Colorado’s Climate is going South – in more ways than one! (rating, money)

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by otowi

Yes, forests are supposed to burn periodically. When we suppress it the burns when they do come are much hotter and kill trees that normally would have survived, at least in certain kinds of forests. However, having dead trees and rotting vegetation in a forest is also normal - it is not supposed to be tidy and clean - and many of the wildlife in forests depend on that decaying matter for habitat, food, shelter, etc., and we go around and clean it all up we effectively sterilize the area from natural wildlife.

In the east, forests do fine without fires, things rot. Here, the dead wood keeps piling up and piling up, it won't rot, like stockwiz was saying. It's literally feet thick in a lot of CO's national forest. If you want to see it yourself, go up Mt. Herman road, wear a bulletproof vest , and walk about a quarter mile off the hiking path.

"They" say there was a lot of small tame burns in the past. I think they were almost as big and hot as today's fires in reality. There was one that burned from the edge of the Springs to Wilkerson Pass a long while back. That's pretty darn big and that's before humans really touched the area.

The biggest change that's happened concerning fires isn't climate change, it's dumba$$ arsons lighting them on the worst day possible.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by BornintheSprings

I think the biggest problem is we aren't properly compensated for all the water we send to California. I say we demand a fair compensation package say 5 billion per year or we shut off the water to them.

I see your point, but in a major way Colorado needs the "lower basin" states to receive and transport all of that snow-melt away. Colorado wouldn't be able to use all of the snow melt by itself.

[BornintheSprings]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I see your point, but in a major way Colorado needs the "lower basin" states to receive and transport all of that snow-melt away. Colorado wouldn't be able to use all of the snow melt by itself.

Agriculture potentially

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by BornintheSprings

Agriculture potentially

The climate is not as favorable. Much shorter growing season. Can’t grown almonds, oranges and avocados in Colorado.

[freewest]

Originally Posted by eatsDEN

Nocookies | The Australian

"The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid temperature increase than had taken place. "


thoughts?

Sure. None of the computer models have been validated. Not one. NOT ONE!!! I have published computer models in peer review journals (non-climate related). We had to validate it first. So we did and THEN they accepted it for publication. That is the scientific process. But climate change is a religion, and a fanatical one. You people demonize us non-believers as heretics. Then complain when the ecosystem does exactly what Science 101 says it should do. Old organisms (trees) living beyond their natural life expectancy (because we put out fires) equals disease and pestilence. That is the natural order of an ecosystem. I learned this in 8th grade.

The most bizarre thing about the computer models if that Artificial Global Warming (AGW) fanatics criticize us non-believers as being too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather. Yet the AGW folks do not seem to understand that the algorithms used for AGW prediction are, in fact, weather prediction algorithms (fluid dynamics), modified to suit long term climate prediction. So if you do not believe a weather forecast 10 days in advance, why do you people believe a climate forecast 50 years in advance?

And there is no consensus. Consensus in science is a rarity. Especially about something so fanatical, political, and just plain crazy. Mankind is a pipsqueak. Change climate? Delusional. Go take a pill.

[freewest]

double post

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by freewest

Sure. None of the computer models have been validated. Not one. NOT ONE!!! I have published computer models in peer review journals (non-climate related). We had to validate it first. So we did and THEN they accepted it for publication. That is the scientific process. But climate change is a religion, and a fanatical one. You people demonize us non-believers as heretics. Then complain when the ecosystem does exactly what Science 101 says it should do. Old organisms (trees) living beyond their natural life expectancy (because we put out fires) equals disease and pestilence. That is the natural order of an ecosystem. I learned this in 8th grade.

The most bizarre thing about the computer models if that Artificial Global Warming (AGW) fanatics criticize us non-believers as being too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather. Yet the AGW folks do not seem to understand that the algorithms used for AGW prediction are, in fact, weather prediction algorithms (fluid dynamics), modified to suit long term climate prediction. So if you do not believe a weather forecast 10 days in advance, why do you people believe a climate forecast 50 years in advance?

And there is no consensus. Consensus in science is a rarity. Especially about something so fanatical, political, and just plain crazy. Mankind is a pipsqueak. Change climate? Delusional. Go take a pill.

Seems like this is validated to me.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141

Your position is mankind is too small to affect climate? Have you been to an area where a dam has been built? How about a forest that has been clear cut? We change local climates in these areas frequently.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by freewest

Sure. None of the computer models have been validated. Not one. NOT ONE!!! I have published computer models in peer review journals (non-climate related). We had to validate it first. So we did and THEN they accepted it for publication. That is the scientific process. But climate change is a religion, and a fanatical one. You people demonize us non-believers as heretics. Then complain when the ecosystem does exactly what Science 101 says it should do. Old organisms (trees) living beyond their natural life expectancy (because we put out fires) equals disease and pestilence. That is the natural order of an ecosystem. I learned this in 8th grade.

The most bizarre thing about the computer models if that Artificial Global Warming (AGW) fanatics criticize us non-believers as being too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather. Yet the AGW folks do not seem to understand that the algorithms used for AGW prediction are, in fact, weather prediction algorithms (fluid dynamics), modified to suit long term climate prediction. So if you do not believe a weather forecast 10 days in advance, why do you people believe a climate forecast 50 years in advance?

And there is no consensus. Consensus in science is a rarity. Especially about something so fanatical, political, and just plain crazy. Mankind is a pipsqueak. Change climate? Delusional. Go take a pill.

Excellent.

I just stumbled upon this thread and this is the first post in it that I have read. Thank you. I will now quit while I'm ahead and spare myself the posts that spike my blood pressure.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Excellent.

I just stumbled upon this thread and this is the first post in it that I have read. Thank you. I will now quit while I'm ahead and spare myself the posts that spike my blood pressure.

Confirmation bias is awesome.

[freewest]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Seems like this is validated to me.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141

Your position is mankind is too small to affect climate? Have you been to an area where a dam has been built? How about a forest that has been clear cut? We change local climates in these areas frequently.

The article you linked shows 3 possible scenarios, A, B, and C. Scenario A goes up. Scenario B goes down, then up because it includes the Mt. Pinatubo cooling (he changed his model when the volcano erupted. That's called "cheating"). Scenario C is relatively flat then goes downward. So no matter what direction the global temperatures actually went, one of his scenarios would have been correct. How is that valid? It is just another trick. The model evaluation document linked at the bottom of the article states, "The dominant external influence is incoming solar radiation, but many aspects of the simulated climate play an important role in modulating regional temperature such as the presence of clouds and the complex interactions between the atmosphere and the underlying land, ocean, snow, ice and biosphere." In laymen's terms, that means any model must predict those interactions. This is where the validation falls apart. The evaluation document lays out the many uncertainties, by their own admission.