half a billion animals have died because of these fires. Heartbreaking
Printable View
half a billion animals have died because of these fires. Heartbreaking
One of the few nice stories to come out of this horror, American firefighters arrive in Australia. Rare to see Americans receiving applause in a foreign country, but Australia and New Zealand have always been places where Americans are genuinely liked.
https://youtu.be/PvhesC-wUs0
I am doing an exercise class tomorrow that costs $50 and supposedly all proceeds go to the fires.
Also, I got roped into this because a twunk posted on IG a story about this and he agreed to go out with drinks with me after class If I donated and attended.
So, yea. What are you doing for the koalas?
Shit. You can see smoke from the Australian fires as far as New Zealand which is more than a thousand miles away.
The other major change I have noticed is that the Central Valley is much less foggy than when I was a child. Today’s LA Times:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
2019 was the coldest winter/spring in all of California and Nevada in many years. I'm talking about consistent cold from January-March. The summer also wasn't particularly hot, as we didn't have much of the usual heatwave which tends to show up in late August or early Sept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
I reject that California has been significantly warmer in recent years and causing fires or issues with the trees.
The drought is the bigger issue. For several consecutive years in the 2010s, California had drought. However, the 2016-2017 season was way above average, and after a semi-dry 2017-2018, the 2018-2019 season was again well above average. So it looks more like we just ran bad for some years in a row, and it's not a result of climate change. Either way, we'll need more data in order to see the truth here. But we had big droughts in other decades, as well. California, especially southern, just has big variance when it comes to precipitation totals, mainly because it almost all falls in a 4-month period.
https://www.latimes.com/california/s...ng-less-common
I’m not a climatologist (and neither is Druff), just reporting my observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yeah, the #TrumpTrain isn't a cult, we just don't believe in science, because Trump doesn't.
Why even argue w/people who are being purposely ignorant of facts?
The only reason this thread isn't about climate change is because the the green industry can't out bribe the coal industry.
If so, Trump would have us all driving electric cars and this thread, started by Druff, would be all about great climate change is, and how great it is that Trump is taking such an active roll.
Instead "go rake the forests." (like we used to?)
And in which graduate school climatology class did you learn this on your way to earning a Ph.D. in that field of study?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffGood job answering my posts as if I'm denying that climate change has occurred overall. I didn't, and I never have. You're purposely taking my words out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
I was referring to whether or not the climate has changed severely enough in southern CA in order to cause a massive increase in fires. It hasn't. A slight increase in average temperature s not going to cause a tremendous difference in fire danger. Notice that this is a thread about fires, not climate change.
Referring to the coverage of the fires, it has been under-covered in the US media in general. Look at CNN. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not, but it's not a major story there either way. Many Americans are barely aware of the fires because of the lack of coverage here. Just because the NY Times is covering it doesn't mean that everyone else is.
Oh, wait! Your degree is in computer science, not even at the doctoral or Ph.D. level, and you haven’t even worked in that field for over a decade. But perhaps in your spare time since then you have self-studied your way into having a doctoral school-level knowledge of climatology and have published peer-reviewed scientific research on the matter under an alias that we’ve yet to learn about?
And perhaps you secretly know that what you say here is based on wishful ignorance just to troll us for kicks while your peer-reviewed research published under that alias actually shows what you publicly dismiss here as impossible as most likely true? Hell! You might even be one of the climate scientists whose work contributed to what is mentioned in this Yale University article from late 2018 that discusses how man-made climate change is increasing the both the risk and severity of wildfires in California!!!
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...nia-wildfires/
God forbid, Druff!!! Please tell us that you are not secretly one of those liberal elite university professors!!!Quote:
Moreover, scientific evidence clearly shows that climate change is exacerbating California’s wildfires in different ways:
Higher temperatures dry out vegetation and soil, creating more wildfire fuel.
Climate change is shortening the California rainy season, thus extending the fire season.
Climate change is also shifting the Santa Ana winds that fan particularly dangerous wildfires in Southern California.
The warming atmosphere is slowing the jet stream, leading to more California heat waves and high-pressure ridges in the Pacific. Those ridges deflect from the state some storms that would otherwise bring much-needed moisture to slow the spread of fires.
And quick!!! Show us a currect pic of your car with identifying info to prove you don’t actually also own a Prius!!!
Can’t shake the lyrics to Paul Simon’s Kodachrome after reading that Mumbles.
Confluence of Druff’s nostalgia for his blissful childhood and your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA
So yea, he flaked on me and I ended up doing the class anyway. Said he was "sleeping" but I seen him active on IG just a few hours before.
I paid $50 bucks, my entire lower body hurts so much, and I didn't even fuck.
Great Sunday.
You got rolled buddyQuote:
Originally Posted by OSAQuote:
Originally Posted by OSA
So yea, he flaked on me and I ended up doing the class anyway. Said he was "sleeping" but I seen him active on IG just a few hours before.
I paid $50 bucks, my entire lower body hurts so much, and I didn't even fuck.
Great Sunday.
Indirectly paying for sex is still prostitution even with good intents. That’s lol.
This failsite you quoted refuses to address the fact that the temperatures in southern CA were FALLING for almost 25 years between the early 90s and the early-mid 2010s.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyAnd in which graduate school climatology class did you learn this on your way to earning a Ph.D. in that field of study?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Oh, wait! Your degree is in computer science, not even at the doctoral or Ph.D. level, and you haven’t even worked in that field for over a decade. But perhaps in your spare time since then you have self-studied your way into having a doctoral school-level knowledge of climatology and have published peer-reviewed scientific research on the matter under an alias that we’ve yet to learn about?
And perhaps you secretly know that what you say here is based on wishful ignorance just to troll us for kicks while your peer-reviewed research published under that alias actually shows what you publicly dismiss here as impossible as most likely true? Hell! You might even be one of the climate scientists whose work contributed to what is mentioned in this Yale University article from late 2018 that discusses how man-made climate change is increasing the both the risk and severity of wildfires in California!!!
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...nia-wildfires/
God forbid, Druff!!! Please tell us that you are not secretly one of those liberal elite university professors!!!Quote:
Moreover, scientific evidence clearly shows that climate change is exacerbating California’s wildfires in different ways:
Higher temperatures dry out vegetation and soil, creating more wildfire fuel.
Climate change is shortening the California rainy season, thus extending the fire season.
Climate change is also shifting the Santa Ana winds that fan particularly dangerous wildfires in Southern California.
The warming atmosphere is slowing the jet stream, leading to more California heat waves and high-pressure ridges in the Pacific. Those ridges deflect from the state some storms that would otherwise bring much-needed moisture to slow the spread of fires.
And quick!!! Show us a currect pic of your car with identifying info to prove you don’t actually also own a Prius!!!
It also doesn't address the fact that precipitation levels in southern CA have wild variance, and what we're seeing now isn't very outside the norm.
People with an agenda are massaging data points to fit their narrative. There can be many reasons for increased fires in a place like Los Angeles which have nothing to do with climate change:
1) Expansion of home building near dangerous brush, which brings people close to such areas when before they were unlikely to venture there.
2) Poorly maintained, older electric company equipment, which was less likely to malfunction 25 years ago when it was newer or better maintained.
3) Fewer incidents of psychos starting arson fires, due to the increased attention garnered for the situations on social media.
Since every fire is unique, it's very hard to attribute to climate change unless you have identical situations to compare it to from previous decades.
The "I don't see you with a degree in climate science" trope has been trotted out for decades in response to anyone who questions outrageous statements or conclusions from the "Climate change is causing X" or "We are about the have catastrophic consequence Y" crowd.
I don't have a medical degree, either, but I do a sanity check on anything my doctors have told me, and at times I correctly realized they were incorrect, and wisely ignored their advice/plan. Same thing here. You don't need to be an expert to look at things and question them.
Dude, with the amount of detailed legitimate information available on the Internet on medical matters, using your ability to sanity check the advise of non-research *practicing* medical doctors on typical ailments and conditions is not at all a relevant rationale for saying that someone without access to, nor expertise to interpret, the volumes of climate data that professional climate *researchers* routinely analyze and report on. That is like saying one is able to accurately sanity check an expert mechanic’s diagnosis on what is causing a modern high performance automobile engine problem merely by listening to it run standing to it with its hood closed because you know how to do so on most of the time with an 18th-century era steam engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis failsite you quoted refuses to address the fact that the temperatures in southern CA were FALLING for almost 25 years between the early 90s and the early-mid 2010s.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
It also doesn't address the fact that precipitation levels in southern CA have wild variance, and what we're seeing now isn't very outside the norm.
People with an agenda are massaging data points to fit their narrative. There can be many reasons for increased fires in a place like Los Angeles which have nothing to do with climate change:
1) Expansion of home building near dangerous brush, which brings people close to such areas when before they were unlikely to venture there.
2) Poorly maintained, older electric company equipment, which was less likely to malfunction 25 years ago when it was newer or better maintained.
3) Fewer incidents of psychos starting arson fires, due to the increased attention garnered for the situations on social media.
Since every fire is unique, it's very hard to attribute to climate change unless you have identical situations to compare it to from previous decades.
The "I don't see you with a degree in climate science" trope has been trotted out for decades in response to anyone who questions outrageous statements or conclusions from the "Climate change is causing X" or "We are about the have catastrophic consequence Y" crowd.
I don't have a medical degree, either, but I do a sanity check on anything my doctors have told me, and at times I correctly realized they were incorrect, and wisely ignored their advice/plan. Same thing here. You don't need to be an expert to look at things and question them.
Also, your claim that the researchers who are professionally reporting on the data are “massaging” it in order to push a political narrative is absurdly conspiratorial, but not unsurprising given your lack of any experience as a professional scholarly researcher and academic research publisher.
Because if you had such experience, you’d know that the people doing such work are *highly* competitive and usually love nothing better than showing how colleagues in their profession have fucked up, intentionally or otherwise, in analyzing the data. Because doing so usually results in being able to publish a rebuttal paper, which if significant enough could spawn legions of subsequent papers by other colleagues who will cite that rebuttal paper as a basis for their new research. And such a citation accomplishment is a prized feather in an research academic’s professional cap. And it’s that intense professional competition among academic researchers that eventually drives out bad analysis, including intentionally massaged data, from the ongoing body of knowledge within the field of study.
Lot's of scientific data out there showing climate change is real and not good.
Forget that data for a minute and consider this.
L.A. 1975. Air pollution was real and many experienced it. Measures were taken to control emissions. Industries blamed for this pollution were restricted by government. None of these industries stepped up beforehand because it would ultimately cost them. Profit motive. Scientists are not typically motivated by profit. Not much has changed. What's the bottom line and who is benefitting? C02 emissions are rising but it's not apparent to the average citizen. Listen to the experts not those who might see less profit
les, the pollution thing was much easier, because the smoggy skies over LA were clearly from man-made causes.
Reduce auto emissions, reduce industrial emissions, and the air gets cleaner. It was obvious. So laws were passed, plus technology improved, and by around 2000, the air over LA was significantly cleaner. I grew up in LA in the '70s and '80s and remember how bad it was, especially in the valleys. Clearly they did the right thing with the environmental laws there, and there weren't many who doubted it at the time.
The fires are a different story. People are just guessing at why the fires have increased lately, and are connecting it to climate change without any kind of concrete proof (or anything close).
Just been reading about the political fallout in Australia.
I discovered that their mainstream right-wing party is called the Liberal Party. Their ideology is described by wikipedia as Conservatism. That should blow the minds of Americans.
Correction to rep comment: I meant *third* paragraph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Seriously, Druff. Take your head of the fucking sand over this matter. You’re justing making yourself look like a robotic parrot of the fossil fuel industry-funded campaign intended to fool enough people to ignore the effects of their collective dirty-energy-consuming lifestyles.
Do you not realize this was my point. The average dick has to be beaten over the head to realize the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Without blatant smog the uneducated will not rely on scientific data but their own every day mundane existence
C02 emissions are invisible. So you're saying the average scientist studying this problem has more to gain than the actual emitters who have much to lose? Doh@?
Everything is upside down thereQuote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
Global warning can’t be having any effect on southern California’s wildfire risk because, according to Druff, the temp there hasn’t risen in 25 years (or something like that). ‘Cause, you know. Global warming is just a sham perpetrated by university liberal elites. Right, Druff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.bakersfield.com/news/fiv...6eea12768.html
According to the National Weather Service's Hanford station, five of the past six years have been the five warmest in Bakersfield’s recorded history. Since the turn of the millennium Bakersfield has experienced nine years that were ranked, on average, among the warmest 20 since records started being kept in 1893.
Fresno, Bakersfield's cousin to the north, is seeing even more dramatic warming.
Brian Ochs, a meteorologist at NWS Hanford who compiles a wide range of statistics, found that the past eight years have been the warmest eight years in Fresno’s history.
One reason the average temperatures have been higher is because minimum temperatures have been higher, Ochs said. It's not that the maximum highs are getting hotter, it's that the overnight lows, on average, are not dipping as low.
NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record
According to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Earth's average global surface temperature in 2019 was the second warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1880.
Globally, 2019's average temperature was second only to that of 2016 and continued the planet's long-term warming trend: the past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.
This past year was 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.98 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
“The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before.”
The average global surface temperature has risen since the 1880s and is now more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit more than 1 degree Celsius) above that of the late 19th century. For reference, the last Ice Age was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than pre-industrial temperatures.
Using climate models and statistical analysis of global temperature data, scientists have concluded that this increase has been driven mostly by increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
“The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before.”
The average global surface temperature has risen since the 1880s and is now more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit more than 1 degree Celsius) above that of the late 19th century. For reference, the last Ice Age was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than pre-industrial temperatures.
Using climate models and statistical analysis of global temperature data, scientists have concluded that this increase has been driven mostly by increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

This plot shows yearly temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2019, with respect to the 1951-1980 mean, as recorded by NASA, NOAA, the Berkeley Earth research group, the Met Office Hadley Centre (UK), and the Cowtan and Way analysis. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all five temperature records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the past decade has been the warmest. Credit: NASA GISS/Gavin Schmidt
“We crossed over into more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming territory in 2015 and we are unlikely to go back. This shows that what’s happening is persistent, not a fluke due to some weather phenomenon: we know that the long-term trends are being driven by the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Schmidt said.
Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences has some uncertainties. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2019’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.
Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced similar amounts of warming. NOAA found the 2019 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the 34th warmest on record, giving it a “warmer than average” classification. The Arctic region has warmed slightly more than three times faster than the rest of the world since 1970.
Rising temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean are contributing to the continued mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica and to increases in some extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires and intense precipitation.
NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from more than 20,000 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations.
These in-situ measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heat island effects that could skew the conclusions. These calculations produce the global average temperature deviations from the baseline period of 1951 to 1980.
NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different interpolation into the Earth’s poles and other data-poor regions. NOAA’s analysis found 2019's average global temperature was 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.
NASA’s full 2019 surface temperature dataset and the complete methodology used for the temperature calculation and its uncertainties are available at:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
So please listen to the thousands who study the issue. Personal anecdotes aren’t part of the data
Those ignoring the data are either ignorant about the subject or stand to lose something they hold in value.
Profit
Veteran science journalist Peter Hadfield, aka “potholer54”, has just put out a highly entertaining — and informative — video on the science, media coverage, and public pronouncements by Australian officials, politicians, and climate scientists about the causes of Australia’s bushfires. Great stuff! And a must-watch for anyone who wants to seriously debate this matter. As well as what is most likely coming down the pike for the Down Under with regards to wildfires in the coming decades.
https://youtu.be/t0x46-enxsA
Lets just continue to ignore the fact that actual daily temperature records began at the end of the mini ice age (1400-1900) as they roughly started them in the 1870-1880s range.. So we started with numbers that were at the end of a 500 yr of below normal temps which also included the beginning of the industrial revolution which was pretty damn dirty from a pollution standpoint.. Fast forward to 1970s for those of us old enough to remember as kids or adults.. The climate cucks were screaming we were gonna fucking freeze to death in the 1970s (Global cooling as it were).. And there may have been some validitiy to it.. Air quality was wretched in many places with smog and pollution blocking the sunlights ability to get to the ground and warm up the surface of the planet (akin to a permanent cloudy day situation when its cloudy the sunshine cant get through and warm shit up).. So we clean up the air and put scrubbers on smoke stacks.. (ya know wow suddenly the smog and air clear up to well pre 1970s levels in fact probably the cleanest its been in potentially 100yrs at least here in the USA that is and parts of Europe while the asshole Indians and Chinese who amount to roughly 1/3 of the worlds entire population continue to pump shit into the earths atmosphere).. Anyway so we clean up the air here nad low and behold OMG it warmed up because more sun came through.. I wish somebody would show me all those cars and shit the dinosaurs were driving because it was warmer THEN then now on the planet and no the Sun hasn't cooled that much in 65M years compared to its middle age lifespan of 4.5B so far.. The fact is Earth does a heck of a job balancing herself out.. The increased temps and supposed slightly increases of CO2 always reverse because hey Biology 101.. The increased warmth casued by the CO2 is reversed because low and behold the Oceans which are the real providers of most of the O2 on this planet have increases in Algae (and yes also land based foilage benefits) which sucks up that CO2 because reminder folks plants reverse the O2 to CO2 cycle by taking in CO2 and putting back out O2.. Wow.. Amazing how people forget shit from HS Biology (if they even teach some semblance of it anymore in schools that is).
So in summary the climate econuts have been screaming the sky is falling for decades first claiming we were gonna freeze to death and now its all about warming up because the air is generally cleaner globally.. (when the Chinese and Indians are forced to clean up their acts and have done so maybe ill fucking listen to the whackers who want to drive our electric rates to $1.00/KwH (like that dumb fuck Tom Steyer from California) with inefficient energy generation that in fact creates more fucking pollution then current methods.. Solar is inefficient still the electric storage batteries required produce more damn pollution then Natural gas driven power does by far. Hell if theyd just let us return to building nuclear plants similar to what is west of Phoenix Arizona at Palo Verde Nuclear wed have a clean efficient power grid with zero worries of pollution.. (Palo Verde is the worlds largest nuclear plant that can run on reprocessed fuel meaning the concerns of tons of spent nuclear waste is nearly eliminated)
"Five of the past 6" does not include 2019, which was far cooler than normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayjamiQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.bakersfield.com/news/fiv...6eea12768.html
According to the National Weather Service's Hanford station, five of the past six years have been the five warmest in Bakersfield’s recorded history. Since the turn of the millennium Bakersfield has experienced nine years that were ranked, on average, among the warmest 20 since records started being kept in 1893.
Fresno, Bakersfield's cousin to the north, is seeing even more dramatic warming.
Brian Ochs, a meteorologist at NWS Hanford who compiles a wide range of statistics, found that the past eight years have been the warmest eight years in Fresno’s history.
One reason the average temperatures have been higher is because minimum temperatures have been higher, Ochs said. It's not that the maximum highs are getting hotter, it's that the overnight lows, on average, are not dipping as low.
This article also leaves out the fact that the temperature in southern CA was steadily rising from the 40s through the 80s, then DECLINED for about 23 years starting from the early 90s.
Then 2014-2018 got hot, and 2019 was cool again.
Even if you want to say 2019 was an outlier, how do you explain the cooling trend over a 23-year period which ended 2013?
This is far more complex than many are making it out to be.
BTW, I think that article has some facts wrong. It claims that 2012-2019 were all warm years, excluding 2013. However, 2019 was universally cool throughout California and Nevada. While I will admit not having checked the weather in Bakersfield and Fresno during 2019, it would be hard for me to believe that was a warm year when everywhere else was cold.
For example, Las Vegas saw measurable snow five different times in 2019, whereas typically this only happens a few times per DECADE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff"Five of the past 6" does not include 2019, which was far cooler than normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayjami
This article also leaves out the fact that the temperature in southern CA was steadily rising from the 40s through the 80s, then DECLINED for about 23 years starting from the early 90s.
Then 2014-2018 got hot, and 2019 was cool again.
Even if you want to say 2019 was an outlier, how do you explain the cooling trend over a 23-year period which ended 2013?
This is far more complex than many are making it out to be.
BTW, I think that article has some facts wrong. It claims that 2012-2019 were all warm years, excluding 2013. However, 2019 was universally cool throughout California and Nevada. While I will admit not having checked the weather in Bakersfield and Fresno during 2019, it would be hard for me to believe that was a warm year when everywhere else was cold.
For example, Las Vegas saw measurable snow five different times in 2019, whereas typically this only happens a few times per DECADE.
it's almost as if climate change isn't just stuff getting hotter