There are news reports of wildfires in California, Oregon, Russia, maybe elsewhere.
My question: how does anybody know whether any of those wildfires are because of climate change? Or lightning? Or spontaneous combustion? or sparks from downed utility lines? or whether Smokey the Bear set them - Accidentally or Deliberately?
My question: how does anybody know whether any of those wildfires are because of climate change?
A good portion of them (at least the ones in the US) turn out to have more direct and immediate human causes (like arson, negligence in handling a campfire, or a controlled burn that got out of control due to negligence).
One of the really big ones last year was caused by a gender reveal party where they used a small explosive in a field full of dry grass.
From what I understand, the biggest climate change affect that helps there be more fires is because of the year after year droughts in the west.
From what I understand, the biggest climate change affect that helps there be more fires is because of the year after year droughts in the west.
Yeah, sure, California has only been in drought for the last 10,000 years.
Much of the Western US is semi-arid, only falling marginally short of qualifying as desert. It has been that way for a very long time.
ETA: Also the climate alarmists have it backwards. If you look back very long times in the geological records, in general a warmer Earth is wetter, not dryer. Drought actually correlates better with a colder Earth than with a warmer Earth.
Much of the Western US is semi-arid, only falling marginally short of qualifying as desert. It has been that way for a very long time.
ETA: Also the climate alarmists have it backwards. If you look back very long times in the geological records, in general a warmer Earth is wetter, not dryer. Drought actually correlates better with a colder Earth than with a warmer Earth.
I often joke that those alarmists are even more conservative than cats. They see any little change, and start to freak out like there is no tomorrow.
Myself, I look back at the huge changes in just California and just shake my head. And just little things that I know about tend to be unbelievable to most others.
Like if you go back only 2,000 years, most of Death Valley was covered by Lake Manley. We know where the shorelines are, and have even dug up things like muskrat dens right on the shore of that lake. That still existed at the time of the Roman Empire and Kingdom of Judea, but is now gone.
Or that the San Francisco Bay is only about 10,000 years old. At about the time that humans were discovering pottery, and domesticating sheep, cattle, and potatoes there was not a bay yet, just a wide river valley, and the river that ran through it did not meet the ocean for another 20+ miles to the West.
The planet has always changed, Always has and always will. Yet some want to try and pretend that change is "bad" and "evil", while I look and simply see change. And technically, we are still in an Ice Age, as the normal condition of the planet is no Polar Ice Cap at all. During all previous Interglacials, it is believed there was no Arctic Ice Cap at all, and I see no reason to believe that this one will be any different.
And if the Western US is getting dryer as the world gets warmer, that is necessarily a local/regional micro-climate issue not global climate change.
Because in general warmer = wetter.
It's really simple and logical.
In a warmer world there is more water in the water cycle because there is less water bound up in ice.
In a colder world, water gets pulled out of the climate/weather water cycle and bound up in ice.
And if the Western US is getting dryer as the world gets warmer, that is necessarily a local/regional micro-climate issue not global climate change.
Because in general warmer = wetter.
It's really simple and logical.
In a warmer world there is more water in the water cycle because there is less water bound up in ice.
In a colder world, water gets pulled out of the climate/weather water cycle and bound up in ice.
But that is also more long term.
Humidity is going up, rising globally about half a percentage point in the the last century. But because of the general climate of California (including the fact that the majority of the state is in a rain shadow), it is not enough to offset much of the increase in temperature.
And in all times in the past, there were wetlands in much of the state to make it even more humid. Such as Tulare Lake, which once covered over 13,000 square miles near Bakersfield. But over a century ago this was drained off for agriculture, and it no longer exists. That would have added a lot of local humidity into the area.
This can also be seen around the Salton Sea further East. A canal and overflow in the early 1900's created a vast inland lake, and the climate in the area over the decades changed. Plants and wildlife flourished, and even in the summer it was tolerable for most visitors. But by the 1980's the fresh water was no longer flowing into it (diverted to satisfy Los Angeles mostly), and it started to die and dry up. And today, it is hot, dry, and the dying lake stinks so nobody goes there anymore.
But most of those changes are not really "global warming", as much as the simple fact that California just has to damned many people for what the region can support. Especially in water.
And it is even causing other die-offs, as the underground aquifer is being pumped lower and lower each year. Over 200 years ago when European settlers first arrived in the region, the water table was so high that a simple pit well was all that was needed to get water. Today, many areas require wells of 200-600 feet deep or more in order to reach water. Many are believing this is the cause of many of the trees dying, as many have deep roots, evolved to reach these underground sources. Now they are gone, and the trees are dying.
But none of this has anything to do with cars, or CO2, or "global warming", or any of that nonsense. It is simply too many people trying to live in an area that can not support them. I honestly think that state needs to start passing moratoriums on new construction and business expansions, to try and bring the population lower to what the environment can actually support.
Over 85% of the water in LA comes from other areas, and that is causing a lot of damage to those areas it is being taken from. And dust storms are becoming more common, as less farmland is used in the Central Valley because of the lack of irrigation water being taken to send to the city instead.
Traditionally, during an Interglacial, most of California is a humid savanna region, like much of Africa is today. But it takes thousands of years for the area to move to that stage once things start to warm up. And it never will as it is going today, because the increased water and humidity do not exist because all of the water is being taken.
Humidity is going up, rising globally about half a percentage point in the the last century. But because of the general climate of California (including the fact that the majority of the state is in a rain shadow), it is not enough to offset much of the increase in temperature.
And in all times in the past, there were wetlands in much of the state to make it even more humid. Such as Tulare Lake, which once covered over 13,000 square miles near Bakersfield. But over a century ago this was drained off for agriculture, and it no longer exists. That would have added a lot of local humidity into the area.
The difference is not temperature, but micro-climate effects from local/regional changes in land topology.
Yeah, sure, California has only been in drought for the last 10,000 years.
Can't speak for Calif, but that's not true for Arizona. We're in the middle of a 20-year drought. And we're running out of water. But that's caused by lack of snow in the mountains. Rain doesn't help much. It evaporates. We need the melting snow run-off.
As to the cause, they determine that after the fire is put out.
From what I understand, the biggest climate change affect that helps there be more fires is because of the year after year droughts in the west.
Which is actually nothing new. The "7 year drought cycle" has existed in that region for as long as there have been human records. It is a semi-arid Mediterranean Climate, that because of the cold currents off of the coast tend to get moderate storms most years.
But roughly every seven years, they get an "El Niño" pattern, which actually raises the temperature, and causes a winter of torrential rainfall. That is the climate cycle there, and was going on even before the last "Little Ice Age" of 500 years ago.
The "drought" is artificial, because the population of the state has exceeded the supply of water, and there really is no more readily available water to be brought in for the people.
The average water consumption in that state is over 3.5 billion gallons a day. And that is only human consumption, not including the needs of agricultural, industrial, and all other uses. In the same way the state is now suffering blackouts on a regular basis. It is not that there is no power, it is just the population and demand of power exceeds the supply.
there really is no more readily available water to be brought in for the people.
There's literally an ocean full, if they'd put desalinization plants in.
Or simply quit wasting what they have, and actually use it wisely. When you dump - not use, but just dump - the equivalent amount of water your states uses to save a non-endangered fish, then you may have your priorities wrong.
There's literally an ocean full, if they'd put desalinization plants in.
Or simply quit wasting what they have, and actually use it wisely. When you dump - not use, but just dump - the equivalent amount of water your states uses to save a non-endangered fish, then you may have your priorities wrong.
And how are they going to do that? The state is already suffering blackouts the likes have not been seen in 20 years because of the over-population. How are these plants going to be powered?
It would take over 15,000 desalination plants in order to provide all the water needed just in the LA basin. That would require an insane amount of power, and an insane amount of land. Something that is not really available, as almost all of the land along the water that is suitable is built up already.
Then there is the other issue, what do you do with all the toxic brine they produce? You can't pump it back into the sea at those levels, you will kill all of the marine life within miles of each plant. Do you store it and put it elsewhere?
Desalinization is largely a pipe-dream, and not at all a workable solution to a city of 4 million people, in a state of 40 million people.
First step is to stop returning the brine to the ocean. Next step is to contain and mine it. The chemicals and metals that make it toxic to begin with can be recovered and utilized. That still leaves the power expenditure which is a large one. Utilizing the same power plants that drive some of our subs and carriers would solve that problem, but 'gasp' that would mean using nuclear power.
First step is to stop returning the brine to the ocean. Next step is to contain and mine it.
recovering potable water from sea water is highly toxic. As in only about 48% of the volume pumped in is drinkable, 52% is toxic brine.
So if you are talking about converting 1,000 gallons a day, that is 520 gallons a day of brine. Where are you going to hold it all, and how in the hell are you going to recover it all, and remain profitable. Most of what is left in it has little to no commercial value.
Most of what is left behind is salt, barium, calcium, silica, and sulfate. Salt is many more times less expensive simply mined from the ground. The same with every other mineral recovered from brine. And there is still the expense and holding of it until it can be reclaimed.
That is the problem when most people just spout out such things, and do not actually consider what is involved.
Here is some simple math. Los Angeles needs roughly 320 million gallons per day. And we will tweak up the efficiency of desalination plants to 50%. That means they will need to suck in 640 million gallons per day, and will be producing 320 million gallons of toxic brine. Per day.
Where in the hell is that going to be stored? Not to mention where the electricity is going to come from to power them.
This is the problem that almost all of these run across when smacked in the face with reality and real economics. Like Hyperloops, solar roadways, and "water from the air". People keep thinking up these stupid silly things, without actually looking at the reality of what is really involved in making them and having them work.
You ask for a solution, I gave a solution. Economic viability wasn't considered. However, to say or pretend there is no solution is BS. Engineers devise solutions, it's up to someone else to work the economics.
The real problem is people who close their minds rather than work the problem. There isn't much that cannot be done if the will is present to push forward.
As for what to do with the brine:
Water doesn't actually get consumed in a way that destroys it.
Waste water output should roughly balance with fresh water input.
Dilute the brine back into the processed waste water before the waste water is dumped into the ocean.
It's not like there would be anything in the brine that didn't come out of the ocean in the first place. It's toxic only because it's too concentrated.
Dilute the brine back into the processed waste water before the waste water is dumped into the ocean.
Actually, about a third of it is "destroyed". Mostly through evaporation, as well as ground seepage. Then there is the most concentrated sludge, which is to toxic to remove any more liquid so it is normally given the final process through evaporative techniques.
LA actually only processes around 410 million gallons of waste water per day. And a lot of it is processed through evaporative processes. So you are still going to be well over 200 million gallons short per day.
And not all of it is dumped back into the ocean. A lot is actually used to keep some of the streams operational in the dry climate. And a lot is also used for irrigation, especially along the freeways, golf courses, and other things where non-potable water is fine. So by using that for reducing the toxicity of brine, you are just going to have to replace those uses with water from elsewhere, so you gained nothing.
In other words, just importing even more water, so you literally saved nothing by that time.
And a solution has to be practical and workable, or it is just another stupid idea. Not unlike a popular concept about 50 years ago of towing icebergs to supply areas with fresh water. It was a silyl and unworkable idea 5 decades ago, and it is equally as silly today.
And Remus, my mind is far from closed. But I am also a pragmatic realist. And unless something is workable, it is little more than mental masturbation. And most are about as realistic as all those David Avocado Wolf videos, or 90% of what comes from Elron Musk.
Unworkable fantasies, used to sucker people into parting with their money.
Still with the negatives and no solution. Is that your usual MO? All problems no solutions?
Then there is the most concentrated sludge, which is to toxic to remove any more liquid so it is normally given the final process through evaporative techniques.
Here is a radical idea: Why not pump sea water to dilute the brine to reasonable concentration level before dumping it in the ocean again?
Here is a radical idea: Why not pump sea water to dilute the brine to reasonable concentration level before dumping it in the ocean again?
AFAIK, in some cases it's already done. Cooling water for thermal power plants can be salt water. Using this water to dilute the brine will work, you just need more salt water then fresh water to get to an acceptable concentration.
To limit the environmental impact of returning the brine to the ocean, it can be diluted with another stream of water entering the ocean, such as the outfall of a wastewater treatment or power plant. With medium to large power plant and desalination plants, the power plant's cooling water flow is likely to be several times larger than that of the desalination plant, reducing the salinity of the combination. Another method to dilute the brine is to mix it via a diffuser in a mixing zone. For example, once a pipeline containing the brine reaches the sea floor, it can split into many branches, each releasing brine gradually through small holes along its length. Mixing can be combined with power plant or wastewater plant dilution.
HM.
AFAIK, in some cases it's already done. Cooling water for thermal power plants can be salt water. Using this water to dilute the brine will work, you just need more salt water then fresh water to get to an acceptable concentration.
Correct. It's a standard process outside of the US. Even within the US, many nuclear power plants do this. Even in California, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) used it until it was shut down. St. Lucie station down in Florida still uses it.
The rest of the world uses it extensively. Koeberg Nuclear Power Station in South Africa uses water from the South Atlantic in the same manner. Framatome/Areva has specific designs just for salt water cooling.
They have long since worked around how to feed back "toxic Brine" with environmentally safe practices as they also us desalination to produce primary and spent fuel pool water.
Simply put, it's been done already. Anyone who says it can't be done is either clueless of which they speak, or full of shit.
ETA: the real problem is the unwillingness of certain groups to use nuclear power. Which is silly given it's a twofer. Somethings California needs. Power and water, both resolved by nuclear power. Use one to create the other. Areva, Westinghouse, G.E. all have the engineering completed. It's just a matter of scale.
Actually it's a trifeca, as it also eliminates the need for fossil fuel generation.
recovering potable water from sea water is highly toxic. As in only about 48% of the volume pumped in is drinkable, 52% is toxic brine.
Where did you get these numbers?
In diverse contexts, brine may refer to salt solutions ranging from about 3.5% (a typical concentration of seawater, on the lower end of solutions used for brining foods) up to about 26% (a typical saturated solution, depending on temperature)
I looked around but couldn't find how concentrated the outflowing brine of the various desalination technologies are.
If your numbers are correct (only 48% fresh water and 52% brine) then the salt concentration of the brine is below 7% and will not need much water to dilute it.
HM.
My question: how does anybody know whether any of those wildfires are because of climate change?
Here is the biggest thing, the climate always changes. Always has, always will.
And much of this can actually be attributed to two factors, for decades the almost fanatical drive to put out fires as soon as they crop up, then the failure to manage the wildlands.
Fire is a natural cycle, and in fact a great many trees and plants actually require fire in order to reproduce. And annual fires in many areas are just part of the natural cycle. They pass through an area, normally clearing the underbrush and weaker-dead trees, and allow others to grow.
However, for over a century fire was seen as "bad", so everything was done to put one out as soon as it started. And the end result is now decades of underbrush and dead trees that have built up. And when a fire starts in those areas, it tends to be so hot that it leaves nothing behind.
California tends to suffer the worst of that, because it has mandated the most "hands off" forestry policies for decades. And many of the laws even if you own properties are Byzantine and causes many to stop even trying.
There have actually been instances where a fire agency will fine somebody for not clearing brush, then when it is cleared the owner if fined by the state forestry for doing so.
But fires in that state are just like earthquakes. The longer an area goes without one, the worse it will ultimately be when it happens again. And as the third largest state there is a lot of land there to burn.
My question: how does anybody know whether any of those wildfires are because of climate change? Or lightning? Or spontaneous combustion? or sparks from downed utility lines? or whether Smokey the Bear set them - Accidentally or Deliberately?
The climate change part of your question is in the wrong order.
1. What started the fire. Find the epicenter of the fire. Then analysis samples. That has gotten to be old hat. The samples will show if an accelerant was used, or if it was electrical etc. For power lines, it's not too difficult to figure it out via cross checking available information. It's basically the same methodology as determining the cause of a house fire, writ large. The science for that is well established.
The most common cause is idiocy. Flipping a cigarette butt out a car window, an unattended camp fire, fireworks, etc. Somebody doing something stupid.
There's also a forest mismanagement issue that is a factor.
A ground fire will not kill mature trees.
Some species of evergreens require periodic ground fires as part of their reproductive cycle. It's necessary for the seeds to be released and for them to germinate.
A long time ago the US Forest Service instituted a no-burn policy where they attempted to detect and put out every fire while they were very small.
Most states relevant state agencies followed the US Forest service down this ultimately self defeating path.
This plus anti-logging policies leads to a build up of dead trees and brush, fuel for fires, on the ground.
This fuel allows what would otherwise be small ground fires that are a net benefit to the forest over all to spread to the forest canopy, and a canopy fire will kill mature trees.
With so much fuel on the ground, small fires turn into uncontrollable infernos before anyone can intervene.
There's also a forest mismanagement issue that is a factor.
A ground fire will not kill mature trees.
Some species of evergreens require periodic ground fires as part of their reproductive cycle. It's necessary for the seeds to be released and for them to germinate.
A long time ago the US Forest Service instituted a no-burn policy where they attempted to detect and put out every fire while they were very small.
Most states relevant state agencies followed the US Forest service down this ultimately self defeating path.
This plus anti-logging policies leads to a build up of dead trees and brush, fuel for fires, on the ground.
This fuel allows what would otherwise be small ground fires that are a net benefit to the forest over all to spread to the forest canopy, and a canopy fire will kill mature trees.
With so much fuel on the ground, small fires turn into uncontrollable infernos before anyone can intervene.
This can not be said enough times.
Fires are indeed part of the natural cycle. This can be proven simply by the evolution of Pyrophyte plants. And California is full of them.
Lodgepole pines, redwoods, and sequoia are all "Classic California Trees", and each and every species requires fire in order to reproduce. The very fact that this evolved in them shows that occasional fires are part of it's natural conditions.
And even in the 1970's ecologists noticed that many of the forests in California were starting to "die". Because the fires were being put out at that time so fast that no new trees were being grown to replace those that naturally died off. And 50 years later it is even worse.
Because the half century or more of undergrowth and dead trees has created conditions that when a fire does start, it completely destroys all plants in the region, not just the undergrowth.
Heck, in that state they barely even maintain any of the old firebreaks as they had decades ago. I often see them around the state still, but now with 30-50 year old trees growing wild in them but surrounded by 100+ year old trees. If they would at least return to maintaining that, they might be able to contain some of the fires so they only lose part of a forest instead of all of it.
And Oregon is starting to suffer the same damned fate. Once one of the largest timber regions in the country, the decades of moratoriums on logging are now causing wildfires that are destroying large timber areas.
decades of moratoriums on logging are now causing wildfires that are destroying large timber areas.
Yes, a lot of the problem is man made. Fossil fuels? Maybe somewhat. But cutting down trees that should not be cut down (the Amazon), not cutting down trees that should be (ban on logging and not thinning out forests), huge population growth in areas that can't support it (my Phoenix area is one of those), etc. And here, the forest fires scars (land that was burned and now void of trees) causes the flooding when it rains. But no one ever talks about those. All they do is blame fossil fuels.
Agree to all points. But it still doesn't negate my point regarding idiocy, rather it reinforces it. Nature has been around a lot longer than the idiots who came up with those policies.
Nature has been around a lot longer than the idiots who came up with those policies.
The people who came up with those policies aren't smart enough to qualify as idiots.
[I tried to contribute to this thread online. my connection kept causing problems. Writing this, I don't know if anything remains of that or if what remains is coherent.]
The first question. Imagine yourself with three fireplaces. In 1, you put 3 logs on the andirons, all alone. in 2 & 3, you put logs, kindling, and crumpled newspapers. You light a match to 1, and then you do the same to 2. Soon, you have a roaring fire in 2, and only in 2. The reason you have a fire in 2 but not in 1 is that the situation in 2 was conducive to catching fire. The reason you have a fire in 2 but not in 3 was that you lit a match to 2 but you did not to 3.
Now, why is there a fire in 2?
In the same way, a wildfire requires a spark, but some conditions can make it easier for wildfire to start and to spread. Asking whether the spark OR the condition is "the cause" is confusing a linguistic problem with a physical one.
Climate change is marked less by more rain over the globe or less rain over the globe than by rain IN DIFFERENT PLACES. Locally, this is experienced as too much rain or not enough rain. While the western USA has been experiencing less rain than they are used to, flooding has made the news in W. Europe and E. China.
"Less than they are used to," sounds more benign than the experience. Natural plant cover selects a mixture that can flourish in the long-term weather pattern of the place. If that weather pattern shifts, the results are usually deadly for the local plants, and sometimes for the local humans, too. Farmers choose their crops according to their experience of the weather; experience can't distinguish between fluctuations and long-term shifts.
At last! someone who actually respects what 90 plus percentage of all climate relevant scientists have been saying for thirty plus years. (outlier examples: geologists are climate relevant, so are fluid mechanics scientists...) The vast majority of scientists around the globe understand why there are an increasing number of wildfires in areas that are getting drier due to climate change.
It seems all it take is a few SIMPLEtons to undermine what is actually happening to our planet by posting, "It's so SIMPLE to solve these problems..."
Do most of you still refute natural selection as the means by which homosapiens appeared on Earth?
Save your storytelling for your stories.
The intensity of the wild fires is due to primarily forest mismanagement. If you prevent nature from managing its content and do nothing to keep debris from increasing then you should expect intense forest fires. Unfortunately, the intense forest fires also kill the seeds that nature uses fire to initiate germination. While a warmer climate contributes to the problem the primary problem is mismanagement of forest by humans!
Isn't funny that all the forestry services around the world, disagree with you. The primary cause is global warming induced, severe drought conditions.
You of course are an expert on forest management, no?
Isn't funny that all the forestry services around the world, disagree with you.
How will you know?
Here in Germany we don't have trees in our forests that relay on fires to germinate like some trees in the pacific states of the US - especially California; therefor our forestry services don't have the knowledge to agree or disagree with the measures taken by Californian forestry services.
We here have another problem: we don't have much natural forests anymore, our forests are mostly timber plantations. Some got planted in areas that even back then wasn't optimal for that tree, but it was the tree mostly in demand. Lookup the distribution map of the Norway spruce in Wikipedia. Green: native range. Orange: introduced areas.
Another tree is the white fir from the Black Forest. To get to the tall trees they cut down the natural mixed forest.
Another extreme example are the Rhön mountains:
Its natural vegetation would probably be dominated by beech woods with scattered groups of other trees
but today most of its hill tops are without any trees.
Guessing from your posting you are no expert on forest management either!
HM.
You of course are an expert on forest management, no?
It is abundantly clear you are no 'expert' yet you make such claims about others. You must have gained acolyte status for the AGW religion.
The intensity of the wild fires is due to primarily forest mismanagement. If you prevent nature from managing its content and do nothing to keep debris from increasing then you should expect intense forest fires. Unfortunately, the intense forest fires also kill the seeds that nature uses fire to initiate germination. While a warmer climate contributes to the problem the primary problem is mismanagement of forest by humans!
There is another leg to the problem:
Human activity. "fire season" is now a nearly year round event for California during drought years, due in large part to human activities.
Mother nature doesn't tend to cause many wildfires during most dry seasons as there are no thunderstorms around, even if there is plenty of wind to help a fire grow and spread if one starts.
However, you get the gun enthusiast using exploding targets in dry brush, the camper in dry brush with a poorly maintained fire, a carelessly tossed cigarette butt, or arcing from a power line, and boom instant wildfire fueled by dry vegetation and strong winds.
When that dry vegetation also has a heavy fuel load because wildlife can't graze it(because we thinned the herd), and farmers can't graze it either, as well as other land-use mismanagement(like the decades of aggressive fire control) you get a perfect storm of things combining together to provide quite the nightmare.
The vast majority of scientists around the globe understand why there are an increasing number of wildfires in areas that are getting drier due to climate change.
Forest mismanagement by elected officials is the primary reason. You notice that forests that are managed by the timber companies don't burn like this - it's only when elected morons decide that controlled burns are bad and clearing out the underbrush might disturb the natural nesting ground of a left-winged tit swallow.
Hey, let's put all these houses in the midst of forests, then not allow the homeowners to clear out the brush that accumulates.
That has nothing to do with the next ice age, global warming, or climate change. It has everything to do with stupid people. (Like those who make absolute statements on here that are not subject to the scientific method or repeatability.)
Hey, let's put all these houses in the midst of forests, then not allow the homeowners to clear out the brush that accumulates.
My last house was in the desert, not a forest. But the area between my back fence and the golf course was classified an NAOS (Natural Area Open Space) by the City of Scottsdale even though I owned the land. That meant I couldn't even pick up a twig because some bird might need it to build a nest.
I ignored them and kept it clean. It was also true on both sides of my house. Well, there was a fire in Cave Creek that came very close to Scottsdale so the City changed their tune. They said you could keep it clear of stuff that burned so many feet from your house. Still not enough, but at least they realized the fire hazard was too dangerous and if houses burned down it wouldn't look good on them. In fact, the fire department said if your house was burning and your neighbor's was too, they would first put the fire out on the house that kept their area clear of brush.
I had a house in the White Mountains. We often had wild fires there. Except for one area. The area on the reservation where the Indians maintained the forest.
Hey, let's put all these houses in the midst of forests, then not allow the homeowners to clear out the brush that accumulates.
It can be even more insane than that in the People's Republic of California.
I lived just a few miles away and was evacuated when Paradise burned down. Then when recovery started, they started to threaten those who were burned out with fines if they did not remove the debris that used to be their houses from waterways.
And when they complied, another state agency threatened them with fines for altering a waterway without permission. Literally the same insanity that saw ranchers fined for making a watering hole for their cattle. Then when they filled them in, they got fined a second time for "destroying a waterway".
I find it funny that of all the states in the country, California has by far the worst fires in the country. Even Alaska which has many more acres in trees and almost no management at all has smaller fires than California. That should be a wake-up call, but they still continue to do nothing. Not manage the forests, or allow others to do it.
That should be a wake-up call, but they still continue to do nothing. Not manage the forests, or allow others to do it.
But they aren't doing nothing. The problem is they are doing the wrong things.
Alaska is proof that they would be better off in the long term if they did nothing.
This is what I notice: (because I actually look stuff up)
https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/timber/timber-companies-loggers-see-major-damage-from-wildfires/article_9f8461ca-f6a9-11ea-8724-7779efff2db6.html
Golly, looks like those perfect angel, lumber companies, are losing their shit too.
From the article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266
"The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on "climate change" and "global warming" published in the first 7 months of 2019."
If I took a survey among the tobacco industry, it would say 100% of them believe tobacco is not bad for your health.
11,602 peer-reviewed articles on "climate change" and "global warming" published in the first 7 months of 2019."
By peer reviewed it means "climatologist," so of course they are going to agree. That community is so small, it's like going to a redneck family reunion to find a spouse.
What really bothers me about your post is, no subject ever has 100% agreement with all its members. That alone raises a red flag for a thinking person.
Fifty years ago, it was the consensus of medical professionals that cigarettes are not bad for your long term health. At one point in history it was the consensus that the earth was flat. During hitlers reign, it was the consensus of the third reich that Jews were bad. That word "consensus" should be stricken from any serious scientific endeavour.
"The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on "climate change" and "global warming" published in the first 7 months of 2019."
And I am sure if you went back 150 years and looked at similar things like say the superiority of Caucasians to other races, you would find largely the same thing.
As somebody else so eloquently put it:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Science is not counting noses, and seeing how many raise theirs up in support. Especially as we have seen more and more that any that speak up against it are castigated and shamed, even doxed and threatened because they dare to say they do not agree.
That is not consensus, that is terror and groupthink.
If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Where's the like button when you want one? :)
Where's the like button when you want one? :)
Well, give the thanks to Michael Crichton, he is the one that said that. And it was only after somebody went completely batshit after I had posted that earlier that I was even made aware that he was also against "human global warming". To me, that was actually irrelevant, I liked the quote because it is true. He could have been a rabid AGW believer, and I would still have agreed with his quote.
To sum up, the majority of posts here claim that the scientific method, which includes peer review, has no credibility.
Therefore I must ask. How do you determine truth?
All I've read for 'evidence' to support the claims here are anecdotes. According to this thread, a good story is always more accurate than experiments and measurements.
Oh, and climate science, as I originally mentioned, is backed up by hundreds of other sciences, oceanography, fluid dynamics, geology, astronomy, ... all competing to find flaws in their peer's and overlapping science research, because that's how science works.
Therefore I must ask. How do you determine truth?
You can start by dismissing anything predicated on a consensus. Consensus does not equal science. Concensus = group-think. As long as someone else said it first, the rest pile on.
If you think otherwise, then show me where consensus is part of the scientific method.
You can start by dismissing anything predicated on a consensus. Consensus does not equal science. Concensus = group-think. As long as someone else said it first, the rest pile on.
Or how I frequently, describe it, an "Echo Chamber". Where everybody reviewing and commenting on the published conclusions are already in full agreement with them. And as such ignore the huge flaws in the report itself. Like "chasing the data", misquoting or misrepresenting the actual conclusion of earlier reports quoted in the article, and things like that.
A great many times, people who had written source articles have tried to take to task those that misrepresent them, but are ignored. Quite a few were writing about "global warming" and saying it was purely the natural course, one of countless cycles of such in the billions of years since the planet formed. Yet somebody will take a piece of their data, imply that they said it was man made, and the "peer review" never seems to catch that this was done.
That is supposed to be a major step in such a review. To ensure that the data and conclusions posited by others are actually accurate to the original published paper. But when it comes to climate change, that never seems to happen. And at any time everything is 100% one way or another, I start to question the validity. That is not science, that is religion.
Where "truth" does not matter, only your belief in what some say the truth is.
the scientific method
As per Miriam-Webster:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know!):
It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method,
And lastly, courtesy of the Khan Academy:
The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
You see, we're all quite well aware of what the scientific method is, and how it is applied. Where you have no credibility is shown by this statement of yours:
How do you determine truth?
The scientific method isn't about determining truth, it's about determining facts.
A fact is (again, Miriam-Webster):
1a: something that has actual existence
space exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrence
prove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
These are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
a question of fact hinges on evidence
Truth is slightly different (again, Miriam-Webster):
1a(1): the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2): the state of being the case : FACT
(3)often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
truths of thermodynamics
c: the body of true statements and propositions
2a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : TRUE sense 2
c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
3a: sincerity in action, character, and utterance
barchaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
Observation: lots of wildfires
Question: Are they worse due to excess underbrush
Hypothesis: If we don't clean out underbrush or let regular, smaller fires do so, we're going to have big issues.
Prediction: Cleaner forests won't burn as bad
Test it: See which one burns worse - one with lots of extra fuel because it hasn't been cleared for years, or one that's regular cleared
Iterate: New Hypothesis - environmentalists that don't let forests get cleared are the worse thing that could happen TO the forests ...
The scientific method is a CYCLE, not a once and done, because you're always QUESTIONING your results, never blindly accepting the ones that fit your truth.
You personally performed that study? Where is the paper you submitted for peer review?
Failing that, where is are the research articles that support your assertion?
Peer review is about how different studies deal with discrepancies between them. Scientific consensus is about the common findings of many studies and much research. It's not an echo-chamber, except for heated arguments over margin of error differences. Scientists want to earn credibility, and the only way to do that is to present findings for other experts in their field, to try and tear apart.
And if you don't think that peer review isn't part of the scientific process, I just have no respect for you.
And if you don't think that peer review isn't part of the scientific process, I just have no respect for you.
Peer review is not part of the scientific process. Peer review is part of scientific publishing process mostly. There is a huge difference.
If scientists truly wanted the respect of their peer then they provide their data, their methods and their conclusions and have their peers try to replicate their studies/experiments.
Simply reviewing a paper to figure out if a scientist is completely crazy or not, doesn't guarantee that the science is sound.
All of the 'xxx Studies' departments are built on the peer review process's circularity, doesn't make them any more valid.
And if you don't think that peer review isn't part of the scientific process, I just have no respect for you.
You are under the mistaken impression that I or others care about your respect.
The integrity of those reviews inside an echo chamber has about as much value to science as a Fidel Castro election. All of those reviewers and the susposed author are under threat of their jobs and or funding if they don't toe the party line.
peer review isn't part of the scientific process
Peer review is part of the scientific publishing process, but has nothing to do with performing experiments using the scientific method.
Scientific consensus is about the common findings of many studies and much research.
So what? Are the finding reproducible by someone else, performing a similar experiment, or not?
Consensus - the sky is blue.
Reality - no, the sky really isn't blue, that's simply the scattering of visible light. Go down to the bottom of a deep shaft and look up during daytime, and you'll see stars just as if it were night. Scientifically reproducible.
Oh, and you also presume I care whether I have your respect or not. I don't. And looking at a couple of the stories you've published on here, I for damned sure would never come to you for assistance on writing one. (Seriously, you almost had to work to get that 3.32 score, didn't you?)
Consensus - the sky is blue.
Reality - no, the sky really isn't blue, that's simply the scattering of visible light. Go down to the bottom of a deep shaft and look up during daytime, and you'll see stars just as if it were night. Scientifically reproducible.
To be particular, it's more a factor of the predominant gases in the atmosphere along with the wavelengths of light impinging on it.
peer review
I once served on a working party trying to come up with a solution to the problems of peer review, there being many, many instances where it isn't working properly.
Besides climate change, medicine is an area where it's failing badly - it's reckoned that in something like 90% of medical studies, the conclusions of the authors are not justified by the underlying data.
The working party failed, with no consensus.
AJ
To sum up, the majority of posts here claim that the scientific method, which includes peer review, has no credibility.
Therefore I must ask. How do you determine truth?
Prove it.
When Louis Pasteur claimed there were microscopic germs, the scientific community at the time had 100% consensus — Pasteur was a crackpot, a fraud.
I think he proved it with his anthrax vaccine, but I don't remember the details.
When Louis Pasteur claimed there were microscopic germs, the scientific community at the time had 100% consensus — Pasteur was a crackpot, a fraud.
Or even look at cosmology.
The concept of the "Black Hole" actually was conceived back in the middle of the 18th century. And a century later even Einstein himself tried to work it out, but ultimately dismissed it as even he thought the Universe could not possibly be so perverse.
And they were speculated about for decades before they were finally proven to be true. But then came other discoveries, like that at the center of most large spiral galaxies rests a supermassive black hole. Which somehow does not seem to consume just anything that comes near it.
And we have seen the shape of the universe change many times. From infinite ball, to infinite flat plane, to more recently possibly a giant torus that may be around four times the size of the visible universe.
Yet, amazingly when it comes to "Climate Change", almost every paper that comes out all tend to say the exact same things. It is caused by man, we are destroying the planet, and if we do not change immediately all life will end.
That is not science, that is religion. Where any that do not agree are to be branded as a heretic and excommunicated, then executed for blasphemy.
Yet, amazingly when it comes to "Climate Change", almost every paper that comes out all tend to say the exact same things. It is caused by man, we are destroying the planet, and if we do not change immediately all life will end.
I don't think this is what the papers say. This is what the press and governmental agencies claim, based on worst-case results from models that have not been shown to be particularly accurate.
I'll repeat my point from above. The real question that DiscipleN needs to answer is: "So, what?" What do you suggest needs to be done, at what cost, and for what projected end result. If the answer is, "Everything we possibly can at any cost because this is an existential threat to humanity," then I'm not buying it and I do not believe the current state of the science supports that conclusion.
And, by the way, I get that you were not agreeing with the suggestion you made about the papers. I'm just saying I do not believe that the published literature says that. The research reports are just about all more specific and tentative than that. It is (a) some results from some models that suggest doom and (b) every word out of every "I want more power" politician's mouth.
The research reports are just about all more specific and tentative than that. It is (a) some results from some models that suggest doom and (b) every word out of every "I want more power" politician's mouth.
To me, most of them are simply "chasing the data". They see a change, and to them any data is bad and therefore try to blame it on people. And they do not see the many errors in the arguments and analysis.
Me, my main "Hard Science" that I grew up studying was geology. And as such, my viewpoint is not a decade, or even a quarter to half century. I literally look at trends of millions and tens of millions of years. In the over 4.5 billion years that the planet has been around.
Aware that permanent ice caps (or even ice caps at all) in the polar regions are aberrations. That during interglacials, the North Pole is typically ice free, and that the "tropical region" can extend almost to the Arctic Circle. And when I hear that today is the "hottest the planet has ever been", I know that is a lot of bullshit. That the hottest in recent eons is the "Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum" (PETM), which saw average global temperatures of over 80f. And to compare, it is not even 60 today.
But not even that is the hottest, and over 500 mya, the average global temperature was over 100f. And when looking at charts covering average global temperatures for over 500 million years, far more time was spent over around 68f global. Which is considered the global temperature where there are no ice caps at either pole. And that you have to go back around 370 mya to find the start of an era anywhere near as cold for so long as the one we have been in for the last 50 million years.
And I laugh when I can bring up things like the PETM, or Medieval Warm Spell, and have people scream I am "anti-science". When in reality they are just screaming because I refuse to accept their belief without thought, and they can not answer simple questions (or even to seem aware that the current climate is not even the "norm" in the history of the planet).
And even the rise today is not unknown. Around 275 mya, the temperature within a short period of time jumped from around 53f (the coldest it was during the last ice age), to around 90f. That is over 4 times the change we have seen in the last 20 ky.
First: peer review is no part of the scientific method.
Don't get me wrong, you should document all steps so other scientists can repeat your steps and tests and see if you probably ignored some facts and if they get the same results.
Second: if you can't experiment and test the hypothesis all your conclusions remain opinions. Climatology is only gradually different from astrology.
HM.
To sum up, the majority of posts here claim that the scientific method, which includes peer review, has no credibility.
You're conflating things. All peer review does is validate that the reviewers do not see flaws in the methodology. Peer review is not science, although it is part of the process.
It doesn't become science until someone manages to reproduce the result in the real world. And that actually has become a major problem in the Scientific community of late. It seems there a very large body of published, peer reviewed scientific studies where other researchers are unable to reproduce the results. More than half of them in fact, IIRC the number is closer to 60%.
More than half of them in fact, IIRC the number is closer to 60%.
I believe that percentage is a bit low, but your point is non the less valid.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments.
https://simplystatistics.org/2013/12/16/a-summary-of-the-evidence-that-most-published-research-is-false/
ETA: That btw is all anyone needs to know to know the "concensus" is bullshit.
There's no doubt we humans have a negative impact on the climate. We are just with too many and (unnecessarily) consume way to many resources. But hey, those lights in Las Vegas are important.
The big question though is, how big a percentage our "contribution" is in the bigger scheme of changes. Is it minor or huge? Can we make a difference to turn part of some unwanted changes? That should be the discussion, not whether or not "we" cause climate change, we don't. At least not by our selves.
There's no doubt we humans have a negative impact on the climate.
I remember from half a century ago, when climate was a descriptive topic rather than prescriptive, that our geography teacher assured us that humanity was too insignificant to affect the climate.
ETA He urged us to visit a glacier while we still could, claiming they were slowly melting as we were still emerging from the last ice age, and within a few generations they'd all be gone.
AJ
that our geography teacher assured us that humanity was too insignificant to affect the climate.
We as 'just' people yes, but we manage to cause such a huge amount of pollution that it definitely has some affect on the climate.
I remember from half a century ago, when climate was a descriptive topic rather than prescriptive, that our geography teacher assured us that humanity was too insignificant to affect the climate.
ETA He urged us to visit a glacier while we still could, claiming they were slowly melting as we were still emerging from the last ice age, and within a few generations they'd all be gone.
And I was taught the same thing. Even being taught about how albedo was changing because of the loss of the ice caps, and that alone was warming the globe more each decade. I even remember being told the same thing when I visited Portage Glacier, outside of Anchorage. That when it was first discovered by the Cook Expedition in the 1770's, it reached all the way to the Turnagain Arm. And by the time the region was settled, it was several miles inland. My dad grew up near there, and remembered it being close to where the visitor center was located. By the time I arrived, it was barely visible from the center. Today, you can no longer see it from there.
But notice, most of that was going on during what is known as the "Little Ice Age". Yet, the glacier was still receding. So why would anybody think it would do anything else once the LIA ended?
And I was taught the same thing.
In the financial pages of my weekend newspaper, an advocate of funds investing in the companies vying for commercial space travel claimed that without the space programme, we would have been unaware of climate change. ;-)
AJ
In the financial pages of my weekend newspaper, an advocate of funds investing in the companies vying for commercial space travel claimed that without the space programme, we would have been unaware of climate change. ;-)
AJ
Oh nonsense. Humans have seen the climate change long before we had anything more advanced than a simple animal drawn plow.
Even back in the 16th century, those in Europe started to see glaciers spreading to cover their fields and even destroying their villages. Go back farther, and the unnamed neolithic Europeans even probably looked in dismay as their route to walk to England slowly vanished, and some in what is now Indonesia started over generations to see they were suddenly cut off and living on an island.
And the early Indians that arrived on the West Coast and settled where the American River met the sea near two large towering rocks could never have comprehended that someday that location would be 20 miles off shore, and the river valley they likely hunted at was going to become a huge bay.
Modern people are rather stupid, in that they think they are the only ones to see such changes. This can be seen in that when I mention to people that when the Great Pyramid was built, mammoths were still wandering the planet. There is a group that tries to place the blame on everything on humans, which is stupid when you look at the huge numbers of cycles of both mass extinctions and climate change through the history of the planet.
I wonder if they were suddenly transported to the neolithic era, they would suddenly start screaming that the cave men had to stop building camp fires immediately, and stop hunting or the animals they ate would die off.
Modern people are rather stupid
"Modern" is not needed. People are rather stupid. Close to half are below average.
I'll start taking it seriously when the hypocrisy ends. There are a large number of things the world's governments can do that they avoid mentioning for political reasons. Cessation of rain forest clear cutting being one. Cleaning up the ocean gyres that are heavily ladder with plastics another. Those are things that can be done, but are not so as to satisfy political concerns.
Those are things that can be done, but are not so as to satisfy political concerns.
Yep, that's the main problem.
There's no doubt we humans have a negative impact on the climate. We are just with too many and (unnecessarily) consume way to many resources. But hey, those lights in Las Vegas are important.
That is environment, not climate. They are not the same thing.
A huge chunk of the Vegas power comes from Hoover Dam, green and carbon neutral. The rest from solar and natural gas.
And really the only major change in the Colorado River from that is that the water downstream is colder, and has much less silt in it.
In fact, this is also a concern for the future of the dam. The Colorado has a high level of sedimentation, and some estimates are now placing the remaining lifespan at as little as 200 years until the reservoir is silted up, and the dam will have to be destroyed as silt deposits have filled the basin.
And one of the more recent proposals have been to build a second dam below the first (or a second above Hoover Dam), to pump water back into the reservoir. This would have the effect of turning it into a "battery".
But this is not all a "negative impact", as the colder and clearer waters below the dam have enabled trout populations to thrive. And the increased water use in the Las Vegas basin has actually raised the humidity in the area, which causes a cooling effect. The same with the other irrigation projects in the region.
Not all changes by man are negative.
That is environment, not climate. They are not the same thing.
And the environment has no influence on our climate? You better read up on the overall affects of air pollution.
A huge chunk of the Vegas power comes from Hoover Dam, green and carbon neutral. The rest from solar and natural gas.
It was just an example of a huge waste of power and it doesn't really matter where the energy comes from. That green energy could have been used for other purposes avoiding the need for additional polluting power generation.
I'm definitely not a tree hugger (I like my meat!), but I do hate excessive waste of resources.
That is environment, not climate. They are not the same thing.
True, but there are some relations and dependencies. Environmental changes can affect micro climate and local climate. The sum of thousands of local climate changes may change regional or even global climate.
But that's not only human actions, animals can be as bad. Beavers flooding square miles of land, elephants breaking down the few trees in savannas to feed from the leaves and twigs.
Those environmental changes by human interaction is not new contrary to what the environmentalists try to convince us.
(The following quote is from Wikipedia, bold by me)
Lüneburg Heath has extensive areas of heathland, typical of those that covered most of the North German countryside until about 1800, but which have almost completely disappeared in other areas. The heaths were formed after the Neolithic period by overgrazing of the once widespread forests on the poor sandy soils of the geest, as this slightly hilly and sandy terrain in northern Europe is called. Lüneburg Heath is therefore a historic cultural landscape. The remaining areas of heath are kept clear mainly through grazing, especially by a North German breed of moorland sheep called the Heidschnucke.
Instead of letting nature reclaim the areas, they spend money to keep it as is.
HM.
Instead of letting nature reclaim the areas, they spend money to keep it as is.
And that will continue to change.
We can see that in North America even today. Much of the "American Midwest" was lush farmland. But that was mostly because of geography and geology. A thin layer of soil, overlaid sand then dead plant material. Perfect crowing conditions.
But jump back in time about 10ky, and that same area was covered in permafrost. Not unlike what is found in Alaska and Northern Canada today. The region you are talking about is the same thing, the layer you are talking about is paper thin, when looking at the history and conditions on the planet.
And sorry, widespread grazing, in the neolithic? Exactly how much grazing and how large were the herds of neolithic Europeans? At that time, most "domesticated animals" looked nothing like the farmyard animals of today. The closest to a "cow" in Europe was still the Aurochs, about 3 to 4 times the size of modern cattle. The animal we think of as a "cow" did not migrate to Europe until much later, via Pakistan and Iran.
Sorry, I am laughing here at the mental image of early neolithic "Aurochs Boys" bringing their great herds into part of Northern Germany, maybe even one riding one of the bulls like Mongo. As the Horse at that time had still only been domesticated for food. It would still be over 5,000 years in the future when humans would first think to actually ride horses.
And I read more through that article, where it is a lot of speculation, but does discuss that the forests in the area grew and retreated several times over the last 10 ky. Even during the growth of it during the migration period, around 1.5 kya.
Then it largely becoming what it is today, at around 1,000 CE. That is hardly the neolithic. Even reading that article, I san see it growing, shrinking, growing again, and shrinking again. And it seems that they are trying to blame every single time that happens on humans.
And I was curious to see the original sources of what is said, but you know something interesting? Almost no references. Not saying I doubt it, but it is an unusually long article, with few to no references for huge chunks of it.
You see "human made climate change", I see the changing conditions that the planet has undergone multiple time in the past 10 ky. Heck, it even talks briefly about the "migration period". Which by itself was caused by an earlier "little ice age" and caused multiple "barbarian tribes" to push against each other, pushing many out of Central Europe into Europe.
And when they hit Central Europe, the bitter cold climates caused them to turn South, right into the edges of the Roman Empire. During that era, much of Northern Europe was barely habitable other than areas that largely subsisted on coastal fishing.
So fine, I can see how some could say humans moved there and "destroyed the ecosystem". But did humans cause the migration itself? Or the "medieval warm spell" that followed it, causing the population to boom and expand their farming areas (in the iron age, not neolithic era)? Or the subsequent Little Ice Age"?
