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

[brenthutch 444]

All plants do better, some just better than others.  Are you worried about CO2 income inequality? 

Edited January 11, 2020 by brenthutch

[aonsquared 9]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

All plants do better, some just better than others.  Are you worried about CO2 income inequality? 

You keep changing the topic, and running from the main argument...

[JoeWeber 2,720]

9 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You keep changing the topic, and running from the main argument...

You're new right? It's called Brent-ercize: left, right, up, down, shake that booty, shake that booty, left, right, up, down, shake that booty, shake that booty. Before you know it you'll have lost 10 pounds of logic.

[brenthutch 444]

2 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

You keep changing the topic, and running from the main argument...

What would that be?  Global temperature has risen by a degree or two?  Who cares?  It has been beneficial.  No increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, wildfires or acne.  The only effect has been shrinking deserts, greater food production, longer lifespan, greater global standard of living and greatly reduced poverty.  The larger ones carbon footprint the better ones standard of living.  Those are just stubborn facts.

[aonsquared 9]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

What would that be?  Global temperature has risen by a degree or two?  Who cares?  It has been beneficial.  No increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, wildfires or acne.  The only effect has been shrinking deserts, greater food production, longer lifespan, greater global standard of living and greatly reduced poverty.  The larger ones carbon footprint the better ones standard of living.  Those are just stubborn facts. 

So I'll say: but there HAS been an increase. Australia for example

You'll say: But the fires are BECAUSE OF REASON X (NOT AGW!)

 

If you listen to yourself...do you not realise how stupid you sound?

[brenthutch 444]

If you go by the narrative you would be correct, if you go with the data, I would be correct.  

1) Global wildfire activity has decreased in recent decades, making any localized increase (or decrease) in wildfire activity difficult to attribute to ‘global climate change’.

2) Like California, Australia is prone to bushfires every year during the dry season. Ample fuel and dry weather exists for devastating fires each year, even without excessive heat or drought, as illustrated by the record number of hectares burned (over 100 million) during 1974-75 when above-average precipitation and below-average temperatures existed. 

3) Australian average temperatures in 2019 were well above what global warming theory can explain, illustrating the importance of natural year-to-year variability in weather patterns (e.g. drought and excessively high temperatures).

4) Australia precipitation was at a record low in 2019, but climate models predict no long-term trend in Australia precipitation, while the observed trend has been upward, not downward. This again highlights the importance of natural climate variability to fire weather conditions, as opposed to human-induced climate change.

5) While reductions in prescribed burning have probably contributed to the irregular increase in the number of years with large bush fires, a five-fold increase in population in the last 100 years has greatly increased potential ignition sources, both accidental and purposeful.

Historical Background

Australia has a long history of bush fires, with the Aborigines doing prescribed burns centuries (if not millennia) before European settlement. A good summary of the history of bushfires and their management was written by the CSIRO Division of Forestry twenty-five years ago, entitled Bushfires – An Integral Part of Australia’s Environment.

The current claim by many that human-caused climate change has made Australian bushfires worse is difficult to support, for a number of reasons. Bushfires (like wildfires elsewhere in the world) are a natural occurrence wherever there is strong seasonality in precipitation, with vegetation growing during the wet season and then becoming fuel for fire during the dry season.

All other factors being equal, wildfires (once ignited) will be made worse by higher temperatures, lower humidity, and stronger winds. But with the exception of dry lightning, the natural sources of fire ignition are pretty limited. High temperature and low humidity alone do not cause dead vegetation to spontaneously ignite.

As the human population increases, the potential ignition sources have increased rapidly. The population of Australia has increased five-fold in the last 100 years (from 5 million to 25 million). Discarded cigarettes and matches, vehicle catalytic converters, sparks from electrical equipment and transmission lines, campfires, prescribed burns going out of control, and arson are some of the more obvious source of human-caused ignition, and these can all be expected to increase with population.

Trends in Bushfire Activity

The following plot shows the major Australia bushfires over the same period of time (100 years) as the five-fold increase in the population of Australia. The data come from Wikipedia’s Bushfires in Australia.

[aonsquared 9]

Your responses are perfectly predictable:

• CO2 causes AGW
  1. you attack the messenger - questioning people's credibility, attacking their person not the message
  2. then you say "it's not getting hotter and here I have DATA that it's not, it's getting colder or just the same!"
  3. THEN you say "yes it's getting hotter so what, it's good for plants"
  4. you do not realise that your statement in 3) is not consistent with your statement in 2)

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

4 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

 

...you do not realize that your statement in 3) is not consistent with your statement in 2)

 

Unfortunately, you do not realize that he doesn't care.

He will continue to post his denier stance regardless of any logic, facts, data (accurate data, not cherry picked) or any other argument you may pose. 

He will not listen to any evidence that his position is garbage. He will simply ignore it and continue to post his crap.

[brenthutch 444]

9 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

Your responses are perfectly predictable:

• CO2 causes AGW
  1. you attack the messenger - questioning people's credibility, attacking their person not the message 

 

That's pretty rich, coming from someone who just said I sound stupid.

[ryoder 1,590]

4 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

Unfortunately, you do not realize that he doesn't care.

He will continue to post his denier stance regardless of any logic, facts, data (accurate data, not cherry picked) or any other argument you may pose. 

He will not listen to any evidence that his position is garbage. He will simply ignore it and continue to post his crap.

Speaking of "ignore", everyone does realize there is now an Ignore List feature on here, right?

[aonsquared 9]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That's pretty rich, coming from someone who just said I sound stupid.

Ok I take that back. You just don't understand basic thermodynamics.

[wmw999 2,439]

there are people who have moderated their views (and admitted it) based on interactions; yes, even SC. 

Brent is unlikely to be one of them. 

Wendy P. 

[aonsquared 9]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

there are people who have moderated their views (and admitted it) based on interactions; yes, even SC. 

Brent is unlikely to be one of them. 

Wendy P. 

Well I guess I'm done here then...maybe leave a script for future SC readers to follow to save time

The script goes:

1. He will attack the credibility and integrity of the person/scientist/institution concerned about AGW
2. He will cherry-pick data that says fires are not getting worse, floods are not getting worse, it's actually getting colder
   • incredibly, he will cherry-pick a sentence even when the NEXT SENTENCE is completely opposite of his argument
3. then he'll completely refute his own argument in 2) and say a degree or two of warming is actually good. Plants thrive in CO2, and things are actually a lot better right now (it's not because of CO2, but he'll ignore that).
4. But press him on it and he will probably deny warming is caused by human activity. Then, he will refute the argument he JUST made in 3) by cherry-picking data again to show the world isn't warming/it was warmer millions of years ago/etc.
5. Don't try the thermodynamics argument with him - he doesn't know it very well and will ignore your arguments there
6. He'll then circle back to credibility/integrity attacks, cherry-picked data, then back to how much plants like CO2 and the cycle begins again!

 

[brenthutch 444]

I know, it pisses you off when I am right and you are wrong.  It happens to my wife all of the time.  "It's not that you are wrong, your delivery just sucks"

Edited January 12, 2020 by brenthutch

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, brenthutch said:

I know, it pisses you off when I am right and you are wrong.  It happens to my wife all of the time.  

sure...

[wmw999 2,439]

I don’t like the “ignore” button. However, I find that ignoring works just about as well in posting. 

Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What would that be?  Global temperature has risen by a degree or two?  Who cares?

Right now?  The Australians care a LOT.  I expect them to take a dim view of deniers going forward.

[aonsquared 9]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right now?  The Australians care a LOT.  I expect them to take a dim view of deniers going forward.

As a skydiver from Australia told me recently:

Quote

Season starts or has partly started as we have big problems with fires here. 4 out of 5 Dropzones are closed at the moment

Hoping the situation will improve.

WE NEED RAIN

When was the last time a skydiver WANTED rain?

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

As a skydiver from Australia told me recently:

When was the last time a skydiver WANTED rain?

I don't get it, BillV said it was rain that caused wildfires (California with 120% rainfall than normal) and now it is drought that causes wildfires.  Can you guys please get your act together.  

Edited January 12, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 220]

9 hours ago, ryoder said:

Check with 'Twardo; He might remember it.

I believe he said "We" . . . Twardo is in a class all his own.

[turtlespeed 220]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Like rabbits in Australia.  How'd that turn out for them?

 

 Have you seen the fookin size of them now!

That little mutation of the carrying case in front was a bit bizarre . . . but DAMN them rabbits got big.

[turtlespeed 220]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Like rabbits in Australia.  How'd that turn out for them?

 

 Have you seen the fookin size of them now!

That little mutation of the carrying case in front was a bit bizarre . . . but DAMN them rabbits got big.

[turtlespeed 220]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Like rabbits in Australia.  How'd that turn out for them?

 

 Have you seen the fookin size of them now!

That little mutation of the carrying case in front was a bit bizarre . . . but DAMN them rabbits got big.

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I don't get it, BillV said it was rain that caused wildfires (California with 120% rainfall than normal) and now it is drought that causes wildfires.  Can you guys please get your act together.  

That's right.  You don't get it.  Perhaps first "get it," then post?

[gowlerk 2,190]

4 hours ago, aonsquared said:

Ok I take that back. You just don't understand basic thermodynamics.

Brent understands perfectly well that the temperature is rising, the oceans are warming, and that the glaciers are melting. He just is of the opinion that all those things are minor, or even good. And the convenience and profits of continuing and even increasing the rate of fossil fuel consumption far out weigh the risks to society. And then he gets to come here and have some fun making points that he knows full well are easily refuted, but will often get a rise out of people. It's okay to poke holes in his nonsense, but don't be fooled. He is playing you.