"(Reuters) - California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday toured communities devastated by the state's raging wildfires and said the deadly, record-shattering fire season across the U.S. West should end all debate over climate change."
metmike: There's never been a debate for one side. Al Gore told us 15 years ago that the debate was over and science was settled. We found out then, that every weather extreme and every extreme event is caused by man made climate change.
No need to learn anything new about the climate over the last 2 decades(for that side). They already knew it all. Just listen to them and do what they say we have to do to save the planet. It's been right there on the global climate model projections.............whoops, they've been wrong for 3 decades in a row.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989
I explain the real reason for the fires here:
West Coast/Oregon fires
12 responses |
Started by metmike - Sept. 12, 2020, 2:48 a.m.
so gavin just proving AGAIN what an idiot looks and sounds like. Seems odd the emergency stops where the fuel of dead trees and arresting or shooting on site these derelicts who set these fires. You know what would happen if BLM started setting fire to the corm fields of the Midwest?
"Scientific evidence reveals there has been no climate effect regards California’s wildfires! None! The data below proves it beyond all doubt. There is no denying that warmer temperatures can cause drier fuels and promote larger fires. But that fact is being misapplied to all wildfires. About 70% of California’s 2020 burnt areas have been in grasslands and dead grass is so dry by the end of California’s annual summer drought that dead grasses are totally insensitive to any added warmth from climate change. Dead grasses only require a few hours of warm dry conditions to become highly flammable. It’s fire weather not climate change that is critical. Furthermore, the century trends in local temperatures where California’s biggest fires have occurred reveal no connection to climate change. In most cases the local maximum temperatures have been cooler now than during the 1930s. Those cooler temperatures should reduce the fire danger. Newsom is either ignoring or distorting the scientific evidence, is totally stupid, or is a dishonest demagogue."
"Building wind turbines won’t fix failed forest management policies, except maybe in the forests which are clear felled to make way for new wind farms.
Fire safety is not rocket science. Fires can only exist where there is something to burn. If you get rid of the flammable stuff in places where fires might pose a threat to life or property, you end up with a substantially reduced fire risk and safer forests, regardless of what happens to the local or global climate."
My comment: Enjoyed the article!
The real reason for the fires:
My comment on the Joe Biden article above:
The real reason for the fires:
The reason that we know that these people are being dishonest and political is because they only give "climate change" or the "climate emergency" as the reason for these problems.
Then, they tell us its based on the science and the scientists..........but they never provide the actual big picture, objective science that includes all the elements contributing, including the meteorology/increase in vegetation from CO2 fertilization and especially the adaptation and forest management that would be a viable option to greatly reduce this problem.
Because all of those realities take away from the false narrative "climate change is destroying the planet and every extreme event is proof of it!!!"
So you/we must all do what they say to save the planet.
The greening planet and life on it is currently experiencing an authentic climate optimum by all standards in science(biology, agronomy, zoology) .
But we are having a crisis and emergency........a political one using busted(indisputably too warm) climate models...computer simulations of the atmosphere going out 100 years, using speculative mathematical equations to represent what we think that we know(which isn't everything despite what we are told) along with worst case, very unlikely scenario's that have replaced authentic climate science.
It's pretty simple.
Authentic climate science was completely hijacked and replaced with manufactured science used for political propaganda.
If that wasn't true, then why is EVERYTHING about climate change bad?
Propaganda is not objective. It doesn't tell you both sides of an issue. It doesn't use the skeptical scientific method. It's mission is to convince/brain wash you to believe ONLY in what the (fanatical) belief is.
When was the last time that CNN's top story was that the planet is massively greening up, the biosphere booming and most life doing the best in at least 1,000 years?
If those authentic scientific facts about the climate optimum, based on observations are not being told, then when we hear ONLY the complete opposite............which contradicts that authentic science........it's clearly one sided propaganda.
metmike: Sounds scary and convincing but is entirely propaganda. I don't know everything but as an atmospheric scientist that has been analyzing global weather ever day for 38 years, I clearly recognize pure propaganda in my field.
Get ready for them to start imposing the carbon and energy taxes and the continuation of the cultural revolution which features global(and US) socialism/Marxism.
That's the reason they hijacked climate science and are using the propaganda to impose their political belief system(by tricking us to do something we would not agree to if we weren't told that its to "save the planet").
The other objective is to reign in the OVER consumption of natural resources by the developed countries(sustainable development) and modulate world population growth.............which also consumes too much.
As an environmentalist, I can see benefits to fighting/reducing REAL pollution and conserving natural resources and using renewable energy.......but CO2 is a beneficial gas. We rescued the planet from near starvation of CO2! Life wants more of it.
"Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Monday that urgent action is needed to prevent climate change, pointing to worsening Western wildfires that have killed dozens of people and scorched 5 million acres across 10 states this year.
Biden, a former vice president, said in a speech outside the Delaware Museum of Natural History in Wilmington that he would rejoin the Paris climate agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement, saying other countries got unfair advantage from it.
Biden also said that he would spur the development of renewable energy through steps such as shifting the federal fleet of vehicles from fossil fuels to electric power. But Biden said the country wouldn't be safe with Trump, who has called climate change a "hoax."
“If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of American ablaze,” Biden said. “We need a president who respects science, who understands that the damage from climate change is already here and unless we take urgent action, it’ll soon be more catastrophic."
Biden has proposed to spend $2 trillion to spur development of of technology such as generating power without carbon emissions by 2035.
“We have to act as a nation," Biden said. "It shouldn’t be so bad that millions of Americans live in the shadow of an orange sky and are left asking: Is doomsday here?"
The problems extend beyond the fires to a record hurricane season, flooding in Midland, Michigan, and the warmest decade in history that left the Arctic literally melting, Biden said.
"I know this feeling of dreads and anxiety extends well beyond the fires," Biden said. “It’s happening everywhere and it’s happening now and it affects us all."
"But Trump blamed poor forest management, which should have thinned trees and reduced brush to reduce fuel for fires.
"We're also praying for everyone throughout the West affected by the devastating wildfires," Trump said Sunday in Henderson, Nevada. "We want really forest management. We want forest management."
"The former vice president sees fighting climate change as part of his economic vision, one that will create new jobs as the U.S. develops technology to battle rising temperatures.
Biden’s climate plan would fight global warming with a transition to cleaner technologies, including electric vehicles and renewable energy, as well as a requirement that all power be carbon free by 2035."
metmike: Biden/politicians and others are the most pathetic when they use natural disasters to bs us about climate change. Trump is right about humans being able to manage the forest floors to lessen the severity of wildfires like this.
Instead of doing that, let's blame it entirely on climate change so that we can impose carbon taxes and use it for political agenda. Then they tell us its science and the ones of us actually using authentic science and offering practical solutions..........are the deniers.
These people want us to believe they can control the weather and climate. Under the Green New Fairly Tale, wildfires and hurricanes will stop being a major threat if you believe their position. They can control the weather!
It's just manufactured junk/anti science, using every extreme natural event and worst case scenario's of indisputably busted computer simulations of the atmosphere for the next 100 years........to get votes, impose taxes and their political/economical agenda/models.
Read Bidens quote above again. "All power will be carbon free by 2035". He just insisted earlier this month when he was in the fracking state of PA, that he would not ban fracking and repeated it for emphasis......to get votes in PA.
What do you think fracking does Joe? There isn't any sunshine or wind buried under the ground (-:
Carbon free = ZERO fracking
This means the end of the combustion engine and corn ethanol, which is 40% of the demand for the US crop that goes away completely.
With the Green New Deal there is no longer any corn ethanol. Electric cars use ZERO ethanol. I mention this because we have numerous crop farmers here.
Any crop farmer that votes for Biden, must hate Trump more than they love profits.
The recent severe drought in California, that lasted for several years was the worst in over 100 years. It was bad.............but 100 years on a climatic scale is like 1 second is to a 24 hour day. Extremes like this have been happening in several places at the same time on the planet simultaneously for the last million years.
Historically, this last drought was a picnic compared to recent droughts there.
Maybe you can take heart in the fact that busted global climate models, that have been wrong, are forecasting MORE rain for California during the next century(though it would make sense with more El Ninos)
As far as warmer temperatures and increasing CO2, unfortunately that is causing plants to grow much faster which is resulting in a massive increase in fuel for wildfires.
The best option is to let the increasing CO2 continue to feed an additional 1 billion people on this planet and benefit ALL of life on this planet and adapt in the forests by managing the floors much better.
One way to look at that would be, to look at what it would be like without the extra CO2 from the last 100 years. Wildfires would be less intense................but over 1 billion of the nearly 8 billion people on our planet would starve within 3 years and food prices, in my estimate would triple in order to ration the shortages.
Unfortunately for California, some of the worst weather on the planet has been occurring out there in the last decade.............that is compared to the last 130 years of weather.
The planet as a whole, over the last 40 years has easily experienced the best weather and climate since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago, that was at least this warm.
Even in the best climate in a Millenium, on this huge planet, there will always be extreme and bad weather in some places.
To stop these type of wildfires, we need to stop natural La Nina's and stop natural droughts and stop natural weather systems that brought the unusually high winds earlier this month and stop lightning.......the main reason for these fires that we have not control over.
And stop arson/accidental fire setting...........there is a human element there.
Better fire management would help..........human element.
Reducing emissions of the beneficial gas, CO2 would help mainly because it would slow down the speed of vegetative growth that acts as fuel for the fires.
We are not being told that is the real reason CO2 is having an affect on the intensity of fires.
However, the benefits to the increase in CO2 to the greening up planet with a booming biosphere/life with record crop production, suggests that trying to stifle plant growth around the planet is not the best way to manage wildfires.
Wolf Blitzer had the governor of Washington ST on CNN this afternoon.
The governor went into an anti Trump screed, accusing the president of being responsible for the "climate fires" in his state. That's right, he's decided to call them "climate fires".
And he insists that Trump is ignorant of science?
The funniest part was at the end.
For some odd reason, not related to a scientific application, with nobody else in the room(except the person operating the camera, that was some distance away) the governor was wearing a huge black cloth mask covering most of his face during the entire interview.
Cloth masks, don't stop the virus from getting in or out but they do keep it from being projected for longer distances, mainly from an infected person that coughs or sneezes. So they are helpful, especially if accompanied by social distancing in places with multiple people.....to protect them from you, if you have the virus.
But this was on national tv and nobody there in the room with him. The virus is not able to jump from the air surrounding infected viewers watching on their tv's at home and transport long distances to come out of the camera at his end and infect him or vice versa (-:
Cloth masks do absolutely nothing to filter smoke, like that which is affecting residents on the West Coast because of the wildfires...........and of course, there was no smoke in his room.
So just as they were getting ready to rap it up, Wolf says: "One last question, why are you wearing the mask? Is it because of the smoke or is it because of the coronavirus?"
Governor: "I'm wearing it because of the coronavirus".
The question was dumb(unless Wolf was making fun of him which is doubtful) because a cloth mask does exactly ZERO for smoke and maybe, if the governor knew he is infected with COVID, he might want to protect the camera person.............which is extremely unlikely. So wearing the mask in that environment was not just accomplishing exactly ZERO, it was in fact completely counterproductive and misleading if you are trying to convince people that don't agree with wearing a mask of a legit reason to wear a mask.
He was demonstrating the wearing of a mask for absolutely no practical reason what so ever because he was not presenting any threat of spreading the virus to non existent people in the room.
If he can't tell the difference between when one should wear a mask and when its not needed, then who is going to believe him about wearing one at all?
Cloth masks do no good for smoke/pollution and they let all the COVID virus in and out too.
You need an N-95 mask to filter out the tiny dust, smoke or virus particles.
Health experts said N-95 masks are the only ones that stop smoke particles.
|Worsening air quality raises questions about which COVID-19 masks work best for smoke | KOMO|
With the air quality only expected to get worse, a lot of people are wondering if their face covering to protect them from COVID-19 will work for smoke. Everywhere you go now, you’ll likely ...
Health experts said N-95 masks are the only ones that stop smoke particles.
But they said you should not rush out and buy one.
“If you need to be outside for a long period of time, it might be particles worth thinking about a tight-fitting mask like an N-95 but recognize these are in very short supply and we want to reserve those for essential personal,” said Dr. Seth Cohen with UW Medical Center.
Save the N-95s for medical staff and essential workers.
I think your average Twilight Zone episode had far more truth in it than Biden's words today (-:
"If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is under water?"
metmike: Since the sea levels are increasing at just over 1 inch/decade, in 4 years, the water from our surrounding oceans will be up around 1/2 inch......hardly enough for America to be under water anywhere.
So pathetic to use a tragedy and natural disaster to deceive people with fabricated facts and junk science for political gain..............and to call the people using authentic science and the real world of being the deniers.
Here's the TRUTH about sea levels.
And again, this is the TRUTH about what actually caused the wild fires:
It's pathetic to be using climate change causing drought as the reason for these fires out West. This is absolutely NOT the truth.
The most unusual statistic in the US regarding drought is the LACK OF DROUGHT in the Midwest in the last 4 decades.
Since 1988, the Midwest has seen only 1 widespread severe drought(2012) when historically, we were would have had at least 4 droughts during a similar time frame.
Best growing conditions there and many other places on the planet in the last 1,000 years. Not in spite of climate change but because of it.
The 1930's featured almost a decade of drought (4 major episodes actually) across that region and it expanded beyond that at times. The map below is from that drought near its worst but it persisted similar to this for most of the decade.
And we are supposed to believe that this map below is from human caused climate change????
At any point in time, 30% of the planet has drought, always has and always will be that way. And the droughts move around with the changing weather patterns.
It would be more of an extreme aberration to NOT have a large part of the US with severe drought, like the one above at least every several years.
This is normal weather. That has not changed. Always been that way and always will be.
The only thing that has changed is that people today, have hijacked climate science and now use every drought(and extreme weather) for their political agenda.
The natural La Nina that caused this drought, also caused the record heat in the Southwest this past Summer.
Note how recent heat waves compare to the 1930's:
The Dust Bowl
Of all the droughts that have occurred in the United States, the drought events of the 1930s are widely considered to be the “drought of record” for the nation. The 1930s drought is often referred to as if it were one episode, but it was actually several distinct events occurring in such rapid succession that affected regions were not able to recover adequately before another drought began. The term Dust Bowl was coined in 1935 when an AP reporter, Robert Geiger, used it to describe the drought-affected south central United States in the aftermath of horrific dust storms
The middle of the nation is in the midst of the first of four major drought episodes that would occur over the course of the next decade.
The most interesting response of all is the one to people like me..............when we show the data/facts, authentic science and weather/climate records from the past to dispute the fake climate crisis.
We are labelled climate "deniers" to and as Obama called us "flat earthers"
Everybody is told to shun us because we are sabotaging their effort to save the planet and to believe only them. That the science is settled and they have the secrets.............and they can't waste their time debating with deniers.
Just vote for them and do what they tell us to do and they will save the planet.
The other side will destroy the planet.
BTW, I'm a practicing environmentalist, in contrast to almost every one of the people telling you these things that YOU and me need to do but not them(because they are part of the elite class).
The real environmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean: April 2019
'I conserve water and energy, I turn the ac completely off in the Summer when my wife is not home and the heat down to as low as50 in the winter when she’s gone.....seriously-I damaged her tropical plants a couple of times-I wear a sweat shirt, my winter jacket, a hat and gloves with finger holes to type on the computer. I often wear a pair of down pants over my jeans.
I minimize use of plastics and paper/ cardboard. We used to recycle but got out of that routine. My kids would collect aluminum cans, crush them then we would sell them. They made $100 doing this.
I also exercise vigorously and exhale massive amounts of beneficial CO2 to do my part in helping to green up the planet (-:
Unless you are very active or get dirty, there is no need to shower every day. I shower after exercise or working outside and getting dirty. Showering every day Is a waste of water if you just do it out of habit. Green lawns are aesthetically appealing but they waste billions of gallons of water.
The point of telling you this is that the hypocritical gatekeepers of the information that brainwash us about the fake climate crisis are maximizing their use of those fossil fuels to enjoy all the comforts they provide in their lives.......and calling people like me deniers for providing authentic science that contradicts their scary, speculative computer model simulations going out for the next 100 years.
And they have the gumption to tell us exactly what we have to do or we will lose the planet in 12 years, with solutions that will have zero effect on climate and don’t address any real environmental problems with our water, air or soils."
All the climate reality discussions can be found here:
i guess this means....there were never any bad wildfires until humans start using fossil fuels.
it is amazing how so many people can be so naive.
This is entirely politics making up a crisis that doesn't exist and obliterating the truth about science with misleading facts and fake news....using every disaster and extreme for the agenda:
Using satellite technology, NASA determined that between 2003 and 2019, global fires have dropped by roughly 25 percent. This makes the “climate change is worsening wildfires” argument completely moot.
One of the most interesting things researchers have discovered since MODIS began collecting measurements, noted Randerson, is a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year. Between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25 percent.
As populations have increased in fire-prone regions of Africa, South America, and Central Asia, grasslands and savannas have become more developed and converted into farmland. As a result, long-standing habits of burning grasslands (to clear shrubs and land for cattle or other reasons) have decreased, explained NASA Goddard Space Flight scientist Niels Andela. And instead of using fire, people increasingly use machines to clear crops.
“There are really two separate trends,” said Randerson. “Even as the global burned area number has declined because of what is happening in savannas, we are seeing a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States because of climate change.”
So are these recent wildfires in the Western US/Oregon truly unprecedented?
The data below tells us. Not even close.
This image is from the Oregon Department of forestry. Click on the diagram to blow it up, you can see the influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
Note what happened in the 1930's during the Dust Bowl years in the Plains/Midwest when the drought extended across much of the country for much of the time.......all the way to the West Coast:
by Judith Curry
Subtitle: our failure to live in harmony with nature.
"I’m taking a breather today from nonstop hurricane stuff. Well, ‘breather’ may not be quite the right word.
As I’m writing this, I’m looking out into the smoke from the California fires that are blowing into Reno (not to mention much of the rest of the U.S.). Schools in Reno are supposed to be open (they have a good COVID protocol), but have been closed more than half the time for the past month owing to bad air quality from the fires.
The mantra from global warming activists that manmade global warming is causing the fires, and therefore fossil fuels must be eliminated, is rather tiresome, not to mention misses the most important factors. More importantly, even if global warming is having some fractional impact on the wildfires, reducing fossil fuels would fractionally impact the fires but only a time scale of many decades hence."
metmike: Some good, intelligent/honest articles included in the above one that discuss this issue.
Ninety-five percent of wildfires that ravaged California in the past 100 years were caused by humans, according to a forthcoming study in the International Journal of Wildland Fire.
“In most of California, if we could stop ignition during extremely high winds and drought and heat spells, like now, that will be an effective approach,” lead author and U.S. Geological Survey wildfire expert Jon Keeley told The San Jose Mercury News of his soon-to-be-published study.
While the public debate largely rages around global warming’s role in wildfires, Keeley’s study shows that human interaction with the landscape, no matter the climate, is causing most fires. (RELATED: Scientist Calls Out Media ‘Misinformation’ On Wildfires And Global Warming)
Motorized equipment, from gas-powered weed-wackers to lawn mowers and generators, are the main cause of fires, Keeley said. Arson, burning of debris, kids messing around with fire, smoking, vehicles and utility lines are also major causes of wildfires, Keeley said.
The western U.S. has warmed in the past few decades, but it’s population has also boomed, meaning more people are living in wildfire-prone areas. The increased human presence means more chances of ignition in paces and at times where fires tend not to naturally occur without lightning.
Power lines account for much of the historical are burned from wildfires, Keeley said. That included 12 fires that burned through Northern California in 2017 that ravaged thousands of acres and caused at least 15 deaths.
Keeley said the number of fires peaked in 1979 and has been declining ever since, which is probably an indication of better education about the dangers of wildfires, Keeley said. However, area burned in California increased in some parts of California in recent decades."
Bob Zybach feels like a broken record. Decades ago he warned government officials allowing Oregon’s forests to grow unchecked by proper management would result in catastrophic wildfires.
While some want to blame global warming for the uptick in catastrophic wildfires, Zybach said a change in forest management policies is the main reason Americans are seeing a return to more intense fires, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and California where millions of acres of protected forests stand.
“We knew exactly what would happen if we just walked away,” Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Zybach spent two decades as a reforestation contractor before heading to graduate school in the 1990s. Then the Clinton administration in 1994 introduced its plan to protect old growth trees and spotted owls by strictly limiting logging.
Less logging also meant government foresters weren’t doing as much active management of forests — thinnings, prescribed burns and other activities to reduce wildfire risk.
"Another homeless man, Domingo Lopez Jr., 45, was accused of going on a 12-hour spree that began Sept. 13 in which he set multiple brush fires along Interstate 2015 in Portland, the outlet reported.
He admitted to the fires and was taken to a hospital for a mental health evaluation, authorities said.
Glenn Corbett, a professor of fire science at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the wildfire coverage could be motivating those with incendiary tendencies to commit the crimes.
“All that people are talking about right now is these fires, it’s on TV and in the newspapers,” Glenn told the outlet. “I would imagine this could be sort of a motivator for people who had those types of tendencies to begin with. It can certainly move them to becoming a participant.”
"As many as 90 percent of wildland fires in the United States are caused by people, according to the U.S. Department of Interior. Some human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, downed power lines, negligently discarded cigarettes and intentional acts of arson. The remaining 10 percent are started by lightning or lava."
"Real goal is to avoid responsibility for policies, and increase control over energy, lives, property"
Weather Elements that Affect Fire Behavior
"Of the three major components making up a fire�s environment (Fuel, Weather and Topography), weather is the most important, yet it is continuously changing.This unit will deal with the role weather plays in the start and spread of wildfires and in the use of prescribed Fires."
The real reason for this years fires out West:
"The study considers all these factors, and the picture is clear, without the pronounced increase in temperature, forest fire conditions wouldn’t deteriorate. This is it, full stop. The above is a desperate attempt to deny the obvious."
1. "pronounced" as in 2 degrees warmer?
2. Much of the warmth has been from night time lows with higher humidities around the clock. Higher humidity is a negative factor for wildfires.
3. The article states that this is driving the wild fires.
4. Why is this the driver but a 20% increase in vegetative growth from atmospheric fertilization by beneficial CO2 is not more important? Or the massive increase in the population?
5. Just what sort of climate do you think we should be getting in California anyway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California#/media/File:California_K%C3%B6ppen.svg
To be honest, we should say that slightly warmer temperatures are a factor but not the driver. To be honest, we should be mentioning all the other important elements.
This suggests that meteorological conditions have been responsible for both the glut of fires in the US west and the dearth in Canada.
More significant though is the long term trend in Canada:
1994, 1995 and 1998 recorded the biggest wildfire acreages. But over the full period, there is no obvious trend at all.