a stable and predictable ice age with crop failure and famine is not the ideal climate.  

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Let us talk about your claims for a minute. You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past.  Eagerly awaiting your reply. 

Still waiting...……….

[turtlespeed 212]

45 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Still waiting...……….

Were you here when Rhys was making claims about nanothermite?

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Were you here when Rhys was making claims about nanothermite?

non sequitur 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

non sequitur 

 

Has nothing to do with the arguments.

It's a simple question.