Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

Utter BS. You allege that somehow climate change caused these fires. I have yet to see any actual evidence from you that it did, but you still insist that you're authoritative here. So why can you not understand the local weather event and the massive failure of the state of Hawaii government. And you're still unable, and unwilling to stop trying to twist a narrative that suddenly, because you cannot, that somehow you are a victim here.... Laughable.

 

You do realize that human output is roughly only 3-5% of the total CO2 output, right? But you go ahead an role on the floor chuckles...

 

Ooooh! That has a lot of numbers and pretty graphs that you don't understand. It's gotta be sci-unce, right?

Again: a CHALLENGE that could be answered in three or four lines, including the link (i.e., the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study that directly contradicts the consensus position), and you try to hide under myriads of unnecessary verbiage.

Yep! It would be THAT simple. So I believe you have used up all your opportunities.. So, once again (and for the last time), my point is made.

 

The post you replied to includes everything you requested.

 

Peer review does not guarantee accuracy. The scientists do not believe the 100% of peer reviewed studies prove AGW is the threat which is claimed.

 

You have attributed my post to another poster by monkeying with the PF quote function. Fix your error and I’ll respond if necessary.

I supplied a portion of your OP to another member who apparently hadn’t read the OP. My other comments were not to you, but another poster. Please get someone to explain the PF quote function to you if you can’t figure it out.

It’s a violation of rules to attribute quotes to the wrong poster.

 

No it isn't. 1st your op is neither factually accurate or terribly compelling. It is the usually power grabbing leftist boiler plate. 2nd they've had wild fires in hawaii for centuries because among other things they have volcanoes. What they have not always had is golf courses covered in bermuda and other non native grasses and people wanting the beautiful lawns like they had back in the states added to that. 3rd third the land management practices of the hawaiian government were abysmal with the result being that by preventing every small fire they eventually guaranteed they'd have a disaster.

In summary the disaster was indeed man made but AGW had nothing to do with it.

 

I don't know what allegation you're talking about. All allegations, as well as their justification, are in the OP.

 

You say that as though it matters.

Broken record: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jump again
Carbon dioxide levels measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked at 424 parts per million in May, continuing a steady climb further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanographyoffsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today.
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/broken-record-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-jump-again

Got any other immaterial statistics to the debate?

 

Thank you China and India. When we going to war? Oh my god we jumped a whole 4 parts per million in the last 30 years. We're all gonna die. And note that is after half of Maui burned and an unusually harsh canadian wild fire season.

 

NOT "another poster"!

THIS is what I responded to


I have ZERO interest in whether you respond or not.

 

So, let us be super clear here then. Nature is responsible for roughly 95-97% of the CO2 being released annually. So, if man is only adding their 3-5%, how much impact does that create. If nature itself is accomplishing the vast majority of the increase in saturation, which you will find is ~400 PPM (parts per million) then how, credibly, do you make the charge that the change in the climate is man made, or that man can somehow modify what nature is already producing? When you trot out proxy record evidence, are you willing to do so knowing all of the warts that come with it? It seems you simply aren't willing to educate yourself. But never the less, here you are, preaching that somehow the almost insignificant amount of Anthropogenic Carbon output is somehow entirely responsible then for climate modification all on its own. I assume you will never see the error of your ways. I assume you to feel this strongly, so who am I to discount your religion.....

 

You attributed my post to Bullseye. Please get someone to explain the PF quote function to you. Please. Try a mod. I have no patience for nonsense.

 

Interesting you bring up the word "PROVE". What you seem not to grasp is NOTHING about AGW/climate or it's effect on weather has been proved; there is no "settled science" and yet fail to grasp very little about climate science IS settled. The only "proof" of future climate are the results of computer models which are only crude presentations of the actual client that when tested against KNOWN weather from past years, fail miserably. Although improving they are mostly too coarse grain and incompletely modeled to provide definition PROOF. They also tend to ignore or poorly model naturally occurs weather phenomena and long cycle events, e.g. El Niño/La Niña, Atlantic multi decadal Oscillation and others. Actual weather historical data shows a gradual (.13C/decade) warming and various random spurts of major weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, heavy rain, etc.

What most climatologists will agree on is that climate is a none linear, loosely couple, chaotic system.

In fact, IPCC once reported "
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Then they decided they wanted to keep their jobs.

 

First, abandon the "we're all gonna day if we don't buy EVs, electric stoves, reduce our metal consumption and walk to work" </exageration for effect/>Ne

Next, develop a rational, economical sound, action plan with goals, objectives and timeframes set by professional in the field rather than pompous politicians (lookin' at you Gavin). Decide what he have to fix, what we can adapt to (CO2 especially) and do the possible before we through trillions at the impossibles.

 

Yes to the former. No to the latter.

 

Is any disturbed by the idea scientists should abandon striving for absolute correctness for some “greater good”? This climate stuff is getting out of hand.

 

Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative.

Good idea. Narratives are very effective in controlling climate just not as effective as money.

 

All reports are showing more and more how unreliable electric vehicles are, if temperature is over 100 they will not run. GM, etc. reports huge overload of EV's in their inventory that are not moving now. It is now August and every year these now dopey 'scientists' whatever predict a 'much higher hurricane season' because of warming? Then, they plop those huge monstrous wind turbines out in the ocean killing whales and every sea bird out there. These people really want to destroy nature and mess with blocking the sun. Gates thinks he knows better then God.

 

It's a matter of balance between arriving heat and departing heat.

Like with a see saw with elephants, 3% is way more than needed to upset the balance.

 

Tesla says their cars will run in air temps up to 140. In general, gas cars will run in air temps up to 195.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-...t, there is,and ongoing offshore wind surveys.

Where do you get your ideas?

Seriously. Please cite your information so we can know where you get your claims.

 

Where do you see an "absolutely correctness" problem?

 

The IPCC does not say we are all going to die.

So, how about CITING the source of your "we're all gonna day" concern. And, if you exaggerated, then how about stating the UN-exaggerated version that you see as our first problem.

As for your second, let's remember that decisions on what to do mostly come from congress.

One I believe is important is improvement of our electricity infrastructure. Today, it's FAR too hard to add wind power to our grid (backups of major projects idled), moving electricity is inefficient, our grid is susceptible to attack as well as to natural events.

This doesn't take trillions. Please comment on the basis of your trillions comment.

 

UK

 

you shouldn't assume whether people are as incompetent as you.

weak.

You're a bit of a joke poster.