There never have been wildfires here....

[Dittohead not!]

I think you took a wrong turn. The research is right in his wheelhouse.
Cliff Mass - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cliff_Mass

Clifford F. "Cliff" Mass is an American professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. His research focuses on numerical weather modeling ...

OH.
The post was made by Charles Rotter, but I see it was a repost from another blog, the "Cliff Mass weather blog."

Still, the findings were exactly what one would expect: extremes of weather.

 

[Jack Hays]

OH.
The post was made by Charles Rotter, but I see it was a repost from another blog, the "Cliff Mass weather blog."

Still, the findings were exactly what one would expect: extremes of weather.

Yes, and . . . ?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, and . . . ?

and extremes of weather is what global warming science predicts.

 

[Jack Hays]

and extremes of weather is what global warming science predicts.

Oh please. "Global warming science" has been claimed to predict everything at one time or another.

". . . So why were the easterly winds so strong?
Our research identified the reason: unusually cold air and accompanying high pressure moving to the east of the Cascades. . . ."

An Important Finding about the September Labor Day Wildfires

 

[Dittohead not!]

Oh please. "Global warming science" has been claimed to predict everything at one time or another.

". . . So why were the easterly winds so strong?
Our research identified the reason: unusually cold air and accompanying high pressure moving to the east of the Cascades. . . ."

An Important Finding about the September Labor Day Wildfires

No, not really. Global warming science has been predicting some things, though, among them more and more extreme weather events. It doesn't mean that every part of the Earth is simply getting uniformly warmer, not at all.

The people who post in the anti science blog WUWT should at least learn what the science is saying. They would look less foolish attempting to refute a scientific theory by cherry picking stats and posting misinformation.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, not really. Global warming science has been predicting some things, though, among them more and more extreme weather events. It doesn't mean that every part of the Earth is simply getting uniformly warmer, not at all.

The people who post in the anti science blog WUWT should at least learn what the science is saying. They would look less foolish attempting to refute a scientific theory by cherry picking stats and posting misinformation.

Sorry, but your insecurity is showing. The author of the post is a tenured professor of climate science who believes in AGW. He does not, however, go beyond the evidence. The post you criticize is, in fact, science at its best.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Sorry, but your insecurity is showing. The author of the post is a tenured professor of climate science who believes in AGW. He does not, however, go beyond the evidence. The post you criticize is, in fact, science at its best.

If he is all that, why is he being quoted in a blog that is dedicated to countering scientific theory?
Or has WUWT turned the corner and become a real scientific publication?

 

[Lord of Planar]

...until now.



link

But it's all about mismanagement of forests. Global climate change couldn't possibly be contributing to wildfires, since that's just a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to keep us from being competitive. Trump himself said so, so it must be true.

Your article specifically stated mismanagement in it.

Did you miss that paragraph?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Also...

"In our lifetime" does not mean it never happened.

I hate deceptive thread titles. But then, can't expect better from people driven by activism.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Most of this study goes over my head, but there apparently been a lot of studies on Coast Redwoods and they were frequently subject to fire.

"Coast redwood(Sequoia sempervirens(D. Don) Endl.) forests are found in north-central coastal California and is an excellent recorder of past fires. Many studies have documented relatively frequentfires in this forest type (Table 5) and most of these fires were ignited by Native Americans for avariety of resources objectives."

Yep.

With 2 ft. of bark, they are insulated. Not immune though.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nope. Nothing about an 800 year lag between C O2 concentrations and increased surface temps.

It's possible that it takes a long time for increased surface temps to cause increased CO2, but not vice versa. Moreover, that abstract doesn't say that. It does say that there is a close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature, however.

I am not an aaas member, so can't access the second link. Since you surely must have read those publications before posting them, perhaps you can quote the pertinent parts.

The lag is 800+ years from temperature change to CO2 level equalization. It has to do with the long cycle period of the oceans, and the SST governing the partial pressure exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere of ocean.

I am a member. Here is one passage: "we obtain an overall uncertainty of ±200 years, indicating that the increase in CO2 lags Antarctic warming by 800 ± 200 years, which we must consider a mean phase lag because of the method we used to make the correlation. "

 

[Lord of Planar]

That is because you chose not to read the peer-reviewed scientific papers, as expected.



You have amply demonstrated that you are not honest. Not only did I provide links to free preprints, the paper clearly states that there is an 800 ± 200 year lag between an increase in mean surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2. And yet you chose to deliberately lie about both.

I can't say I am surprised. Leftists are never honest about anything, and you just demonstrated that again. Don't bother responding, because I don't respond to dishonest trolls.

He prefers the lies of the pundits over actual peer reviewed papers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Typical denier misrepresentation of the facts.

You are attempting to apply a time relationship between naturally occurring CO2 and temp to what has fundamentally change to unnatural, human-caused, rise in CO2.

Ask A Climate Scientist - Lagging CO2
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362

The massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere by man does not go by the past rules of naturally occurring CO2 as it relates to your “lag” theory.

All you can do is throw info spam into the debate in hopes of fooling others. Deceptive as hell.

You are correct that antropogenic CO2 is an added variable that changes things from preindistrial. It is still fact the CO2 levels are modulated by temperature.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you had read my posts then you know it is not I who introduced the CO2 lag. It is in fact the scientific consensus.

There is also no "massive release" of anything by humans. The current atmospheric CO2 levels is 0.0412%, which works out to total of 3,221 GT of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the EPA the world-wide contribution of atmospheric CO2 that humanity creates is ~36 GT tons. Which works out to a total human contribution of 1.117%. Clearly a "massive release" of atmospheric CO2 by humanity is pure hyperbole and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Looks like you are denying the science because it proves you wrong. Why am I not surprised?

Actually, that 36 GtCO2 is an annual number. Around half is absorbed in the biosphere. Therefore we are causing an unnatural accumulation of CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You really should quit reading those anti science blogs and begin to look at the real world. Realscience and What's Up With That don't base their writing on science. They're totally biased, have an obvious agenda, and so do not reflect the real world.

Sure, they are biased. The opposite bias of what you read. They at least however give source links and their take is generally rather accurate. Far more accurate than the AGW narrative.

They are not anti-science. They just are in conflict with the indoctrinated narrative you have come to believe in.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If these fires were driven by climate, shouldn't they become worse as the climate warms? Yet according to the fire statistics for Alaska for the last twenty years that is not the case.

Year	Number of Fires	Acres Burned
2000	369	756,296.2
2001	351	218,113.9
2002	543	2,183,363.0
2003	476	602,717.9
2004	696	6,523,182.4
2005	624	4,663,880.4
2006	307	266,267.8
2007	509	649,411.4
2008	367	103,649.4
2009	527	2,951,592.9
2010	688	1,125,419.0
2011	515	293,018.0
2012	416	286,887.9
2013	613	1,316,288.5
2014	393	233,529.5
2015	768	5,111,452.5
2016	572	500,949.3
2017	362	653,148
2018	362	411,177
2019	719	2,589,893
2020	346	181,254

Source: http://forestry.alaska.gov/firestats/

Over a 21 year period that is an average of ‭501 fires with an average of 1,505,785.3 acres burned. So if the premise that climate was driving wildfires then both the number and the size of wildfires should be increasing and already be above the 21-year average, but that clearly is not the case. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that climate has anything to do with the number or size of any wildfire.

You should know better than to try to show cult members the facts. They will just come up with another canned response with no critical thinking behind it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Climate change is not necessarily going to affect Alaska the same way it will affect the west coast of the lower 48. It's climate change, and local climates change in different ways.

Please don't forget land use changes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Real Toll of Oregon Forest Losses.
There are other losses to our forests, however, that may not have been fully reported so far. Nearly one million acres burned in Oregon’s west-side Cascade forests. These were some of the most productive (and well-stocked with mature timber) forests in the world.
Continue reading →

Wow...

They missed an important fact regarding one of the largest fires we had. It was started by a kid with a firecracker.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is AZ getting warmer? NOAA's climate at a glance, shows minimal warming since a jump in the late 1990's
NOAA climate at a glance
View attachment 67300420

I'll bet that correlates well with population increases.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Your article specifically stated mismanagement in it.

Did you miss that paragraph?

So did I.
And, mismanagement is beyond question one factor.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The lag is 800+ years from temperature change to CO2 level equalization. It has to do with the long cycle period of the oceans, and the SST governing the partial pressure exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere of ocean.

I am a member. Here is one passage: "we obtain an overall uncertainty of ±200 years, indicating that the increase in CO2 lags Antarctic warming by 800 ± 200 years, which we must consider a mean phase lag because of the method we used to make the correlation. "

OK, I can buy the idea that an increase in surface temperature doesn't result in an immediate rise in CO2 levels. Much of the CO2 is, after all, absorbed by the oceans.