Professor Michael Mann on Wildfires

[donsutherland1]

This PBS Newshour interview was conducted in 2018 but is as timely now as it was then. Since then, Australia recorded its worst fire season on record. More big wildfires are currently burning in California. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/climate-change-is-making-wildfires-more-extreme-heres-how

And an animated satellite photo from the August 2020 fires in California:

 

 

[rclab]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

This PBS Newshour interview was conducted in 2018 but is as timely now as it was then. Since then, Australia recorded its worst fire season on record. More big wildfires are currently burning in California. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/climate-change-is-making-wildfires-more-extreme-heres-how

And an animated satellite photo from the August 2020 fires in California:

This is the first I’ve heard of a slow down in the jet stream. Is their statistical data and norms, for that matter, that the current speeds are compared to? Scientific revelations are outpacing the Biblical. Sadly the final destination may not be that much different. As always ....

 

 

[donsutherland1]

15 minutes ago, rclab said:

 

There's a growing body of literature linking climate change to a slowing of the jet stream. The end result is "stuck patterns." Alaska's record warm summer last year, Siberia's record warmth earlier this year, and Phoenix's record-setting summer this year are some recent examples resulting from a greater persistence in prevailing patterns.

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

There's a growing body of literature linking climate change to a slowing of the jet stream. The end result is "stuck patterns." Alaska's record warm summer last year, Siberia's record warmth earlier this year, and Phoenix's record-setting summer this year are some recent examples resulting from a greater persistence in prevailing patterns.

PBS is number 1 on my list for both science and news.  Thanks for posting this, Don!  The stuck patterns also seem to be resulting in more "wet bomb" precip events (3"+ rainfall events) and TCs that move slowly (Like Harvey and Florence).

 

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

This PBS Newshour interview was conducted in 2018 but is as timely now as it was then. Since then, Australia recorded its worst fire season on record. More big wildfires are currently burning in California. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/climate-change-is-making-wildfires-more-extreme-heres-how

And an animated satellite photo from the August 2020 fires in California:

 

 

Don the fires in Brazil and Siberia may also be implicated in this.

Aren't the fires in Brazil way out of season?  It's still winter there!

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Don the fires in Brazil and Siberia may also be implicated in this.

Aren't the fires in Brazil way out of season?  It's still winter there!

 

Almost certainly, climate change has driven the increased incidence of wildfires on a global basis. Brazil’s deliberate policy of land clearing in and around the Amazon has amplified the situation there. In fact, as the Amazon is reduced in size, that development will feedback in greater drying due to the loss of rainforest and increased fire risks.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Almost certainly, climate change has driven the increased incidence of wildfires on a global basis. Brazil’s deliberate policy of land clearing in and around the Amazon has amplified the situation there. In fact, as the Amazon is reduced in size, that development will feedback in greater drying due to the loss of rainforest and increased fire risks.

and lower air quality, the air pollution there is awful!

 

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

and lower air quality, the air pollution there is awful!

 

Another relevant article on the California fires and climate change:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/08/climate-change-is-worsening-californias-hellish-wildfires/

[rclab]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Another relevant article on the California fires and climate change:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/08/climate-change-is-worsening-californias-hellish-wildfires/

Thank you, Don, for another difficult read. It’s ironic, I was watching the 2004 disaster movie, Day After Tomorrow, when I opened the link. I’m an old man with zero skills in the atmospheric sciences. I do remember hearing a simple explanation of a storm/weather extreme as the atmosphere seeking a balance. The atmosphere cares not for our politics or our debate. I fear that with or without us the balance will be sought, executed and achieved. As always .....

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, rclab said:

Thank you, Don, for another difficult read. It’s ironic, I was watching the 2004 disaster movie, Day After Tomorrow, when I opened the link. I’m an old man with zero skills in the atmospheric sciences. I do remember hearing a simple explanation of a storm/weather extreme as the atmosphere seeking a balance. The atmosphere cares not for our politics or our debate. I fear that with or without us the balance will be sought, executed and achieved. As always .....

Unfortunately, the added heat from the growing greenhouse gas forcing is triggering more extremes. Balance is being sought in more damaging fashion.

[BillT]

the climate is a set of statistics, the average weather stats from the previous 30 years for a given area, the climate has no power and has never caused even one weather event.......i deal in reality and science.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

the climate is a set of statistics, the average weather stats from the previous 30 years for a given area, the climate has no power and has never caused even one weather event.......i deal in reality and science.

No one has made the misleading argument that 'statistics cause or drive weather.' They are measures. Nothing more.

Statistics measure the state of weather and, over longer timeframes, the state of the climate. Climate change in the conventional use of the term concerns the changes taking place among, other things, measures of temperature, precipitation, etc. The data is now almost unequivocal that the world has been warming. The scientific research also overwhelmingly attributes that warming to anthropogenic factors. The literature reveals that the increased tendency for hot and dry conditions is creating more favorable conditions for wildfires. The massive wildfires witnessed in recent years in Australia, California, parts of Europe, and Siberia are not random occurrences. The climate research has already accurately forecast an increased incidence of such events. 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 8/25/2020 at 12:11 AM, donsutherland1 said:

Unfortunately, the added heat from the growing greenhouse gas forcing is triggering more extremes. Balance is being sought in more damaging fashion.

entropy.....either we make the necessary changes or nature will do it for us

 

[LibertyBell]

On 8/25/2020 at 1:13 PM, donsutherland1 said:

No one has made the misleading argument that 'statistics cause or drive weather.' They are measures. Nothing more.

Statistics measure the state of weather and, over longer timeframes, the state of the climate. Climate change in the conventional use of the term concerns the changes taking place among, other things, measures of temperature, precipitation, etc. The data is now almost unequivocal that the world has been warming. The scientific research also overwhelmingly attributes that warming to anthropogenic factors. The literature reveals that the increased tendency for hot and dry conditions is creating more favorable conditions for wildfires. The massive wildfires witnessed in recent years in Australia, California, parts of Europe, and Siberia are not random occurrences. The climate research has already accurately forecast an increased incidence of such events. 

 

I mean it's happening right before our eyes and at an ever accelerating pace.

Future generations are going to look back and say what fools......

 

[donsutherland1]

26 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I mean it's happening right before our eyes and at an ever accelerating pace.

Future generations are going to look back and say what fools......

 

It is. The IPCC is considering increasing the confidence figure for anthropogenic factors being the dominant cause of the ongoing warming to 99%-100% from 95%. The evidence is all but unequivocal now. 

I agree concerning future generations. That they will bear the highest costs from inaction, they will likely point to that inaction as being among the greatest failures in human history. They won’t be wrong. Moreover, I suspect that when Generation Z attains political leadership, they will make drastic changes (e.g., net carbon neutrality in a decade or less) to address the problem if little has been done. Inaction is squandering the time available for a transition.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, donsutherland1 said:

It is. The IPCC is considering increasing confidence figure for anthropogenic factors being the dominant cause of the ongoing warming to 99%-100% from 95%. The evidence is all but unequivocal now. 

I agree concerning future generations. That they will bear the highest costs from inaction, they will likely point to that inaction as being among the greatest failures in human history. They won’t be wrong. Moreover, I suspect that when Generation Z attains political leadership, they will make drastic changes (e.g., net carbon neutrality in a decade or less) to address the problem if little has been done. Inaction is squandering the time available for a transition.

If we want to talk politics for a minute, I see inaction even on the Democratic side.  Why do so-called moderates sneer at the "Green New Deal"?  And not coincidentally it's the same so-called moderates who have been taking large bribes- er donations- from the fossil fuel industry.  And I see Tom Perez (who needs to go) has intentionally removed people from committees to replace them with lobbyists for the industry.  They seem to think they can make changes very slowly and still use large amounts of fossil fuels.  Science says differently, we need to go to two thirds renewables by 2030 (we are around one third renewables right now) and be completely carbon neutral at the latest by 2050.  And that's the whole planet.  So there has to be similar rapid changes in other nations also (including the developing world.)  The only way forward is renewable+nuclear (both fission and eventually fusion).

 

[donsutherland1]

51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

If we want to talk politics for a minute, I see inaction even on the Democratic side.  Why do so-called moderates sneer at the "Green New Deal"?  And not coincidentally it's the same so-called moderates who have been taking large bribes- er donations- from the fossil fuel industry.  And I see Tom Perez (who needs to go) has intentionally removed people from committees to replace them with lobbyists for the industry.  They seem to think they can make changes very slowly and still use large amounts of fossil fuels.  Science says differently, we need to go to two thirds renewables by 2030 (we are around one third renewables right now) and be completely carbon neutral at the latest by 2050.  And that's the whole planet.  So there has to be similar rapid changes in other nations also (including the developing world.)  The only way forward is renewable+nuclear (both fission and eventually fusion).

 

I suspect the problem with the “Green New Deal” has less to do with its climate provisions than with the non-climate provisions. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, science will take precedence over other interests when it comes to addressing the challenge of climate change.

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I suspect the problem with the “Green New Deal” has less to do with its climate provisions than with the non-climate provisions. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, science will take precedence over other interests when it comes to addressing the challenge of climate change.

Indeed!  Among the other provisions we do need to become much less reliant on meat (if compiled as a nation, animal farming is the third largest contributor of fossil fuels behind China and the US) and also for health reasons (lowering consumption of processed food- not sure if this is in the GND, but America has one of the worst BMI's, rates of diabetes, obesity, etc., which are also major pre-existing conditions for the pandemic.)  in short, we need societal; and systemic level changes.  Other nations have done this when they developed universal healthcare, we should be able to do it also.  I see the UN has set global targets for all of the above, the problem with the UN is that it is run by a small number of very powerful nations who have their own agendas, and there is no true global level program to help the entire planet, independent of what nations it holds.

 

[donsutherland1]

13 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Indeed!  Among the other provisions we do need to become much less reliant on meat (if compiled as a nation, animal farming is the third largest contributor of fossil fuels behind China and the US) and also for health reasons (lowering consumption of processed food- not sure if this is in the GND, but America has one of the worst BMI's, rates of diabetes, obesity, etc., which are also major pre-existing conditions for the pandemic.)  in short, we need societal; and systemic level changes.  Other nations have done this when they developed universal healthcare, we should be able to do it also.  I see the UN has set global targets for all of the above, the problem with the UN is that it is run by a small number of very powerful nations who have their own agendas, and there is no true global level program to help the entire planet, independent of what nations it holds.

 

A healthier diet and other lifestyle changes, independent of anything to do with climate change, would likely reduce comorbidities among the American population, expanding with life spans and the quality of life.

[BillT]

On 8/23/2020 at 5:38 PM, donsutherland1 said:

There's a growing body of literature linking climate change to a slowing of the jet stream. The end result is "stuck patterns." Alaska's record warm summer last year, Siberia's record warmth earlier this year, and Phoenix's record-setting summer this year are some recent examples resulting from a greater persistence in prevailing patterns.

there it is, in another thread i pointed out the climate has no power and causes no weather event and some here DENIED that reality saying of course the past doesnt control the future, BUT that is exactly the claimed quoted here, that "climate change" is causing things and that simply is NOT possible and denies simple basic science......the OPPOSITE is reality any slowing of the jet stream would be the a cause of changes in the climate.....NOT caused by the climate....correction it was THIS thread where i pointed out the simple FACT of what the climate is and can do.

[BillT]

On 8/25/2020 at 12:13 PM, donsutherland1 said:

No one has made the misleading argument that 'statistics cause or drive weather.' They are measures. Nothing more.

i must ask why did you post something  that indeed does blame climate change(statistics) for the fires in california?

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, BillT said:

there it is, in another thread i pointed out the climate has no power and causes no weather event and some here DENIED that reality saying of course the past doesnt control the future, BUT that is exactly the claimed quoted here, that "climate change" is causing things and that simply is NOT possible and denies simple basic science......the OPPOSITE is reality any slowing of the jet stream would be the a cause of changes in the climate.....NOT caused by the climate....correction it was THIS thread where i pointed out the simple FACT of what the climate is and can do.

You misunderstand the differences of climate (fixed point in time) and climate change (delta between two states of the climate) and the role that measurements play in providing insight into both.  

An analogy is useful:

Average heart rate is a statistic. Average heart rate has no power over one’s health and has never caused one a heart attack or other serious heart issue. The underlying assumption, if one applies the implicit arguments concerning climate change to this measure, would be that whether one’s heart rate is rapidly slowing or becoming highly irregular would be irrelevant. In other words, there’s nothing to see. That would be dangerously naive. Large and dramatic changes could well indicate that a person is suffering a heart issue which, if not addressed, could pose a mortal threat.

The same holds true for climate statistics. The change over time has meaning. And, because there is a relationship between many of the climate variables (higher temperatures-incidence of extreme heat, changes in global distribution of temperatures and the jet stream, greater warmth-greater capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture, etc.) the overall changes taking place pose risks ranging from heat waves, drought, rising sea levels, etc. None of these changes are trivial.

 

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

i must ask why did you post something  that indeed does blame climate change(statistics) for the fires in california?

Because the empirical evidence is strong. It assumes basic understanding that statistics measure things. Statistics are not abstractions unto themselves. The changes taking place are leading to warmer, drier conditions in general. The incidence of extreme heat, including this August’s record-breaking heat in parts of California and Arizona have increased the frequency of conditions that are conducive for wildfires.

[BillT]

7 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

You misunderstand the differences of climate (fixed point in time) and climate change (delta between two states of the climate) and the role that measurements play in providing insight into both.  

An analogy is useful:

Average heart rate is a statistic. Average heart rate has no power over one’s health and has never caused one a heart attack or other serious heart issue. The underlying assumption, if one applies the implicit arguments concerning climate change to this measure, would be that whether one’s heart rate is rapidly slowing or becoming highly irregular would be irrelevant. In other words, there’s nothing to see. That would be dangerously naive. Large and dramatic changes could well indicate that a person is suffering a heart issue which, if not addressed, could pose a mortal threat.

The same holds true for climate statistics. The change over time has meaning. And, because there is a relationship between many of the climate variables (higher temperatures-incidence of extreme heat, changes in global distribution of temperatures and the jet stream, greater warmth-greater capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture, etc.) the overall changes taking place pose risks ranging from heat waves, drought, rising sea levels, etc. None of these changes are trivial.

 

 

and climate change is not the cause of any of those things, the same things causing those changes are the CAUSE of the climate change....the effect does NOT come before the cause.....simple fact climate change again has no power and has never caused anything related to weather, the change comes BEFORE the change in the climate stats......

[donsutherland1]

17 minutes ago, BillT said:

and climate change is not the cause of any of those things, the same things causing those changes are the CAUSE of the climate change....the effect does NOT come before the cause.....simple fact climate change again has no power and has never caused anything related to weather, the change comes BEFORE the change in the climate stats......

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant variable driving the changes.

[skierinvermont]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

and climate change is not the cause of any of those things, the same things causing those changes are the CAUSE of the climate change....the effect does NOT come before the cause.....simple fact climate change again has no power and has never caused anything related to weather, the change comes BEFORE the change in the climate stats......

You're mincing words (and doing a poor job of it) to avoid the fact that increased CO2 levels have increased the amount of heat in the atmospheres and the oceans so much that the water in the oceans has expanded (and continues to expand) and that this heat, while it is not the sole cause of any individual heat wave, drought or fire, is the primary cause for the significantly increased frequency of heatwaves, droughts, and fires.

You've been making little word mincing posts like this for years now without ever substantively engaging with anybody or anything. Either read the science, or just stop posting about something your refuse to educate yourself on.

[BillT]

i make no comment about anybody here on a personal level, the previous post is uncivil and utterly wrong.......i am not mincing words in any way i am posting the science the cause comes before the effect not after.......changes in the weather CAUSE changes in the climate stats......what causes the weather changes is countless factors and one of the smallest of those factors is the human released co2.....you can insult my intelligence all you desire but it does not alter the FACTS and science i post......the IR wave leaves the earth heading UP towards space and a small portion of that wave excites a co2 molecule when it hits it, most of that IR wave goes right on by the co2 since the co2 only impacts tiny segments of the wave, the molecule that gets excited quickly releases a new IR wave with NO directional push, there has to be some force that would cause it to go back towards the surface rather than towards the much cooler space.......the claim that human released co2 is "trapping heat" and making our atmosphere and oceans hotter makes no sense at all in science because as an insulator it does NOT "trap heat" it slows the movement but NEVER traps any heat.......so the tiny compared to nature amount of co2 released by humans and the  co2 that gets excited by a tiny portion of the IR wave quickly releases it is claimed to be the "cause" of warming the oceans and atmosphere and that makes NO sense in science........attack me and claim i dont understand this stuff all you desire, i remain with the science and FACT that NO insulator ever "traps heat" in any system....just like a real greenhouse gives up the heat it slowed during the day each night through IR waves,the proof is simple fact even a real greenhouse does NOT get hotter each day and hold that heat because it is "trapped" .........again mock me all you desire i can handle it and wont be silenced.

[skierinvermont]

When a blanket absorbs radiation from your body it doesn’t re-emit the radiation in any particular direction. The first layer of molecules absorb radiation and then scatters it in all directions. And yet the blanket warms you. This is because even though it is scattered in all directions which slows the dissipation of the heat relative to the radiation having no obstacle at all. 
 

your greenhouse example is wrong too. 
the greenhouse obviously doesn’t get hotter every day but it is still hotter than if there were no greenhouse or a weaker one. The earth is like a really big greenhouse that just takes a really time to warm up. If you ever had a greenhouse and put a deep swimming pool of cold water in it, it would take the greenhouse several days to warm up fully, especially near the surface of the water.

 

the real problem with the greenhouse analogy is that glass greenhouses don’t work by insulating. They work by preventing the air from escaping. The glass has very little insulating effect. 
 

a very clear plastic greenhouse would probably be hotter than a glass one 

[BillT]

2 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

When a blanket absorbs radiation from your body it doesn’t re-emit the radiation in any particular direction. The first layer of molecules absorb radiation and then scatters it in all directions. And yet the blanket warms you. This is because even though it is scattered in all directions which slows the dissipation of the heat relative to the radiation having no obstacle at all. 

it doesnt release it with any directional push it simply releases it........at least you seem to accept it does NOT trap any heat that is progress....you are warmer under the blanket because it slows the heat being lost from your body and get warm right next to your skin.....and it does NOT increase the overall total heat in the room, the blanket does NOT make the total heat in the room any more in any way.....

[skierinvermont]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

it doesnt release it with any directional push it simply releases it........at least you seem to accept it does NOT trap any heat that is progress....you are warmer under the blanket because it slows the heat being lost from your body and get warm right next to your skin.....and it does NOT increase the overall total heat in the room, the blanket does NOT make the total heat in the room any more in any way.....

Even if the blanket were not touching me the air gets warmer inside the blanket because the heat loss is slowed. CO2 is very similar to a blanket being thrown over the earth. Do you deny that the air inside the blanket gets warmer even though the molecules of the blanket scatter heat in random directions? This random scattering of heat can all be simulated by computer and it shows warming in the lower layers.

the room doesn’t get warmer because the room is outer space and the stratosphere in this example. They actually cool as does the room temporarily because less heat is escaping until the earth or air inside the blanket get so hot they start emitting enough heat that the energy flows balance again