"No. You quoted data created by modeling software that makes the assumption all variables are accounted for."

 Close.  Except we also have physical results from agriculture yield.  The modeling is only for temperature averages.  Farmers use those models to help decide what volume of what plant to attempt to gain yield from.

 Higher yields use temp increase overlays.


"And how exactly did you confirm it was the human activity that contributed to the change that created a higher yield or was it natural variation in local temperatures, soil conditions, seed performance."

 You never asked to prove that it was humans causing a temperature increase, you asked for evidence of one thing seen in our lifetime that’s different now than 25 years ago that you can directly tie to a temperature increase of a fraction of a degree.

 My answer is farming yields on certain crops have changed in the past 25 years, in this specific area, with higher yields coming from farmers using a temperature increase overlay.  

 You bring up variables such as soil, seed, etc. which have been taken into account for as much as they can.  For instance we do not have 60 years of hydrology data, we only have tests of that specific water for 33 years.  Seed data is pretty extensive, down to the DNA for almost every crop.

 My point is that the increase temp modeling, when used, results in higher yields.  It could incidentally be because of a change in the water, or a universal change in every farmer's soil at the same rate.  What suggestions do you have for testing every section of soil in the region?  This is the most challenging variable to overcome.

 Two years ago we exhumed 9 tons of soil from a low-yield area and exchanged it with a higher-yield one and made sure to disk it using the same tractor and equipment load.

Quote:

Nope !


It is the, vast majority, of the ‘scientists;
Who do the bidding of the people/organizations,
     Who PAY THEM !
By Grants/Gifts/Funding/Donation/etc./etc./etc.
That have a UL, FDS, Socialism view of the World.
  (Just ask Fiochi, Oh that’s right he does not tell the truth either)

If one is not sprinkling Fairy Dust,
        and able to use their brain.
(not just do/say what they are TOLD to)

They will see those, ‘scientists’,
    will have exactly the same opinion,  
as the people giving them money!

MnSpring wrote on 06/30/21 at 16:19:31:



Wait until you hear about elected officials getting paid

golly gee.

"Why not 60 or 90 years ?
That would add more of a swing, if their was no, 'adjusting' !"

 Why not 31.1 or 29.9 years?

 Eventually a number is decided on, and the most common standard is 30 when it comes to assembling weather data into climate data.  This may change someday as more peer-reviewed evidence points to accuracy at a different timeframe because that's how science works.  Or we can use anecdotes and stories and see how that goes.


"So no adjustment for the 100's of reasons,
a crop has more yield now, than, 30-50 years ago ?"

 Please tell me the 100's of adjustments needed and I can see what can be done.  The bottom line is Webstermark asked a question and my evidence answers his question.  He didn't even ask for evidence, then specifically suggested I not verify it, but I wanted it to confirm my observed reality because my reality is not enough to provide proof.

 Farmers that use temperature increase overlay models of a fraction of a degree get higher yields for specific plants in this one specific area.  If you want to fabricate 100's of other reasons for that to be wrong and provide zero evidence that's fine, but it won't change the reliability of the current resources being used to gain that higher number.  

"So my question/challenge still stands but I guess I’ll have amend it by stating the obvious which is none of us can point to a single change in our lifetimes that we can confidently blame on the effect of anthropogenic climate change."


 What evidence would you be willing to accept?

 I for one can't imagine any situation where you couldn't pose the same question MnSpring does and ask how 100's of other variables are accounted for.

"Tell me where you can personally see the difference this existential threat has caused in your lifetime and prove that the change was caused by man made global warming."

 What type of evidence would you accept as proof that weather or climate change is man made?  As I said before, we can just say 100's of other variables mitigate any claim.  So what is needed to provide substantial evidence?

And if you can’t, it’s OK to say “I can’t show you. There’s nothing that I can see or experience the clearly demonstrates man-made global warming is having an impact on our environment to the degree  I can notice it.”

Because I can’t. I see nothing. I’ve experienced nothing.