The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Yeah a normal forest fire or controlled burn doesn't turn the soil into moon dust (devoid of life, organics, water soluble nitrogen and hydrofobic).

[freebeard]

I hadn't heard from Bearing in a while, so I checked in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJl__z0Jo8

[oil pan 4]

The environmentalist:

I think it would work better on a cat D9.
Too late in most places.

[slowmover]

The King Ranch does controlled burns. Land that never seen a plow. It’s an impressive sight. The different divisions (the Ranch is in several giant parcels) have different schedules.

And, it’s not the Right that’s gone to any extremes. Mainstream America was still right of what today is considered “right”. Normal is still quite a ways off.

And Trump has just as many enemies in the Republican Party. They’re easily as corrupt as the Democrats. But the D’s have opted for an earlier suicide. Blame Orange Man for campaign promises unfulfilled, but the Republican Party bears the greater blame as the vast majority support those.

Trump is only a stopgap. A delay, at best. Virginia looks to be where telling latecomers to this nation (and lifelong foreigners) that their ways won’t ever be acceptable here. Despite the last century. The pendulum backswing is gathering speed. Mass & momentum are off the charts.

Funniest President — by far — of my lifetime.
Master troll. Like him or hate him, can’t deny his ability.



..

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Solar particle climate forcing is definitely going to be in the 2022 ipcc report, after 40 years of only taking into account the wavelength of UV light that changes the least.
So you guys have 2 more years before the church of man made global warming is burned to the ground.
Who's going to be in the church when it burns?

Also that UV irriadance I mentioned, turns out that a large portion was made up.
It appears that solar irradance was assumed not to change and some how this assumption became part of science.
Man they do that a lot.

Things will get interesting, by interesting I mean bad for climate cult belivers.

I believe that the space-based,and terrestrial solar observatories' spectrometers observe the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
Total solar irradiance does vary,and is continuously monitored,although the magnitude of its forcing cannot account for observed warming.That would be the greenhouse effect.Anthropogenic.

[aerohead]

PBS and CBS television shared some observations for 2019:
*2019 will be one of the three warmest years on record.
*1/3rd of coral reefs are gone.
*Along with Australia's record heat,and 200-bush-fires,firefighters might have done more,had they not run out of water.
*Sea-level trashed Venice,Italy.
*The Gulf of Maine is watching its lobster population go away.
*Finland has lost half its reindeer population.
*Half of the Caribou are gone.
*Climate scientists (not the IPCC) are looking at 2-C.
*Antarctic sea-ice (shelves) are melting @ 6X former rates.
*Formerly ice-shelf-buttressed glaciers are accelerating into the oceans.
*Most of the ice-shelves are melting from below the water line,as currents,convective turbulence, and gyres deliver tropical heat.
*The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed 3.5-F.
*Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers are now rated 'unstable',and if either one goes,we'll see 5-feet of sea-level rise by 2100.
*At present global temperature,we're in for 20-feet of sea-level rise,from thermal expansion,ice melt, and glacial calving.It's only a question of the timing.
*We've gone above 415 ppmv-e atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration,compared to a pre-industrial 280-ppmv.
*Melting permafrost is releasing methane,one of the more potent greenhouse gases,which will eventually biodegrade to 1,000-year carbon dioxide.
*California-sized algal blooms in the Arctic Ocean.

[redpoint5]

Did PBS mention which areas have benefited from climate change? Perhaps some mention of crops that once were unsuitable for a particular location now growing?

Delivering only one perspective of some change is the definition of corruption of character, and certainly antithetical to delivering the news.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Funniest President — by far — of my lifetime.
Master troll. Like him or hate him, can’t deny his ability.

I still laugh when I see that picture.

Trump 2020: Greatest Impeachment Ever.

Total solar irradiance does vary,and is continuously monitored,although the magnitude of its forcing cannot account for observed warming.That would be the greenhouse effect.Anthropogenic.

Input from CMEs is mis-attributed to anthropogenic causes.

Delivering only one perspective of some change is the definition of corruption of character, and certainly antithetical to delivering the news.

An "half-pinion" according to S. Adams.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Did PBS mention which areas have benefited from climate change? Perhaps some mention of crops that once were unsuitable for a particular location now growing?

Delivering only one perspective of some change is the definition of corruption of character, and certainly antithetical to delivering the news.

No.They did not.That's been addressed in SCIENCE and NATURE.And the consensus is,that any regional agricultural benefits are far overshadowed by the global harm that will come from warming.
New weeds typically accompany new crops,which opens a vicious cycle of fertilizers,herbicides,fungicides,pesticides,roden ticides,defoliants,new equipment requirements,precipitation along with the warmth,and then heat stress and paralyzed photosynthesis as temperature reaches 105-F.Invasive species do not guarantee that soil microbes will be present to accommodate growth.Invasive species can bring invasive insects and fungus.There's only so much sunlight in a day,which limits productivity,regardless of warmth and soil fertility.Pollinators are in decline.Current food production has declined.Nutritive content of some cereal grains is declining,requiring increased production just to remain at the same level of nutrition,in a world of increasing population.
Some species see increased growth,which soon plateaus,with no overall increased production.
With loss of mountain glaciers,rivers will eventually die.All civilization which rely on irrigation will perish.This is in the unwritten history of Earth.
What flourishes in a laboratory is not represented in the real world.

[redpoint5]

I've got no horse in the game, so a determination that global warming is a net negative is a conclusion I'm willing to accept. I'll only get there if the debate is had though, and that involves acknowledging benefits from warming too.

Key to convincing me that there is a problem developing is determining when warming is projected to become a net negative assuming current projected trends. That requires reasonable effort to consider the most serious negative impacts weighed against the most beneficial ones. Talk of polar bear habitat is distracting because it has nothing to do with human well-being.

Certainly it makes sense to me that rapid change tends to be harmful/stressful for most creatures.