Comments on: Global warming and the California wildfires http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:55:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: blssing http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-7078 blssing Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:50:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-7078 wow.nice picures wow.nice picures

]]> By: Chauncey Mendez http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6796 Chauncey Mendez Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:45:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6796 I very much agree. I very much agree.

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6398 Jay Alt Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:45:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6398 Another observation regarding Joes post: White House climate censorship continues - the following paragraph was also cut out from the draft. <i>"The west coast of the United States is expected to experience significant strains on water supplies as regional precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted. Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, distribution, and duration." Another observation regarding Joes post: White House climate censorship continues -
the following paragraph was also cut out from the draft.

“The west coast of the United States is expected to experience significant strains on water supplies as regional precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted. Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, distribution, and duration.”

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6395 Jay Alt Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:01:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6395 Here is a link summarizing the Scripps research. http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=739 They don't claim fuel load isn't a factor. But they show that warming has a stronger influence and is what is driving the spike in big fires. Here is a link summarizing the Scripps research.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=739

They don’t claim fuel load isn’t a factor. But they show that warming has a stronger influence and is what is driving the spike in big fires.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6387 Joe Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:35:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6387 Who knew 2 people could cover 500,000 acres? Seriously. Arsonists can start a fire, but only severe climate conditions (like prolonged drought) can lead to 500,000 acres burning. Who knew 2 people could cover 500,000 acres? Seriously. Arsonists can start a fire, but only severe climate conditions (like prolonged drought) can lead to 500,000 acres burning.

]]> By: fire survivor http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6386 fire survivor Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:21:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6386 My family lived through the devastating 500,000 acre fires in Arizona in 2002. Ours of course were set by two separate individuals. Now everyone is blaming the fires in California on global warming yet the arsonists that set them are being sought. So did global warming warp the arsonists minds and make them start these fires? My family lived through the devastating 500,000 acre fires in Arizona in 2002. Ours of course were set by two separate individuals. Now everyone is blaming the fires in California on global warming yet the arsonists that set them are being sought. So did global warming warp the arsonists minds and make them start these fires?

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6384 Paul K Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:51:29 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6384 Greg, Joe has been kind enough to occasionally refer to Delayers rather than Deniers. I think I'm part of a large contingent of Insteaders. Were I emperor we would concentrate on eliminating particulate and chemical pollution (clean air, clean water, fertile land) and replacing carbon as a fuel. CO2 reductions, however significant, would be a side benefit. Concerning AGW science, there may be lots to be skeptical about, but the foundation of skepticism must always be an open mind. Greg,
Joe has been kind enough to occasionally refer to Delayers rather than Deniers. I think I’m part of a large contingent of Insteaders. Were I emperor we would concentrate on eliminating particulate and chemical pollution (clean air, clean water, fertile land) and replacing carbon as a fuel. CO2 reductions, however significant, would be a side benefit. Concerning AGW science, there may be lots to be skeptical about, but the foundation of skepticism must always be an open mind.

]]> By: Greg http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6378 Greg Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:57:15 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6378 Ron Said: Here’s one that should be commented upon & debunked by the Believers - http://www.businessandmedia.org/ articles/ 2007/ 20071024132139.aspx The article ask why those who are pushing the various myths such as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are so intent on scaring us out of our wits with all their gloom and doom rhetoric. It's so we'll act without thinking, like they do. They know if we think it through we'll see how stupid their positions are. It's that simple - the only way they can possibly hope to accomplish their agendas is through fear and defeatism. Motivate people to believe they're doomed if they don't do exactly what they are told. No thanks. Ron Said:

Here’s one that should be commented upon & debunked by the Believers -

http://www.businessandmedia.org/ articles/ 2007/ 20071024132139.aspx

The article ask why those who are pushing the various myths such as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are so intent on scaring us out of our wits with all their gloom and doom rhetoric.

It’s so we’ll act without thinking, like they do.

They know if we think it through we’ll see how stupid their positions are.

It’s that simple – the only way they can possibly hope to accomplish their agendas is through fear and defeatism. Motivate people to believe they’re doomed if they don’t do exactly what they are told.

No thanks.

]]> By: Greg http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6377 Greg Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:52:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6377 You also reveal your disengenuous nature. There are few if any "global warming deniers". Those in denial are those who refuse to accept the Earth was warming long before man burned his first gram of fossil fuel. This is how you and those like you keep trying to falsify the argument - you claim that there are people who deny the Earth is warming. That's not the issue. The issues are twofold. First, is man contributing to global warming and second, if so, is it by any meaningful amount. I suppose a third logical question is whether or not man will change his ways and accept the social and economic consequences if the answers to the first two questions turn out to be yes. Based on the behavior of Al Gore I would say the answer to that third key question is NO! You also reveal your disengenuous nature. There are few if any “global warming deniers”. Those in denial are those who refuse to accept the Earth was warming long before man burned his first gram of fossil fuel. This is how you and those like you keep trying to falsify the argument – you claim that there are people who deny the Earth is warming. That’s not the issue. The issues are twofold. First, is man contributing to global warming and second, if so, is it by any meaningful amount. I suppose a third logical question is whether or not man will change his ways and accept the social and economic consequences if the answers to the first two questions turn out to be yes. Based on the behavior of Al Gore I would say the answer to that third key question is NO!

]]> By: Greg http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6376 Greg Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:47:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/24/global-warming-and-the-california-wildfires/#comment-6376 It is ironic, especially in light of the false information given here, that one of the two primary causes of the California wildfires was COOLING. That's right - La Niña, which is COOLING of the Pacific, is what shifted the weather patterns and caused the drought we are experiencing that was one primary cause of these fires. And despite the claims you've repeated, there is no sign that the La Niña/El Niño pattern is in any danger of freezing into a permanent La Niña and thus causing permanent drought here. On the contrary, assuming global warming continues unabated, we will rather wind up with a permanent El Niño which will bring with it regular downpours, turning San Diego into a lush subtropical paradise. I see you admit the last time things were this bad was 130 years ago. Think about what that means for a second. It was this bad BEFORE ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE. So your own admission is that it gets this bad 100% NATURALLY. Now I see you've already dismissed another of the real reasons for the catastrophic fires. You say that someone (no doubt with an agenda) has dismissed the fact, the know, proven fact, that the fires we have are much worse because we've disrupted the natural process by which they were regularly burned clear periodically. I'd be careful what I accept as fact if I were you. All anyone who has eyes has to do is ignore what some person who is overzealous about preventing common-sense practices from being implemented and just go out and see for yourself how overgrown the wild spaces in San Diego have become. Common sense alone tells you that more fuel means hotter, harder to fight fires and along with that consider that the overgrowth also complicates rapid access. Climate change is real and inevitable. You'd better accept the fact the earth has been warming, more or less, for thousands of years and man is doing little if anything to influence the natural processes behind it. Rising atmospheric CO2 is an effect, not a cause. If I thought it would do any good I'd explain the simple facts behind this truth but since it most likely won't I'll just give you a hint or two. Consider what happens to the concentration of a gas dissolved in a liquid as the liquid is heated. Consider the fact that the earth and it's oceans have been warming naturally since long before man even discovered fossil fuels. And a parting question: Which is it you prefer? A gradually warming earth or the next ice age? It is ironic, especially in light of the false information given here, that one of the two primary causes of the California wildfires was COOLING. That’s right – La Niña, which is COOLING of the Pacific, is what shifted the weather patterns and caused the drought we are experiencing that was one primary cause of these fires. And despite the claims you’ve repeated, there is no sign that the La Niña/El Niño pattern is in any danger of freezing into a permanent La Niña and thus causing permanent drought here. On the contrary, assuming global warming continues unabated, we will rather wind up with a permanent El Niño which will bring with it regular downpours, turning San Diego into a lush subtropical paradise.

I see you admit the last time things were this bad was 130 years ago. Think about what that means for a second. It was this bad BEFORE ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE. So your own admission is that it gets this bad 100% NATURALLY.

Now I see you’ve already dismissed another of the real reasons for the catastrophic fires. You say that someone (no doubt with an agenda) has dismissed the fact, the know, proven fact, that the fires we have are much worse because we’ve disrupted the natural process by which they were regularly burned clear periodically. I’d be careful what I accept as fact if I were you. All anyone who has eyes has to do is ignore what some person who is overzealous about preventing common-sense practices from being implemented and just go out and see for yourself how overgrown the wild spaces in San Diego have become. Common sense alone tells you that more fuel means hotter, harder to fight fires and along with that consider that the overgrowth also complicates rapid access.

Climate change is real and inevitable. You’d better accept the fact the earth has been warming, more or less, for thousands of years and man is doing little if anything to influence the natural processes behind it. Rising atmospheric CO2 is an effect, not a cause. If I thought it would do any good I’d explain the simple facts behind this truth but since it most likely won’t I’ll just give you a hint or two. Consider what happens to the concentration of a gas dissolved in a liquid as the liquid is heated. Consider the fact that the earth and it’s oceans have been warming naturally since long before man even discovered fossil fuels.

And a parting question: Which is it you prefer? A gradually warming earth or the next ice age?

]]>