(11-17-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 08:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's put it this way - last week, the humidity in northern California was in the single digits.

The humidity in Death Valley is currently 11%.

edit: one of the things we expect to see with climate change is an increase in weather extremes. Northern California being drier than Death Valley is a weather extreme.

No doubt, lower humidity leads to increased fire danger. No need to belabor that point.

What was the humidity in Death Valley and Northern California 35 years ago? If there is a significant change, then that might account for the increase in acreage burned and the severity of the fires.

But just telling me what it was last week tells me nothing.

I used to live in a very hot, dry place. Hotter and drier than northern California, for sure.

Well, I give up. My knee hurts. Didn't hurt at all 50 years ago. Must be climate change. Going to rain.

Done here. Disappointed in the lack of answers. But lad, at least you tried. Thanks.

You realize you’re asking me to provide you with very specific weather data, right? I’m not a meteorologist or someone who knows how to quickly and easily mine that data...

Yet you very vociferously jump onto the 'it is CLIMATE CHANGE' wagon.

I wouldn’t characterize my comment as vociferous - I was relayinb information I’ve read in multiple articles/seen on multiple news reports from experts in their field.

I’ll trust the meteorologists who state that there have been changes in seasonal rains and humidity and other scientists that indicate that these changes are likely influenced by climate change.

According to the meteorologist I just saw on ABC news, low humidity is desirable now to prevent mudslides.

So the becomes, why are mudslides increasing with lower humidity?

(11-16-2018 08:58 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  All of this reminds me of one my favorite meteorological jokes that also pokes fun at the Mother Country. If you think of "climate" as generally connoting broadly predictable patterns, and "weather" commonly connoting inclement conditions more than pleasant ones, the following adage is perfect:

"Britain doesn't have climate, it only has weather."

That is some dry humor.

(11-17-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 08:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's put it this way - last week, the humidity in northern California was in the single digits.

The humidity in Death Valley is currently 11%.

edit: one of the things we expect to see with climate change is an increase in weather extremes. Northern California being drier than Death Valley is a weather extreme.

No doubt, lower humidity leads to increased fire danger. No need to belabor that point.

What was the humidity in Death Valley and Northern California 35 years ago? If there is a significant change, then that might account for the increase in acreage burned and the severity of the fires.

But just telling me what it was last week tells me nothing.

I used to live in a very hot, dry place. Hotter and drier than northern California, for sure.

Well, I give up. My knee hurts. Didn't hurt at all 50 years ago. Must be climate change. Going to rain.

Done here. Disappointed in the lack of answers. But lad, at least you tried. Thanks.

You realize you’re asking me to provide you with very specific weather data, right? I’m not a meteorologist or someone who knows how to quickly and easily mine that data...

Yet you very vociferously jump onto the 'it is CLIMATE CHANGE' wagon.

I wouldn’t characterize my comment as vociferous - I was relayinb information I’ve read in multiple articles/seen on multiple news reports from experts in their field.

I’ll trust the meteorologists who state that there have been changes in seasonal rains and humidity and other scientists that indicate that these changes are likely influenced by climate change.

And the difference between the experts that you hear and rely exclusively upon and other experts that do not hold that view is..... what.... exactly? Besides that the former set seemingly agrees with your worldview, that is?

I mean, your conclusion is pretty decisive here that it is CLIMATE CHANGE. You are aware of that, are you not?

(11-17-2018 10:00 AM)Baconator Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:58 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  All of this reminds me of one my favorite meteorological jokes that also pokes fun at the Mother Country. If you think of "climate" as generally connoting broadly predictable patterns, and "weather" commonly connoting inclement conditions more than pleasant ones, the following adage is perfect:

"Britain doesn't have climate, it only has weather."

That is some dry humor.

Brilliant!

(11-17-2018 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 08:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No doubt, lower humidity leads to increased fire danger. No need to belabor that point.

What was the humidity in Death Valley and Northern California 35 years ago? If there is a significant change, then that might account for the increase in acreage burned and the severity of the fires.

But just telling me what it was last week tells me nothing.

I used to live in a very hot, dry place. Hotter and drier than northern California, for sure.

Well, I give up. My knee hurts. Didn't hurt at all 50 years ago. Must be climate change. Going to rain.

Done here. Disappointed in the lack of answers. But lad, at least you tried. Thanks.

You realize you’re asking me to provide you with very specific weather data, right? I’m not a meteorologist or someone who knows how to quickly and easily mine that data...

Yet you very vociferously jump onto the 'it is CLIMATE CHANGE' wagon.

I wouldn’t characterize my comment as vociferous - I was relayinb information I’ve read in multiple articles/seen on multiple news reports from experts in their field.

I’ll trust the meteorologists who state that there have been changes in seasonal rains and humidity and other scientists that indicate that these changes are likely influenced by climate change.

According to the meteorologist I just saw on ABC news, low humidity is desirable now to prevent mudslides.

So the becomes, why are mudslides increasing with lower humidity?

Mudslides are more likely to occur after a forest fire because the plants that have been anchoring soils to hill sides through their root structures are obviously dead. So following these big fires, mud slides become a major issue once the rainy season starts because there are no longer living plants to anchor the then saturated soil to the hill sides. The excess wait caused by that saturation allows gravity to work its magic and start sending channels of mud down the hillsides.

It's not the low humidity that helps prevent mudslides, it's the lack of rain that helps prevent mudslides.

Let me know if there are any other environmental/geotechnical topics you would like to know about.

(11-17-2018 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 08:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No doubt, lower humidity leads to increased fire danger. No need to belabor that point.

What was the humidity in Death Valley and Northern California 35 years ago? If there is a significant change, then that might account for the increase in acreage burned and the severity of the fires.

But just telling me what it was last week tells me nothing.

I used to live in a very hot, dry place. Hotter and drier than northern California, for sure.

Well, I give up. My knee hurts. Didn't hurt at all 50 years ago. Must be climate change. Going to rain.

Done here. Disappointed in the lack of answers. But lad, at least you tried. Thanks.

You realize you’re asking me to provide you with very specific weather data, right? I’m not a meteorologist or someone who knows how to quickly and easily mine that data...

Yet you very vociferously jump onto the 'it is CLIMATE CHANGE' wagon.

I wouldn’t characterize my comment as vociferous - I was relayinb information I’ve read in multiple articles/seen on multiple news reports from experts in their field.

I’ll trust the meteorologists who state that there have been changes in seasonal rains and humidity and other scientists that indicate that these changes are likely influenced by climate change.

And the difference between the experts that you hear and rely exclusively upon and other experts that do not hold that view is..... what.... exactly? Besides that the former set seemingly agrees with your worldview, that is?

I mean, your conclusion is pretty decisive here that it is CLIMATE CHANGE. You are aware of that, are you not?

My conclusion is that climate change is playing a role, along with forest management practices (specifically in northern California).

So far OO hasn't really provided any expert who is specifically saying that they do not believe that climate change is not having an effect on the timeliness of the rainy season in northern California, or the extreme weather event (low humidity). So the difference is that there are experts in these fields suggesting that climate changes is having a role and none that are claiming the opposite.

I thought we were all in agreement that climate change was real, and it's just the exact affect that man has on that change that was up in the air? If so, I'm not sure why it's so controversial to suggest that climate change is playing a role in these fires by affecting the local weather, which has, 100% created conditions that are ripe for wild fires.

Are you suggesting that the dryness and low humidity did not contribute to the fires?

(11-17-2018 10:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 10:00 AM)Baconator Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:58 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  All of this reminds me of one my favorite meteorological jokes that also pokes fun at the Mother Country. If you think of "climate" as generally connoting broadly predictable patterns, and "weather" commonly connoting inclement conditions more than pleasant ones, the following adage is perfect:

"Britain doesn't have climate, it only has weather."

That is some dry humor.

Brilliant!

The fact that this joke works in connecting BOTH British humor and weather is superb.

(11-17-2018 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 09:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 08:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You realize you’re asking me to provide you with very specific weather data, right? I’m not a meteorologist or someone who knows how to quickly and easily mine that data...

Yet you very vociferously jump onto the 'it is CLIMATE CHANGE' wagon.

I wouldn’t characterize my comment as vociferous - I was relayinb information I’ve read in multiple articles/seen on multiple news reports from experts in their field.

I’ll trust the meteorologists who state that there have been changes in seasonal rains and humidity and other scientists that indicate that these changes are likely influenced by climate change.

And the difference between the experts that you hear and rely exclusively upon and other experts that do not hold that view is..... what.... exactly? Besides that the former set seemingly agrees with your worldview, that is?

I mean, your conclusion is pretty decisive here that it is CLIMATE CHANGE. You are aware of that, are you not?

My conclusion is that climate change is playing a role, along with forest management practices (specifically in northern California).

So far OO hasn't really provided any expert who is specifically saying that they do not believe that climate change is not having an effect on the timeliness of the rainy season in northern California, or the extreme weather event (low humidity). So the difference is that there are experts in these fields suggesting that climate changes is having a role and none that are claiming the opposite.

I thought we were all in agreement that climate change was real, and it's just the exact affect that man has on that change that was up in the air? If so, I'm not sure why it's so controversial to suggest that climate change is playing a role in these fires by affecting the local weather, which has, 100% created conditions that are ripe for wild fires.

Are you suggesting that the dryness and low humidity did not contribute to the fires?

We can all agree that humans have affected the climate. I'm just making a comment on your trotting out this vaunted group of 'experts' as tagging such (not really) ascertainable effects as such the immediate and crushing causation that you do so with.

As for the 'dryness' and the 'low humidity' I would prefer to see some others rather than climatistas provide that, and even if such amazingly extreme 'dryness' and 'low humidity' can be shown I would love to see something more than conclusory remarks about the effect of 'climate change' on the extraordinary and apparently never before seen levels of 'dryness' and 'low humidity', and since you brought the subject up, I would love to see how much of that extra and amazingly unforeseen 'dryness' and 'low humidity' with the obvious tie to 'climate change' can actually be tied to to anthropomorphic climate change.

'Low dryness' and 'humidity' may very well be affecting the fires; the tie between the two items you mention and 'climate change', not to mention that of the anthropomorphic version, is far less clear causually-related than the statement you highlight in your last sentence, is it not? But you knew that.

It appears our Earth is not the only place with climate change.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog...li=BBnbfcL

probably not man-caused, though.

OK, time to put this mini-brouhaha to rest.

I went back to Lad's original post, #2. All in all, pretty reasonable. he has slightly morphed from CC being a major factor to it just being a factor. hard to prove either way. I can live with it being a factor.

But lad, as you can see from the reactions, people on the right are tired if CC being put forward for every little thing. Why did your wife leave you? Climate change. why are there more shootings/ Climate change. Why did they discover a two headed reindeer in Norway? Climate change. Why is your commute longer than it was twenty years ago? Global warming.

Yes, the climate is changing, just as it has many times before. You don't think the woply mammoth was hunted to extinction by men in skins using flint tipped spears, do you? Well, then, how about the sabre toothed cat?

But there have to be other explanations as to why the differences between now and last year, ten years ago, forty years ago, a hundred years ago.

To his credit, Lad did offer one of those too.

So mainly the squabble is over how much CC is responsible. 3%? 30%? 99%

I was just wondering because somebody asked me why, and I could not answer in a way that fully explained it.

Still can't. Beginning to realize I cannot get the answer here. Sorry to have disturbed you guys.

It seems that the central policy question is not the causes of climate change, but the whether a policy response is possible and desirable. If there is no policy that will have any appreciable effect going forward, then it doesn't matter what the past causes were. Alternatively, if the only policy that will have appreciable effect on the climate is worldwide dictatorship, then we can reasonably conclude that doing nothing is the better option. It is also possible that there are policies that would actually do some good, while also doing no greater harm. (I suspect here are fewer of those than most people think, but there may be some.) But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.

One is tempted to observe that such misdirected discussion is rooted in the general leftist preference on most issues for criticizing the usual set of deplorables rather than solving problems, and the natural response among the rest of the word of resenting that criticism. But I will refrain from making that observation. :)

(11-18-2018 12:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.

I think that is borne out a belief that if we can only ratchet up the angst and fear about the retrospective blame to sufficient level of frenzy, then we can convince enough people to do things that make no sense from a cost-benefit perspective.

Stats!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why...-5-charts/

Expanding on the last point they make, which is that increasing development in and near vulnerable forests makes the results of these fires more deadly, my understanding is that it also impedes fighting the fires. For example, if a fire is threatening point A and point B, but there is a town near point A that wasn't there a few years ago, fire fighters have to put more resources into keeping the fire from destroying the town, or at least hold it off so people can evacuate. Meanwhile the fire expands more than it would have at point B.

Similarly, perhaps a controlled burn that previously would have happened near the town was cancelled because of opposition, but has ironically made the town more vulnerable.

That's just my understanding from talking to a former co-worker whose dad was a firefighter for the forestry service.

(11-18-2018 12:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It seems that the central policy question is not the causes of climate change, but the whether a policy response is possible and desirable. If there is no policy that will have any appreciable effect going forward, then it doesn't matter what the past causes were. Alternatively, if the only policy that will have appreciable effect on the climate is worldwide dictatorship, then we can reasonably conclude that doing nothing is the better option. It is also possible that there are policies that would actually do some good, while also doing no greater harm. (I suspect here are fewer of those than most people think, but there may be some.) But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.

One is tempted to observe that such misdirected discussion is rooted in the general leftist preference on most issues for criticizing the usual set of deplorables rather than solving problems, and the natural response among the rest of the word of resenting that criticism. But I will refrain from making that observation. :)

Looking at how we combated the use CFCs worldwide and stopped the growing hole in the ozone layer, I think that the bolded sentence is not really a concern. We've proven that we can, collectively, address a significant environmental issue worldwide. I see no reason we can't do that again.

(11-18-2018 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 12:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It seems that the central policy question is not the causes of climate change, but the whether a policy response is possible and desirable. If there is no policy that will have any appreciable effect going forward, then it doesn't matter what the past causes were. Alternatively, if the only policy that will have appreciable effect on the climate is worldwide dictatorship, then we can reasonably conclude that doing nothing is the better option. It is also possible that there are policies that would actually do some good, while also doing no greater harm. (I suspect here are fewer of those than most people think, but there may be some.) But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.
One is tempted to observe that such misdirected discussion is rooted in the general leftist preference on most issues for criticizing the usual set of deplorables rather than solving problems, and the natural response among the rest of the word of resenting that criticism. But I will refrain from making that observation. :)

Looking at how we combated the use CFCs worldwide and stopped the growing hole in the ozone layer, I think that the bolded sentence is not really a concern. We've proven that we can, collectively, address a significant environmental issue worldwide. I see no reason we can't do that again.

Except that what are being proposed as steps to combat the problem would in many case do more to foster global dictatorship, or at least world government, than to fight global warming. That's not how we went after CFCs. There are few ways to reduce carbon emissions materially. Most of them are not on the table. It's like the approach is to stir up a bunch of irrational frenzy over global warming, and then never let a crisis go to waste by passing a bunch of socialist/globalist agenda items that will do little or nothing to impact climate change, but which are not feasible to enact otherwise. I'd put gun control legislation in the same bucket, FWIW.

And saying that the fires are being exacerbated by drier conditions and later rainfall is very different from saying that those conditions result from man-made climate change.

(11-18-2018 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 12:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It seems that the central policy question is not the causes of climate change, but the whether a policy response is possible and desirable. If there is no policy that will have any appreciable effect going forward, then it doesn't matter what the past causes were. Alternatively, if the only policy that will have appreciable effect on the climate is worldwide dictatorship, then we can reasonably conclude that doing nothing is the better option. It is also possible that there are policies that would actually do some good, while also doing no greater harm. (I suspect here are fewer of those than most people think, but there may be some.) But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.

One is tempted to observe that such misdirected discussion is rooted in the general leftist preference on most issues for criticizing the usual set of deplorables rather than solving problems, and the natural response among the rest of the word of resenting that criticism. But I will refrain from making that observation. :)

Looking at how we combated the use CFCs worldwide and stopped the growing hole in the ozone layer, I think that the bolded sentence is not really a concern. We've proven that we can, collectively, address a significant environmental issue worldwide. I see no reason we can't do that again.

Yes that was a great achievement. My concerns with climate are that, on the technical level, it is a vastly more sweeping topic and much less exact science; and (partly bacause of those technical reasons) on the political level, there are a lot more nutcases who would like to use climate policy as a vehicle to impose stupid and destructive ideology. I mean, look how the world’s policy makers reacted to the economic challenges of the 1930s — not exactly inspiring. Keeping such folks at bay will be an important part of any good policy development.

I also have some sense that, again on a technical level, and unlike ozone, the forces at work (regardless of cause) may be more than human policy can influence, any more than King Canute can hold back the tide. I don’t really know, but that’s a nagging (hopefully incorrect) suspicion. In any case, it is frustrating that there seems to be so much less discussion of the all-important question of efficacy than about the largely irrelevant question of blame. Is that just my perception?

(11-18-2018 01:11 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Stats!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why...-5-charts/

Expanding on the last point they make, which is that increasing development in and near vulnerable forests makes the results of these fires more deadly, my understanding is that it also impedes fighting the fires. For example, if a fire is threatening point A and point B, but there is a town near point A that wasn't there a few years ago, fire fighters have to put more resources into keeping the fire from destroying the town, or at least hold it off so people can evacuate. Meanwhile the fire expands more than it would have at point B.

Similarly, perhaps a controlled burn that previously would have happened near the town was cancelled because of opposition, but has ironically made the town more vulnerable.

That's just my understanding from talking to a former co-worker whose dad was a firefighter for the forestry service.

The policy that California has on a statewide level about the fundamental non-use of controlled clear burns has *zero* to do with it, I would surmise.

(11-18-2018 01:11 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Stats!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why...-5-charts/

Expanding on the last point they make, which is that increasing development in and near vulnerable forests makes the results of these fires more deadly, my understanding is that it also impedes fighting the fires. For example, if a fire is threatening point A and point B, but there is a town near point A that wasn't there a few years ago, fire fighters have to put more resources into keeping the fire from destroying the town, or at least hold it off so people can evacuate. Meanwhile the fire expands more than it would have at point B.

Similarly, perhaps a controlled burn that previously would have happened near the town was cancelled because of opposition, but has ironically made the town more vulnerable.

That's just my understanding from talking to a former co-worker whose dad was a firefighter for the forestry service.

Building in hazardous areas and then demanding public protection from the hazard? At least that doesn’t happen in Texas...

(11-18-2018 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 12:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It seems that the central policy question is not the causes of climate change, but the whether a policy response is possible and desirable. If there is no policy that will have any appreciable effect going forward, then it doesn't matter what the past causes were. Alternatively, if the only policy that will have appreciable effect on the climate is worldwide dictatorship, then we can reasonably conclude that doing nothing is the better option. It is also possible that there are policies that would actually do some good, while also doing no greater harm. (I suspect here are fewer of those than most people think, but there may be some.) But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.

One is tempted to observe that such misdirected discussion is rooted in the general leftist preference on most issues for criticizing the usual set of deplorables rather than solving problems, and the natural response among the rest of the word of resenting that criticism. But I will refrain from making that observation. :)

Looking at how we combated the use CFCs worldwide and stopped the growing hole in the ozone layer, I think that the bolded sentence is not really a concern. We've proven that we can, collectively, address a significant environmental issue worldwide. I see no reason we can't do that again.

The difference there is that the chemical reaction between various CFC's and ozone, and the pervasity of CFC's in the upper atmosphere were absolutely borne out in the science prior to the introduction of the drastic limitations via treaty.

Just a smidgeon of of a difference here.

(11-18-2018 01:51 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 01:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-18-2018 12:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It seems that the central policy question is not the causes of climate change, but the whether a policy response is possible and desirable. If there is no policy that will have any appreciable effect going forward, then it doesn't matter what the past causes were. Alternatively, if the only policy that will have appreciable effect on the climate is worldwide dictatorship, then we can reasonably conclude that doing nothing is the better option. It is also possible that there are policies that would actually do some good, while also doing no greater harm. (I suspect here are fewer of those than most people think, but there may be some.) But for some reason, most of the discussion seems to be less about prospective costs and benefits and more about retrospective blame.

One is tempted to observe that such misdirected discussion is rooted in the general leftist preference on most issues for criticizing the usual set of deplorables rather than solving problems, and the natural response among the rest of the word of resenting that criticism. But I will refrain from making that observation. :)

Looking at how we combated the use CFCs worldwide and stopped the growing hole in the ozone layer, I think that the bolded sentence is not really a concern. We've proven that we can, collectively, address a significant environmental issue worldwide. I see no reason we can't do that again.

Yes that was a great achievement. My concerns with climate are that, on the technical level, it is a vastly more sweeping topic and much less exact science; and (partly bacause of those technical reasons) on the political level, there are a lot more nutcases who would like to use climate policy as a vehicle to impose stupid and destructive ideology. I mean, look how the world’s policy makers reacted to the economic challenges of the 1930s — not exactly inspiring. Keeping such folks at bay will be an important part of any good policy development.

I also have some sense that, again on a technical level, and unlike ozone, the forces at work (regardless of cause) may be more than human policy can influence, any more than King Canute can hold back the tide. I don’t really know, but that’s a nagging (hopefully incorrect) suspicion. In any case, it is frustrating that there seems to be so much less discussion of the all-important question of efficacy than about the largely irrelevant question of blame. Is that just my perception?

I think you’ve touched on a number of the challenges here. As Tanq more bluntly put it, the science behind the CFC-ozone reaction is much more straight forward and cut and dry than climate change.

But I think it still serves as a good model that shows that, once consensus is reached globally, global action can take place.