How Billo_Really fails utterly to make a case for her earlier claims I replied too, replying to
post 83,
Billo writes:
"Okay, its a significant contributor; however, your link doesn't address the contribution from global warming."
It is evidence that you didn't read the article which pointed out that bad forestry management is the main cause of explosive fires. Air temperature changes has little relevance when it comes to fires, which you missed by not reading the article,
here is what YOU didn't read:
"In 2005 while a freshman California Assemblyman, I had the chance to visit Northern California and meet with the forest product industry professionals who grew, managed, and harvested trees on private and public lands. They told me of a worrisome trend started years earlier where both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for them to do their jobs. As a result, timber industry employment gradually collapsed, falling in 2017 to half of what it was 20 years earlier, with imports from Canada, China, and other nations filling domestic need.
As timber harvesting permit fees went up and environmental challenges multiplied, the people who earned a living felling and planting trees looked for other lines of work. The combustible fuel load in the forest predictably soared. No longer were forest management professionals clearing brush and thinning trees.
But, fire suppression efforts continued. The result was accurately forecast by my forest management industry hosts in Siskiyou County in 2005: larger, more devastating fires—fires so hot that they sterilized the soil, making regrowth difficult and altering the landscape. More importantly, fires that increasingly threatened lives and homes as they became hotter and more difficult to bring under control."
Billo shows how lazy she is by failing to follow my hint (NOAA),
"Where's your link for that?"
She was responding to what
I wrote:
"YOU have avoided my reference to the USHCN NOAA system, you don't even want to know what it is at all. You also ignored the well known knowledge that early in the interglacial, it was MUCH warmer than now."
So much ignorance on YOUR part, I will post the evidence that it was much warmer early in the interglacial, the USHCN you can easily find for yourself, don't be so lazy:
Billo drones on with ignorance,
"How can a consensus of 95% of the climate scientists be worthless? And what makes you think YOUR research is more credible than theirs?"
I pointed out the reproducible research drives science not popularity, you still don't see the problem. I even said this that YOU ignored,
"There have been many consensus errors over the decades because science illiterates like YOU prefer popularity over reproducible research."
You make clear over and over your science illiteracy since YOU seem unaware of how many times "consensus" fails when reproducible research comes along slaying consensus baloney such as this one,
The Doctor Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
This is but one of many consensus errors of the past.
Skipping to the last section where Billo went truly stupid:
"A little over a 100 years ago, we weren't burning fossil fuels at these levels. CO2 emissions in the atmosphere can be measured. Empirically, using one of your words. Sea surface temperatures can be measured and they are steadily rising. Atmospheric temperature can be measured and has risen to its highest levels in recorded history. Receding glaciers can be seen and witnessed. Permafrost in Alaska is turning into mud in many areas. So I don't know where you are getting this "no evidence" bullshit."
Gee it had already been warming for nearly 200 years before 1880 when CO2 levels started rising.
Sea surface temperature barely warmed up according to published science papers, here from this
LINK are papers referred to:
"A new analysis of top-to-bottom (0-5000 m) ocean heat content changes since the mid-1990s reveals that (a) large regions of the global ocean have undergone cooling, and (b) the overall net temperature change for 1994-2013 was a modest 0.02°C. In contrast, during the Holocene the oceans naturally warmed at a rate and magnitude several times greater than the last few decades, undermining claims that the modern era change is unusual or unprecedented."
Drop your irrational infatuation on consensus because they have been wrong many times to the detriment of science research and caused deaths to innocent people.