You ask for a single specific instance of proof knowing that any individual event can be cast aside as an aberration.
You must look at the confluence of events that are beyond the norm.
...and you know this.

You're playing a game.  And you think you have a clever cheat.
It don't change the reality.

The confluence of events huh?…. Beyond the norm huh?
The “norm” we have data on is a tiny sliver in the timeline. Who has any honest idea what the norm is? The infamous hockey stick graph that highlighted CO2 is being proved wrong consistently as we speak.

There’s so much BS. Should I go and pull up all the doom and gloom predictions made by Elders with the climate change religion that have not even remotely occurred?

The problem is your side blames anything that’s convenient on climate change. Wildfires in the NW are because of climate change, not forest mismanagement. Mass immigration is climate displacement, not lax border security and government handouts.

Climate change is occurring due to natural and man-made influences but what portion is contributed by either is unknown. I’ve read plenty of papers that suggest, with data, the man-made portion is very small. Have you? Or do you dismiss anyone who doesn’t follow your climate religion as a denier.

I have no desire to condemn to death and abject poverty those in nations who do not have our energy infrastructure over a power grab by mostly leftists.

The problem is your side blames anything that’s convenient on climate change. Wildfires in the NW are because of climate change, not forest mismanagement. Mass immigration is climate displacement, not lax border security and government handouts.

 I agree with this and think climate change is over-used as a means to explain so many situations, and of course make money.  Things like "carbon footprint" are genius as they make people/organizations post themselves as the problem.

 Climate change is a business for sure, but so is politics and not every politician in the world is there just for the money.  

  What I don't agree with is using anecdotal observation as evidence that man-made impact is not significant while not accepting that same type of evidence in return.  

"If you’re suggesting claims that the east coast will be under water in 10 years is equal to me saying I’ve not seen any changes in 40 years (and neither have you) you’re not operating on the same level."


 I have seen changes.  I have described them here, and even spent years verifying the information and offered it in the past.

 I am saying that you present "Effect" but won't accept that from others.  You want "Cause" as proof.  Like your crime example - you see increase in crime and provide zero reference for cause of crime increase.  You present only observation of the result.

 If somebody else says, I see less crime, you want them to provide a cause for that observation.  You won't accept their observation of result.

 And now you are even going as far as to say what others see.  Are you really going to tell me I don't see climate models being used in agriculture?  What would you accept as proof?  I can offer the models, the outcomes, video of hydrology testing, results of testing, permits for high altitude readings, results of readings, about 20 direct witnesses of this project, farm yield metrics, statements from owners of those yields, video of those statements, and would even offer direct contact with multiple people involved.

 Would that be enough to show that I have indeed seen farming changes due to weather, and that those changes utilize climate modeling, or will you still think I don't see these things?
 

"A very MAJOR question of all different possibilities.
A simple yes or no. And  if  yes, than possibaly a list of things.

Nop, gotta go for the SPIN instead !!!!!!!
(did the tt&clones teach/tell you how to do that ?)"


 WOW, you left this part out:

 Please tell me the 100's of adjustments needed and I can see what can be done.

 Toss me some and I will let you know what I have.

 You said this:

Reply #51 - 06/30/21 at 17:52:06
"So no adjustment for the 100's of reasons,
a crop has more yield now, than, 30-50 years ago ?"



 Then said this:

Reply #68 - 7/2/21 at 16:53:03
A very MAJOR question of all different possibilities.
A simple yes or no. And  if  yes, than possibaly a list of things.

Nop, gotta go for the SPIN instead !!!!!!!
(did the tt&clones teach/tell you how to do that ?)"


 Can you point out where you offered 100's, or even 1 variable?  

 What are you asking about?  

 And again, I am not stating the cause of climate change in this area, I am saying that farmers using specific temperature overlays in a specific geographical area get higher yields on specific crops.  Lower yields on Farmer's Almanac models, lower yields on standard predictive modeling, higher on warming overlays.  I called BS on this and was wrong.  The numbers seemed insignificant, but years of outcomes show otherwise.

 Just as Webstermark sees no climate change in the environment on his trip to an isolated stream, I do see change in my area by means of what crops are being grown.  His claim that I do not see change in agriculture has no merit, and I can provide ample evidence to the contrary.

 Is it man-made?  Who knows.  Are the temp-increase overlay models gaining verifiable results?  Yes.

No, you have not seen changes. You point out higher yields due to fractional temperature increases in a localize environment. That is not evidence climate change is the most pressing concern on earth.

 I never said it is the most pressing concern.  I am answering your original question, before you added a request for causation.  You asked:

As I’ve challenged everyone on here before, give me evidence of one thing you’ve seen in your lifetime that’s different now than 25 years ago that you can directly tie to a temperature increase of a fraction of a degree.


 What do you think higher yields due to a fractional temperature increases in a localize environment looks like?  Do you think I could see it?  Let's break this down:

"one thing you’ve seen in your lifetime"

 Consistently higher yields due to the use of fractional temp model overlays.  Increased temperature in a specific geographical area within my lifetime.


"that’s different now than 25 years ago"

 Millions of satellite, aircraft, balloon, weather station readings.  All available for audit going back more than 25 years.


"that you can directly tie to a temperature increase of a fraction of a degree."

 The yield outcomes of temp increase overlay compared to alternate methods on the same land using the same water and equipment.  

 Now I understand saying I can not conclusively tie outcomes exclusively to fractional temp increase since we can not create a control.  The best we could do was offer two additional artificial models and see what their outcomes were.



The increase in crime is easily measurable and obvious. There is no similar climate change observation.

 Except I offered them once I had them verified and you said I should go to a party.  What would you accept as evidence of temperate increase averages in a specific geographical area?  Your crime example was lacking causation because you are fine offering us only observation.  But we have to offer causation as well if we present observation.  Why?  



 Your hike to an isolated stream is as good of an argument as mine.  Just because your area doesn't show signs of climate change doesn't mean anything outside of that observed area.  How are you directly tying your hike to a stream to lack of fractional temperature increase impact?  By observation alone.  But you won't accept that from us.