In The News

[Voodoo Magic]

(despite the Greens stated policy supporting back burning/ fuel reduction burns and them having virtually no power to stop back burning even if they wanted to).

They can't acknowledge that climate change has made forest management plans difficult to implement due to the increasingly narrow window in which it can be conducted, otherwise they wouldn't be able to say that deforestation is the solution to all of our problems.

Deforestation is different from forestry management. And no one said it was a solution to all our problems. You will always have forrest fires, and droughts, etc., changes in the climate will always impact this, but forestry management will have a major impact on the severity.

It's pretty much the same here.

The article in VooDoo's link contains a link to a research paper which basically says "climate change is the root cause of the severity and frequency of these fires"

https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/fettig/psw_2019_fettig003_larvie.pdf

That quote doesn't exist in that paper. This is why it's difficult to have a conversation with you sometimes. The research paper does point out "Changes to disturbance regimes, continuing land use changes, and climate change with associated species shifts pose significant challenges for maintaining healthy and resilient forests in the Sierra Nevada". And no one is disagreeing. But I'm talking solutions.

Also:

The federal government owns approximately three quarters of the
forested area impacted by high levels of tree morality, with the remainder of the land controlled
by nonindustrial (18%) and industrial (6%) ownerships. The accumulation of dead and downed
fuel and standing dead trees is expected to increase fire intensity and severity, and pose
significant hazards for fire control efforts.

Wouldn't that mean the forestry mismanagement is ... from Trump's own team?

Yes, which is why I assume Trump proposed new regulations in 2019:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article231482868.html

I wish this wasn't looked through a political prism. Republicans and Democrats are two sides to the same very bad coin. And both need to start looking at truths on both sides to actually resolve these horrible problems.

[SiL]

Deforestation is different from forestry management. And no one said it was a solution to all our problems. You will always have forrest fires, and droughts, etc., changes in the climate will always impact this, but forestry management will have a major impact on the severity.

It was a comment about local political groups and their attempts to leverage this country's fires to try to justify clearing more land for mining and farming. It is 100% not being suggested as an actual fire prevention method.

That quote doesn't exist in that paper. This is why it's difficult to have a conversation with you sometimes.

I didn't say it was a direct quote, I was specific about that. It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone who always has to try to resort to ad hominem attacks.

The report is about the aftermath of the beetle outbreak. It lists many factors as to why it was as devastating, and the ongoing concerns they have in managing the forest -- namely tree mortality and changes in species composition. They, along with just about every other concern listed in the report, are  attributed to climate change factors on page 14.

See screenshot attached.

If you want solutions, tackling climate change is one of them.

[Voodoo Magic]

Deforestation is different from forestry management. And no one said it was a solution to all our problems. You will always have forrest fires, and droughts, etc., changes in the climate will always impact this, but forestry management will have a major impact on the severity.

It was a comment about local political groups and their attempts to leverage this country's fires to try to justify clearing more land for mining and farming. It is 100% not being suggested as an actual fire prevention method.

That quote doesn't exist in that paper. This is why it's difficult to have a conversation with you sometimes.

I didn't say it was a direct quote, I was specific about that. It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone who always has to try to resort to ad hominem attacks.

I would recommend then not putting your interpretations in quotes. If you recall, I believe you did that to me just two weeks ago in the Neca Predator thread in regards to ADI, where twice I had to retort that I never said that. Eliminate the quotes = eliminate the problem! 

If you want solutions, tackling climate change is one of them.

Shift the dial ever so slightly, maybe? But I don't believe we'll ever be able to tackle climate change unfortunately. Not when the sun and solar flares have the lionshare most to say about it. As we know the Earth is not a human being where we can stick a thermometer in its tush and say it's running at its appropriate temperature. The climate has constantly changed before the human race, during the human race, and will afterwards, even if we eliminate man's contributions to any climate change minimal in comparison to our star.

[Tichinde]

It's all Antifa's fault.

We had the right blaming everything but climate change when we had our fires at the start of the year.  Mainly the Greens for stopping back burning (despite the Greens stated policy supporting back burning/ fuel reduction burns and them having virtually no power to stop back burning even if they wanted to).

ah a fellow Q-anon man, I agree. ANTIFA is purposefully changing the climate to incite violence against our god an country, they are trying to turn this Christian nation into a satanic place of ritualistic evil and savagery, Obama is eating the hearts of children as we speak, we must use our guns prescribed by the lord to end this travesty, amen

[Local Trouble]

Shift the dial ever so slightly, maybe? But I don't believe we'll ever be able to tackle climate change unfortunately. Not when the sun and solar flares have the lionshare most to say about it.

Scientific American: The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth's warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.

NASA: What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change?

According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth's climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.

[Voodoo Magic]

Shift the dial ever so slightly, maybe? But I don't believe we'll ever be able to tackle climate change unfortunately. Not when the sun and solar flares have the lionshare most to say about it.

Scientific American: The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth's warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.

NASA: What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change?

According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth's climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.

In my humble opinion, I personally find it a bit insulting to my intelligence when I read the sun's role being dismissed as a minimal affect on climate. The climate has been changing long before us and the industrial revolution (but now, the revolution has a hand in it).  Instead of us having a link war, where I post articles of scientists challenging the flawed declarations of the IPCC and you post more articles embracing it, I'll just post what was removed off NASA's website about 8 or 9 years ago in regards to how the sun, humans and more contribute: 

NASA 2010: What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?

The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth's climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it.

Earth's orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing "orbital mechanics" force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth's exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or "aerosols") would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth's climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.

Alas, maybe this is deserving of a new thread, for those who dare!

[Local Trouble]

A link war is pointless when the vast majority of climate scientists agree.  Am I supposed to be impressed by the rebuttals from a handful of conservative outliers?

Also from NASA...

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

It's hardly just the IPCC.

Believe it or don't believe it.  I don't really care since it's pretty obvious to us all which way you're going to vote no matter what the actual experts say.

[Voodoo Magic]

A link war is pointless when the vast majority of climate scientists agree.  Am I supposed to be impressed by the rebuttals from a handful of conservative outliers?

Dissenting scientists. Not conservatives. And not just disagreeing analysis, but from Nasa's words themselves - wiped clean from the internet but still in print journals. We should listen to all the experts I say! Not just one's we agree with. That's why I've come to the decision climate change is due to humans AND outside factors. I've learned to not just take everything I read at face value these days, but gather as much information I can to make informed opinions and decisions.

It's hardly just the IPCC.

Believe it or don't believe it.  I don't really care since it's pretty obvious to us all which way you're going to vote no matter what the actual experts say.

Vote? There is no vote.
And there is no bathroom!!!

[Huggs]

Of course there is.

Nature, is the ultimate bathroom.

[SiL]

I would recommend then not putting your interpretations in quotes.

I felt prefacing it with "basically says" communicated it wasn't verbatim.

[Xiggz456]

A 10 year old article? Considering technology has been advancing at a near exponential rate I'm guessing they removed the article because there's more scientific evidence now to strongly suggest what 97% of climate scientists (and NASA) agree on: that humans are the leading cause of climate warming. In my humble opinion the whole it's "natural" thing sure sounds an awful lot like corporate/industrialist propaganda  used to deflect any sort of blame or responsibility.

[SM]

And if you live near the coast you can just sell your house to Aquaman.

[Xiggz456]

 

[Prez]

And if you live near the coast you can just sell your house to Aquaman.

Duuuuuude.

[Local Trouble]

https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann/status/1304508378685693952

And if you live near the coast you can just sell your house to Aquaman.