Australian fires

[big dick]

half a billion animals have died because of these fires. Heartbreaking

[JohnCommode]

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.

[OSA]

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?

[TheXFactor]

Shit. You can see smoke from the Australian fires as far as New Zealand which is more than a thousand miles away.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1212328768078934016

[Jayjami]

Well I live in the Sierras at 6000’ and it’s obvious that the climate is changing. The pine trees aren’t doing that well (due to drought and beetle infestation) and the oak trees are flourishing. That’s a sign the planet is warming up.

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.

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.

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:

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...ng-less-common

I’m not a climatologist (and neither is Druff), just reporting my observations.

[JimmyG_415]

I reject that California has been significantly warmer in recent years and causing fires or issues with the trees.

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?)

[MumblesBadly]

No, they're not. It's been on the font page of the NYTime several times in the past week. The Main Stream Media is covering it at least hourly. But half the country considers those sources fake news and think climate change is a hoax because A) Trump said it was, B) Conservative Media told them it was and C)

Good 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.

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.

And in which graduate school climatology class did you learn this on your way to earning a Ph.D. in that field of study?

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/

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.

God forbid, Druff!!! Please tell us that you are not secretly one of those liberal elite university professors!!!

And quick!!! Show us a currect pic of your car with identifying info to prove you don’t actually also own a Prius!!!

[Sanlmar]

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.

[OSA]

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?

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.

[SPIT this]

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?

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 buddy

[splitthis]

Indirectly paying for sex is still prostitution even with good intents. That’s lol.

[TheXFactor]

[Dan Druff]

Good 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.

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.

And in which graduate school climatology class did you learn this on your way to earning a Ph.D. in that field of study?

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/

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.

God forbid, Druff!!! Please tell us that you are not secretly one of those liberal elite university professors!!!

And quick!!! Show us a currect pic of your car with identifying info to prove you don’t actually also own a Prius!!!

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.

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.

[MumblesBadly]

And in which graduate school climatology class did you learn this on your way to earning a Ph.D. in that field of study?

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/

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.

God forbid, Druff!!! Please tell us that you are not secretly one of those liberal elite university professors!!!

And quick!!! Show us a currect pic of your car with identifying info to prove you don’t actually also own a Prius!!!

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.

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.

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.

[limitles]

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

[Dan Druff]

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).

[MrTickle]

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.

[MumblesBadly]

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).

Correction to rep comment: I meant *third* paragraph.

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.

[limitles]

[limitles]

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).

Do you not realize this was my point. The average dick has to be beaten over the head to realize the truth.

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@?