Warming and fires

[skookerasbil]

not another one of these threads again

We've established in here 459,000 times that there is no correlation between fires and global warming.

Advocates of AGW are very fond of hail mary pass stunts to try and promote the cause........the "fires" might well be the most ridiculous.

Roger Staubch Hail Mary Pass

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didn't miss any steps. Neither did the world's climate scientists. Where are the scientists who followed the scientific method and found evidence that supports YOUR theories (whatever they might be)?

And why don't you find Ice Weasel and find out what he thinks the term "widely accepted theory" means, since he seems unable to provide an answer to the question?

• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

 

[skookerasbil]

Science
Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute
By JUSTIN GILLISFEB. 16, 2014


In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/s...esidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/duh_smiley.gif.html'][/URL]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since when is turning on the Weather Channel considered to be "an experiment"?

 

[skookerasbil]

DiSpUtE

 

[Old Rocks]

From the beginning, droughts were one of the predictions of global warming. As well as an increase in forest fires. Easily predictable that the combination of drought, later snow cover, and earlier melt would result in more forest fires. And it was predicted, and arrived really earlier than most predictions expected.

Then you have the predicted precipitation events. Combine that with droughts and fires, makes a really neat one-two punch. If the fires don't get the little towns, then the floods from the rains and rapid snow melts will. Landslides thrown in just for shits and giggles.

 

[skookerasbil]

From the beginning, droughts were one of the predictions of global warming. As well as an increase in forest fires. Easily predictable that the combination of drought, later snow cover, and earlier melt would result in more forest fires. And it was predicted, and arrived really earlier than most predictions expected.

Then you have the predicted precipitation events. Combine that with droughts and fires, makes a really neat one-two punch. If the fires don't get the little towns, then the floods from the rains and rapid snow melts will. Landslides thrown in just for shits and giggles.

all conjecture........

( see New York Times article above.........many scientists disagree )

 

[skookerasbil]

In todays LA Times >>>

California drought and climate warming: Studies find no clear link


"natural occurring changes"

California drought and climate warming: Studies find no clear link

 

[skookerasbil]

Ray.....you know Ive posted up a drought map covering 1930 to present day.......many times.........drought comes and goes. It is crystal clear on the map. Its there for a few years......it disappears for a few years. Ignoring empirical evidence......unlike the other phony bozo's in here, Ray........doesn't not seem like you at all after posting in here with you over the last 6 years. What gives?

Loosely connecting dots and making it scientific truth is not science.

 

[jc456]

I have enough of an education to understand that the likelihood of a conspiracy as vast and comprehensive as would be required for their to be the SLIGHTEST chance of your accusation having any basis is NIL. You, apparently, do not.

If you don't want to be termed "stupid", don't say stupid stuff. Saying that global warming is caused by greed and megalomania is about as stupid as stupid can be.

why? who are the only ones saying global warming is man made. who, those paid by government money that's it.

 

[jc456]

Where in the scientific method is calling skeptics "DENIERS!!!!"?

Sorry, Frank, but you people don't rise to the level that the scientific method would refer to you. Deniers is something we all made up on our own. It's based on your behavior. You deny the overwhelming science that supports the validity of AGW. That's pretty much all you do. You deny. You've got your head stuck in the sand. Or up someone's ass. Somewhere out of sight anyway.

and you deny the observed real world. What shall we call you?

 

[jc456]

How do you define the term "widely accepted theory"?

widely accepted theory? I'm just guessing.

 

[jc456]

Can you point to any repeatable lab experiment that shows how a 10ppm increase in CO2 will cause trees to spontaneously combust?

Why would I bother? No one has ever made such an idiotic claim. No one has ever come up with the idea - except you.

Didn't think so

Then why did you bother to ask?

Steps of the Scientific Method

Key Info

• The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
• The steps of the scientific method are to:
  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results

You left out a step, Sparky

It is the inconvenient truth step.

 

[jc456]

Science
Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute
By JUSTIN GILLISFEB. 16, 2014


In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/s...esidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0

I'm still trying to understand how a drought area in a drought, experienced climate change. I don't know, but that don't maka no sense.

 

[jc456]

From the beginning, droughts were one of the predictions of global warming. As well as an increase in forest fires. Easily predictable that the combination of drought, later snow cover, and earlier melt would result in more forest fires. And it was predicted, and arrived really earlier than most predictions expected.

Then you have the predicted precipitation events. Combine that with droughts and fires, makes a really neat one-two punch. If the fires don't get the little towns, then the floods from the rains and rapid snow melts will. Landslides thrown in just for shits and giggles.

all conjecture........

( see New York Times article above.........many scientists disagree )

how can that be it is a widely accepted theory?

 

[skookerasbil]

Another thread blown to bits by skeptics!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Science
Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute
By JUSTIN GILLISFEB. 16, 2014


In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/s...esidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0

GoldiRocks needs to read more articles like these. I've got a statement from NOAA which doubts a link between West Coast drought and GW. He's focused on the extraordinary claims of a handful of climate activists that wake up every morning and see Climate Change out their winders. But what's been said is largely about FUTURE POSSIBLE scenarios --- not the morning news and weather.