To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!
See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!
+1 @dmm for pointing out not taking fighting wild fires into consideration, which could reduce acreage burned.
@Andy. Here is the cause of fires from the same government agency:
Average Number of Human-caused Fires Annually
Northern California 3,334
Southern California 4,160
Humans cause an average of 61,375 fires each year.
68% of all human-caused fires are started in the Southern and Eastern areas.
Nearly 36% of all acres burned by human-caused fires are in the Southern Area.
More than 2.8 million acres are burned each year by people who start wildfires.
Southwest Area 1,644
Great Basin 1,377
Rocky Mountain Area 1,395
Southern Area ~1,000
Oh, forest management techniques have also undergone change. Fires -- as long as they don't burn down peoples' houses -- can be beneficial to forests. The Forest Service actually starts several a year for just that purpose. Way back in the 1920s, the prevailing idea was to fight every fire. Now they do controlled burns and let other fires run their course. Like the problem with Americans moving to the coasts to live by the sea making them vulnerable to hurricanes, subdivisions expanding outward from cities are encroaching on areas that were once wilderness where fires could burn without destroying billions of dollars in property. There was one figure cited that California now has 8.8 million more homes in areas that were wild several decades ago. There's just a lot more of us that need places to live and that's a problem because Mother Nature doesn't care.
there are ways to mitigate fire danger. People don't want to cut down the trees around their houses because they "look pretty". I cut down 17 evergreen trees near my house and planted 4 hardwood trees. It doesn't "feel" like I am living in a forest anymore. But I can buy insurance and have a fighting chance of surviving a fire.
Another false claim of you global warming zealots. I haven't cherry-picked a thing! I just extended the end points to a time frame you global warming zealots don't want the public to see!
Also, another thing you global warming zealots fail to reconcile is the cause of the amount of "fuel" to burn. Whenever there is a spike in wildfire acreage burn, this is due to more vegetation to burn. What causes more plants to grow? More precipitation in the winter! So this defeats the argument that human-caused global warming is causing a perpetual drought. The drier the climate, the less "fuel" there will be available to burn. Thus, less burn acreage will be the result. The main cause for the recent spike in burn acreage is the spike in precipitation in California. The powerful El Nino of 2016 was an effective end of the California drought. But this provided more "fuel" to burn. And this is "a" reason for the recent wildfire spike. Not "climate change."
some of those zealots:https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2019/11/05/over-11000-scientists-d...
Uh Mitch, that's a public website. Anyone can see it.
The rest of your garbage reads even worse. Didn't take any logic courses at A&M did you?
And thousands more scientists and engineers worldwide say otherwise!
Hey dim1240, trying to make the link of California wildfires to human-caused global warming is scientifically weak and feeble-minded. Especially when you consider that burn acreage is down 80% from the early 20th Century. There is no way you can quantify today's burn area to so-called "climate change."
But you can make a correlation between winter precipitation and the level of destructive fire season.
Wouldn't you say that 2017 NPR article was rather prophetic?
I like being ignored when im right.
willful ignorance on a stunning level
Right about what Andy? Claiming yourself right without evidence or data does not make you right. That just makes you a spinner.
Same goes for you jimmy.
Any comments on the NPR article? That is a trusted news source for you leebrul leebrul democrat types. Correct?
Because what im right about is not something that requires a source. Im telling you that everything you're saying is based on inconclusive evidence and everytime i tell you something like that you ignore me and respond to everyone elses bullcrap instead. You're just like any other typical troll on these forums where you dont ever take what people say seriously and give an actual response to have an actual discussion with people, and just keep relentlessly posting your links to graphs that contain data that is inconclusive to the claims and points you are trying to make.
I have absolutely no idea why you continue to do this every day of the week, every week of every month and do not ever tweak or adjust your methods to how you are trying to make your point to your audience. Not only is the content of your speech not believable, but you never take anything anyone says seriously, because you know as well as i do that 100% of the responses that you get are NOT only just "global warming zealot troll responses".
And additionally, the very large overwhelming majority of the links that you post here come from a single main source. Which in the scientific community, is not very strong supporting evidence, not even accounting for the fact that the links you post consist of a single graph with no predicating study in which the data was derived from.
I do not know how you can think anyone will take you seriously.
Andy. Nobody here ever took him seriously besides occasional brain dead Trumpists who hung around here for a few months then left. Most of them were not even incapable of posting his denier links. They just cheerlead on a few posts, put on their MAGA hats and headed out to a white supremacist rally.
"And thousands more scientists and engineers worldwide say otherwise!https://climatechangedispatch.com/petition-climate-alarmism-global/"
Good grief! So appeal to authority considers this the authority?!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Many logical errors in this thread. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/
Would be an interesting assignment for a philosophy class to evaluate this thread.
Thanks for a coherent, well thought out reply to Mitch. I’ve stopped spending more than a few sentences on him.
The question is why he believes anyone would take him seriously. No one has taken him seriously, so its surprising that given no one ever has, why he would even think that someone would.
My guess is, he thinks he is highting the “good fight”.
"The question is why he believes anyone would take him seriously. No one has taken him seriously, so its surprising that given no one ever has, why he would even think that someone would."
He doesn't care about convincing anyone, he knows he can't (especially given the "quality" of where he gets his info, such as it is). The goal is to get under the libruls' collective skins. From what I can tell, when Harvey flooded Mitch's home he came to these forums looking for some sympathy. Because of his childish libertarian views and numerous posts to that effect, SCCRENDO and a couple of others had some fun at Mitch's expense concerning his acceptance of guvmint subsidized flood insurance. Ever since, from what I can tell, Mitch has been on a crusade to get back at the cretins. So, he insults, plays dense, etc with the intent being to poke the beasts in the cage to get a rise out of them. Some, including me (though I didn't participate in the welfare cheese activity), had some fun with ole Mitch for a while, but now it's grown tiresome. OTOH, if he really believes all the nonsense he comes up with then he has far worse problems than perpetual anger over a perceived sleight.
BTW, now two of the regional FEDs have come out with studies indicating if we don't do something about climate change the results will be catastrophic for the economy and people around the world. The cost in misery and bucks will be horrendous, according to the FEDs.
Half of what i asked i think is rhetorical. But would like to see his response. Even though theres a 90% chance he will just post a new link and completely ignore me as he does everytime.
Well Andy, you and friends ignore all of the points I make. The most recent example is the NPR article I posted. Maybe it angers you liberals that I used a news source you liberals trust. And the article supports the idea that there is a correlation between wintertime precipitation and number of acres burned during the subsequent fire season. The more grass, brush, and trees there are to burn, the greater the wildfires will be. Pretty simple concept. But you global warming zealots don't even want to consider that idea.
Dim1240 completely ignores the idea that the increasing population in California during the past century drastically increases the probability of human-caused wildfires. But even with the increased population, the acreage burn is way down compared to the early 20th Century. Yes, fire suppression methods have improved over the decades. But there is no friggin' way anybody can intelligently argue that the recent California wildfires are due to human-caused global warming. Humans by themselves, yes! But not due to increased CO2 concentration.
Also Andy, all of the graphs I post come from research papers. I have posted some of those papers that go along with the graphs, including the 1990 IPCC Report. But as usual, you global warming zealots ignore those and claim I am pulling the graphs out of thin air.
dim1240 you are dead wrong about "looking for sympathy." I simply just wanted to make the point that even though my home flooded, "my Tesla made it through the Harvey flood!!!!" That was the only point I wanted to make. I was facetiously making the comment that all was well because my Tesla was fine. And that was it. That was my motive. But did any of you global warming zealots catch that? Not only no, but hell no! Instead, all of you started to throw a big party over my misfortune. But once I mentioned that I had flood insurance, that was like throwing a skunk in your party. All of you were initially filled with glee over the major financial misfortune I was facing. When I mentioned I was covered, then your jubilation turned into depression, and then absolute hostility!
After the Harvey event, my opinion of you global warming zealots has been solidified. You are nothing more than a bunch of little Stalinist wanabees.
You get ignored because you've been doing the same thing for over 2 years. You're more of a preacher than someone who can hold a discussion. Your posts have no content other than a very large opinion that is most of the time condescending towards anyone who doesnt agree with you. And you also include derogatory adjectives.
I have asked you questions before to try to dig a little deeper than the surface level content you provide and you dont answer. You're more interested in responding to anyone else and calling people names as if what people say is some level of absurdity higher than the absurdity of thinking you are making some climate change claim by announcing the daily arctic ice extent.
We the Liberal Global Warming Zealots, whom are a bunch of little Stalinist wanabees. Personally, who would want to have a conversation with someone that thinks like that.
His BS preceded us giving him a hard time about collecting his welfare cheese. He has been posting these same links ad nauseum at least 4 years. He was name calling etc even at that point. He thinks that if you repeat something indefinitely people will begin to believe it. "No collusion" and "No quid pro quo" fit that same strategy
Being condescending and throwing derogatory phrases out is a sure-fire way to have conversations.
Wonder why people dont really listen to you.
But i highly doubt he actually cares.
SCCRENDODO completely ignores the fact that I pay an annual premium to FEMA. And FEMA uses that money to help you unappreciative Californians caught in your wildfire zones!
Now, was that my objective? No. I just put a call to my insurance agent to get me covered for flood over a decade ago. How the flood insurance program works was no concern of mine. But since Harvey, 99% of everything I know about FEMA was learned since then. SCCRENDODO thinks FEMA should only work for California. Not anybody in Texas even though people like me pitch into the FEMA bank every year.
Boy, that is an impressive list you global warming zealots put together!
See Mickey Mouse RedShift?
My post was meant for your post above the dumb WUWT link, but equally valid.
Keep it up, ignorant clown.
I know it upsets you RedShift, but those names actually were on the list!
"Scientists’ petition on climate crisis blocked over fake signatories
Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a “climate emergency”.
Access to the 11,000 name-petition that accompanied a statement of concern published in BioScience on Tuesday was blocked on Thursday.
A statement issued by Oregon State University said “an administrative error unfortunately saw the inclusion of a small number of invalid names”."
Now that was one heckofa administrative error!
Flag an move on.
Nothing to see here. Waste of time.
I know we gave him this one thread, but reallly?
Yup, i see.
Another serious consequence of Arctic sea ice losshttps://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50333627
So, Nikita has been reduced to flagging my own thread! Flagging is much easier to do than coming up with a fact-based logical argument that has data support.
Got some NOAA data to irritate you global warming zealots with.
Take a look at Southern Hemispheric sea ice extent from 1979-2019:
The sea ice extent average is holding steady at around 11,500,000 km^2 for 40 years. As a matter of fact, it increased slightly since 1979!!
Does that look like to you that human-caused global warming is melting the polar ice away to oblivion?
Here is the Northern Hemisphere -
The Northern Hemispheric sea ice extent has declined from 12,500,000 km^2 in 1979 to around 10,500,000 km^2 in 2019. All of you global warming zealots are trying to push the false argument that 12,500,000 km^2 in 1979 was "normal," and that the Arctic sea ice decline is dropping below "normal!" Nothing can be farther from the truth. The 1979 Northern Hemispheric sea ice extent was actually a 20th Century peak. This is due to the fact that during the mid 20th Century, the Northern Hemisphere began a cooling trend. This has been well documented. and the Arctic Ice expanded to its 1979 peak. It would be closer to the truth to say that what is happening now is a normalizing climate event.
Here is the Global Sea Ice Extent -
The global sea ice extent has declined from 24,000,000 km^2 in 1979 to 22,000,000 km^2 in 2019. Obviously, the decline is from the Arctic. There was an ice compaction event that occurred in 2016-2017. It may or may not had something to do with the powerful El Nino of 2016. The NSIDC said there was no temperature change to cause the Antarctic ice to drop in the recent years. They stated that there was a strong poleward component of the Southern Hemispheric wind that pushed the Antarctic ice towards Antarctica. This makes sense to me because I saw the same thing happen in Alaska back in 2007.
Northern Hemispheric Snow cover has been holding steady at 25,000,000 km^2 since 1967!
Have any of you global warming alarmists ever considered that the declining Arctic ice is more of an ocean current issue? Because so-called global warming most certainly has not affected the snow cover extent.
The Finish Meteorological Institute is showing the Northern Hemisphere Snow Mass at around 750 gigatons.
This is running ABOVE 1 standard deviation. SCCRENDODO, aren't you the one who makes a big-ass friggin" deal about the significance of standard deviations?
With "these" data, any of you human-caused global warming zealots now willing to admit that the alarm over so-called "climate change" is seriously overblown?
dont believe yur lying eyes:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULEFPCIPP7Y
Here you go, Mitwit. Study this chart. It clearly shows a decline in sea ice coverage in the Northern Hemisphere. In September, sea ice coverage was -62.89% compared to the 1980-2010 average. The trend line show a steady decline in sea ice coverage since 1980. It's NOAA too, so explain this trend away.
Hey dim1240, you chose your favorite month from the link I posted. That is called cherry picking. I chose ALL MONTHS from the NOAA link. Now tell me dim1240, what gives a more complete picture of what is going on in the Arctic - September or all months?
Speaking of you favorite month of September, the NSIDC made an analysis that disturbs you Green New Dealers.
See it? The September sea ice decline is now flattening out during the past 13 years. In other words, the Arctic sea ice declined has slowed down to a crawl, if not stopped!
Also dim1240 and jimmy, what makes you think 1979 was a "normal" year for the Arctic sea ice? And every year afterwards is below "normal"?
so mitch, going to respond to any posted facts.
Or simply repost your disinformation?
What facts jimmy? Have any data to support your so-called facts?
dont believe your lying eyes mitch?