[late]

If CO2 was responsible for wildfires then the world would have burned apart millions of years ago when the earth had much higher concentrations of CO2(10x). The idea that CO2 is a pollutant is poppycock.

The science on this is politicized. It makes no sense if you do a deep dive on it with some critical thinking.

Climate science is virtue signaling, now. Is it a problem? Yes.
Is it one that requires dismantling mankind, and technology, to address? No.

A sucker is born every second.

[Truth To Power]

So you then agree that CO2 is not directly causing wildfires but instead is causing wildfires to cover more land and start earlier, by the method I explained earlier.

No, you got the mechanism wrong. CO2 makes plants more resistant to drought and enables vegetation to grow in drier areas. So whereas before CO2 was so plentiful there would have been little or no vegetation in such areas to burn when hot, dry weather arrived, now there is much more.

And yes, climate is often cyclical. The Earth should be cooling down if the cycles were staying the same. Instead, the Earth is warming.

No, that is just objectively false. There are many natural cycles that affect climate, some extremely regular, others more chaotic, as well as non-cyclical phenomena like human activities, vulcanism, continental drift, asteroid and comet impacts, and the sun's one-way passage through the main stellar evolution sequence. Despite the constant, blatant lying of anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists, we do not understand all those cycles and non-cyclical influences remotely well enough to say that the modern warming cannot be principally due to natural causes, nor if warming or cooling would dominate at any given time absent human influences.

In terms of wildfires, the cycle is a new normal of unprecedented air pollution.

No, I already proved that is false with the graph of wildfire burn areas. They vary greatly -- often by more than an order of magnitude -- from year to year, and just three years ago hit a record low, when CO2 was at effectively the same level it is now. Please explain how effectively the same level of CO2 could cause both record high and record low wildfire burn areas. Now.

And no, the sun is not causing it.

Wrong. Solar variability appears to be the major influence on climate over the relevant time scale of decades to millennia. Evil, lying, anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists merely try to conceal that fact by insisting on using the least relevant measure of solar activity, and the global surface temperature measures that are most contaminated by the effects of human activities other than CO2 emissions.

Also, this thing where you swear at people

You made that up.

[Truth To Power]

A sucker is born every second.

Minimum.

[Truth To Power]

Speaking of wildfires..

It never ceases to amaze me that such people are somehow able to convince themselves that they are not evil.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

There is no evidence that the increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources has increased plant life to the extent that it is responsible for the unprecedented wildfire season.

You also cannot logically claim that we know that the Earth should not be cooling down and simultaneously claim we do not know enough to say that the Earth should be cooling down. Pick one and go with it,

Next, using burned land area as a proxy for air pollution is illogical. Using the measure of smoke hours (i.e. number of hours that smoke creates poor visibility) makes more sense and shows that we are hitting record levels.

And again, the sun is not causing wildfire pollution.

Also, stop swearing at people and calling them liars.

[late]

The climate will not continue to warm unless the sun continues to be unusually active.

We've been tracking the solar cycle for roughly 2 centuries.

It just entered a warming phase, and that spells big trouble. There is nothing unusual about it, it's been expected.

But, as this year demonstrates, things are going to get worse, faster.

A lot worse.

[Truth To Power]

We've been tracking the solar cycle for roughly 2 centuries.

It just entered a warming phase, and that spells big trouble.

No it doesn't. While the sun has been unusually and unexpectedly active for about the last year and a half, historically that has meant warmer, more salubrious climate. If the climate were to get significantly colder, that would spell big trouble.

There is nothing unusual about it, it's been expected.

False. Almost all astrophysicists predicted this cycle would be a quiet one. Instead, it looks like being very active. However, there have been solar cycles in the past that started out gangbusters and then just kind of petered out, so we won't know what happens until it happens.

But, as this year demonstrates, things are going to get worse, faster.

No, a more active sun is associated with a warmer climate, which is generally more favorable for people: periods of warm climate were called, "optimums" for very good reason before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

A lot worse.

<yawn> Agricultural yields continue to increase, thanks in part to higher temperatures and CO2. The Chicken Little bit is getting old.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

There is no evidence that the increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources has increased plant life to the extent that it is responsible for the unprecedented wildfire season.

Of course not. It's just one factor, and a minor one compared to the natural internal variability of the system. The graph of annual area burned in wildfires that I linked to proved that.

You also cannot logically claim that we know that the Earth should not be cooling down

I didn't claim that -- which is why you did not provide any actual quote of me saying what you claim I said. You simply made it up. What I said was that contrary to your claim, we do not know that the earth should be cooling.

See the difference?

and simultaneously claim we do not know enough to say that the Earth should be cooling down. Pick one and go with it,

We do not know enough to say that the earth should be cooling down.

Next, using burned land area as a proxy for air pollution is illogical.

Which might be why I didn't do so. Again, you simply made it up, which is why you have, as usual, not provided an actual quote of me saying what you claim I said.

Using the measure of smoke hours (i.e. number of hours that smoke creates poor visibility) makes more sense and shows that we are hitting record levels.

But we are not talking about air pollution, which depends largely on local wind conditions, rainfall, etc., not global climate. We are talking about whether one can look out one's window and see any credible evidence for a climate crisis. And one can't.

And again, the sun is not causing wildfire pollution.

It's a contributing factor.

Also, stop swearing at people and calling them liars.

Can you quote me swearing at anyone?

Of course not.

Can you quote me calling anyone here a liar?

Of course not.

But if you don't want people to call you a liar, you should probably stop just makin' $#!+ up.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it doesn't. While the sun has been unusually and unexpectedly active for about the last year and a half, historically that has meant warmer, more salubrious climate. If the climate were to get significantly colder, that would spell big trouble.

False. Almost all astrophysicists predicted this cycle would be a quiet one. Instead, it looks like being very active. However, there have been solar cycles in the past that started out gangbusters and then just kind of petered out, so we won't know what happens until it happens.

Since anthropogenic climate change did not start a year and a half ago, it is impossibly to conclude that this slight variation is responsible for the observed warming over the last few decades.

No, a more active sun is associated with a warmer climate, which is generally more favorable for people: periods of warm climate were called, "optimums" for very good reason before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

<yawn> Agricultural yields continue to increase, thanks in part to higher temperatures and CO2. The Chicken Little bit is getting old.

If you are claiming that these warm periods were called optimums because they were the best possible scenario for human life, is not why they are called optimums.

They are called that because they are the warmest time in every warm climatic phase of the Anthropogenic (Quaternary) period.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. A graph showing the amount of land burned does not, un any way, show a causative link between higher co2 and more plant growth causing more wildfires. By the way, this argument being made actually supports the claim that the wildfires are made worse by anthropogenic climate change.

I am glad that we got rid if the idea that we know the Earth should not be cooling down. Instead, we know the Earth should ge cooling down. This is why we know that anthropogenic climate change is actually responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming.

And yes, we are talking about air pollution. The air pollution caused by wildfires. Made worse by climate change. So that us a form if air pollution that we can see from outside out window that is caused, in large oart, by anthropogenic climate change.

——————

@Truth To Power

Stop swearing and calling people liars.

[late]

No it doesn't.

I honestly have no idea why the Mods tolerate a blatant propaganda troll.

This is daily news now:

"Pakistan is the epicenter of a new global wave of disease and death linked to climate change, according to a Washington Post analysis of climate data, leading scientific studies, interviews with experts and reporting from some of the places bearing the brunt of Earth’s heating. This examination of climate-fueled illnesses — tied to hotter temperatures, and swifter passage of pathogens and toxins — shows how countries across the globe are ill-prepared for the insidious, intensifying risks to almost every facet of human health.

To document one of the most widespread threats — extreme heat — The Post and CarbonPlan, a nonprofit that develops publicly available climate data, used new models and massive data sets to produce the most up-to-date predictions of how often people in nearly 15,500 cities would face such intense heat that they could quickly become ill — in the near-term and over the coming decades. The analysis is based on a measure called wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT), which takes into account air temperature, humidity, radiation and wind speed, and is increasingly used by scientists to determine how heat stresses the human body.

The results show how the risk has been growing and will escalate into the future. The number of people exposed to a month of highly dangerous heat, even in the shade, will be four times higher in 2030 than at the turn of the millennium.

“We can say now that people are dying from climate change, and that’s a different kind of statement than we would have made before,” said Kristie L. Ebi, a professor in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington who co-authored the 2022 Lancet Countdown report. “Climate change is not a distant threat to health, it’s a current threat to health.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/pakistan-extreme-heat-health-impacts-death?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f001

[Truth To Power]

Since anthropogenic climate change did not start a year and a half ago, it is impossibly to conclude that this slight variation is responsible for the observed warming over the last few decades.

Which might be why that is not what I said. You simply made it up. As usual.

The subject was whether it is possible to discern an anthropogenic climate crisis by looking out your window (it isn't, as you know, but deny because like all anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers, you are a climate science denier).

If you are claiming that these warm periods were called optimums because they were the best possible scenario for human life, is not why they are called optimums.

That was not my claim. You made it up. You like to make $#!+ up. Optimum just means best. Not best possible. Periods of warm global climate were called "optimums" because compared to all the cooler climates, they were best for people, and for life generally.

They are called that because they are the warmest time in every warm climatic phase of the Anthropogenic (Quaternary) period.

Yes, because the warmest times were the best. "Optimum" does not mean "warmest." It means "best." It does not mean "best possible." You simply made that up.

[Truth To Power]

I honestly have no idea why the Mods tolerate a blatant propaganda troll.

The infallible test of which side is in the wrong is their impulse to silence the other side.

"Pakistan is the epicenter of a new global wave of disease and death linked to climate change,

"Linked" by whom?

according to a Washington Post analysis of climate data, leading scientific studies, interviews with experts and reporting from some of the places bearing the brunt of Earth’s heating.

So, propagandists. Check.

This examination of climate-fueled illnesses — tied to hotter temperatures, and swifter passage of pathogens and toxins — shows how countries across the globe are ill-prepared for the insidious, intensifying risks to almost every facet of human health.

That is nothing but propaganda.

To document one of the most widespread threats — extreme heat — The Post and CarbonPlan, a nonprofit that develops publicly available climate data, used new models and massive data sets to produce the most up-to-date predictions of how often people in nearly 15,500 cities would face such intense heat that they could quickly become ill — in the near-term and over the coming decades. The analysis is based on a measure called wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT), which takes into account air temperature, humidity, radiation and wind speed, and is increasingly used by scientists to determine how heat stresses the human body.

The results show how the risk has been growing and will escalate into the future. The number of people exposed to a month of highly dangerous heat, even in the shade, will be four times higher in 2030 than at the turn of the millennium.

But an order of magnitude more deaths are attributable to cold.

“We can say now that people are dying from climate change, and that’s a different kind of statement than we would have made before,” said Kristie L. Ebi, a professor in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington who co-authored the 2022 Lancet Countdown report. “Climate change is not a distant threat to health, it’s a current threat to health.”

It's a threat to x people, but it relieves the threat of cold to 10x. Good trade-off.

[late]

The infallible test

One of the main points of science is that nothing is infallible.

You keep lying about science, at this point, you would have to be ready for a padded room, or a padded check.

[Truth To Power]

No.

What are you denying? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: a silly claim that you made up:

A graph showing the amount of land burned does not, un any way, show a causative link between higher co2 and more plant growth causing more wildfires.

So, nothing but your own strawman. The facts you are trying to evade are that CO2 increases plant growth, and more plant growth means more fuel for wildfires. What causes wildfires are natural phenomena like lightning and human activities like logging and campfires.

By the way, this argument being made actually supports the claim that the wildfires are made worse by anthropogenic climate change.

In the sense that you can't have a wildfire in a desert with no vegetation, right.

I am glad that we got rid if the idea that we know the Earth should not be cooling down.

Which you made up out of whole cloth and falsely attributed to me, as is your wont...

Instead, we know the Earth should ge cooling down.

No we don't. We know no such thing. You simply made it up.

This is why we know that anthropogenic climate change is actually responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming.

No, you made that up.

And yes, we are talking about air pollution. The air pollution caused by wildfires. Made worse by climate change.

More by CO2 fertilization.

So that us a form if air pollution that we can see from outside out window that is caused, in large oart, by anthropogenic climate change.

No, that is a non sequitur. You have in no way established that climate can't be changing naturally. So, you have offered, and will offer, no evidence of any anthropogenic climate "crisis" that you can see out your window. As we knew would be the case from the outset.

Stop swearing and calling people liars.

Stop makin' $#!+ up.

[Truth To Power]

One of the main points of science is that nothing is infallible.

Wrong.

You keep lying about science,

No, which is why you cannot refute even one sentence...

at this point, you would have to be ready for a padded room, or a padded check.

<yawn>

[Pants-of-dog]

…..
The subject was whether it is possible to discern an anthropogenic climate crisis by looking out your window (it isn't, as you know, …..

Then it would be really stupid to tell people to look outside their window to determine whether or not there was an anthropogenic climate crisis.

And yet, here I am, looking out the window at clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

That was not my claim. You made it up. You like to make $#!+ up. Optimum just means best. Not best possible. Periods of warm global climate were called "optimums" because compared to all the cooler climates, they were best for people, and for life generally.

Stop swearing at people and calling them liars.

Yes, because the warmest times were the best. "Optimum" does not mean "warmest." It means "best." It does not mean "best possible." You simply made that up.

This is incorrect.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

I am ignoring your long post full of confusing sentence fragments, swearing, and accusations of lying.

If you want to politely make a clear rebuttal to my claims, I may address it.

[Godstud]

They lied about vaccines being effective. They lied about the masks. They lied about people being vaccinated not being able to spread the illness. The biggest problems is that they lied, regardless of the science. They made it so people don't trust the medical establishment because they hid things from people or thought people weren't smart enough to know the facts. I don't blame people for not being vaccinated, and most of the "conspiracy theories" have at least some truth to them.

[late]

Wrong.

Anything, and I mean anything, in science can be replaced by something better.

Newtonian mechanics seemed perfect. Hell, we still use it most of the time. But it's a subset of Einstein's work now, it's used because it's easy.

You're a hack.