The "climate studies" that support "President Trump's position" on climate change

[Robert W]

Dr. Hansen stated quite clearly that he expected the imprint of our addition of GHG's to the atmosphere to emerge from the noise of normal climate fluctuations by the end of the century, probably in the 1980's. And that is exactly what happened.


View attachment 1146328

Don't worry. It was a tiny amount.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dude the Santa Ana winds would blow me down when I was a kid... you don't know what you are talking about... the world didn't begin the day you were born....

Even if you are right which you are not... don't you think we should do something to mitigate the fires?... making SUV's illegal is not doing anything... manage the brush...

There are 818,814,000 acres of forest in the USA. Just how many people would it take to manage the brush? In Canada, there are 906,000,000 acres of forest in Canada. With only one tenth of our population, how are they going to manage that?

Yes, I think that we need to devote more resources to our forested lands. However, the present administration is cutting funds for both the management of our forests, and for the firefighters. Also, many decades ago, I fought fires for the Forest Service. You get a fifty mile an hour wind, and a very dry forest, once the fire is in the crown, all you can do is get out of the way. And those are exactly the conditions we are seeing with an increasing frequency.

 

[Old Rocks]

You admit I am correct then use vulgar terms.

Best when you make claims you also give lots of proof.

Droughts are increasing​

Drought is a powerful disturbance agent that can reduce tree growth, increase the vulnerability of trees to insects and diseases, and drive tree mortality. Historically, patchy drought is normal for Canada’s boreal forests. Certain tree species are more drought-resistant than others; for example, jack pine is one of the least vulnerable species to drought. However, if droughts are severe enough, or recur frequently, even the most resilient trees are impacted.

In recent decades, droughts have become more common and are expected to become even more frequent and severe in the future as a result of climate change. Trees experiencing drought are more susceptible to insects and disease, leading to increases in tree mortality. Drought conditions also greatly increase the risk of wildland fire. In the long-term, drought will impact tree health and regeneration success, and could lead to significant changes in forest ecosystems.

Impacts of climate change on forests - Natural Resources Canada

Climate change is reshaping Canada's forests, with rising temperatures and pests altering ecosystems nationwide.

natural-resources.canada.ca

 

[Robert W]

There are 818,814,000 acres of forest in the USA. Just how many people would it take to manage the brush? In Canada, there are 906,000,000 acres of forest in Canada. With only one tenth of our population, how are they going to manage that?

Yes, I think that we need to devote more resources to our forested lands. However, the present administration is cutting funds for both the management of our forests, and for the firefighters. Also, many decades ago, I fought fires for the Forest Service. You get a fifty mile an hour wind, and a very dry forest, once the fire is in the crown, all you can do is get out of the way. And those are exactly the conditions we are seeing with an increasing frequency.

You make our federal and states park management teams seem pathetic.
The reason there are more fires is the population exploded years back.

 

[Rambunctious]

There are 818,814,000 acres of forest in the USA. Just how many people would it take to manage the brush? In Canada, there are 906,000,000 acres of forest in Canada. With only one tenth of our population, how are they going to manage that?

Yes, I think that we need to devote more resources to our forested lands. However, the present administration is cutting funds for both the management of our forests, and for the firefighters. Also, many decades ago, I fought fires for the Forest Service. You get a fifty mile an hour wind, and a very dry forest, once the fire is in the crown, all you can do is get out of the way. And those are exactly the conditions we are seeing with an increasing frequency.

You manage the forests and empty lands where people live... deep forests fires often are allowed to burn... it does the forest good to burn from time to time... however its not true that we can't manage forests... we use to do it... enviro nazis didn't like it....

 

[Robert W]

Droughts are increasing​

Drought is a powerful disturbance agent that can reduce tree growth, increase the vulnerability of trees to insects and diseases, and drive tree mortality. Historically, patchy drought is normal for Canada’s boreal forests. Certain tree species are more drought-resistant than others; for example, jack pine is one of the least vulnerable species to drought. However, if droughts are severe enough, or recur frequently, even the most resilient trees are impacted.

In recent decades, droughts have become more common and are expected to become even more frequent and severe in the future as a result of climate change. Trees experiencing drought are more susceptible to insects and disease, leading to increases in tree mortality. Drought conditions also greatly increase the risk of wildland fire. In the long-term, drought will impact tree health and regeneration success, and could lead to significant changes in forest ecosystems.

Impacts of climate change on forests - Natural Resources Canada

Climate change is reshaping Canada's forests, with rising temperatures and pests altering ecosystems nationwide.

natural-resources.canada.ca

Yellow journalism.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't worry. It was a tiny amount.

We are about 1.5 C above preindustrial levels right now. We expect to be about 3 or 4 C above preindustrial levels by 2100. That is not a tiny amount.

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles​

The difference in temperature between the interglacial and glacial maximums is approximately 4°C to 5°C. This temperature difference has led to significant shifts in Earth's climate, including changes in ice cover and sea levels. For instance, during the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago, there was an extensive ice sheet over present-day New York City. In contrast, during the Eemian interglacial period, temperatures were roughly 1°C warmer than the early 1800s preindustrial level, and sea levels were at least 6 meters higher due to less ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The current interglacial period has already seen a warming of about 4°C since the glacial temperatures of 20,000 years ago, which could push the planet's climate into a state not experienced in the last 25 million years."
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c980...S81NzU3MTM3MDEvbGFiLTctZmxhc2gtY2FyZHMv&ntb=1
One degree more in the last interglacial, the Emian, made a difference of +6 meters in sea level. Going to be interesting to see what 3 or 4 degrees will do for us by 2100.

 

[Robert W]

We are about 1.5 C above preindustrial levels right now. We expect to be about 3 or 4 C above preindustrial levels by 2100. That is not a tiny amount.

Sure, it is a tiny amount. Predicting the future when it is over climate is a fool's errand.

 

[Old Rocks]

You manage the forests and empty lands where people live... deep forests fires often are allowed to burn... it does the forest good to burn from time to time... however its not true that we can't manage forests... we use to do it... enviro nazis didn't like it....

You are so full of shit. No, we never managed our forests. And attempts at managed burns have often gotten out of hand. At present the only people preventing even small management efforts is the present admin. Trump and his incompetents have cut Forest Service and National Park personnel, and also cut funds for fighting fires. Ground fires are good for the forests, crown fires are not. Unfortunately we are seeing increasing crown fires. And now we have even less resources and personnel to fight those fires.

 

[Robert W]

We are about 1.5 C above preindustrial levels right now. We expect to be about 3 or 4 C above preindustrial levels by 2100. That is not a tiny amount.

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles​

The difference in temperature between the interglacial and glacial maximums is approximately 4°C to 5°C. This temperature difference has led to significant shifts in Earth's climate, including changes in ice cover and sea levels. For instance, during the Last Glacial Maximum around 20,000 years ago, there was an extensive ice sheet over present-day New York City. In contrast, during the Eemian interglacial period, temperatures were roughly 1°C warmer than the early 1800s preindustrial level, and sea levels were at least 6 meters higher due to less ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The current interglacial period has already seen a warming of about 4°C since the glacial temperatures of 20,000 years ago, which could push the planet's climate into a state not experienced in the last 25 million years."
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c980...S81NzU3MTM3MDEvbGFiLTctZmxhc2gtY2FyZHMv&ntb=1
One degree more in the last interglacial, the Emian, made a difference of +6 meters in sea level. Going to be interesting to see what 3 or 4 degrees will do for us by 2100.

That is stuff both Lindzen and Curry say all the time, yet you say you don't believe them.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, it is a tiny amount. Predicting the future when it is over climate is a fool's errand.

Yet the climatologists have been very accurate, stating exactly the changes we are seeing three decades ago. If anything, they have been too conservative. They did not expect the Northwest Passage to open until close to the end of this century. It opened first in 2007, and in 2016, a thousand passenger cruise ship transited the Passage.

A tiny amount that is nearly one third as large as what it took to get us from deep glacial to the present interglacial. And it is only that small of an amount because of the temperature inertia of the oceans.

 

[Rambunctious]

You are so full of shit. No, we never managed our forests. And attempts at managed burns have often gotten out of hand. At present the only people preventing even small management efforts is the present admin. Trump and his incompetents have cut Forest Service and National Park personnel, and also cut funds for fighting fires. Ground fires are good for the forests, crown fires are not. Unfortunately we are seeing increasing crown fires. And now we have even less resources and personnel to fight those fires.

How old are you?... we sure did manage forests... I watched bulldozers carve firebreaks into the hills from my home... People thought it was ugly and so they came up with a bill to outlaw it... the very next year we had our first really destructive Malibu Canyon fire...
And they still haven't learned a thing....

 

[Robert W]

Yet the climatologists have been very accurate, stating exactly the changes we are seeing three decades ago. If anything, they have been too conservative. They did not expect the Northwest Passage to open until close to the end of this century. It opened first in 2007, and in 2016, a thousand passenger cruise ship transited the Passage.

A tiny amount that is nearly one third as large as what it took to get us from deep glacial to the present interglacial. And it is only that small of an amount because of the temperature inertia of the oceans.

Arctic Ice Won’t Let Go: The Surprising Truth Behind the Northwest Passage​

Despite overall declines in the thickness and extent of Arctic sea ice, shipping routes along the northern coast of North America have become less navigable in recent years.

 

[Robert W]

Trump and his incompetents have cut Forest Service and National Park personnel, and also cut funds for fighting fires.

No, he has not. IT is a proposal so far.

Trump administration restructuring to do away with regional U.S. Forest Service offices​

Plan leaves forest-level personnel alone but could have trickle down impacts​

• By Christina MacIntosh / Environmental Reporter
• Jul 30, 2025 Updated Aug 1, 2025

 

[Robert W]

Yet the climatologists have been very accurate, stating exactly the changes we are seeing three decades ago. If anything, they have been too conservative. They did not expect the Northwest Passage to open until close to the end of this century. It opened first in 2007, and in 2016, a thousand passenger cruise ship transited the Passage.

A tiny amount that is nearly one third as large as what it took to get us from deep glacial to the present interglacial. And it is only that small of an amount because of the temperature inertia of the oceans.

You would Profit from listening to Judith Curry and Professor Lindzen that you were fibbing about.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry explains ‘climate change’ in 5 minutes – ‘Climate change is a grand narrative…has become the dominant cause of societal problems’​

5 minutes - Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?

Last week I served on a panel for a summer school in Canada for engineering students. They are working on the energy transition, and their Professor wanted them to be exposed to the debate surrounding all this, and to think critically. I was the only climate scientist on the panel, the others were involved in renewable energy. Each panelist was given 5 minutes to make their main points. The essay below is what i came up with. 5 minutes is longer than an elevator speech, but it is still pretty short

---

Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change are being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Specifically with regards to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

Whether or not warming is ‘dangerous‘ is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as ‘dangerous.’

Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

With regards to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st-century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th-century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th-century renewable energy technologies.

We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century while protecting the environment as much as we can.

 

[Kilroy2]

BULL, atmospheric DATA posted for you, linked from NBC no less, you just don't like it...


The DATA on canes showing 1940s strongest decade, 1890s second place...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

DATA from MARS PROVING that when a planet with an atmosphere warms, its SURFACE AIR PRESSURE increases...

Air Pressure is always correlated with temperature, and Mars proves it. When you add in polar ice/CO2 melt/sublime, the effect is to "turbocharge" the move in SAP.


From Google...

During the Jurassic period, the Earth's atmospheric pressure is estimated to have been higher than today, potentially between 3.7 and 5.0 bar, according to scientific articles


MINOR PROBLEM FOR CO2 FRAUD, for past 70 years Earth Surface Air Pressure is actually slightly down...






WHICH 100% PROVES THE FOLLOWING, for the past 70 years


1. Earth has not warmed at all
2. Earth has experienced precisely ZERO net ice melt

I did no say the Earth was not warming. I just question wheter it is man made or natural

Hurricane data provides proof of earth warming - Yahoo Search Results

BULL, atmospheric DATA posted for you, linked from NBC no less, you just don't like it...


The DATA on canes showing 1940s strongest decade, 1890s second place...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

DATA from MARS PROVING that when a planet with an atmosphere warms, its SURFACE AIR PRESSURE increases...

Air Pressure is always correlated with temperature, and Mars proves it. When you add in polar ice/CO2 melt/sublime, the effect is to "turbocharge" the move in SAP.


From Google...

During the Jurassic period, the Earth's atmospheric pressure is estimated to have been higher than today, potentially between 3.7 and 5.0 bar, according to scientific articles


MINOR PROBLEM FOR CO2 FRAUD, for past 70 years Earth Surface Air Pressure is actually slightly down...






WHICH 100% PROVES THE FOLLOWING, for the past 70 years


1. Earth has not warmed at all
2. Earth has experienced precisely ZERO net ice melt

So in 2023 there were only 3 hurricanes reported

 

[Kilroy2]

https://gulfnews.com/world/3-scientific-signs-the-earth-is-heating-heres-how-we-can-fight-back-1.500153104#:~:text=There%20are%20multiple%20lines%20of%20evidence%20%E2%80%94%20temperature,supported%20by%20rigorous%20data%20from%20reputable%20scientific%20institutions.

3 scientific proofs of a warming planet​

Here are 3 scientific proofs that the planet Earth is indeed warming, supported by authoritative sources:

1. Rising global surface temperatures​

Evidence: Global surface temperatures have increased by approximately 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, with most of the warming occurring since the 1970s.
The agency’s analysis generally matches independent analyses prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other research groups.
Overall, Earth was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer in 2024 than in the late 19th-century (1850-1900) preindustrial average.

3 scientific proofs of a warming planet​

https://gulfnews.com/world/3-scientific-signs-the-earth-is-heating-heres-how-we-can-fight-back-1.500153104#:~:text=There%20are%20multiple%20lines%20of%20evidence%20%E2%80%94%20temperature,supported%20by%20rigorous%20data%20from%20reputable%20scientific%20institutions.

1. Rising global surface temperatures​

Evidence: Global surface temperatures have increased by approximately 1.2°C (2.2°F) since the late 19th century, with most of the warming occurring since the 1970s.

“The average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1°C (2.0°F) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.”

— NOAA Climate.gov

2. Melting of ice sheets and glaciers​

Evidence: Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass at an accelerating rate. Greenland lost an average of 279 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2019.

https://gulfnews.com/world/3-scientific-signs-the-earth-is-heating-heres-how-we-can-fight-back-1.500153104#:~:text=There%20are%20multiple%20lines%20of%20evidence%20%E2%80%94%20temperature,supported%20by%20rigorous%20data%20from%20reputable%20scientific%20institutions.

Overall, Earth was about 2.65 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.47 degrees Celsius) warmer in 2024 than in the late 19th-century (1850-1900) preindustrial average.

 

[ding]

And when you add GHG's to the atmosphere at the rate we have in the midst of an interglacial, that ice really melts fast.

The change in surface temperature from simple physics for doubling of CO2 is 1C.

 

[Old Rocks]

How old are you?... we sure did manage forests... I watched bulldozers carve firebreaks into the hills from my home... People thought it was ugly and so they came up with a bill to outlaw it... the very next year we had our first really destructive Malibu Canyon fire...
And they still haven't learned a thing....

I am 81 years old, and fought fires over fifty years ago. Almost never did we see the kinds of winds then that we see now. In 2015, on that forest, the Malheur National Forest, we had a 175 square mile burn with 50 mph winds. It spotted fires 2 miles ahead of the fire front. With a fire and wind like that all you can do is get out of the way. Your puny fire break is useless.

Canyon Creek Complex Fire: After the flames - Blue Mountain Eagle

CANYON CITY — Driving up Canyon Creek, south of John Day toward Burns, the devastation is dramatic. The Canyon Creek Complex Fire tore through this canyon in mid-August, leaving the […]

bluemountaineagle.com

 

[Old Rocks]

The change in surface temperature from simple physics for doubling of CO2 is 1C.

Simple physics for the simple minded. We exceeded 1.5 C last year. And that is with the oceans soaking up most of the heat. Here are far more trustworthy estimates;

Doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts that the doubling of the concentration of CO2 would increase the average global temperature by the year 2100 by 2 to 4.5°C. The radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is approximately 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2).

Climate.gov+4

Climate.gov
How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? | NOAA Climate.gov


Reason.com
How Much Will the Planet Warm If Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Doubles?




View all


Reason.com
How Much Will the Planet Warm If Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Doubles?
With doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide, the eventual warming would probably be between 2.6°C and 3.9°C. There would be less than 5 percent chance of staying below 2°C—and a 6 to 1…
https://reason.com › how-much-will-the-planet-warm-if-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-doubles

Climate.gov
How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? | NOAA Climate