Now good science demands of research, and must also account for changes in human caused ignitions before correlating summer temperatures with the increase ignitions.
But again, Gutierrez failed to do so. Now lightning causes the majority of fires at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada, despite temperatures between 20,000 and 50,000 degrees Celsius. Lightning rarely ignites struck trees, even though it can split the tree trunks. Lightning scars are often seen on living trees in the Sierra.Nevada
November 24, 2021 11:12 am
Thanks so much.
This is one of the most awesome displays of using authentic science/data to obliterate a never ending false narrative.
Our best opportunity to significantly reduce the drought out West would come from global warming kicking in again, along with another moderate to strong El Nino……positive temperature anomalies in the E/C Tropical Pacific Ocean.
The current La Nina, by definition, features negative/cool water anomalies in that area. That, in combination with the cold/-PDO have the complete opposite affects of global warming…. man made or otherwise.
But we hear that everything bad that happens everywhere is being caused by man made climate change………even when its the total opposite effect or total opposite reason for it.
Previous discussion here on this:
Real Manmade Wildfires
Started by metmike - Nov. 21, 2021, 10:44 p.m.
If I wanted to, I could spend 24 hours a day correcting the dozens of wrong or misleading comments below articles at this wonderful site.
I actually did it to this one comment earlier today, just for you.
Seriously, I thought this would be a perfect example of one of their biased posters trying to act smart and using a totally misleading statement that they want other posters to think disproves a rock solid principle about excessive rains............that absolutely have increased BECAUSE OF the 1 deg. C of warming, despite what they think and MISlead about:
November 24, 2021 7:55 am
“As the summer approaches, temperatures warm across the country, so the air can hold much more water”
This a myth; the air does not hold water. The water vapour that enters the atmosphere does not depend on the make-up or state of the atmosphere but depends on the partial pressure of the water vapour. It’s just another air molecule. When water vapour cools and reaches its dew point it will convert back to liquid again.
Evaporation will even take place in a vacuum so no air needed..
Warmists use “the warm air caused by a warming planet holds more water” argument. The atmosphere behaves like a big sponge soaking up the water. Then it is released and causes floods. Sheesh!
Reply to leitmotif
November 24, 2021 2:04 pm
At least this metaphor works to get across the idea.
For every 1 deg. C increase in temperature, a saturated air mass will have around 7% more water vapor.
That according to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
Warmist or no Warmist….metaphor or no metaphor…….it’s rock solid physics and meteorology.
Warmer air masses are always more capable of having more/higher precipitable water values than cooler ones.
Not just “potential or theoretical either”…..it’s what happens in the real world based on observations and what us meteorologists use in forecasting precipitation.
Reply to Mike Maguire
November 24, 2021 7:48 pm
This guy has some wonderful explanations:
Here’s one on the C-C equation:
“There are two version of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and one relates the vapor pressure to the dewpoint and the other relates the saturation vapor pressure to the temperature. The equation to use in order to determine how much moisture is in the air outside is to use the equation that relates vapor pressure to the dewpoint. The other version of the equation is used to determine what could be the maximum amount of moisture in the air for a given temperature. Note both versions of the equation are equivalent when the relative humidity is 100%. If the air is unsaturated, then use the dewpoint to determine the amount of moisture in the air.”
Maximum water content in humid air vs. temperature.
I would like to repeat a question I asked originally. Are there sources with data that both you and someone from the other side of the climate debate would agree are valid/factual?
This question is also relevant for debates on other issues we have here on MF.
I ask because if there isn't agreement on sources where does that leave us? "Oh XYZ, your source is biased."
We cannot even begin the debate.
I recall instances when I quoted Trump accurately word for word saying something along the lines of "The only way I can lose is if the election is rigged." Response: Oh your source is the NY Times.....
I’ll also repeat what I’ve mentione tons of times.
I almost never rely on particular sources when it comes to science when politics are involved with the exception of a couple of individual scientists.
especially, especially, ESPECIALLY when it’s climate science.
Climate science as YOU know it was hijacked for a political agenda .....totally.
I’ll give you some links when I’m back in my office.
I have all the data and can fact check new articles with more research and experienced independent, objective atmospheric scientist discernment.
I scrutinize and vet new climate science articles from sources that I post here.
You may find it hard to believe.....but that’s the main reason that I’m here.
For the very reason that you are dismayed because the world is saturated with biased, unreliable sources that have political agendas.
I expanded this to apply to COVID and vaccine science DISinformation and election steal DISinformation.
I’m not saying this to brag but because you asked for a reliable source.
I’ve spent many thousands of hours the past few years trying to serve as the most reliable source on science ....including meteorology, my first love.....that there is on the internet.
I apply that to my natural gas and grain posting too.....areas of my expertise.
Please show me where I stated that or something like that.
You are mischaracterizing me.
If trump said that.......then he said it.
I would NEVER say somebody didn’t say something that they said because of the source.
I will go after the sources big time when it’s disinformation but never if they have a fact right.
To be even more clear.
I use sources in at least 3 ways.
1. To give accurate, reliable science ....that can feature an article having bad science that I correct.
2. To give the latest news and opinions.
3. To promote educational/learning and positive messages that can help readers to appreciate the world and be better people.
You should be smart enough to tell which is which because I will add a comment by me after the article to make it clear.
I’ve spent as much time here correcting BAD science than showing good science.
I always look forward to being wrong about things too.
That’s one good way to learn.
One should never fear being wrong........but fear being wrong, not realizing it..... and defending it!
The sooner you/we fix being wrong.......the sooner we/you can start processing new information that represents authentic knowledge to replace garbage in our heads.
I’m not just saying that to generate cool sounding Quotes.
This really just defines the scientific method. You should always try to prove yourself wrong FIRST before having confidence in assumptions to base your theory or opinions on.
Edit: Those would be NTR stuff above. On the trading forum I also provide: 4. trading related information that is completely different than our NTR posts.
The only time I recall debating Trump statements is when they were completely mischractarized or misrepresented and the source was never a consideration.
"Nazi's are fine people".
"People should drink bleach".
Those are 2 of several examples.
I found these efforts so strange as in truth, Trump was a "target rich" source for outrageous statements. Why make things up?
I never said that you were guilty of disregarding my post due to the source. I was speaking generally of my experience with others here on MF.
On my original question I fear we are talking past one another.
Perhaps I should ask the question in another way. Is Wikipedia and acceptable source for factual information? Is NOAA an acceptable source for weather data? How about the WSJ?
We aren't talking past each other, I know exactly what you are saying .........but you are completely ignoring my points which I will try to make even more clear.
I keep telling you that I don't use specific "go to sites"(when it comes to climate science/change) but you are insisting that I submit a list of "go to sites" when it comes to climate science and climate change.
Since you obviously are not concerned with how I actually determine what to put here on climate science/change and only want my "go to" sources........
As I mentioned previously, I only use a few individual scientists as "go to" for information that I consider rock solid and will give you their names/links now as I said earlier, now that I'm back in my office. There are others but these are 3 of my favorites.
Is Wikipedia and acceptable source for factual information? Is NOAA an acceptable source for weather data? How about the WSJ?
For weather.........yes, most of the time but it depends on the realm of weather.
For climate...............some of the time yes, some of the time no. For some parts of climate...........almost never.
As I told you joj, what you think is climate science is really climate POLITICS.
And also, above you called it "weather data" Weather is different than climate.
Authentic data from all sources is always acceptable when presented objectively. That's NOT how it get's presented. Note my specific examples, to help you out more, below.
For instance, where else did you read about all this data that busts the fake beer crisis?
Look what they did over Thanksgiving with a big cranberry scare:
That's how it is 365 days a year for me on the fake climate crisis, not just Thanksgiving. They make stuff up..........I bust it. They make more stuff up or manipulate information............I bust it.
You must be aware that I've used Wikipedia many thousands of times here............for "This day in history" and other information/data.
I absolutely trust them with that data and historical facts and if they got some of THAT information wrong by a bit..........so what.
However, I pick and choose what to use when it comes to "their" version of climate science because, as mentioned most climate science that you read about is more climate politics.
This one is impossible for them to avoid the reality of the climate science and points of it being warmer than this in the higher latitudes between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago based on the irrefutable science..........so I've used it 100 times here.
However, you can read their descriptions of the 3 people that I listed above and considered to be elite authorities that know more about climate science/change than anybody on the planet. ..........Wikipedia calls them deniers to smear them because of their authentic, data backed scientific work that contradicts the climate POLITICS.
That's because Wikepedia is written by people with opinions that don't understand but a tiny fraction about objective climate science compared to any of them.
The WSJ doesn't have any elite, objective climate scientists on board.
NOAA does but they are not objective with their data. You might find this shocking/hard to believe but I busted them personally doctoring their temperature graphs to make the hotter 1930's in the US.........cooler to show that the recent warm was warmer than that ..........it wasn't. Then they changed it to start with the 1960's after they got busted........THEY DID THAT with 100% certainly. Look at MY proof at the link below. No way can I trust them.
I would not accuse them of that unless I watched it happen myself in real time and fortunately had it document to show as evidence.
I busted the EPA working in cahoots with NOAA totally manipulating this statistic on their front page for heat waves for political agenda. Not even manipulating but just outright, blatant, intentional deception.
Again, this did not come from a reliable outside source. metmike WAS the source below. I access and interpret all the data myself. It's the ONLY WAY to trust it in climate science or you're just getting climate politics most of the time.
This source below (which is biased to the other side in the way that they present the data and I almost never show) does have some good authentic data that busts NOAA and others doctoring the data.
In case that STILL isn't crystal clear...............be my guest and look at the actual many hundreds of posts and links/sources/data and so on that I've used the past 3+ years in discussing climate science at the link below........well documented for all to see.
After doing that, if you still don't understand how I use sources........then I can't help you any more on that specific question but will try on other related questions.
Climate Reality discussions-new discussion October 2021
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
I must have answered your questions in a way that you consider satisfactory.