Quote Originally Posted by limitles View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.
You want some how and why read the article linked below

here's a part of it

It’s true. At least two decades ago—perhaps as long as a century—fire researchers were warning that increasing atmospheric CO2 would mean bigger wildfires. History confirmed at least the latter hypothesis; using data like fire scars and tree ring sizes, researchers have shown that before Europeans came to North America, fires were relatively frequent but relatively small, and indigenous people like the Pueblo used lots of wood for fuel and small-diameter trees for construction. When the Spaniards arrived, spreading disease and forcing people out of their villages, the population crashed by perhaps as much as 90 percent and the forests went back to their natural fire pattern—less frequent, low intensity, and widespread. By the late 19th century, the land changed to livestock grazing and its users had no tolerance for fire at all.

“So in the late 20th and early 21st century, with these hot droughts, fires are ripping now with a severity and ferocity that’s unprecedented,” says Tom Swetnam, a dendrochronologist who did a lot of that tree-ring work. A fire in the Jemez Mountains Swetnam studies burned 40,000 acres in 12 hours, a “horizontal roll vortex fire” that had two wind-driven counter-rotating vortices of flame. “That thing left a canopy hole with no trees over 30,000 acres. A giant hole with no trees,” he says. “There’s no archaeological evidence of that happening in at least 500 years.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-only...ill-get-worse/
I don't think there is any conclusive proof that global warming as a result of humans, has significantly increased/decreased the number and intensity of wildfires. Modern land management practises on the other hand certainly have.

These sort of arguments are just clouding, and misleading the facts.