Maggie's Farm

No, but not all claims have equal scientific validity.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." — Stephen Jay Gould


We addressed this in the last discussion.

The RCP8.5 was the "business as usual" scenario, a "what if", not a prediction. It was based on humans not responding to the problem of anthropogenic global warming. While anthropogenic greenhouse gases continue to accumulate, humans have significantly changed the trajectory of "business as usual" emissions, so that scenario is no longer likely. This in no way supports the claim that the science is "bogus".

Shared Socioeconomic Pathways

Frances: Anyone who has a basic knowledge of historical geology knows that climate change has been a reality since the earth had a climate.

Gosh! What will those crazy scientists come up with next!? (See Judd et al., A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature, Science 2024.)

Frances: My part of the world hosted dinosaurs in swamps back in the day; obviously the planet was much warmer but it didn't burn up.

Scientists don't think the planet will "burn up". Rather the Earth's surface will warm, depending on human actions, about 2-5°C. As for the dinosaurs, while life thrived during the Cretaceous, you shouldn't welcome a rapid return to a climate such as what the dinosaurs lived in.

Z: Scientists don't think the planet will "burn up".

Anon: Except for scientists like this guy

You may have missed the scare quotes, which indicate that it was someone else's words and that the term was ill-defined. The term is often used as a pejorative to suggest that a consensus of scientists think the Earth's mean temperature will increase without limit—but that is not the case. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic warming will probably be about 2-6°C, depending on human activities. However, there's a very large difference in impact between warming of 2°C and 6°C.

Looking at your linked articles:
1. "The Earth is a fire planet, the only one we know. It has held fires as long as plants have lived on land." {True.}
2. "Since the dawn of life on land, large-scale fires have played their part in shaping life on Earth. ". {True.}
3. "Climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying". {True.}

So, none of that indicates the entire planet will become uninhabitable by life. On the other hand, if by "burn up" she meant an increase in wildfire frequency and intensity, then sure.

Anon: Of course, they say "If", but they also say we are at a critical point already

The "if" is important, because it is not inevitable, but the consequence of human activities. Said a co-author, “Yes, things are bad, but actually the future depends on us”.

Rusty: Wildfire burns have decreased sharply in this country over the last century.

NASA: Tracking the West’s Growing Wildfires.

Hotter Years, More Fires, Western States

See Parks & Abatzoglou, Warmer and drier fire seasons contribute to increases in area burned at high severity in western US forests, Geophysical Research Letters 2020.

A few caveats: The United States is only a small portion of the Earth’s land surface. Globally, extreme wildfire activity has more than doubled worldwide, but not uniformly. Land management also plays a major role.

Rusty: Fires follow weather patterns.

Then you grant the point: as the weather warms, fires will follow. As for your other points, you seemed to have ignored our caveats. Land use and management are significant factors.

Rusty: This is why even your vaunted IPCC won’t claim a correlation between AGW and wildfires.

IPCC: Anthropogenic climate change has led to warmer and drier conditions (i.e., fire weather) that favour wildland fires in North America (high confidence).

While some regions have become wetter, others have become drier. Broadly, rainy seasons have become wetter, and dry seasons have become drier. Also, keep in mind that current warming if it stabilized would not be worrisome. Rather, it is the continued warming that threatens to destabilize the climate system.

Rusty: When I point out that the IPCC does not attribute wildfires to AGW, you move the goalpost to "fire weather".

You misread that. The goalpost didn't move. They just coined the term "fire weather" to refer to warmer and drier conditions. Anthropogenic climate change leads to warmer and drier conditions. And that favours wildland fire.

Rusty: "hot dry climate = AGW" and also: "cool, rainy growth of lush green underbrush = AGW"

Global warming will cause changes in regional climates. While some regions have become wetter, others have become drier. Broadly, rainy seasons will become wetter, and dry seasons will become drier. Also, keep in mind that current warming if it stabilized would not be worrisome. Rather, it is the continued warming that threatens to destabilize the climate system.

Rusty: You went from "Wildfires increasing" to "fire-weather increasing"

No. The resultant, according to the IPCC was "favours wildland fires". Whether there is an actual increase depends on the land use and management, as already noted. Wildfires have increase in North America over the last several decades.

Rusty: X = global warming.
Also, not X = global warming.

Global warming refers to an increase in the Earth's mean surface temperature, which is not a false dichotomy. The Earth's surface temperature is either increasing or it is not. It is.

Rusty: Wildfires have decreased in North America over the last century.

Yes that have, largely due to changes in land use and management. That was addressed at the beginning of this discussion. Try to keep up.

Rusty: Now you finally admit they are decreasing.


Strawman. (If humans evolved, why are there still monkeys?) Let us know when you are ready to address our actual position.