Should I be terrified of climate change?

[Frankfooter]

there is a date stamp indicating the data was downloaded as publicly available data on October 24, 2020 , before pre 1983 was disappeared.

but according to Frankfooter the public is not permitted to view publicly available data (do you smell authoritarianism with hints of communism ?)


it does not say the data is faulty
it says this chart may be misleading even though the NIFC includes all of this yearly data in one table (as of October 24, 2020 )
it says nothing about faulty data . they changed their reporting procedures. that requires an asterisk and a footnote, not a disappearance

This is what the NIFC says about the US (not global) data set you are trying to cherry pick as the sole source for your argument about global forest fires.

Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1983-2022)

Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.

You keep posting the data they say is not official. You are not supposed to use this data.
This is an argument about global temps and you are still using one country's cherry picked rough data as your so argument becomes bullshit on two points:
1) Using cherry picked data from one country in a global debate
2) Using faulty data that is not sanctioned

???
I said nothing about tony Haller's graphics representing current and global temps.
i did mention the messed up surface temp record, but that was a separate problem and a separate part of the post
so it was propaganda directed towards kids that brain washed you, ...... I see... yikes !
the actual physics of our non-linear, coupled , chaotic and dynamic climate system is a lot more more complicated than shown in your favourite cartoon
dropping out of high school was not a good plan, educating yourself via cartoons is not a good plan either
do you mean like the moron who intentionally disappeared 70 odd years of forest fire data ?
now you see it, now you don't ?

This is the rambling of an old person.
Let me know if you have something relevant to say.

Explain this:
the 1999 us temp anomaly is lower than the 1932 anomaly as reported in 1999
however two decades later in 2019, the 1999 us temp anomaly is higher than the 1932 anomaly.

1) The US underwent drought during the 30's and through the great depression. It was a local, US event. The Grapes of Wrath...
2) The fucking planet has warmed almost 1.5ºC, so of course temps are higher now
3) You're still intentionally using one country's data in a global argument, that is dishonest.

US data

U.S. average temperature by year 1895-2023 | Statista

The annual average temperature in the U.S. has seen an upward trend since 1895, having increased by 1.02 degrees Fahrenheit in 2023 from the previous year.

www.statista.com

Global data

Global land temperature anomalies 2023 | Statista

Since 1880, the annual global land temperature anomaly has fluctuated, showing an overall upward tendency.

www.statista.com

Stop being a moron and use global data in this discussion about global temperatures.

the physical laws of nature do not change historical temperatures
humans can change data
did Tony Haller change the NASA data?
or was it a climate activist .......masquerading as a scientist
it would not be the first time they have diddled the data
Michael Manns broken Hockey Stick
extreme weather events >>> "low confidence'
"Hide the decline"
NIFC

More incoherent ramblings of an old person.

You keep trying to assassinate the character of the 99.9% of scientists who back the findings of the IPCC.
You are an old kook who couldn't even follow the NASA kids page on the greenhouse effect.

 

[Frankfooter]

facts you say?
lets dive deeper

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather

I promise, you'll be utterly shocked

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

can I assume you understand what low confidence means?
low confidence really confused FrankFooter

Wow, you really should not be in this debate.
You cannot understand why the IPCC would say they have low confidence in projections of some extreme events.
Shall we add statistics and the scientific process to that very long list of things you do not understand?

 

[Frankfooter]

Ah yes, the "Frankfooter make shit up to blur reality response" right on queue.

Funny...I asked you to define fair share and you couldn't...now you spin it to say that I can't?!? haha Just because you type something doesn't mean it's true. But then again, you are usually full of shit and no one takes you seriously anyway.

btw Are you still supporting terrorists? Just checking.

I gave you the definition, skoob.
Stop lying.

You don't understand science, language, human rights, racism or morality.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779887391056265581

 

[Skoob]

I gave you the definition, skoob.
Stop lying.

You don't understand science, language, human rights, racism or morality.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779887391056265581

You didn't provide any definition. Let's be honest. You crumbled like a cookie because you throw out concepts and terms you can't explain when called out.
Then you back-peddle and distract like you're doing now.
Predictable but entertaining. No one actually takes you seriously.

 

[Frankfooter]

You didn't provide any definition. Let's be honest. You crumbled like a cookie because you throw out concepts and terms you can't explain when called out.
Then you back-peddle and distract like you're doing now.
Predictable but entertaining. No one actually takes you seriously.

Its there on the thread, stop lying so poorly skoob.
You have done nothing but post bullshit claims and then slowly back pedal them.

Here's the basic fact that you and larue can't argue against or defend.
Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

 

[Skoob]

Its there on the thread, stop lying so poorly skoob.

It's where exactly?

Show me the definition of "fair share"...I'll wait.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's where exactly?

Show me the definition of "fair share"...I'll wait.

You really are useless.
You don't remember where you asked?

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/justin-trudeaus-legacy-and-best-selling-autobiography-how-to-f-up-a-country-in-nine-short-years.848530/post-8460787

 

[Skoob]

You really are useless.
You don't remember where you asked?

https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/justin-trudeaus-legacy-and-best-selling-autobiography-how-to-f-up-a-country-in-nine-short-years.848530/post-8460787

You mean the Webster's dictionary cut/paste definitions you provided? Lol! OMFG that's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Frankfooter]

You mean the Webster's dictionary cut/paste definitions you provided? Lol! OMFG that's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

You asked, you got what you asked for and then you whined.
Sounds like a skoob move.

Meanwhile, you can't answer to the facts.
Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

 

[Skoob]

You asked, you got what you asked for and then you whined.
Sounds like a skoob move.

What you provided was exactly what I expected: an admission you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks.

 

[Frankfooter]

What you provided was exactly what I expected: an admission you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks.

Off topic, skoob.

This is a thread about climate change.
You can't debate the facts or evidence.

Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

 

[Skoob]

Off topic, skoob.

This is a thread about climate change.
You can't debate the facts or evidence.

Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

You decided that off topic posts were ok when I continually called you out for doing that.
Now you're saying they're not ok.

Do you wake up confused or does confusion set in as the day progresses and the sun starts to set?

Or is it just purely hypocrisy?

Maybe a bit of both?

 

[Frankfooter]

You decided that off topic posts were ok when I continually called you out for doing that.
Now you're saying they're not ok.

Do you wake up confused or does confusion set in as the day progresses and the sun starts to set?

Or is it just purely hypocrisy?

Maybe a bit of both?

Off topic, skoob.

This is a thread about climate change.
You can't debate the facts or evidence.

Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

 

[JohnLarue]

what happened in approx. 1870-1875, that causes such an abrupt change from below average to above average ?
completely out of syn with the temp trend you want to display?
a 0.02 frequency over 90 to 100 years?
a change not seen before (on the graph) ?
a change not seen for the next sixty years ?
a change not seen even in the stinking hot 1930s

explain please

or are those two years in red your photoshop errors ?

 

[Frankfooter]

what happened in approx. 1870-1875, that causes such an abrupt change from below average to above average ?
completely out of syn with the temp trend you want to display?
a 0.02 frequency over 90 to 100 years?
a change not seen before (on the graph) ?
a change not seen for the next sixty years ?
a change not seen even in the stinking hot 1930s

explain please

or are those two years in red your photoshop errors ?

Most of those questions are covered here:

The early 20th century warming: Anomalies, causes, and consequences

The most pronounced warming in the historical global climate record prior to the recent warming occurred over the first half of the 20th century and is known as the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW). Understanding this period and the subsequent slowdown ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

).

But I see that you are not disputing that the planet is warming as we put more CO2 in the air.

 

[Skoob]

Off topic, skoob.

This is a thread about climate change.
You can't debate the facts or evidence.

Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

Post #17 of this Climate Change thread...you changed the topic to poverty and the concentration of wealth on your very first post here.

So apologize for saying I'm off topic when you started with off topic posts.

 

[Frankfooter]

Post #17 of this Climate Change thread...you changed the topic to poverty and the concentration of wealth on your very first post here.

So apologize for saying I'm off topic when you started with off topic posts.

You're still off topic, skoobypoo.


This is a thread about climate change.
You can't debate the facts or evidence.

Rising CO2 levels have caused rising global temperatures, exactly as the IPCC projected they would.
The science is correct, we have 20+ years of seeing the models be very accurate and there is no other explanation.

The best you can do is to 'distract' by making stupid claims about other issues, like forest fires.
But you can't dispute the truth and the evidence.

 

[JohnLarue]

Most of those questions are covered here:

no that chart you posted in post 213 is not found in the link you provided in post 213

what happened in approx. 1870-1875, that causes such an abrupt change from below average to above average ?
completely out of syn with the temp trend you want to display?
a 0.02 frequency over 90 to 100 years?
a change not seen before (on the graph) ?
a change not seen for the next sixty years ?
a change not seen even in the stinking hot 1930s

explain please

or are those two years in red your photoshop errors ?

if you cant explain what happened, we will have to assume it was photoshopped

But I see that you are not disputing that the planet is warming as we put more CO2 in the air.

i never made that claim at all
i just asked you questions about your photoshopped propaganda chart

questions you are incapable of answering

 

[Frankfooter]

no that chart you posted in post 213 is not found in the link you provided in post 213

Of course not.
That chart is from NOAA, that study is from a science journal.

what happened in approx. 1870-1875, that causes such an abrupt change from below average to above average ?
completely out of syn with the temp trend you want to display?
a 0.02 frequency over 90 to 100 years?
a change not seen before (on the graph) ?
a change not seen for the next sixty years ?
a change not seen even in the stinking hot 1930s

Its covered in the paper you refused to read.
Read it and we'll discuss.
Until then you're just an ignorant old man making a stink.

Once you read it we can discuss decadal cycles and El Nino, along with other events that keep the global temp chart from being a smooth line.

i never made that claim at all
i just asked you questions about your photoshopped propaganda chart

questions you are incapable of answering

The chart is not photoshopped, larue.
Here's the source, with the data.

Climate at a Glance | Global Time Series | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Historical and spatial comparisons of local, county, state, regional, national, and global meteorological data to determine trends and patterns

www.ncei.noaa.gov

You have never raised one single issue that disputes the rise in global temperature and the rise in CO2.
What you refuse to do is read the NASA kids page on the greenhouse effect so you understand the science.

 

[JohnLarue]

Of course not.
That chart is from NOAA, that study is from a science journal.

so you say
but you are not trustworthy

its covered in the paper you refused to read.
Read it and we'll discuss.

too funny,


the chart was not in the paper
the paper does not answer the questions about the chart

Once you read it we can discuss decadal cycles and El Nino, along with other events that keep the global temp chart from being a smooth line.

sorry natural variability has been ignored by climate science, now you want it to explain a 2 in one hundred year event

You have never raised one single issue that disputes the rise in global temperature and the rise in CO2.

sure i have

they are not correlated

What you refuse to do is read the NASA kids page on the greenhouse effect so you understand the science.

again try night school to finish the requirement for your high school diploma
learning science via children's cartoons has not worked well for you

or do you believe willy coyote can remain suspended a thousand feet in the air holding a sign asking how ? while the road runner beep beeps at him?




get back to us after your recess