Climate change is fueling mega-wildfires such as the ones scorching Southern California this week, according to one of the world’s foremost experts on fire ecology, professor Tom Swetnam of the University of Arizona.
He told CBS’ “60 Minutes” that climate change has raised temperatures by about one degree in the West, creating drier conditions and sparking a fourfold increase in wildfires.
Here’s a shocker: He predicts that the fires could destroy a majority of the West’s forests in coming decades.
Tom Boatner, the chief of fire operations for the federal government, said that climate change was driving unstoppable mega-fires that are 10 times the size of those he’s seen in the past.
As for climate change skeptics, “You won’t find them on the fire line in the American West anymore,” Boatner told “60 Minutes.”
We’re getting a glimpse of our climate change future out West. It isn’t pretty.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
170 Comments
Oh, brother.
Randy? Did you read this part?
Why are there more of these fires? Turns out the forest service is partly to blame with a policy it started 100 years ago.
The policy was to put out all fires immediately. “Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for a hundred years, because we thought that was the right thing to do, we’ve allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when the fires get going, there’s a lot more to burn than historically you would’ve seen in a forest like this,” Boatner explains.
That’s weird. Randy ignoring the part of the story that doesn’t fit his agenda? Weird.
RAMEN! Now kansas and cosmos can have their own thread….
Beginning to wonder if Randy Scholfied is cosmos.
I guess we have to get used to this (sigh). Everytime lightning strikes, a drought occurs, too many hurricanes, not enough hurricanes, a heat wave, or a cow farts -
It’s a sign of (ewwww WEEE eewwww):
GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What’s next? Frizzy hair evidence of global warming?
““One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.
Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.”
I think the best explanation I heard is that the areas affected where thinly populated 20 years ago.
When a fire occurred back then, the only people that knew about it were Rangers.
Now that the population has moved in, created roads, erosion from housing projects and the heat effect that buildings have surrounding air, the amount of fires have increased.
With more people, there are more “squeaky wheels” yelping about the effects than when there was no one complaining about it twenty years ago when less populated.
They also are planting more trees and shrubs that are not indigenous to the area.
Oh by the way. Has anyone mentioned that the area IS A DESERT?
‘Warming Climate Plays Large Role in Western U.S. Wildfires, Scripps-led Study Shows’July 6, 2006http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=739
“A new study led by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, implicates rising seasonal temperatures and the earlier arrival of spring conditions in connection with a dramatic increase of large wildfires in the western United States.
In the most systematic analysis to date of recent changes in forest fire activity, Anthony Westerling, Hugo Hidalgo and Dan Cayan of Scripps Oceanography, along with Tom Swetnam of the University of Arizona, compiled a database of recent large western wildfires since 1970 and compared it with climate and land-surface data from the region. The results show that large wildfire activity increased “suddenly and dramatically” in the 1980s with longer wildfire seasons and an increased number and more potent wildfires.
The new findings, published in the July 6 issue of Science Express (the advance online version of the printed journal Science), point to climate change, not fire suppression policies and forest accumulation, as the primary driver of recent increases in large forest fires.”More at link.
Yeah, temperature change. What’s the flash point of wood – about 460 F?
It must really be getting hot in Hollyfornia then to start fires with temperature.
Maybe Randy should heed the warning.
“According to notes from CNN’s Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to “push” their “Planet in Peril” special, but warns reporters not to “irresponsibly link” the fires to “Global Warming.”
Which makes more sense?Too much dead wood on the forest floor or a one degree rise of the average temp?
More nonsense…last I read on estimates of temp change was in the area of 0.007 degrees if the ENTIRE US was shut down.
So those little efforts you make are solely to make you feel good..and the usual needy types. Anything on a human scale is utterly useless in the scale of earthwide affects.
If we are causing this warming, what caused all the glaciers to melt that used to cover the entire north half of the US…Think Minnesota lakes here folks. They were all made by Glaciers moving across the area.
The Arctic (North Pole) has been ice free several times. All prior to any industrialization.
Polar Bears are NOT dieing off, they have increased from 5000 to 25,000…WHY, because the hunting is regulated now. It did not used to be. The pictures of the dead ones you see pushed on the net are due to 4 drowned during a big storm . Not because their ice melted.
And NO Mt. Fuji in Japan is not losing its ice due to GW. Its been documented as being due to the locals cutting the forests beside it and reducing the amount of moisture offgassed by the trees. So….no moisture = No Snowfall. See that was easy.
Sorry Al, but you are full of **it and this will all eventually be a short item on a Leno monologue.
In the 1600s the area on the Gulf Coast that was below sea level, hardly had a problem with hurricanes.
Then people started moving in, suddenly Hurricanes became a huge problem.
Correlation? People cause Hurricanes and evidently wild fires.
No people – no Hurricanes and wild fires.
Solution: Kill all people – no more problems.
Dems were trying to blame fire response from the feds on the Iraq war.
Arnold would have none of that!
Besides, there are about 10,000 marines, alone, in California. They would be happy to help, but bodies dont really do much good putting out fires in 40+ MPH wind.
Also, we really didnt send much forest fire-fighting equipment to Iraq.
Sand just doesnt burn all that well, so the thought never came up!
When I was in bootcamp, back in 77, I watched a range fire/forest fire from the Barracks. The Base Commander volunteered our help, but it wasnt needed. Back then, the big media fear was the “comming ice age” and “global cooling.”
Did “global warming” cause Mrs. O’Leary’s cow?
OW! Orbital Wobbling is the cause of Global Warming.
As John Stossel says, “Give me a break”. I suppose this is also George Bush’s fault.
Think beyond your elitist Bush-hating tree-hugging victim-mentality pea brain, and do research beyond reciting the ideological mantra of mediamatters and moveon.
Maybe, just maybe, the cyclical drought-breaking rains a couple of years ago fed plants/shrubs/trees to a point that required good sound environmental management practives. And, maybe, just maybe, your tree-hugging friends on the left-coast lobbied against good sound environmental management practices. And, maybe, just maybe, the person of interest that has been identified in the area may have caused the fire (instead of big bad Bush or global change).
Of course, it is gospel truth that since folks around San Diego are rich white conservatives, they are getting much better treatment from FEMA than those po black fok hit by Katrina.
You crack me up, Schofield.
“Seems it never rains in Southern California”
Could that be because IT’S A FREAKING DESERT???
practices not practives. My bad.
Oh, BYW, I know you are just stirring the pot, Scholfield, just to get traffic that may generate advertising bucks for your paper, but the uninformed ‘progressives’ don’t understand how to do follow-the-money research.
Just trying out my Sam Kennison voice there folks.
I think the conservatives have won on this issue. They’ve finally thrown so many fallacious arguments into the mix that it’s impossible to argue all of them.
They deride what little we know about the earth’s climate by saying we can’t possibly know that. Then they provide ten times as many assertions to support their own pet theories. Disagree? Prepare to be called a communist, luddite, or Bush-hater.
Congratulations. Now let’s put to bed this foolish notion of alternative energy and pool our borrowed money to buy the remaining oil in the mideast.
From noaa.com…NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE RECORDS SINCE 1872 SHOW THAT ABOUT ONETHIRD OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS WITH A TEMPERATURE OF 90DEGREES OR HIGHER IN SAN DIEGO OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER…FOR ANAVERAGE OF ABOUT ONE EACH YEAR. THESE HIGH READINGS WERE ALMOSTINVARIABLY ACCOMPANIED BY HOT…DRY EASTERLY WINDS IN THE COUNTY KNOWN AS SANTA ANAS. IT WAS DURING ONE OF THESE OCCURRENCES THAT THE ALL TIME HIGH OF 111 DEGREES WAS RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 26…1963. HOWEVER…MONTHLY AVERAGES HAVE BEEN CHANGED LITTLE BY THEOCCASIONAL HOT DAYS.
OCTOBER IS THE LAST OF THE DRY MONTHS AND IS USUALLY ATRANSITIONAL PERIOD WITH VARIABLE WEATHER…A MIXTURE THATINCLUDES WEATHER FROM THE PREVIOUS DRY MONTHS WITH A PREVIEW OF THE UPCOMING WET MONTHS.*************************Really? Hottest was 111 in 1963.
Another “Give me a break”.
I’m all for environmental stewardship, but the proven, tried and tested way to polarize the public is to politicize an issue. The radical-right does this with abortion, and look at the progress (or lack thereof) they have made. The radical-left is politicizing global change/warming, and it is being challenged by clear-thinking reality-based critical thinkers.
You really want to make progress on environmental stewardship? I doubt it. Where’s the money in that?
Politicization?
Left: Let’s look at the facts and research climate scientists have come up with. Maybe we should look at ways to get away from burning fossil fuels.
Right: I don’t like those results. Al Gore lives in a big house and says he invented the Internet. You blame fires and hurricanes on Bush. It’s a liberal conspiracy to take away our cars and make us live in caves with no electricity!
Yeah, I see how the issue is being politicized.
ID,
“But the uninformed ‘progressives’ don’t understand how to do follow-the-money research.”
Really. Personally, I think we’ve done rather a good job at discerning oil company bankrolling of the disinformation campaign regarding global climate change.
Conversely, as we’ve seen on this thread, what mouth-breathing Right Wing climate change deniers don’t do so well is empirical observation, whether this consists of peer-reviewed scientific research or simple observation.
From the article:
The severity of the burning and size of the fires caught the eye of Tom Swetnam, one of the world’s leading fire ecologists. He wanted to know what’s touched off this annual inferno and whether it’s truly a historic change.
At the University of Arizona, Swetnam keeps a remarkable woodpile, comprised of the largest collection of tree rings in the world. His rings go back 9,000 years, and each one of those rings captures one year of climate history.
Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years. And recently, he and a team of top climate scientists discovered something else: a dramatic increase in fires high in the mountains, where fires were rare.
“As the spring is arriving earlier because of warming conditions, the snow on these high mountain areas is melting and running off. So the logs and the branches and the tree needles all can dry out more quickly and have a longer time period to be dry. And so there’s a longer time period and opportunity for fires to start,” Swetnam says
“The spring comes earlier, so the fire season is just longer,” Pelley remarks.
“That’s right. The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole Western U.S. So actually 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years,” Swetnam says.
Swetnam says that climate change — global warming — has increased temperatures in the West about one degree and that has caused four times more fires. Swetnam and his colleagues published those findings in the journal “Science,” and the world’s leading researchers on climate change have endorsed their conclusions.
But what was news to the scientists is something Tom Boatner has noticed for about ten years now. “This kind of low brush would normally be really moist and actually be a fairly good barrier to fire. But as I look at this I just see wilted leaves everywhere. There’s no moisture left in them. They’re dead,” he points out.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/60minutes/main3380176_page2.shtml
What is interesting and relevant here is that this set of observations completely foils Heckler and fleetwood’s alternative explanation, which lays blame for the fires on Forest Service management practices. That dog don’t hunt, guys. Try again. And again. And again. I know you will.
“The radical-left is politicizing global change/warming, and it is being challenged by clear-thinking reality-based critical thinkers.”
And who exactly would these “clear-thinking reality-based critical thinkers” be?
Seriously, I’d like to know.
lefty
Remember the ozone-hole bullshit? Guess what, it turned out to be bullshit, just as many of us suspected.
I smell that same familiar smell when ever I’m around you warmers. Or is it changers?
Heckler,
Wow. Could you be more wrong?
“Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.[23]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Current_events_and_future_prospects_of_ozone_depletion
I mean, seriously, Heckler. You get to wear the “Right Wing Hack of the Day” dunce cap for that one.
CF
“which lays blame for the fires on Forest Service management practices.”
Read again. Those where Boatners observations not mine.
“Try again. And again. And again. I know you will.”
Have issues with unwanted facial hair? It’s global warming, I’m afraid.
Painful Hemorrhoids ? Forget Preparation H, you need to buy Carbon Credits!
We’re in for a period of EVERYTHIMG being the fault of global warming, I’m afraid. It’s the latest crisis, and good to for extracting dollars from wallets. The legit will be buried by the BS.
So what else is new?
Idiots. Total idiots.
Arsonist caused the fires in CA.
Global terrorists maybe.
But not global warming.
cf
“With that in mind, a new study published Wednesday in the journal Nature (subscription required) tears apart the “scientific consensus” regarding the cause of a hole in the ozone layer, and should act as a warning to folks claiming that the climate change debate is over, assuming of course the media pay any attention to this paper.”
Obviously fleettwood, Heckler, and others here are much more knowledgeable than scientists who have carefully researched the issue. /sarcasm OFF
Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, T.W. Swetnam 2006:”Warming and Earlier Spring Increases Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity”Science, 313: 940-943. DOI:10.1126/science.1128834
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1128834.pdf
Supplementary material.http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;1128834/DC1
cf
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Painful Hemorrhoids ? Forget Preparation H,
Posted by: GMC70
Well that’s the problem GMC. Someone was making one of those Prep H commercials.
You know the one? Where they take a hot match and extinguish it with a PH wrap? Some actor probably discarded the hot match!
Otherwise, it is raining lit matches in sunny southern California.
GW caused that. Ask cosmos!
Heckler, the forest management policies are well documented, they do not cause unusual drying of underbrush. And you can’t cherry-pick that one quote and ignore the others.
American Way, what science are you basing that assertion on, exactly?
I know you guys are convinced, but forestry service people who fight these fires for a living — and have been for decades — are not so sure as you. They believe global warming is real.
Are these fire fighters part of the liberal anti-capitalist luddite conspiracy?
So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
“Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
“…you need to buy Carbon Credits!”
I stole this.
If I’m 10 pounds too fat and I pay 10 people to lose one pound each, am I back to normal weight?
But what do I know.
The climate debate will never be over as long as we have people who helpfully point out that changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere has no — repeat zero — effect on the earth’s climate.
What do they base this knowledge on? They won’t say. But rest assured, they know.
Heckler,
Boatham says nothing to lay sole blame on Forest Service policy. Here’s the whole quote:
“Why are there more of these fires? Turns out the forest service is partly to blame with a policy it started 100 years ago.
The policy was to put out all fires immediately. “Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for a hundred years, because we thought that was the right thing to do, we’ve allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when the fires get going, there’s a lot more to burn than historically you would’ve seen in a forest like this,” Boatner explains.”
So. Boatner DOES NOT lay blame for the fires on Forest Service management. He says that IF there are fires, they tend to be larger as a result of the policy.
All of which begs the question: why are there more fires? And on this question, Boatner agrees: the fire season has lengthened, thus drying out plants that normally could have resisted the conditions that produce forest fires.
“You won’t find them on the fire line in the American West anymore,” Tom Boatner says. “‘Cause we’ve had climate change beat into us over the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we’re seeing, and we’re dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought that’s different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes.”
So, Heckler, let’s review: your alternative explanation fails to account for two things:
-The increased frequency of forest fires in the mountain west-The depletion of moisture among high-altitude plants that normally would not have been subject to forest fire risk.
So, Heckler, that means you’ve misread Boatner’s words in a way calculated to deny global climate change–a way Boatner himself would reject. Feel smart yet?
I got a problem that global warming has much to do with forest fires, population growth maybe, but not 1 degree in temp. elevation. There are places all over the world where the climate is cooler and wetter or drier than California. Think Australia and Canada, both of whom have huge problems with forest fires as well, and much less of a populations’ interference with nature
Heckler, care to tell us exactly what this earth-shattering revelation is regarding ozone, or will you keep us in suspense?
Obviously cosmos and others here are much more knowledgeable than the POLICE who have carefully researched the issue. /sarcasm OFF
Idiot: You are going to loose credibility if you keep claiming everything is GW. Show you are bigger than that!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/10/22/state/n102418D66.DTL
http://santamonicafire.org/safety/arson.htm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/
Lefty
Published in the journal Nature.
It’s not GW, God is punishing America for the sins of GWB! The East Coast last year, the West Coast this year! What’s in store for Kansas?
Sorry, CF2K and friend. The NOAA facts are confusing and they do get in the way of your efforts to get the propoganda out.
For those clear-thinking reality-based critical thinkers, NASA quietly updated their ‘climate change’ numbers due to a calculation error. Hottest year in history was 1934. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Also note the cycles. Yep, it’s been hot lately, but it’s been hot before, and cold before. Whoa!
Heckler,
Here’s the part you left off from your link:
“In the article, Rex stresses that the reason for ozone loss does still seem to be through anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons – it is the description of the chemical reactions that need tightening up.”
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/news/stories/chemists_poke_holes_in_ozone_hole.html
So, two points:
-There IS a measurable hole over the ozone layer-The leading research scientist (Rex) still affirms that human activity is the cause.
That’s an awful, awful long way from from “ozone hole bullshit.” Forgive me, Heckler, if I call you intellectually dishonest. It just seems to fit.
Heckler, what exactly does it mean? Do you know? How does this relate to CFCs? Or are you just throwing technical jargon against the wall hoping it will stick?
Tell me you believe one of the following:
1) We are not changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere
2) Changing the chemical makeup of the atmosphere does not affect climate.
Heckler, did you intentionally lie to us? Were you trying to convince us that the CFC ban was unnecessarily alarmist? Did you read the part quoted by CF2K and intentionally leave it out?
What are you trying to prove, anyway?
This thread is NOT just about the very recent California fires.
“Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity”http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1128834.pdf“Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons.
The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt.”
ID,
Indeed. ‘Note the cycles.’ Here’s the last ten years.
1998 1.24 .521999 .94 .712000 .54 .812001 .78 .672002 .55 .572003 .53 .612004 .46 .682005 .71 *2006 1.15 *
On the graph, no other eight-year timespan is anywhere near comparable to the consisently high temperatures of this one.
Here, for example, are the eight years on either side of the 1934 record high temperature, and there NO comparison between this average and the recent average.
1926 .02 -.041927 .14 -.011928 .06 -.051929 -.60 .171930 .15 .141931 1.08 .261932 -.01 .631933 .67 .601934 1.24 .421935 .03 .401936 .19 .441937 -.15 .351938 .85 .351939 .84 .441940 .03 .481941 .61 .341942 .08 .201943 .16 .181944 .12 .20
Willfully stupid and smug aren’t a winning combination, ID. You’ve just had your ass handed to you. How’s that feel, Wingnut?
I think Heckler just shot down that whole “rational thinkers question global warming” hypothesis with his blatant dissembling.
“For those clear-thinking reality-based critical thinkers, NASA quietly updated their ‘climate change’ numbers due to a calculation error. Hottest year in history was 1934. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Also note the cycles. Yep, it’s been hot lately, but it’s been hot before, and cold before. Whoa!”
Posted by: ID | October 24, 2007 at 03:00 PM
ID,
That’s only the U.S. lower 48 states. “Clear-thinking reality-based critical thinkers” use this link.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
More details”The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla”http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
That damned global warming!
“(CBS/AP) CBS News has learned a task force of agencies, including the FBI, ATF, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office and the California Department of Forestry will announce shortly that the massive Santiago Canyon Fire – which has caused an estimated $10 million in damage – is being officially declared an arson, and a $50,000 reward is being offered to find the arsonist.”
lol fleettwood!
That will take the wind out of their collective Global Warming sails. rofl!
Dang fleettwood, how did those arsonists manage to dry out all that underbrush before setting the fire?
Must be some clever terrorists to cause a drought like that and create unusually dry and hot climate conditions.
Anything but global warming!
CF
First of all I never said there was no ozone hole.
The thrust of the new research is this-”This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says.”If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.”
I don’t know how to be more clear than their own words.
“Dang fleettwood, how did those arsonists manage to dry out all that underbrush before setting the fire?”
You mean the underbrush that the Libs would not allow to be cleaned up? Or do you mean the one degree increase in the average temp that caused the drying? My hair is getting frizzy, so I have to go.
Heckler you are deliberately misunderstanding the science. When he says “how ozone holes come into being” he means the specific chemical reactions, not the general CFC causality.
And if you’re not trying to discredit the notion of CFC causality then what was the point of bringing it up?
lefty
Blatant dissembling?
Whatever. You wreak of desperation.
Sorry Kansas, I thought your point that the unusually dry conditions that cause fires to spread ten times larger than normal is just a natural cycle. Now I see you are trying to prove that global warming doesn’t start fires. Now if you can find someone who says global warming causes spontaneous combustion, you can win an argument.
The major depositive factor in the extreme fire conditions is the drought in Southern California; the fires themselves have been exacerbated by unusually strong Santa Ana winds.[9] The winds are believed to have knocked down power lines, triggering several of the fires. One fire was the result of arson;[10] one was started by an overturned semi-truck.[11] The causes of the remaining fires are under investigation. Wind conditions are not expected to improve until October 25, 2007.[12]
Wikipedia update 24 Oct 2007 Santa Ana Fires.
Heckler, yes blatant dissembling. You call “ozone BS” and selectively quote and article where the lead scientist says CFCs contribute to the ozone hole. President Bush’s definition aside, that is dissembling. No BS.
CF
If you don’t understand the chemical reactions HOW can you claim to understand what is going on?
Never mind.
Sorry Kansas, I thought your point that the unusually dry conditions that cause fires to spread ten times larger than normal is just a natural cycle. Now I see you are trying to prove that global warming doesn’t start fires. Now if you can find someone who says global warming causes spontaneous combustion, you can win an argument.
Posted by: leftcoaster | October 24, 2007 at 04:26 PM
The annually occurring dry season and the annually occurring Santa Ana Winds are not logically disjointed.
It happens every year and has long been study and accounted for, documented and yes fires break out there.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007Harry Reid Blames California Wildfires On Global Warming…Before He Denies He Said It.Posted by: Duane R. Patterson at 5:28 PMAfter a closed door policy meeting with other Senate Democrats, Majority Leader and utter buffoon Hary Reid of Nevada took to the microphones just outside the floor of the United States Senate, and fielded questions.
In response to a question on the energy bill, Reid said the following:
As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.
Six questions later, a reporter followed up on Reid’s amazing statement.
Question: Senator, on the California fires, you said that the reason the fires are burning in California is global warming?
Reid: No. Here’s what I – I didn’t say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming…
Could this be a warning sign of dementia?
Exactly, Kansas. The major factor is drought. Not the other “look over here!” stuff you keep throwing at us.
Here’s the GW we are exeperiencing… 1 degree change over 100 years.
Imagine if you will, (twilight zone), you complain you are hot so ask someone to turn the thermostat down.
They turn it down 1 degree and ask if you feel any better.
Psychologically, you have a greater chance of saying “Yes, I feel better.” Physiologically, one will find that your skin surface temperature hasn’t changed that much because you acclimatized to the heat you thought was oppressive.
Kansas, would you say the drought this year is no greater than the average dry season? And that there is no trend?
Cosmos,The real deal at Columbia and all the other liberal edu’s is MONEY. Hmmm, let’s think…Universities rely on Federal hand-outs for research, so they need a ’cause’ to keep their funding-fix. Versus the market-based oil companies that have to actually produce a quality product for you to buy or they wouldn’t be in business.
Ah, the old “one degree doesn’t sound like much to me” argument.
You’re not going to impress anyone with your scientific rigor using a thermostat metaphor. Even if the thermostat is your only experience with the physics of temperature.
Oil companies don’t just have to produce a quality product. They also have to convince you that their product is perfectly harmless or they wouldn’t be in business.
CNN asks: “A century of fires?”Followed by: “EVERYBODY PANIC!!!”
“During the October 23 “Anderson Cooper 360: In the Line of Fire,” Cooper reported from Southern California saying, “People are wondering if these fires are a result of global warming in some way.”Although Cooper admitted that, “no one really knows for sure,” the broadcast still took the time to predict the future with CNN’s Tom Foreman who warned of a possible “century of fires, just like what we’re seeing now” as a result of global warming.”Climatologists say, while we can’t blame on fire on climate change, we can say that these factors are combining in that area [Southern California] to set up what could be a century of fires just like what we’re seeing now,” said Foreman.”
Exactly, Kansas. The major factor is drought. Not the other “look over here!” stuff you keep throwing at us.
Posted by: leftcoaster | October 24, 2007 at 04:31 PM
Oh btw, leftcoaster, show me where I said drought, which is an annual occurrence in that region wasn’t a factor. I said that decades ago, no one lived in that area and the fires weren’t as noticeable.
I feel badly for you that you are looking for someone to blame, but the only blame is that people are moving into know fire risk areas and now are suffering the consequences.
The same with people living below sea level in New Orleans and wonder why Hurricanes have so much impact on them.
Duh! Nature was there first!
There wasn’t a problem until people moved in and now everything is a catastrophe!
know fire = known fire
The good news is that marshmallow sales are way up.
A century of fires? Hmm.. Wasn’t it a couple of years ago that Florida was as good as gone because of the global warming induced, ahem.. hurricanes?
Anything to make more out of it than it is. Relax, no one knows the future. Even Cosmos.
Kansas, you said drought was the major factor. Drought by definition is an abnormally dry condition. Which is what we have been saying. Your position on this argument is that things are normal, and non-existent global warming does not cause drought and even if it did one degree isn’t enough to change anything.
For that you have to believe one of the following (you tell me which one):
1) Our burning of fossil fuels is not changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
2) Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not affect climate.
Hotdog sales are up too!
Is it ok to smoke cigarettes in public in CA now?
Drought in a desert.
Watson, you fool!
It’s Global warming.
Relax, massive fires are normal, we just never noticed them before.
Relax, Cat 5 hurricanes are normal. It was just a matter of time before we lost a major city that had been there for 300 years.
Relax, retreating glaciers are nothing.
Relax, it’s not like this is the first time the polar ice caps melted. The earth has been through massive climate change before. But this isn’t climate change. Even if it is — relax! It’s nature’s way and no big deal. We’ve proven that trillions of tons of extra carbon in the atmosphere doesn’t do a thing!
Now that’s your winning argument right there.
fleettwood, it’s not desert, it’s chaparral. Look it up. You’re not helping your arguments with these falsehoods.
If it was desert there would be nothing to burn.
“Now that’s your winning argument right there.”
The only truth in your post is:
RELAX!
“fleettwood, it’s not desert, it’s chaparral. Look it up. You’re not helping your arguments with these falsehoods.”
Damn, got me again with my falsehoods and all.
Well, yes each of those are true leftcoaster. We are not in a massive climate change.
There is no evidence of anything like this.
But even if we were, you can’t do anything about it. Don’t sweat it, the Earth has many self correcting processes. It will all turn out fine.
Don’t buy the hyperbole.
1) Our burning of fossil fuels is not changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
2) Changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not affect climate.
Posted by: leftcoaster | October 24, 2007 at 04:44 PM
That’s always been my argument. It might have “some” effect on the tropospheric influences, but not a whole lot. co2 from man made sources is a tiny part of greenhouse gases, a very tiny part.
The likelihood of regional urbanization is more than likely the cause of climate change than co2. That is to say, any time you strip out flora and fauna from an area and inject concrete structures, there will be an increase in temperature, wind patterns will change and the amount of precipitation will also vary.
You don’t believe me? Step onto a field of grass on a hot summer day. Take a temperature reading.
Now, go to your nearest Walmart, where there is a sea of cars and one huge slab of asphalt next to a humongous building. Take a temperature reading.
Now multiply that Walmart effect by tens of thousands of buildings all congregated in a tight area and tell me there isn’t an effect on regional weather and climate.
Take that one community and have other communities growing closer and closer together making one huge urban island of heat production.
If all of that land was still natural, there wouldn’t be a significant regional change.
Ask any helicopter pilot who flies over natural land versus urban areas about temperature and winds. It is drastically different.
Even jet contrails (water vapor) might have a greater effect on climate change than co2 as it is a natural feedback look directly affecting regional climate and it certainly more concentrated in some areas such as cities.
ID,
Shoot yourself in the foot much? Your ideological prejudices ought to embarrass you–presuming that you’re capable of shame at your own dishonesty.
Ever heard of peer review? That means that other scientists (who aren’t on the same funding stream) have to experimentally review and certify scientific results.
What’s that, ID? They’re all part of the swindle as well? Well gosh, if I didn’t know better, ID, I’d say you sound like some kind of conspiracy nut–when you’re really an apologist whore for the oil companies and their pseudoscience.
If you have scientific credentials, ID, produce them. If you don’t, you’re just the two-bit industry whore you seem to be.
Heckler,
Still dissembling.
First you said ‘ozone hole bullshit’ (YOUR expression). Such an intemperate expression implies, Heckler, that you simply reject the thesis of the ozone hole in toto.
But now you backpedal, and say to me that while you aren’t denying the existence of the ozone hole, that “if you don’t understand the chemical reactions HOW can you claim to understand what is going on?”
Sigh. Well, Heckler, first point: do YOU understand the chemical reactions? Are YOU a chemist? If not, then shut up.
Second point: I don’t understand the chemical reactions. I’m not a chemmist. Dr. Rox is, so I defer to his judgment–rather than presuming to tell HIM what the results mean. Which is precisely as I stated:
“In the article, Rex stresses that the reason for ozone loss does still seem to be through anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons – it is the description of the chemical reactions that need tightening up.”
I’ll defer to Dr. Rox, since he’s the expert, and since his position is logical, whereas yours simply makes no sense whatever.
Heckler, the only thing on this thread that’s “bullshit” is your attempt to sound like you know what you’re talking about. It’s been funny to watch you spin and change your position to dodge my criticisms, but the effect has been to expose your arguments as empty, and your intentions as disingenuous.
You’re wrong. Period. You got yourself in over your head throwing an article at me that you didn’t understand, expecting me to concede. I didn’t, because it was obvious that the implications of the article were other than you thought they would be. The lead researcher agrees with me, not you. And now YOU presume to tell HIM that he isn’t permitted to claim what he’s claiming about the anthorpogenesis of the hole in the ozone layer?
Give it a rest, Heckler. In a duel of expertise, you got shot down.
outlander,
Don’t worry, be happy.
Sadly, the people who are in a postion to understand the ’self-correcting processes’ of Earth’s atmosphere don’t agree with you at all.
Ozone layer was attributed to pollution of CFC’s.
The Global Warming cause (cough) co2, is not pollution. co2 is not a pollutant or every mammal on earth, including humans would be considered a polluter.
And don’t forget that arson often plays a major part in this, or is that to be blamed on global warming too?
The ozone layer has gotten bigger in the past few years according to NASA and the cause was (drum roll) COLD WEATHER…
I have to agree with most people on this one. I don’t think its global warming, I think its too many rich yuppies building their houses in a very unstable environment.
Next thing you know, there will be land slides in the same spot, from soil erosion caused by the fire, the next time theres a signifagant rain fall, and all these dumbasses will have already re-built there houses.
ah Kansas…………I believe the “hole in the ozone” has more to do with CFC’s in the atmosphere.
I’m certain there is global warming. Look at all the baked dead brains of climate change deniers (right wingnuts) posting here.
Well, I’d hate to hear about people dying from the fire. Horrible way to go. But as for the liberal yuppy hypocrites complaining about the environment, I think they sorta deserve it. Their the ones that fly on a private jet 3 days week, putting up way more smog and crap in the atmosphere than the average person.
Elephant, you and your ignorant buddy Glenn Beck do not seem to realize that the areas affected by the fires are rather conservative. So, they are wingnut yuppies. Unlike most Americans, they probably have the money to rebuild (insurance won’t pay *everything*) in this ridiculous housing market.
“Randy? Did you read this part?
Why are there more of these fires? Turns out the forest service is partly to blame with a policy it started 100 years ago.
The policy was to put out all fires immediately. “Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for a hundred years, because we thought that was the right thing to do, we’ve allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when the fires get going, there’s a lot more to burn than historically you would’ve seen in a forest like this,” Boatner explains.”
Posted by heckler.
This is precious. He cherry picks himself and calls Randy on it. Tom Swetnam, who collects tree rings, and whose extensive collection includes trees with rings showing them to be over 1000 years old, says the last few decades have been hotter than any others in over 1000 years.
That, plus the fact spring is starting earlier every year, kinda points to climate change of some sort. Whether it’s man-caused or natural, is immaterial. that it’s happening is not just a scientific fact, but a real-time observable one.
The San Diego fires are a real-time observable event. It’s more than just a fire; it’s like Armageddon to those living it. And it’s more than bad management over the last 100 years. The Yellowstone fire was the harbinger that these fires may become the norm. And, we better find a proactive way to handle the problem.
San Diego is a desert; it banks on the north for much of its water. If the climate change continues, there may not be a San Diego. Hello, Arizona ocean-front property:-)
Bless your little Middle School Scientific heart Apophis. I was referring to the size of the hole, not the cause.—————–http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1559032006
Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland, said: “From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles.”
The increased size of the hole was blamed on unusual weather patterns. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles.
However, colder temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones.
This is precious. He cherry picks himself and calls Randy on it. Tom Swetnam, who collects tree rings, and whose extensive collection includes trees with rings showing them to be over 1000 years old, says the last few decades have been hotter than any others in over 1000 years. Posted by: J M Walker | October 24, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Evidently J M Walker, you haven’t kept up with the latest on tree rings.
The larger a tree gets (older trees) the smaller the rings will get in depth when compared to the circumference of the tree. This has tree ring scientists all over the world scratching their heads if their tree ring data is actually skewed, not accounting for the physical nature of tree rings because of expanding circumference.
In other words, tree ring proxies may not be as a reliable source of information as they thought they were.
Kansas I love that argument, “CO2 is not a pollutant or every mammal on earth is a polluter.”
Does that apply to everything that comes out of the body? Anything we mammals emit that you wouldn’t want in your drinking water, for example?
Maybe I’ll use that. Hey it’s not a pollutant in your pool. It’s natural!
But seriously, this argument simply is you don’t think burning fossil fuels will affect the climate. Many people disagree.
The next logical question is what percentage of CO2 increase would affect climate in your opinion? Double? Triple? If CO2 concentrations multiply by 100 do you think that would affect climate? If so, how long would it take at current emission levels to do that?
See, real scientists have already done the math. You are arguing against their conclusions, not mine or Al Gore’s.—–
leftcoaster, go study some more on co2. There is an known equilibrium constant (although variable) for concentrations of co2.
Did you know that co2 levels always rise right before there is a Global Cooling period?
Besides, co2 is not the only factor that contributes to Climate Change.
And that is the basic argument. co2 from man is very tiny compared to the natural factors of climate.
trollboy
are you inferring that just because I teach middle school science (and hold a graduate degree in Science) that you actually know more about this than I do? If it makes feel better to act like you know something……well, ok. Pat yourself on the back.
All you do is cherry-pick information in a futile attempt to prove your point. You really only make an ass out of yourself.
You are the joke of the blog trollboy. Here you are, a loser who doesn’t even have a job, blogging all day and night like you are a resident expert or something.
Time to…………WALK ON BY
Attaboy Apophis! I knew you would go for the personal attack, rather than deal with the science.
You never disappoint in that regard. :)
It’s all well and good to tell me to go study CO2 but the people you need to convince are the scientists who have been studying climate and originally came to the conclusion that industrial level burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change.
Remember, that result came out before any of the alternate theories involving sun variation, cosmic rays, etc. The attempts at debunking came later in an attempt to prevent regulation of industry and fears of having to change our lifestyle.
If you can prove to them that burning fossil fuels has a negligible effect on climate then you should definitely do that. There’s plenty of oil industry money to fund that kind of research.
If you can prove once and for all that we can burn all the fossil fuels we want with no consequence for our ecosystem then you’d be a hero. Seriously, you would.
“In other words, tree ring proxies may not be as a reliable source of information as they thought they were.”
Posted by kansas.
. . . and if they are? If what is being seen on the ground correspond to what is being read in the rings is not scientific? Get real; there is no politics in this other than what both sides are throwing at each other, and not taking a real look at the real picture.
I believe turning on the tv and looking at the live fires of a magnitude never seen in that area before, should at least make the doubters take another look at what IS happening.
The problem is Spring comes earlier, brush grows, it gets hot sooner, and the brush dies, gets dry and becomes tinder. The brush is dying earlier every year. Should be a no-brainer. But like I stated earlier, whether man or natural, it’s coming, and we better start thinking about what it means for this country.
If you can prove to them that burning fossil fuels has a negligible effect on climate then you should definitely do that. There’s plenty of oil industry money to fund that kind of research.Posted by: leftcoaster | October 24, 2007 at 06:14 PM
That statement right there shows that you have already been bought, sold and branded by the Liberal closed minded society.
I prefer my mind to be open and always look for scientific explanations before I will some blog or op ed piece.
When I read there are opposing views in science, I study them and draw my own conclusions.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to be told what to think.
But it appears leftcoaster, you are one of the sheeple that can’t make up their own mind on issues and need guidance from the goats of the Left to make your decisions for you.
For me, yeah – I’m skeptical – but for good reason – and if it wasn’t for skeptics – a lot of urban legends and myths would still be held as true and practiced with religious zeal.
You don’t seem to get it trollboy
I understand the science. You, on the other hand, only know how to copy/paste spin from human induced climate change deniers websites. There is no point having a discussion with you about matters you cannot truly comprehend because of your closed, right wing mind.
If stating the obvious truth that you are a loser who doesn’t hold a job and is posting on the blog all day and night is considered a “personal attack”…………oh well.
The problem is Spring comes earlier, brush grows, it gets hot sooner, and the brush dies, gets dry and becomes tinder. The brush is dying earlier every year. Should be a no-brainer. But like I stated earlier, whether man or natural, it’s coming, and we better start thinking about what it means for this country.
Posted by: J M Walker | October 24, 2007 at 06:17 PM
No argument there J M Walker. Climate Change is going to happen regardless of the cause. Being prepared is always good.
I understand the science. Posted by: Apophis | October 24, 2007 at 06:21 PM
Then discuss it instead of calling names.
You are an educator aren’t or are you?
in love with copy/paste trollboy/
Kiss my ass…………..there is nothing to discuss with you. The science is what you do not believe, therefore there is no reason to “discuss” it with you.
If you don’t want to be called a “name”, then don’t troll and switch nics constantly.
“…just because I teach middle school science (and hold a graduate degree in Science)”
That’s kind of sad, in a way.
Why is it sad fleetwood?
A graduate degree in science (never heard of that), making over a $1,000 a week?
Middle skool?
If you don’t want to be called a “name”, then don’t troll and switch nics constantly.
Posted by: Apophis | October 24, 2007 at 06:27 PM
I don’t troll or switch nics. Just because the Capn says I do, without proof I might add, doesn’t mean it’s true.
If you don’t believe me, then that is your problem.
Then Capn has me being some guy that gives flying lesson that J R appears to swallowed the hook, line and sinker. However, I’m not that guy and I’m pretty sure we don’t look anything a like.
You Libs, when unable to deal with a heated discussion only respond to name calling and refuse to interact with adult level conversation.
I would say Apophis, that is more your problem than mine.
So be a coward and refuse to discuss the science Apophis.
I guess you’re just plain ignorant fleetwood.
All you want to do is troll. You’re just trying to pick a fight and I’m not biting. Take your insults elsewhere.
Kiss my ass; you’re just another reichwingnut.
Kansas, resorting to name calling now?
I drew my conclusions, I never said you didn’t. If you want to call names and think everyone who disagrees with you can’t think for themselves then that’s your business. For a minute there I thought you were interested in a real discussion. My mistake.
Sheeple, what a stupid thing to say. I guess that’s what you do when you can’t convince people to your world view or the “conclusions” that you draw on your own (supposedly).
Fact is, people aren’t stupid like you seem to think they are. If you can’t convince people who study the subject then chances are you are wrong. That’s the conclusion I draw.
So go ahead and call names.
trollboy………….all you deniers want is to “discuss” your spin. Science isn’t about spin. There is no reason to “discuss” anything with you then.
Call me a “coward” if you want, it doesn’t change the scientific findings or change the fact that you are a troll and nic switcher.
Apophis,
It looks like “Kansas values” even attacked Stephen E. Schwartz, for questioning himself that his model was too simple.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread–17.html#comment-87509456
leftcoaster, if you would come up with an original thought instead of being part of the sheep of GW, then we might have something to discuss.
I don’t care if you believe in what the IPCC scientists say. I believe in what they say as well. However, what I don’t believe is the political interpretation of the scientists statements by the IPCC panel on Climate Change.
90 percent of the scientific papers do not and I repeat, never have said there is conclusive proof that man is the sole cause of global warming.
Scientists don’t make statements like that. They give probabilities and maybe on occasion speculative scenarios. But there is not a scientist on the globe worth his salt and make a definitive statement about Climate without knowing all the facts.
Guess what? The scientists do not know all the facts and there is much work to be done and discussed.
Now if you want to focus in on a particular area of climate science I will be happy to oblige.
However, I’m not going to get into the argument that so and so scientists state this and that’s that.
Science doesn’t stop at one statement, it is a continual study.
See there leftcoaster, examine what cosmos does to me on a daily basis and what Apophis avoids everytime he posts. Rational discussion.
Both are attackers and refuse to discuss anything outside of their ideology or what is written in an op-ed piece.
With that, I’m off to do some science and a little bit of engineering, graduate level of course. :)
Move to boycott the troll (Kansas, republikhan, JM, and on and on)on his spin of global warming the rest of the night.
Do I have a second?
I know what and who he is.
I can’t imagine anyone pays him any attention.
Arson
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/24/national/main3401265.shtml
Who am I J R? Say it again, so you can be wrong once more.
I enjoy seeing you post incorrect things.
Of course global warming has a role in these fires.
Even slight tweeks at ecosystems can affect them in dramatic ways. In this case drought and build up of resultant dead vegetation.
But fire is part of nature too. Get the people out of their houses and let the fire do it’s natural thing. Stop risking life and equipment to save houses that did not belong there in the first place.
“Move to boycott the troll (Kansas, republikhan, JM, and on and on)on his spin of global warming the rest of the night.”
More “Fisting” talk?
What is it with you people? How ’bout throwing out another “kiss my ass” in there?
“Even slight tweeks at ecosystems can affect them in dramatic ways.”
Damned Butterflies!
“90 percent of the scientific papers do not and I repeat, never have said there is conclusive proof that man is the sole cause of global warming.
Scientists don’t make statements like that.”
Posted by “Kansas values”
And the IPCC reports do NOT make statments like that.
Climate scientists do NOT claim “that man is the sole cause of global warming”. There are both anthropogenic and natural factors — but warming during the last few decades is mostly anthropogenic caused.
There are no credible, peer-reviewed climate papers refuting the AGW concensus.
“Kansas values”: “I don’t care if you believe in what the IPCC scientists say.”
IPCC does not do climate science — they only compile the published, peer-reviewed science.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
“No argument there J M Walker. Climate Change is going to happen regardless of the cause. Being prepared is always good.”
Damn, we agree on something. So we’re this far. Now, my opinion is the global warmers are going to win this one, because people do like to feel sorry for themselves, and thinking one is ruining the earth, and thinking one can do something about it, is like getting absolved from original sin. Bad, but true.
On the other hand, there are those who would never, if the sun came down and scorched their perfect lawns, would admit to any kind of climate change at all. Again, bad.
There are the outsiders, like myself, who could give a rats ass who or what is causing it. Like my view on water, my view of climate change is to get the worlds climatologists together, tell them up front politics ain’t allowed, and let them loose on a climate earth Manhattan project, and see what, if anything, needs to be done to make sure we live through it, and not turn the earth into survival of the fittest. In other words, prepare for the worst. If it don’t happen, you gained knowledge about the earth you could get no other place.
I know J M Walker, but I haven’t found anyone on this blog willing to discuss climate science without going into the attack mode.
Being skeptical about things has it price and one of them is being the brunt of attacks.
To me, that shows weakness on the part of the attacker when they are unwilling, unable or both to discuss the issue rationally.
My meeting in a few minutes, got to go. :)
What will happen, bad science or not, is a social change, as well as a cultural one. Renewable energy, in the form of hydrogen, wind and solar, will, in my opinion, out pace fossil fuel, and non-renewable power. That is not a bad thing.
Eventually, if man survives whatever (war, climate, catastrophe), he will have to look at renewables. Why not in this lifetime?
So for better or worse, the global warming/man caused activists are not really hurting man at all. In fact, they are forcing man to do what he should have been doing for decades: reduce fossil fuel use to a minimum, and start cleaning up the pollution problems around the world.
“There are the outsiders, like myself, who could give a rats ass who or what is causing it.”
Posted by: J M Walker
If you ignore what is causing a problem, like human-added greenhouse gases, then the problem gets even worse in the future.
If you ignore what is causing a problem, like human-added greenhouse gases, then the problem gets even worse in the future.
I think you all are ignoring the real problem.
Some dumb ass, pyromaniac, set fires in southern california, its not the first time this has happened, there are a lot of nut cases out there in cali, and its no suprise that the fires happened where all the rich stars live, some of the biggest nut cases themselves.
Darn it cosmos you did not read carefully.
J M Walker is on the right side. It doesn’t matter what drives that.
I am really disappointed that no one pointed to, IT WAS AL-QAEDA! Or so on Fox and friends this morning it was implied. Quoting a memo from the FBI in June that stated that Al-Qaeda could use fires as a weapon against America. Now the memo is four years old and they got it off a blog site where it was posted.But still here was a stab to counter the Global warming me-me and it went without being said.
Those celeb nut cases, attract run of the mill nut cases, and when you have a bunch of nut cases concentrated in one area, its only a matter of time, before the whole place goes up in smoke.
We have all the evidence we need. And now I have more trees to sell.
Next arson case will be in a large midwestern city. We will of course blame GW for that as well.
And cash in on the insurance.
You libs are so gullible.
Climate science has been researched since the 1800’s.
Joseph Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, …http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
The research greatly intensified in the early 1970’s, when humans realized how important climate was to our lives on Earth. By 1977, the scientific opinion began converging on anthropogenic global warming — and it became stronger every year, the next three decades.
Science is based on SKEPTICISM. A scientist (or a group) forms a hypothesis, based on observations, data, etc. Then they present their hypothesis, data, etc to OTHER scientists, who try to recreate it, and/or discredit it.
Scientists are the biggest SKEPTICS on Earth. It is their profession.
And then, there is this dysfunctional, anonymous blog…
“Being skeptical about things has it price and one of them is being the brunt of attacks.
To me, that shows weakness on the part of the attacker when they are unwilling, unable or both to discuss the issue rationally.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 24, 2007 at 07:11 PM
It is “Kansas values” Kansas who shows “weakness”, and who is “unwilling, unable or both to discuss the issue rationally”.
“Kansas values” makes UNscientific claims that he cannot support.
“Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2. The albedo of poles are more susceptible to axis shift, thus more melting.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82636247
“Me? I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/polar-bears-fac.html#comment-82664655
And instead of “Kansas values” admitting that he has no science, he makes false personal attacks.
The “perpetual motion machine” —
energy without waste.
That is what libs want.
That is their “Holy Grail”
Even if we all starve and shiver in the cold as they promise to come up with something that works.
“…its only a matter of time, before the whole place goes up in smoke.”
It already has – belches smoke…
Notice how cosmos has nothing to add to the topic but an attack on me.
But that’s his style and I guess he enjoys it.
Too bad, he looks like he could have a promising career as an armadillo whisperer.
I don’t buy the “global warming” connection on this one, although I largely support the idea that we might ought to operate as if global warming is a real potential.
California has largely opposed any method of conservation which involves the removal of any old growth, allowing a precarious buildup of underbrush, which is natural.
However, another natural process is the scarification of seeds and the provocation of new growth in old forests by good ol’ heat. Usually a lightning strike is the culprit, but an arsonist or a careless cigarette smoker will do in a pinch.
In California’s case, they have prevented the kind of managed forest initiatives that allow healthy forest growth without over-logging and without the necessity of rampant wildfire to spur a new growth cycle. Instead, they’re like the people who never clean the lint trap on their dryer– the whole system is less efficient, and is a tremendous fire hazard.
Either you clean up the deadfall, underbrush, and debris, and thin the trees to where they don’t have the potential to become superheated fire masses with slight provocation, or you accept that a very common, natural process called a wildfire will do the job for you.
You make your bed, you sleep in it. Denying the realities of an ecosystem to purvey a political point about being “anti-logging” has finally come home to roost. It wouldn’t matter if it were an average of 51 degrees year-round, the stuff would still catch fire.
I say when Cali quits smoking, we give the charred half to Mexico, and keep the north half as North California.
Kansas,
WHERE is your “science” re “Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2″???
WHERE is your “science” re “I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”???
The very pathetic “Kansas values” CANNOT support his false “science” claims.
All that “Kansas values” has is false, very weak, personal attacks on other posters on the WE Blog.
Just more stupid bullshit from the Gore inbreds
Econ101 wants the U.S. to IGNORE how much we could REDUCE the demand for fossil fuels, with higher energy efficiency, and renewables.
Econ101’s “Holy Grail” is to keep burning huge amounts of fossil fuel, forever, and forever, and forever, and forever, and …
cosmos is getting weaker and weaker.
The more desperate he gets, the more a fool he makes of himself.
Kansas “values” (cough, gag!),
WHERE is your “science” re “Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2″???
WHERE is your “science” re “I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”???
Postal is picking nonsense out of the air. In the first place, after the fires of 2003, California has made it a requirement to clear underbrush in forested areas. They did so in order to prevent what is occurring now.
I know because I lived there for so long, I keep up on whats happening out there. The reason the fires are so large and out of control is because San Diego is a desert climate, the growing season is starting earlier every year because of climate change (man caused or otherwise), and the new growth is dying earlier because of the desert climate. Clearing it all out is a very expensive task, difficult to do due the terrain, but the calif forrestry service is doing an excellent job at it. Problem is, there is just too much growth to get it all, and it’s all fuel.
Anyone who wishes to check out the seasonal changes should start a diary denoting the first day they see new growth every spring. They will note it gets earlier every year. That is quantifiable. That is climate change. That is what’s causing the fires in San Diego to be of near biblical proportions.
Arsonist and a match caused the fire.
Geez, are you guys stuck on GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,GW,global warming
or what?
Match
Of course it was a match, or arsonist, or lightening, or magnifying glass, or whatever. The problem is the extent of the fire, and how out of control it is.
But there are more than political forces at work here. You either do or don’t get it. Obviously, you either don’t or can’t.
Well, an arsonist was the cause of one of the multiple fires in SoCal, and another fire might be due to arson:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.arson/index.html
The problem is the extent of the fire, and how out of control it is.
Oh good lord. It’s a desert!!Don’t plant things there and expect them to stay green.
The people in California are living in an area where natural fires have always been a part of the ecosystem.
YES!!! Evidence of climate change which can be taken at ANY given period of time in the HISTORY of the earth. California as a whole has been much cooler, much wetter, and much DRYER over the EON’s. GW is nothing more than the natural progression of time over nature.
The Sierra Nevada, with its rugged topography, varied resources and rich varieties of flora and fauna, is a dominant feature of California. A unified mountain range that extends approximately 580 km from Mt. Lassen at the north to the edge of Walker Pass, east of Bakerfield. It varies from 96 to 128 km in width and trends roughly from Northwest to southeast. All of the Sierra Nevada, with the exception of the Carson Range on the east slope, lies with California.
The current annual precipitation in the Sierra Nevada ranges from about 38 cm in the central part of the range to more than 114 cm along the western crest of the range. Most precipitation comes in the form of snow, with average temperature ranging from 3 to 1 centigrade in the winter to 15 to 18 centigrade in the summer. This contemporary dry summer, wet winter precipitation pattern did not prevail continuously in the past, and variable climatic regimes may have allowed for year-around residence in the Sierra by local tribes at some times and prohibited even seasonal occupation at other times. The scientific record documents considerable climatic change on short-term scales, a pattern that residents of the region witness today. Environmental history studies can address issues crucial to the current and future environmental health in the Sierra. Paleoenvironmental data can contribute to an understanding of the frequencies, magnitudes and rates of change that the environment has experienced over time and their human correlates.
Two very important avenues of paleo-environmental study track fluctuations in lake levels and changes in vegetation. Lake level drops are detected by the presence of submerged tree stumps in lakes and their tributary streams. Transformation in plant communities are monitored through variations in pollen and plant macrofossils, both of which are found in the nest of cave-dwelling woodrats. Through the study of these features, regional climate changes can be measured against the resulting responses by both natural and human communities.While most of the paleoenvironmental evidence has involved Lake Tahoe and lakes in the Tahoe region there is considerable evidence from Tenaya Lake in Yosemite (Stein 1992,1994) that directly corresponds to the tree dates found in the Walker River and Mono Lake area. For this paper we have chosen Tenaya Lake and Fallen Leaf Lake to present our case for interpreting ancient avalanches and its relevance for avalanche professionals in the future.Prior to 10,000 years before present (BP), glaciers occupied much of the Sierra Nevada and Carson Range, and a vast lake (known as Lake Lahontan) flooded much of the Western Great Basin. During the Early Holocene, 10,000-7,000 years BP, climates warmed and dried rapidly, causing glaciers to melt and Lake Lahontan to shrink, although climates remained relatively cool and moist, with increased winter precipitation. Pollen studies at Osgood Swamp near South Lake Tahoe (Adam 1976) indicate that a cold-dry sagebrush steppe prevailed until about 10,000 BP, where there was a shift to a coniferous forest.The Early Holocene was followed by a much warmer and dryer Mid-Holocene period from 7,000-4,000 BP, which resulted in the desiccation of many lakes in the western great Basin; lakes Tahoe and Pyramid declined but are the only ones that did not dry up during this time. Fossil pollen taken from Osgood Swamp near South Lake Tahoe (Adams 1976) and Little Valley in the Carson Range (Wigend et al 1995, 1996; Wigand and Rhode 1999) indicates the presence of more drought tolerant species by the end of this period. Mid-Holocene aridity in the Tahoe Sierra is further documented by the remains of submerged tree stumps, which stand rooted on the lake floor up to 6 meters below the source of Lake Tahoe. These ancient drowned forests date between 6,300-4,800 BP (Lindstrom 1990).Climates returned to a cooler and moister period by 4,000 BP
“Dr know”,
Would you please tell what California’s climate was like during the past “EON’s”, when Earth’s atmosphere had greenhouse gas concentrations similar to these.
CO2: 380 ppmNH4: 1,700 ppbN2O: 320 ppbCFC-12: 538 ppt
cosmos is just co2 stupid. cosmos thinks that co2 and other atmospheric gases are the only forces in history that drives climate.
cosmos would be wrong.
“That is climate change. That is what’s causing the fires in San Diego to be of near biblical proportions.”
Posted by JMWalker
Worst year for California wildfires-1936
Hottest year for California- 1936
Funny how that works out.
“but I haven’t found anyone on this blog willing to discuss climate science without going into the attack mode.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 24, 2007 at 07:11 PM
“cosmos is just co2 stupid. cosmos thinks that co2 and other atmospheric gases are the only forces in history that drives climate.
cosmos would be wrong.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 25, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Kansas again goes into “attack mode”.
Kansas again posts a LIE about what I think.
WHERE is Kansas’ “science” re “Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2″???
WHERE is Kansas’ “science” re “I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”???
Crickets chirping… chirp… chirp chirp…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/an-oscar-emmy-a.html#comment-85976270
Crickets chirping,… chirp,… chirp, chirp, chirp…
“And I’ve posted that the huge UNCERTAINTY re future climate is the main problem.
If we knew EXACTLY how much it’d warm, how much the sea level would rise, we could plan for it.”
Posted by: cosmos | July 08, 2007 at 02:44 PM
cosmos doesn’t know, he is posting guesses.
crickets chirping.
“I’ve posted before that the climate models are flawed.
And I’ve posted that the huge UNCERTAINTY re future climate is the main problem.
If we knew EXACTLY how much it’d warm, how much the sea level would rise, we could plan for it.”
Posted by: cosmos | July 08, 2007 at 02:44 PM
crickets chirping…
“Dr know”,
Would you please tell what California’s climate was like during the past “EON’s”, when Earth’s atmosphere had this greenhouse gas concentration?
CFC-12: 538 ppt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichlorodifluoromethane
“Dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12), usually sold under the brand name Freon-12, is a chlorofluorocarbon halomethane, commonly known as CFC, used as a refrigerant and aerosol spray propellant until its manufacture was discontinued and banned of new production in the United States and many countries in 1994, due to concerns about damage to the ozone layer. It is soluble in many organic solvents.”
WHERE is Kansas’ “science” re “Earth’s axis rotation and solar activity has more to do with the arctic melting than co2″???
WHERE is Kansas’ “science” re “I’m going with the 98 percent variable of natural climate change as the cause.”???
JM:
Picking nonsense? No. You admit that the Forest Service is slower to remove underbrush than, say, nature could do with forest fires occurring on a natural, chaos-dictated interval.
Forest fires are part of forest renewal, which explains why certain species of tree can only seed effectively/grow efficiently in the aftermath of such a fire. Certain tree seeds require the extreme heat and charring in order to germinate effectively. Forest fires aren’t the enemy until we build our homes in the forest; certain trees we are sworn to protect DEPEND on the fires to adequately reproduce.
We have encroached on the land, and attempted to artificially effect a phenomenon that had been previously self-regulating, and we get all surprised when we find out that nature was much more efficient, if more brutal, than we are.
Mess with the bull, and you get the horns. Next people to whine will be all those folk whose homes line the San Andreas fault, when an earthquake knocks ‘em down.