2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

Oct. 3, 2020 at 8:33 a.m. CDT
Add to list

Saturday morning update: Tropical Storm Gamma forms and is rapidly strengthening as it makes landfall over Yucatán Peninsula

On Friday night, the National Hurricane Center declared the tropical depression over the western Caribbean had become Tropical Storm Gamma. Since then, the storm strengthened on its approach to the Yucatán Peninsula, where it will move inland Saturday.

 

Gamma became the earliest 24th named storm on record in the Atlantic by more than three weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kallend said:
Oct. 3, 2020 at 8:33 a.m. CDT
Add to list

Saturday morning update: Tropical Storm Gamma forms and is rapidly strengthening as it makes landfall over Yucatán Peninsula

On Friday night, the National Hurricane Center declared the tropical depression over the western Caribbean had become Tropical Storm Gamma. Since then, the storm strengthened on its approach to the Yucatán Peninsula, where it will move inland Saturday.

 

Gamma became the earliest 24th named storm on record in the Atlantic by more than three weeks.

There have been a lot of named storms, that's true. But it hasn't been the major storm barn burner that was predicted thus far. A lot of what has developed was sort of localized in the Gulf between the Yucatan and the Florida Keys. There are two official Hurricane months to go, unofficially October is the last serious threat month, so anything is still possible. That said, based on sea surface temperatures as I experienced them from the leewards to the windwards and down to the ABC's, the numbers of major storms that I expected are yet to materialize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

No link to climate change, at least according to NOAA and the IPCC.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

“Natural variability combined with uncertainties in the historical data makes it difficult to detect trends in tropical cyclone activity. There have been no significant trends observed in global tropical cyclone frequency records, including over the present 40-year period of satellite observations“
 

I understand this will confuse those who get their “science” from CNN and MSNBC, but there you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No link to climate change, at least according to NOAA and the IPCC.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

“Natural variability combined with uncertainties in the historical data makes it difficult to detect trends in tropical cyclone activity. There have been no significant trends observed in global tropical cyclone frequency records, including over the present 40-year period of satellite observations“
 

I understand this will confuse those who get their “science” from CNN and MSNBC, but there you have it.

I agree with them. I doubt there is any direct correlation between record breaking hurricane activity in a single year and climate change. I was just posting the stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

 

BTW here in the US, in1930 and 1931 more than 50 million acres burned 

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

It comes down to believing the narrative or understanding  the facts, I choose the latter.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

 

BTW here in the US, in1930 and 1931 more than 50 million acres burned 

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

It comes down to believing the narrative or understanding  the facts, I choose the latter.

But But But - TRUMP!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It comes down to believing the narrative or understanding  the facts, I choose the latter.

So what are the facts as to why there might be less fire in the global landscape? And why do you think fire on a global scale is a good metric to show global warming has no impact on wild fires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

So what are the facts as to why there might be less fire in the global landscape? And why do you think fire on a global scale is a good metric to show global warming has no impact on wild fires?

Uh because fire on a global scale is a good metric to show global warming has no impact on wild fires

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2020 at 5:10 AM, brenthutch said:

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/

 

BTW here in the US, in1930 and 1931 more than 50 million acres burned 

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

It comes down to believing the narrative or understanding  the facts, I choose the latter.

What narrative? I posted statistics which are facts. You posted some that seem to indicate that national fire scale has been increasing on average since 1953. Interesting that in California alone more acreage has burned this year than nationally in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, murps2000 said:

What narrative? I posted statistics which are facts. You posted some that seem to indicate that national fire scale has been increasing on average since 1953. Interesting that in California alone more acreage has burned this year than nationally in 2014.

It's easy to say Brent is wrong if for no other reason than it's fun and popular. But he's not without a point to make. Yes, three of the five million acres burned in the US so far in 2020 are in California. But also, California is by far the most populous state and thus has more people moving into areas they shouldn't and, no great surprise, more gender reveal parties. While I am fully persuaded that increasing temperatures are creating more day's that are conducive to fires in California it is far from the whole problem. Studies indicate that 200 years ago roughly 8% of California's forests burned annually. That might well be the natural number and the current problem is caused more by decades of misguided forest fire suppression and increasing numbers of affected people than climate change.

I'm no climate change denier but it sure seems to me that a fair bit of California's fire problem has more to do with things other than increasing levels of CO2.

https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#5/38.58/-121.49

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/03/wildfires-in-california-will-continue-to-get-worse-climate-change-experts-explore-why/?_ga=2.195053868.1829242891.1602350113-1242522506.1602350113

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7/pdf

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/12/fire-suppression-and-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-californias-megafires-experts-unpack-the-term/?_ga=2.195053868.1829242891.1602350113-1242522506.1602350113

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 11:35 AM, JoeWeber said:

It's easy to say Brent is wrong if for no other reason than it's fun and popular. But he's not without a point to make. Yes, three of the five million acres burned in the US so far in 2020 are in California. But also, California is by far the most populous state and thus has more people moving into areas they shouldn't and, no great surprise, more gender reveal parties. While I am fully persuaded that increasing temperatures are creating more day's that are conducive to fires in California it is far from the whole problem. Studies indicate that 200 years ago roughly 8% of California's forests burned annually. That might well be the natural number and the current problem is caused more by decades of misguided forest fire suppression and increasing numbers of affected people than climate change.

I'm no climate change denier but it sure seems to me that a fair bit of California's fire problem has more to do with things other than increasing levels of CO2.

https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#5/38.58/-121.49

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/03/wildfires-in-california-will-continue-to-get-worse-climate-change-experts-explore-why/?_ga=2.195053868.1829242891.1602350113-1242522506.1602350113

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7/pdf

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/12/fire-suppression-and-climate-change-is-to-blame-for-californias-megafires-experts-unpack-the-term/?_ga=2.195053868.1829242891.1602350113-1242522506.1602350113

 

 

I never said he was wrong about anything. I consider Brent an old friend that I would rather not get into a heated argument with over any issue. I've read the article he posted but I am still going through some of the others listed in the footnotes because there is quite a bit of interesting stuff there. Despite that, I noticed that any references to climate change in the main article seem to deal with the effects fire has on it rather than any change in global fire scale being the result of it. The sample area they reference in the mediterranean seems to show a higher number of fires but less burn area. I suspect that could be the result of the same problems we are dealing with in California with regard to management and population density, but I still have plenty of reading to do before I can really say. There are some remarks in there about longer fire seasons.

The links you posted are informative as well, and so far I generally agree with everything I have read there. One thing that I keep coming back to as far as California is concerned is that there are fires burning right now in areas that burned three years ago. So fire in those areas wasn't exactly suppressed. The terrain in those areas is not generally forest, though, and so it will be ready to burn again before too long. We're going to need a lot more goats out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, billeisele said:

 

From The Hill:

"A man who was arrested this week in connection with starting one of the massive wildfires in California has a history of promoting alt-right conspiracy theories.

Forrest Gordon Clark, who local authorities have arrested and charged with two counts of felony arson and felony threatening to terrorize, spread a series of alt-right conspiracies on his personal Facebook page. The posts, first uncovered by Forbes's JJ MacNab who covers anti-government extremism, include messaging about "QAnon," a wide-ranging and vague theory that includes conspiracies such as Democrats and prominent Hollywood figures orchestrating underground pedophile rings."

Funny, that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 12:51 AM, mistercwood said:

EDIT: Here's a much longer video by someone smarter than me breaking down PragerU for the complete hacks they are: 

 

Haha brilliant. I already hate Prager U anyway, but that guy is hilarious. Feminist arm wrestling failure :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2