Climate Change(d)?

[Shadowy Man]

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

why wouldn’t the state of the climate impact wildfires, their likelihood of starting and their rate of spread? On what basis are you saying that?

Because it is a claim without evidence.

So, your point is that there’s no evidence that the state of a climate has any impact on forest fires? Humidity doesn’t matter. Heat waves don’t matter.

Should all forests have the same kinds and amounts of fires irrespective of the local climate?

Nobody's saying all forests should have the same amount of fire. What we are saying is that the fires are bigger than normal and there are more of the unstoppable ones that wipe towns off the map.

He said:

“There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.”

So if a changing climate doesn’t come into play for wildfires then wildfires in different climatic areas should be essentially the same.

Either climate is important or not. He already agrees that climate has changed over the history of earth and says he’s not a “climate denier”. So, if climate can change but a changing climate isn’t important to wildfires then climate isn’t important to wildfires.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Average for October is 68.

The temperature fluctuates at this time of year.

But the last thing I want to do is interrupt the hole you are digging - please continue. (I kind of understand how your anti-science brain can't figure out how wildfires relates to climate change. Rake the forests amirite?)

Surely you must be aware that wildfires in California are a natural and necessary phenomenon?

aa

 

[Swammerdami]

Enjoy the smoke from Camarillo tomorrow.

An odd response. I must be missing something. I am nowhere near Camarillo.

You keep referring to the temperature in Santa Monica as evidence against global warming while next door Malibu and Ventura are burning to the ground.

Thursday and Friday it was quite cold in Chiang Mai. ALMOST cold enough to wear my pretty faux-fur jacket I've never yet had occasion to wear. But Saturday was warm; some winters in the Kingdom only last for 2 days or so!

Perhaps Mr. Swizz should use his frig as benchmark: It makes about as much sense as relying solely on Santa Monica.

And you think California wildfires are caused by global warming/climate change? There are a lot of things in play when it comes to wildfires in California but climate change is not one of them.

Have you published? The startling revelation that climate change did not contribute to the fires will come as a surprise to your peers in the climatology research community.

BTW, the average temperature in Santa Monica in Nov has historically been around 65. 80 is evidence of warming if anything.

Has the temperature in Santa Monica reached 80 this month? I can't say I have noticed. Right now it is a catastrophic 71f.

October 18, Santa Monica was over 80 degrees, as reported by NOAA. But NOAA is part of the Deep State, so incentivized to lie?

Edwards Air Force Base, not awfully far from Santa Monica, got up to 116 degrees in this July. Yes, that's One Hundred and Sixteen degrees, with two Ones and a Six! I asked Mr. Swizz to research this -- Is it just more Fake News? I even offered to start a GoFundMe campaign to buy a tankful of gas for the trip but it seems that climatologist never ventures out of Santa Monica.

 

[southernhybrid]

Not that a denialist would take this evidence seriously, but for those who do, I'll share an article. And, this was from a few years ago. It's worse now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/...e_code=1.Yk4.z04D.wzfnpjFau5lu&smid=url-share

The research adds to a growing body of work finding that climate change is increasing fire risk in California and elsewhere in the West.

The hottest summer days in the Sierra Nevada in California greatly increase the risk that wildfires will ignite or spread, and as the planet keeps warming the risks will increase even more, scientists said Wednesday.

The research, which examined daily temperatures and data from nearly 450 Sierra Nevada fires from 2001 to 2020 and projected the analysis into the future, found that the number of fires could increase by about 20 percent or more by the 2040s, and that the total burned area could increase by about 25 percent or more.

The findings “show how short events like heat waves impact fires,” said Aurora A. Gutierrez, a researcher at the University of California Irvine and the lead author of a paper describing the work in the journal Science Advances. “We were able to quantify


Wildfires are increasing in size and intensity in the Western United States, and wildfire seasons are growing longer. California in particular has suffered in recent years, including last summer, when the Sierra Nevada experienced several large fires. One, the Dixie Fire, burned nearly a million acres and was the largest single fire in the state’s history.

Recent research has suggested that heat and dryness associated with global warming are major reasons for the increase in bigger and stronger fires.

The findings of the new study are generally in keeping with that earlier research, but there is an important difference. Most earlier studies looked at temperature and other data aggregated over monthly to annual time scales. The new research looked at daily data.

 

[TSwizzle]

It really is a religion for you lot.

The Dixie fire in California, caused by humans. The research “suggests” climate change.

You claim to be atheists but you are every bit as susceptible to religion and cults. You are a rebirth of the puritans. You despise the heretics that drive cars, fly to foreign lands, have big houses. Basically a cult of anti-human zealots.

 

[steve_bank]

Lacking science all an opinionated TSwizzle can do is post the same old simple declarations and sit back watching as we respond.

Like pigeons if we keep feeding him he will keep coming back.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://whyy.org/articles/new-jersey-wildfires-drought-forest-rainfall/

As the region faces severe drought and record-low rainfall, an unseasonably high number of wildfires have burned in New Jersey this fall.

The state’s Forest Fire Service has responded to more than 300 wildfires since Oct. 20 alone — that’s more than eight times the number of wildfires during the same timeframe last year, according to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Firefighters are currently battling three wildfires in Gloucester, Ocean and Burlington counties, and 100 households in Evesham Township were evacuated for several hours on Thursday.

New Jersey fire officials designated the fire risk as “extreme” throughout the state on Friday, as the region faced a Red Flag Warning triggered by high winds and low humidity. The U.S. Drought Monitor this week also upgraded much of South Jersey’s drought status from “severe” to “extreme.”

“It’s rather remarkable the number of fires that have erupted in this state, and elsewhere outside of New Jersey in the local areas, in the last couple of weeks,” said David Robinson, New Jersey State Climatologist at Rutgers University.

Wildfires are usually more frequent during the spring because the deciduous trees have yet to branch out and provide shade. The grass also has yet to moisten, and there’s a lot of brush left over from the fall.

This is for those of you who know the truth. No evidence will convince a denier. I still have a sister who lives in NJ, where I grew up. Fires like this never used to happen in NJ, but what would a climate scientist know when it comes to extreme drought and rapidly spreading wildfires?

And, it really doesn't matter if someone started any of these fires, the problem is the way they are rapidly growing and threatening property. So, it's not just the West that is experiencing fires related to climate change. And, since we will soon have a president who denies the truth, most of us may be under the threat of severe climate change related events before too long. Nobody expected a hurricane to do severe damage to Asheville, NC, did they?

The temperatures have been well above normal here in Georgia almost all summer and for most of the fall so far. For example, it was 77 in my town yesterday, which is 10 degrees about normal. We have been in a drought, but luckily we've had some light rain over the past few days, so at least if some idiot starts burning leaves, the fire is less likely to spread. Still, there is very little rain in the forecast for the next week, and we are far below the normal amount of rain for this time of year. Just sayin'.

 

[TSwizzle]

Lacking science all an opinionated TSwizzle can do is post the same old simple declarations and sit back watching as we respond.

Try responding with actual science and evidence rather than propaganda and opinions.

 

[steve_bank]

Lacking science all an opinionated TSwizzle can do is post the same old simple declarations and sit back watching as we respond.

Try responding with actual science and evidence rather than propaganda and opinions.

We all have here, as I said explaining science to you is like talking to a dead tree stump stump.

I can start with searching simple, energy. Do you know what energy is? Solar energy, electrical energy, wind energy?

A fundamental principle. To understand how global warming is increasing intensity of hurricanes you first have to understand energy. Energy is a textbook principle common to all areas of science and technology.

I have nothing better to do, would you like me to continue?

Put up or shut up so to speak.

 

[TSwizzle]

To understand how global warming is increasing intensity of hurricanes you first have to understand energy.

I think you have to first establish that hurricane intensity has increased. As far as the IPCC are concerned, there hasn’t been a significant or even detectable increase in hurricane intensity or frequency.

 

[steve_bank]

To understand how global warming is increasing intensity of hurricanes you first have to understand energy.

I think you have to first establish that hurricane intensity has increased. As far as the IPCC are concerned, there hasn’t been a significant or even detectable increase in hurricane intensity or frequency.

That was done way downstream. Frequency and intensity of gulf and Atlantic storms have been recorded from the 1800s at the start on the industrial Revolution and air pollution.

In the 19th cabinetry there was toxic air polution in European cities from large scale burning of coal, Some speculated back tem on the long term comsequences to the environmet.

There is no crime in being ignorant of something, Being willfully benignant is a crime against yourself, it affects me not.

You can twist, squirm, and try to deflect the question I asked you.

You are sounding like Tucker Carlson and Shaun Hannity who were aggressive climate change deniers on FOX. Eventually it was admitted by FOX they understood it but denied climate change and other issues for ratings.

High school kids in science classes understand basics like energy.

The possibilities
1. You are afraid to learn, knowledge can be unsettling.
2. You are unable to learn.
3. You are too intellectually lazy to learn.
3. Like FOX you are denying causes of climate change while understanding the truth.

Do you want me to continue on what energy is? Yes or no..

It takes effort to learn, maybe you are just not up to the task.

It is easy to break a glass window, pick up a rock and throw it. Much harder to learn the science needed to make glass.

I expect you will not respond. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[bilby]

To understand how global warming is increasing intensity of hurricanes you first have to understand energy.

I think you have to first establish that hurricane intensity has increased. As far as the IPCC are concerned, there hasn’t been a significant or even detectable increase in hurricane intensity or frequency.

Really?

The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence) . Available event attribution studies of observed strong TCs provide medium confidence for a human contribution to extreme TC rainfall. Peak TC rain rates increase with local warming at least at the rate of mean water vapour increase over oceans (about 7% per 1°C of warming) and in some cases exceeding this rate due to increased low-level moisture convergence caused by increases in TC wind intensity (medium confidence). {11.7, 11.4, Box 11.1}

It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances² has increased over the past four decades. The average location where TCs reach their peak wind intensity has very likely migrated poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s, and TC translation speed has likely slowed over the conterminous USA since 1900. Evidence of similar trends in other regions is not robust. The global frequency of TC rapid intensification events has likely increased over the past four decades. None of these changes can be explained by natural variability alone (medium confidence).

(source)

 

[TSwizzle]

Blah blah blah Steve. Same old opinions and rants about deniers, Fox News or whatever.

It really is a religion.

 

[steve_bank]

Blah blah blah Steve. Same old opinions and rants about deniers, Fox News or whatever.

It really is a religion.

A childish response.

As ignorant as a tree stump. The same old one liner simplistic declarations. Worthy of FOX News.

That pressure you feel in your head is your hiding from the truth.

Most of us on the science forum have enough science to actually understand climate change. You8 are not up to haiving a discussion and are unwilling to learn. Hence childish responses.

Do you remember La before auto and industrial pollution controls? On a clear sunny day up in a pane visibility might only be a few miles. It was severe enough lungs and eyes were being damaged by the air pollution. Acid rain killed life in lakes.

In the980s I loved for a while in the Silver Valley in the North Idaho panhandle, silver min mg. The town of Kellog had its top soil scraped up and put in a huge berm along the highway. Arsenic air potion form a smelter poisoned the soil.

Old timrs told me as kds they leaned not to swim in streams becasue it would burn yiur skin, mining pollution.


I know you are unable to have a discusion, but tere it is...pollution as a reality.

 

[TSwizzle]

I’m not sure what to make of your latest tirade Steve. You seem to have changed the subject to pollution.

 

[steve_bank]

Duhhh..let me think.uhhh...

Global warming is caused by air pollution, which has other measurable ill effects on people and the environment/

Are you really this simplistic or are you trying to be clever?

I know your tactics firm 30 years as of corporate politics as an engineer.

People with minimal technical knowledge or none at all building a reputation by being critical of things they do not understand.

Along with global warming are you also an acid rain denier?

Turning the table, what exactly are the flaws in measurements and science that concludes the rapid change in global warming is attributed to pollution?

No quotes or links, in your own words why is the science wrong?

Will your lame response be it is a cult?

 

[Elixir]

Will your lame response be it is a cult?

If Donald Trump has taught us anything, it’s that reality is the cult, not the so-called lies about it. There is no reason to believe in any reality that doesn’t make you feel good, because if you’re a naturally stable genius, you already know more about climate than the pocket protector people.
Mind over matter is so much easier than compliance with all that reality shit. Bowing to it makes you a loser.
“Real men ain’t skeert a storms nohow.!”

 

[DBT]

Whatever you believe to be true is your reality.

 

[steve_bank]

It is really very simple.

What TSwizzle may not understand is that naturally occurring greenhouse gases are what makes the suffice of the Earth habitable. Like his comfortable temperature in Santa Monica.

It is the addition of man made greenhouse gases that is rajsing surface molester.

A backyard greenhouse or 'hot house' to grow tomatoes oeates the same as the atmosphere.

Greenhouse Effect 101

By increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we’re amplifying the planet’s natural greenhouse effect and turning up the dial on global warming.

www.nrdc.org

The greenhouse effect is a good thing. It warms the planet to temperatures that keep life on earth, well, livable. Without it, the world would be more like Mars: a frozen, uninhabitable place. The problem is, the voracious burning of fossil fuels for energy is artificially amping up the natural greenhouse effect. The result? An increase in global warming that is altering the planet’s climate system. Here’s a look at what the greenhouse effect is, what causes it, and how we can temper its contributions to our changing climate.

What is the greenhouse effect?
What causes the greenhouse effect?
What are greenhouse gases?
The consequences of the greenhouse effect
Solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

What is the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect is the natural warming of the earth that results when gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun that would otherwise escape into space. The process was identified by scientists in the 1800s.



What causes the greenhouse effect?

Sunlight, with the natural greenhouse effect process, makes the earth habitable. While around 30 percent of the solar energy—the light and heat from the sun—that reaches our world is reflected back into space, the rest is either absorbed by the atmosphere or the earth’s surface. This process, which is constantly happening around the globe, warms the planet. This heat is then radiated back up in the form of invisible infrared radiation. While some of this infrared light continues on into space, the vast majority gets absorbed by atmospheric gases, known as greenhouse gases, causing further warming.

But higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (CO2) in particular, are causing extra heat to be trapped and average global temperatures to rise. For most of the past 800,000 years—much longer than human civilization has existed—the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was roughly between 200 and 280 parts per million. (In other words, there were 200 to 280 molecules of the gases per million molecules of air.) But in the past century, that concentration has jumped. In 2013, driven up largely by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million—a concentration not seen on the planet for millions of years. As of 2023, it has reached more than 420 parts per million, which is 50 percent

Care to refute this TSwizzle?

Use one blanket on your bed and you may be comfortable, add another blanket and you get warmer. Is this too complicated an analogy for you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is really very simple.

What TSwizzle may not understand is that naturally occurring greenhouse gases are what makes the suffice of the Earth habitable. Like his comfortable temperature in Santa Monica.

It is the addition of man made greenhouse gases that is rajsing surface molester.

A backyard greenhouse or 'hot house' to grow tomatoes oeates the same as the atmosphere.

Greenhouse Effect 101

By increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we’re amplifying the planet’s natural greenhouse effect and turning up the dial on global warming.

www.nrdc.org

The greenhouse effect is a good thing. It warms the planet to temperatures that keep life on earth, well, livable. Without it, the world would be more like Mars: a frozen, uninhabitable place. The problem is, the voracious burning of fossil fuels for energy is artificially amping up the natural greenhouse effect. The result? An increase in global warming that is altering the planet’s climate system. Here’s a look at what the greenhouse effect is, what causes it, and how we can temper its contributions to our changing climate.

What is the greenhouse effect?
What causes the greenhouse effect?
What are greenhouse gases?
The consequences of the greenhouse effect
Solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions

What is the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect is the natural warming of the earth that results when gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun that would otherwise escape into space. The process was identified by scientists in the 1800s.



What causes the greenhouse effect?

Sunlight, with the natural greenhouse effect process, makes the earth habitable. While around 30 percent of the solar energy—the light and heat from the sun—that reaches our world is reflected back into space, the rest is either absorbed by the atmosphere or the earth’s surface. This process, which is constantly happening around the globe, warms the planet. This heat is then radiated back up in the form of invisible infrared radiation. While some of this infrared light continues on into space, the vast majority gets absorbed by atmospheric gases, known as greenhouse gases, causing further warming.

But higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (CO2) in particular, are causing extra heat to be trapped and average global temperatures to rise. For most of the past 800,000 years—much longer than human civilization has existed—the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere was roughly between 200 and 280 parts per million. (In other words, there were 200 to 280 molecules of the gases per million molecules of air.) But in the past century, that concentration has jumped. In 2013, driven up largely by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million—a concentration not seen on the planet for millions of years. As of 2023, it has reached more than 420 parts per million, which is 50 percent

Care to refute this TSwizzle?

Use one blanket on your bed and you may be comfortable, add another blanket and you get warmer. Is this too complicated an analogy for you?

TSwizzle's position is delta exists, therefore delta is natural. That is of course after disputing there even is a delta.