Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
El stovey said:
PRTVR said:
If you look it references actually scientific reports.
I have no idea why they are being ignored, but I can make a guess.....
it doesn't help the disaster narrative .
It’s being ignored as it’s on YouTube. I have no idea why they are being ignored, but I can make a guess.....
it doesn't help the disaster narrative .
That’s not a place where science gets published or reviewed.
the scientific papers are listed if you prefer that media .
Global ice loss increases at record rate
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-global-ice-loss.html
Extract:
The rate at which ice is disappearing across the planet is speeding up, according to new research.
And the findings also reveal that the Earth lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice between 1994 and 2017—equivalent to a sheet of ice 100 metres thick covering the whole of the UK.
The figures have been published today (Monday, 25 January) by a research team which is the first to carry out a survey of global ice loss using satellite data.
The team, led by the University of Leeds, found that the rate of ice loss from the Earth has increased markedly within the past three decades, from 0.8 trillion tons per year in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons per year by 2017.
Ice melt across the globe raises sea levels, increases the risk of flooding to coastal communities, and threatens to wipe out natural habitats which wildlife depend on.
The findings of the research team, which includes the University of Edinburgh, University College London and data science specialists Earthwave, are published in European Geosciences Union's journal The Cryosphere.
The research, funded by UK Natural Environment Research Council, shows that overall, there has been a 65 % increase in the rate of ice loss over the 23-year survey. This has been mainly driven by steep rises in losses from the polar ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.
Lead author Dr. Thomas Slater, a Research Fellow at Leeds' Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling , said: "Although every region we studied lost ice, losses from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have accelerated the most.
"The ice sheets are now following the worst-case climate warming scenarios set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Sea-level rise on this scale will have very serious impacts on coastal communities this century."
Dr. Slater said the study was the first of its kind to examine all the ice that is disappearing on Earth, using satellite observations .
He added: "Over the past three decades there's been a huge international effort to understand what's happening to individual components in Earth's ice system, revolutionised by satellites which allow us to routinely monitor the vast and inhospitable regions where ice can be found.
Our study is the first to combine these efforts and look at all the ice that is being lost from the entire planet."
The increase in ice loss has been triggered by warming of the atmosphere and oceans, which have warmed by 0.26°C and 0.12°C per decade since the 1980, respectively. The majority of all ice loss was driven by atmospheric melting (68 %), with the remaining losses (32%) being driven by oceanic melting.
The survey covers 215,000 mountain glaciers spread around the planet, the polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, the ice shelves floating around Antarctica, and sea ice drifting in the Arctic and Southern Oceans.
Rising atmospheric temperatures have been the main driver of the decline in Arctic sea ice and mountain glaciers across the globe, while rising ocean temperatures have increased the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. For the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice shelves, ice losses have been triggered by a combination of rising ocean and atmospheric temperatures.
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-global-ice-loss.html
Extract:
The rate at which ice is disappearing across the planet is speeding up, according to new research.
And the findings also reveal that the Earth lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice between 1994 and 2017—equivalent to a sheet of ice 100 metres thick covering the whole of the UK.
The figures have been published today (Monday, 25 January) by a research team which is the first to carry out a survey of global ice loss using satellite data.
The team, led by the University of Leeds, found that the rate of ice loss from the Earth has increased markedly within the past three decades, from 0.8 trillion tons per year in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons per year by 2017.
Ice melt across the globe raises sea levels, increases the risk of flooding to coastal communities, and threatens to wipe out natural habitats which wildlife depend on.
The findings of the research team, which includes the University of Edinburgh, University College London and data science specialists Earthwave, are published in European Geosciences Union's journal The Cryosphere.
The research, funded by UK Natural Environment Research Council, shows that overall, there has been a 65 % increase in the rate of ice loss over the 23-year survey. This has been mainly driven by steep rises in losses from the polar ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.
Lead author Dr. Thomas Slater, a Research Fellow at Leeds' Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling , said: "Although every region we studied lost ice, losses from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have accelerated the most.
"The ice sheets are now following the worst-case climate warming scenarios set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Sea-level rise on this scale will have very serious impacts on coastal communities this century."
Dr. Slater said the study was the first of its kind to examine all the ice that is disappearing on Earth, using satellite observations .
He added: "Over the past three decades there's been a huge international effort to understand what's happening to individual components in Earth's ice system, revolutionised by satellites which allow us to routinely monitor the vast and inhospitable regions where ice can be found.
Our study is the first to combine these efforts and look at all the ice that is being lost from the entire planet."
The increase in ice loss has been triggered by warming of the atmosphere and oceans, which have warmed by 0.26°C and 0.12°C per decade since the 1980, respectively. The majority of all ice loss was driven by atmospheric melting (68 %), with the remaining losses (32%) being driven by oceanic melting.
The survey covers 215,000 mountain glaciers spread around the planet, the polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, the ice shelves floating around Antarctica, and sea ice drifting in the Arctic and Southern Oceans.
Rising atmospheric temperatures have been the main driver of the decline in Arctic sea ice and mountain glaciers across the globe, while rising ocean temperatures have increased the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. For the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice shelves, ice losses have been triggered by a combination of rising ocean and atmospheric temperatures.
kerplunk said:
Beati Dogu said:
Interglacial climate is a real b
h.
Strange comment - the holocene intergacial in which we've flourished appears to have been been relatively stable for 1000s of years. h. Regionally there are only a a few temperature proxy (ice cores) estimates with high enough temporal resolution to make any judgement.
And those regional estimates show more far more rapid changes than we have seen, even regionally, since 1850.
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Beati Dogu said:
Interglacial climate is a real bh.
Strange comment - the holocene intergacial in which we've flourished appears to have been been relatively stable for 1000s of years. h. Regionally there are only a a few temperature proxy (ice cores) estimates with high enough temporal resolution to make any judgement.
And those regional estimates show more far more rapid changes than we have seen, even regionally, since 1850.
Which ice cores are you referring to? If it's the Alley GISP2 record there's reason to think the variation seen in that record isn't realistic - even Alley himself says that these days.
Interesting article on Carbon Brief about recent recent developments in the Greenland story with links to papers etc
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenla...
(Caveat just for you because you're special - it's written by Zeke H who you've declared untrustworthy)
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th January 19:00
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th January 19:04
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Beati Dogu said:
Interglacial climate is a real bh.
Strange comment - the holocene intergacial in which we've flourished appears to have been been relatively stable for 1000s of years. h. Regionally there are only a a few temperature proxy (ice cores) estimates with high enough temporal resolution to make any judgement.
And those regional estimates show more far more rapid changes than we have seen, even regionally, since 1850.
Which ice cores are you referring to? If it's the Alley GISP2 record there's reason to think the variation seen in that record isn't realistic - even Alley himself says that these days.
Interesting article on Carbon Brief about recent recent developments in the Greenland story with links to papers etc
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenla...
(Caveat just for you because you're special - it's written by Zeke H who you've declared untrustworthy)
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th January 19:00
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th January 19:04
Like i said we don't have a proxy for global temperature that has enough resolution to tell us if recent temperature change rates are unusual.
We have regional data available from Greenland and the Antarctic that do have decent resolution, and a 5 minute look at the data from those show higher rates of temperature change than we have experiences recently, and not just during D-O events.
Last time we had this discussion on PH I posted up the data from the ice cores showing multiple examples of rapid temperature changes, roughly 7 to 10 times what we are now experiencing. The response was ...
"but that's regional!"
... which is true, but that‘s the best we got.
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Beati Dogu said:
Interglacial climate is a real bh.
Strange comment - the holocene intergacial in which we've flourished appears to have been been relatively stable for 1000s of years. h. Regionally there are only a a few temperature proxy (ice cores) estimates with high enough temporal resolution to make any judgement.
And those regional estimates show more far more rapid changes than we have seen, even regionally, since 1850.
Which ice cores are you referring to? If it's the Alley GISP2 record there's reason to think the variation seen in that record isn't realistic - even Alley himself says that these days.
Interesting article on Carbon Brief about recent recent developments in the Greenland story with links to papers etc
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenla...
(Caveat just for you because you're special - it's written by Zeke H who you've declared untrustworthy)
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th January 19:00
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 28th January 19:04
Like i said we don't have a proxy for global temperature that has enough resolution to tell us if recent temperature change rates are unusual.
We have regional data available from Greenland and the Antarctic that do have decent resolution, and a 5 minute look at the data from those show higher rates of temperature change than we have experiences recently, and not just during D-O events.
Last time we had this discussion on PH I posted up the data from the ice cores showing multiple examples of rapid temperature changes, roughly 7 to 10 times what we are now experiencing. The response was ...
"but that's regional!"
... which is true, but that‘s the best we got.
"Like i said we don't have a proxy for global temperature that has enough resolution to tell us if recent temperature change rates are unusual."
hmm but that isn't what you asked me to provide evidence for is it and wasn't my assertion.
"Sea level or greenhouse gases as a proxy for temp? Insufficient temporal resolution."
GHG stability is relevent because I'm not tied to recent global warming temporality - that's something you've made a requirement. We can see how CO2 varies with global temps very well at glacial-interglacial transition and infer from that to the holocene and see only very small variations associated with relatively small climate variations like the so called 'little ice age'.( A secondary point is that GHGs are also causal to climate change as a feedback so that's a mechanism off the list).
Sea level - that one sure is a slow burner so room for god of the gaps type argument but it deserves a mention when you see how much it changed in the run up to the holocene but not since.
I could go on.
I would still like to see what what ice core data you're referring to, if it's not too much trouble.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 29th January 01:04
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 29th January 01:06
An interesting view put forward by Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen and published in the European Geosciences Union journal Ocean Science that once again models *could* be undercooking an aspect of climate change...
Sea level likely to rise faster than previously thought
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-faster-previousl...
Extract(s):
There are two main elements to observe when assessing sea-level rise. One is the loss of the ice on land, e.g., melting mountain glaciers and inland ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, and the other is that the sea will expand as it gets warmer. The more its temperature increases, the faster the sea will rise. Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen have constructed a new method of quantifying just how fast the sea will react to warming. Their comparison of sea-level responsiveness in models with historical data shows that former predictions of sea level have been too conservative, so the sea will likely rise more and faster than previously believed. The result is now published in the European Geosciences Union journal Ocean Science.
During the last 150 years, in what is called the industrial period, sea levels have been rising, as Aslak Grinsted, associate professor at the Niels Bohr Institute research section, Physics of Ice, Climate and Earth, explains. "We expect, of course, that there is a connection between rising temperature and the rate indicating the momentum of the rise. Observations are telling us that the rate has been accelerating over the past 150 years. This means we can create a picture of how the connection between temperature and sea-level rise has been, historically. But 150 years is not very long, actually, because of the great inertia in the warming of the oceans and inland ice sheets, so several hundreds of years can pass before we see the full consequences of warming in the atmosphere. This is why we compare the observations with the results from the detailed computer models we use to depict a future scenario. among others, the climate panel of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gathered these projections, made from a collection of many smaller models. These, in turn, have been validated, obviously, as well as can be done."
The research team at the Niels Bohr Institute is hoping their method for validating future scenarios by looking into the past can gain a foothold in how sea-level rise will be analyzed in the future. "Apparently, the models we are basing our predictions of sea-level rise on presently are not sensitive enough. To put it plainly, they don't hit the mark when we compare them to the rate of sea-level rise we see when comparing future scenarios with observations going back in time," Grinsted says.
"You could say," concludes Grinsted, "that this article has two main messages: The scenarios we see before us now regarding sea-level rise are too conservative—the sea looks, using our method, to rise more than what is believed using the present method. The other message is that research in this area can benefit from using our method to constrain sea-level models in the scenarios in the future."
Sea level likely to rise faster than previously thought
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-sea-faster-previousl...
Extract(s):
There are two main elements to observe when assessing sea-level rise. One is the loss of the ice on land, e.g., melting mountain glaciers and inland ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, and the other is that the sea will expand as it gets warmer. The more its temperature increases, the faster the sea will rise. Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen have constructed a new method of quantifying just how fast the sea will react to warming. Their comparison of sea-level responsiveness in models with historical data shows that former predictions of sea level have been too conservative, so the sea will likely rise more and faster than previously believed. The result is now published in the European Geosciences Union journal Ocean Science.
During the last 150 years, in what is called the industrial period, sea levels have been rising, as Aslak Grinsted, associate professor at the Niels Bohr Institute research section, Physics of Ice, Climate and Earth, explains. "We expect, of course, that there is a connection between rising temperature and the rate indicating the momentum of the rise. Observations are telling us that the rate has been accelerating over the past 150 years. This means we can create a picture of how the connection between temperature and sea-level rise has been, historically. But 150 years is not very long, actually, because of the great inertia in the warming of the oceans and inland ice sheets, so several hundreds of years can pass before we see the full consequences of warming in the atmosphere. This is why we compare the observations with the results from the detailed computer models we use to depict a future scenario. among others, the climate panel of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gathered these projections, made from a collection of many smaller models. These, in turn, have been validated, obviously, as well as can be done."
The research team at the Niels Bohr Institute is hoping their method for validating future scenarios by looking into the past can gain a foothold in how sea-level rise will be analyzed in the future. "Apparently, the models we are basing our predictions of sea-level rise on presently are not sensitive enough. To put it plainly, they don't hit the mark when we compare them to the rate of sea-level rise we see when comparing future scenarios with observations going back in time," Grinsted says.
"You could say," concludes Grinsted, "that this article has two main messages: The scenarios we see before us now regarding sea-level rise are too conservative—the sea looks, using our method, to rise more than what is believed using the present method. The other message is that research in this area can benefit from using our method to constrain sea-level models in the scenarios in the future."
An interesting read and in-line with climate models:
California's rainy season starting nearly a month later than it did 60 years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/2102...
Extract:
The start of California's annual rainy season has been pushed back from November to December, prolonging the state's increasingly destructive wildfire season by nearly a month, according to new research. The study cannot confirm the shift is connected to climate change, but the results are consistent with climate models that predict drier autumns for California in a warming climate, according to the authors.
Wildfires can occur at any time in California, but fires typically burn from May through October, when the state is in its dry season. The start of the rainy season, historically in November, ends wildfire season as plants become too moist to burn.
California's rainy season has been starting progressively later in recent decades and climate scientists have projected it will get shorter as the climate warms. In the new study, researchers analyzed rainfall and weather data in California over the past six decades. The results show the official onset of California's rainy season is 27 days later than it was in the 1960s and the rain that does fall is being concentrated during the months of January and February.
"What we've shown is that it will not happen in the future, it's happening already," said Jelena Luković, a climate scientist at the University of Belgrade in Serbia and lead author of the new study. "The onset of the rainy season has been progressively delayed since the 1960s, and as a result the precipitation season has become shorter and sharper in California."
The new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, which publishes high-impact, short-format reports with immediate implications spanning all Earth and space sciences, is the first to quantify just how much later the rainy season now begins.
California's rainy season starting nearly a month later than it did 60 years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/2102...
Extract:
The start of California's annual rainy season has been pushed back from November to December, prolonging the state's increasingly destructive wildfire season by nearly a month, according to new research. The study cannot confirm the shift is connected to climate change, but the results are consistent with climate models that predict drier autumns for California in a warming climate, according to the authors.
Wildfires can occur at any time in California, but fires typically burn from May through October, when the state is in its dry season. The start of the rainy season, historically in November, ends wildfire season as plants become too moist to burn.
California's rainy season has been starting progressively later in recent decades and climate scientists have projected it will get shorter as the climate warms. In the new study, researchers analyzed rainfall and weather data in California over the past six decades. The results show the official onset of California's rainy season is 27 days later than it was in the 1960s and the rain that does fall is being concentrated during the months of January and February.
"What we've shown is that it will not happen in the future, it's happening already," said Jelena Luković, a climate scientist at the University of Belgrade in Serbia and lead author of the new study. "The onset of the rainy season has been progressively delayed since the 1960s, and as a result the precipitation season has become shorter and sharper in California."
The new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, which publishes high-impact, short-format reports with immediate implications spanning all Earth and space sciences, is the first to quantify just how much later the rainy season now begins.
Gadgetmac said:
An interesting read and in-line with climate models:
California's rainy season starting nearly a month later than it did 60 years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/2102...
Extract:
The start of California's annual rainy season has been pushed back from November to December, prolonging the state's increasingly destructive wildfire season by nearly a month, according to new research. The study cannot confirm the shift is connected to climate change, but the results are consistent with climate models that predict drier autumns for California in a warming climate, according to the authors.
Wildfires can occur at any time in California, but fires typically burn from May through October, when the state is in its dry season. The start of the rainy season, historically in November, ends wildfire season as plants become too moist to burn.
California's rainy season has been starting progressively later in recent decades and climate scientists have projected it will get shorter as the climate warms. In the new study, researchers analyzed rainfall and weather data in California over the past six decades. The results show the official onset of California's rainy season is 27 days later than it was in the 1960s and the rain that does fall is being concentrated during the months of January and February.
"What we've shown is that it will not happen in the future, it's happening already," said Jelena Lukovi?, a climate scientist at the University of Belgrade in Serbia and lead author of the new study. "The onset of the rainy season has been progressively delayed since the 1960s, and as a result the precipitation season has become shorter and sharper in California."
The new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, which publishes high-impact, short-format reports with immediate implications spanning all Earth and space sciences, is the first to quantify just how much later the rainy season now begins.
I wonder if that’s connected to climate change?California's rainy season starting nearly a month later than it did 60 years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/2102...
Extract:
The start of California's annual rainy season has been pushed back from November to December, prolonging the state's increasingly destructive wildfire season by nearly a month, according to new research. The study cannot confirm the shift is connected to climate change, but the results are consistent with climate models that predict drier autumns for California in a warming climate, according to the authors.
Wildfires can occur at any time in California, but fires typically burn from May through October, when the state is in its dry season. The start of the rainy season, historically in November, ends wildfire season as plants become too moist to burn.
California's rainy season has been starting progressively later in recent decades and climate scientists have projected it will get shorter as the climate warms. In the new study, researchers analyzed rainfall and weather data in California over the past six decades. The results show the official onset of California's rainy season is 27 days later than it was in the 1960s and the rain that does fall is being concentrated during the months of January and February.
"What we've shown is that it will not happen in the future, it's happening already," said Jelena Lukovi?, a climate scientist at the University of Belgrade in Serbia and lead author of the new study. "The onset of the rainy season has been progressively delayed since the 1960s, and as a result the precipitation season has become shorter and sharper in California."
The new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, which publishes high-impact, short-format reports with immediate implications spanning all Earth and space sciences, is the first to quantify just how much later the rainy season now begins.
Have Californian wildfires been increasing in area or number over the past century?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
An interesting read and in-line with climate models:
California's rainy season starting nearly a month later than it did 60 years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/2102...
Extract:
The start of California's annual rainy season has been pushed back from November to December, prolonging the state's increasingly destructive wildfire season by nearly a month, according to new research. The study cannot confirm the shift is connected to climate change, but the results are consistent with climate models that predict drier autumns for California in a warming climate, according to the authors.
Wildfires can occur at any time in California, but fires typically burn from May through October, when the state is in its dry season. The start of the rainy season, historically in November, ends wildfire season as plants become too moist to burn.
California's rainy season has been starting progressively later in recent decades and climate scientists have projected it will get shorter as the climate warms. In the new study, researchers analyzed rainfall and weather data in California over the past six decades. The results show the official onset of California's rainy season is 27 days later than it was in the 1960s and the rain that does fall is being concentrated during the months of January and February.
"What we've shown is that it will not happen in the future, it's happening already," said Jelena Lukovi?, a climate scientist at the University of Belgrade in Serbia and lead author of the new study. "The onset of the rainy season has been progressively delayed since the 1960s, and as a result the precipitation season has become shorter and sharper in California."
The new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, which publishes high-impact, short-format reports with immediate implications spanning all Earth and space sciences, is the first to quantify just how much later the rainy season now begins.
I wonder if that’s connected to climate change?California's rainy season starting nearly a month later than it did 60 years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/2102...
Extract:
The start of California's annual rainy season has been pushed back from November to December, prolonging the state's increasingly destructive wildfire season by nearly a month, according to new research. The study cannot confirm the shift is connected to climate change, but the results are consistent with climate models that predict drier autumns for California in a warming climate, according to the authors.
Wildfires can occur at any time in California, but fires typically burn from May through October, when the state is in its dry season. The start of the rainy season, historically in November, ends wildfire season as plants become too moist to burn.
California's rainy season has been starting progressively later in recent decades and climate scientists have projected it will get shorter as the climate warms. In the new study, researchers analyzed rainfall and weather data in California over the past six decades. The results show the official onset of California's rainy season is 27 days later than it was in the 1960s and the rain that does fall is being concentrated during the months of January and February.
"What we've shown is that it will not happen in the future, it's happening already," said Jelena Lukovi?, a climate scientist at the University of Belgrade in Serbia and lead author of the new study. "The onset of the rainy season has been progressively delayed since the 1960s, and as a result the precipitation season has become shorter and sharper in California."
The new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, which publishes high-impact, short-format reports with immediate implications spanning all Earth and space sciences, is the first to quantify just how much later the rainy season now begins.
Have Californian wildfires been increasing in area or number over the past century?
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/wildfires-climate-change
Quote:
Climate change, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires not only in California but also all over the world. Since 1950, the area burned by California wildfires each year has been increasing, as spring and summer temperatures have warmed and spring snowmelt has occurred earlier.
During the recent “hotter” drought, unusually warm temperatures intensified the effects of very low precipitation and snowpack, creating conditions for extreme, high severity wildfires that spread rapidly. Of the 20 largest fires in California’s history, eight have occurred in the past three years (since 2017). The ongoing August Complex Fire is now the largest recorded wildfire in California, surpassing the 2018 Mendocino Complex Fire.
Scientific American vs Republicans over California Wildfires...
Climate Change Is Central to California’s Wildfires
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...
As the toll from California’s wildfires grows higher year after year, the state’s future appears fiery and hazy with smoke. For conservative columnists like Ben Shapiro, Niall Ferguson and Tyler O’Neil, it’s clear who is responsible: California Democrats. In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability.
We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong.
Their opinion pieces represent a dangerous form of climate denialism, one that recognizes the value of climate adaptation—adapting to life under a changing climate—but purposefully misdirects by refusing to acknowledge the critical importance of limiting the amount of future climate change.
The science is clear. Climate change plays an undeniable role in the unprecedented wildfires of recent years. More than half of the acres burned each year in the western United States can be attributed to climate change. The number of dry, warm, and windy autumn days—perfect wildfire weather—in California has more than doubled since the 1980s.
Without aggressive reduction of greenhouse gasses, forests in Northern California, Oregon and Washington could experience an increase of more than 78 percent in area burned by 2050. Governor Gavin Newsom correctly characterized recent wildfires as a “climate damn emergency.” It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a situation in which the 2020 wildfire season becomes a regular occurrence or even a mild year, but that’s exactly what could happen in our future.
Climate Change Is Central to California’s Wildfires
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...
As the toll from California’s wildfires grows higher year after year, the state’s future appears fiery and hazy with smoke. For conservative columnists like Ben Shapiro, Niall Ferguson and Tyler O’Neil, it’s clear who is responsible: California Democrats. In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability.
We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong.
Their opinion pieces represent a dangerous form of climate denialism, one that recognizes the value of climate adaptation—adapting to life under a changing climate—but purposefully misdirects by refusing to acknowledge the critical importance of limiting the amount of future climate change.
The science is clear. Climate change plays an undeniable role in the unprecedented wildfires of recent years. More than half of the acres burned each year in the western United States can be attributed to climate change. The number of dry, warm, and windy autumn days—perfect wildfire weather—in California has more than doubled since the 1980s.
Without aggressive reduction of greenhouse gasses, forests in Northern California, Oregon and Washington could experience an increase of more than 78 percent in area burned by 2050. Governor Gavin Newsom correctly characterized recent wildfires as a “climate damn emergency.” It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a situation in which the 2020 wildfire season becomes a regular occurrence or even a mild year, but that’s exactly what could happen in our future.
Gadgetmac said:
Scientific American vs Republicans over California Wildfires...
Climate Change Is Central to California’s Wildfires
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...
As the toll from California’s wildfires grows higher year after year, the state’s future appears fiery and hazy with smoke. For conservative columnists like Ben Shapiro, Niall Ferguson and Tyler O’Neil, it’s clear who is responsible: California Democrats. In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability.
We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong.
Their opinion pieces represent a dangerous form of climate denialism, one that recognizes the value of climate adaptation—adapting to life under a changing climate—but purposefully misdirects by refusing to acknowledge the critical importance of limiting the amount of future climate change.
The science is clear. Climate change plays an undeniable role in the unprecedented wildfires of recent years. More than half of the acres burned each year in the western United States can be attributed to climate change. The number of dry, warm, and windy autumn days—perfect wildfire weather—in California has more than doubled since the 1980s.
Without aggressive reduction of greenhouse gasses, forests in Northern California, Oregon and Washington could experience an increase of more than 78 percent in area burned by 2050. Governor Gavin Newsom correctly characterized recent wildfires as a “climate damn emergency.” It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a situation in which the 2020 wildfire season becomes a regular occurrence or even a mild year, but that’s exactly what could happen in our future.
I've stayed quiet for the best part of a year on PH, but have continued to read. Got fed up with the inane arguements.Climate Change Is Central to California’s Wildfires
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...
As the toll from California’s wildfires grows higher year after year, the state’s future appears fiery and hazy with smoke. For conservative columnists like Ben Shapiro, Niall Ferguson and Tyler O’Neil, it’s clear who is responsible: California Democrats. In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability.
We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong.
Their opinion pieces represent a dangerous form of climate denialism, one that recognizes the value of climate adaptation—adapting to life under a changing climate—but purposefully misdirects by refusing to acknowledge the critical importance of limiting the amount of future climate change.
The science is clear. Climate change plays an undeniable role in the unprecedented wildfires of recent years. More than half of the acres burned each year in the western United States can be attributed to climate change. The number of dry, warm, and windy autumn days—perfect wildfire weather—in California has more than doubled since the 1980s.
Without aggressive reduction of greenhouse gasses, forests in Northern California, Oregon and Washington could experience an increase of more than 78 percent in area burned by 2050. Governor Gavin Newsom correctly characterized recent wildfires as a “climate damn emergency.” It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a situation in which the 2020 wildfire season becomes a regular occurrence or even a mild year, but that’s exactly what could happen in our future.
But I thought I'd chime in on this article and say thanks for cherry picking paragraphs that look to support your alarmist agenda as always, Gadget.
The authors openly admit that the excess fuel issue is a real problem, despite saying the other columnists aren't seeing the big picture. It looks nothing more than an attempted hit piece of crap opinion. It's like they're offended people on the opposite side of the political spectrum could see what their work meant and the authors didn't like it.
Then they move back to "but it's climate change will kill us all unless we stop greenhouse gases"... same old BS.
Good that the whole opinion piece is available to read. I'm sure others who read more than your chosen paragraphs will see through the BS.
Ho hum. I'm gonna go build a snowman
Edited by stew-STR160 on Monday 8th February 18:28
stew-STR160 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Scientific American vs Republicans over California Wildfires...
Climate Change Is Central to California’s Wildfires
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...
As the toll from California’s wildfires grows higher year after year, the state’s future appears fiery and hazy with smoke. For conservative columnists like Ben Shapiro, Niall Ferguson and Tyler O’Neil, it’s clear who is responsible: California Democrats. In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability.
We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong.
Their opinion pieces represent a dangerous form of climate denialism, one that recognizes the value of climate adaptation—adapting to life under a changing climate—but purposefully misdirects by refusing to acknowledge the critical importance of limiting the amount of future climate change.
The science is clear. Climate change plays an undeniable role in the unprecedented wildfires of recent years. More than half of the acres burned each year in the western United States can be attributed to climate change. The number of dry, warm, and windy autumn days—perfect wildfire weather—in California has more than doubled since the 1980s.
Without aggressive reduction of greenhouse gasses, forests in Northern California, Oregon and Washington could experience an increase of more than 78 percent in area burned by 2050. Governor Gavin Newsom correctly characterized recent wildfires as a “climate damn emergency.” It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a situation in which the 2020 wildfire season becomes a regular occurrence or even a mild year, but that’s exactly what could happen in our future.
I've stayed quiet for the best part of a year on PH, but have continued to read. Got fed up with the inane arguements.Climate Change Is Central to California’s Wildfires
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...
As the toll from California’s wildfires grows higher year after year, the state’s future appears fiery and hazy with smoke. For conservative columnists like Ben Shapiro, Niall Ferguson and Tyler O’Neil, it’s clear who is responsible: California Democrats. In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability.
We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong.
Their opinion pieces represent a dangerous form of climate denialism, one that recognizes the value of climate adaptation—adapting to life under a changing climate—but purposefully misdirects by refusing to acknowledge the critical importance of limiting the amount of future climate change.
The science is clear. Climate change plays an undeniable role in the unprecedented wildfires of recent years. More than half of the acres burned each year in the western United States can be attributed to climate change. The number of dry, warm, and windy autumn days—perfect wildfire weather—in California has more than doubled since the 1980s.
Without aggressive reduction of greenhouse gasses, forests in Northern California, Oregon and Washington could experience an increase of more than 78 percent in area burned by 2050. Governor Gavin Newsom correctly characterized recent wildfires as a “climate damn emergency.” It’s almost unfathomable to imagine a situation in which the 2020 wildfire season becomes a regular occurrence or even a mild year, but that’s exactly what could happen in our future.
But I thought I'd chime in on this article and say thanks for cherry picking paragraphs that look to support your alarmist agenda as always, Gadget.
The authors openly admit that the excess fuel issue is a real problem, despite saying the other columnists aren't seeing the big picture. It looks nothing more than an attempted hit piece of crap opinion. It's like they're offended people on the opposite side of the political spectrum could see what their work meant and the authors didn't like it.
Then they move back to "but it's climate change will kill us all unless we stop greenhouse gases"... same old BS.
Good that the whole opinion piece is available to read. I'm sure others who read more than your chosen paragraphs will see through the BS.
Ho hum. I'm gonna go build a snowman
EVERY post I make quotes the first X number of paragraphs and does not “cherry pick” paragraphs which you’d know if you were paying attention.
I’m also not allowed by PH rules to post the whole article which is why I always give a link to the article - which again you’d know if you paid attention.
You’d also know Climate Change isn’t BS if you were to pay...well...you get the ongoing theme here right?
Maybe you’ve got some science for this the science thread yourself?
Well the climate alarmists are feeling pushed out by the global pandemic fear not,
Climate change was responsible for assisting in the pandemic,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Junk science of the highest order.
Climate change was responsible for assisting in the pandemic,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Junk science of the highest order.
Gadgetmac said:
Perhaps keeping quiet for the best part of a year wasn’t long enough.
EVERY post I make quotes the first X number of paragraphs and does not “cherry pick” paragraphs which you’d know if you were paying attention.
I’m also not allowed by PH rules to post the whole article which is why I always give a link to the article - which again you’d know if you paid attention.
You’d also know Climate Change isn’t BS if you were to pay...well...you get the ongoing theme here right?
Maybe you’ve got some science for this the science thread yourself?
I didn't say climate change was BS.EVERY post I make quotes the first X number of paragraphs and does not “cherry pick” paragraphs which you’d know if you were paying attention.
I’m also not allowed by PH rules to post the whole article which is why I always give a link to the article - which again you’d know if you paid attention.
You’d also know Climate Change isn’t BS if you were to pay...well...you get the ongoing theme here right?
Maybe you’ve got some science for this the science thread yourself?
And I've posted plenty of science papers and articles in the past which refute your religiously fanatical alarmist view. Oddly enough you usually ignored them.
STR160 said:
I didn't say climate change was BS.
Then they move back to "but it's climate change will kill us all unless we stop greenhouse gases"... same old BS.STR160 said:
And I've posted plenty of science papers and articles in the past which refute your religiously fanatical alarmist view. Oddly enough you usually ignored them.
Probably because they were funded by the Heartland Institute written by discredited non-climate-scientists and peer reviewed by WUWT.My "Religiously fanatical alarmist view"?
Once again, not really paying attention are you?
Because "Oddly enough" my view is roughly the same as the vast majority of climate scientists nay scientists 'generally' together with EVERY single scientific institution on the Planet. The only thing "odd" is your ill informed anti-scientific lack of attention to what's going on in the field.
Gadgetmac said:
STR160 said:
I didn't say climate change was BS.
Then they move back to "but it's climate change will kill us all unless we stop greenhouse gases"... same old BS.STR160 said:
And I've posted plenty of science papers and articles in the past which refute your religiously fanatical alarmist view. Oddly enough you usually ignored them.
Probably because they were funded by the Heartland Institute written by discredited non-climate-scientists and peer reviewed by WUWT.My "Religiously fanatical alarmist view"?
Once again, not really paying attention are you?
Because "Oddly enough" my view is roughly the same as the vast majority of climate scientists nay scientists 'generally' together with EVERY single scientific institution on the Planet. The only thing "odd" is your ill informed anti-scientific lack of attention to what's going on in the field.
I've spent a lot of the last year, during lock down and furlough, reading more and more papers. It's hilarious you think what you do after everything you claim to be so because certain "approved" groups said so. I'm sure you'd believe those groups if they said that sheep were actually gifted darts players.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff