Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

Like I said, if our temperature is not a flat line and our weather is not calm and benign, then it's man's fault, and just more proof of man-made climate change.

 

I'll repeat, tell me what the earth's climate temperature normal is supposed to be.

IPCC is a politically motivated, agenda driven committee, they are never to be cited as science, and if you do cite them, you are a fool.

 

You cannot do your own research? Here, I found these links with a five minute internet search, it's soooo easy, you should try it:

NOAA 1974 - Global Cooling Will Starve the World

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/qc851u461974oct.pdf

 

Clearly, not your imagination....

 

It's reassuring that younger, better-educated Americans, and especially Republican ones, are increasingly confronting the scientific reality.

The ideological dogma is succumbing to the empirical data.

 

Warmers love to invoke science to tell others what they should and should not be doing in regards to global warming. But do warmers acknowledge that the earth has warmed up and cooled down a number of times, with and without modern man, from the point of glacial formation to that of all ice, including the poles, melting? And do they acknowledge that all of their doomsday scenarios will eventually happen all on its own, and that we are now in a warming trend unconnected to, yet in tandem with human conduct? Just curious.

 

Well I’m going to trust NASA over some conservative know-nothing Trumper.

 

The deniers's ideological dogma renders them incapable of honestly acknowledging the scientific consensus, that the current rate of warming is without precedent prior to the emissions of the industrial revolution. They cherry pick the climatological data that the scientists who actually accrue and study it place in context.

 

The MO of socialist ,,, stick your tongue out from under your keyboard and try to denigrate people who tower over you intellectually. If you lower life forms were so smart, you would have gotten on the renewable energy bandwagon in 1969, when conservatives did. You might have also been smart enough to beat Trump. He spotted you geniuses CA, NY, and IL and you still couldn't beat him.

 

NASA is among the scientific institutions that do not appear to respect Trumpery's recognition of anthropogenic climate change as a Chinese hoax.

 

You should take a survey course in science so you might at least develop half a clue. Science isn't about consensus. Science is about repeatability. Science isn't about using models that failed to predict current climate trends to predict the climate 100 years out. People who are ignorant of science and, in this case, modeling should refrain from weighing in with a tone of authority that you obviously haven't earned.

 

Group-think science, is no longer science.

 

I would think the answer to his question, the same forces and factors that have been in play for the last 4 billion or so years of which man has only been around for about 2 million or so.

 

It's even worse than that. If scientists want funding, their research must help prove what the fascists are pushing. If not, they are cancelled, never to see another research dime. That is only if the RICO20 doesn't go after them. After all, the RICO20 leader, Shukla is not only double dipping, but is employing his whole family in the scam. Shuklas Gold is required reading for anyone wanting to understand Climate 'Science'.

 

Trumpery propounds the view that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Donald J. Trump @ realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the
Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
2:15 pm 6 November 2012​

You can preach as stridently as you wish to the global scientific community (as well as to all the US agencies that respect science) but it will persist in adhering to empirical data and rejecting Trumpery.

Scientific consensus trumps ideological dogma in matters of science, but its always amusing to see the dogmatic ideologues lecturing scientists about what science is.

Task Force Climate Change was started in May 2009 by the Chief of Naval Operations

"The Arctic is simply the harbinger of much greater changes that will likely take place in the 21st century. And for our Navy to be ready and capable in the 21st century, we’re gong to need to both understand those changes, leverage the best science available to predict within the bounds of that science, and finally adapt to those changing conditions as, as it’s going to pertain to national security:

The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review says, “Climate change will contribute to scarcity, disease, mass migration.”

http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/issue/the-pentagon-on-climate-change​

 

You mean this NASA?
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/0...98-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

Hansen was known for cooking the books. Trump never claimed to be a climate scientist. You did, but you haven't produced your credentials.

Or this NASA?
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-finally-releases-climate-data-computer-codes

McIntyre caught Hansen in more than one scam. Hansen is retired now, but is he like John Brennan and still screwing things up?

 

Climate census is people with an ideological dogma, and people who have an insatiable greed for both power and money.

 

You mean that your ideological extremism compels you to summarily reject the scientific data respected by NASA and other US government agencies so that you can swallow the crackpot notion that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax?

Fortunately, those charged with America's security cannot afford to wallow in such ludicrous bs.

 

How about earlier than that whey life flourished all over the world when it was much warmer than it is now.

 

And who are they to say that 1850 is the year we should zero in on.

 

How does any of that drivel substantiate the claim that man had control over the climate?

 

Whatever nonsense your government is putting out the primary cause was human stupidity and arson.

 

If you need to fantasize that you can spew industrial greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere with impunity, that the fossil fuel industry is a philanthropic endeavor, and that there is a vast coordinated global conspiracy by scientists, political leaders, civic institutions, and the military to deny your "Chinese hoax," you may want to be consistent:

​

 

There is a big difference between claiming it is a Chinese hoax and having doubts. In spite of this silly 97% baloney, there is considerable doubt within the scientific community.

 

So, the IPCC enlisted the most prominent expert in tropical cyclones, Dr. Chris Landsea, to study the impact of Climate Change on the frequency and intensity of the storms. His conclusion was that the increasing cost of property damage due to tropical cyclones had to do with increased development of expensive homes along the coast.

The IPCC misrepresented his conclusion and cancelled him when he objected. Not sure who the most prominent expert in tropical cyclones is today, but likely someone who will play the game.

There are more questions than answers ,, even if you can get past the dishonest human things that created doubt like the effort to erase the hiatus by adding to buoy measurement the ship inlet temperatures that include hot structures ,,, the climate gate email that revealed an attempt to hide the work of a Climate expert, Briffa, because a novice, Michael Mann, produced a result more favorable to the alarmist cult.

So, here's a brain teaser. What I think we know:
(1) Equatorial Pacific surface temperature drives the climate for much of the planet.
(2) Fresh water melt water from Antarctica stratifies over warmer salt water in the current that feeds the Equatorial Pacific.
So, can we conclude that cooler air over Antarctica leading to less melting could result in warmer Equatorial Pacific temperatures, raising temperatures around the rest of the globe.

Think about it. I'm a long retired computational fluid dynamicist ,,, I haven't thought about making a hobby of doing a simulation and don't have the tools I used to have, so I'd have to develop them. Even then modeling the mixing based on correlations would not be too accurate.

In terms of your wildfire, I seem to remember that the fires occurred in the coolest areas. Were they areas that experienced months of rain to grow vegetation, then months of drought that, unmaintained, turned the vegetation into kindling?