What's new

The Climate Change Thread

Do you mean like claiming climate change makes structures more burnable?
You can research that question if you’d like….Not that I trust AI. Had to use AI recently to understand changes to my secondary health insurance, because nobody answered the phones during open season! But it worked, the google AI came through for me, lol. Nerve wracking, “boy this better be the right answer”, lol lol. But, yeah, I do think it’s OK to say climate change does make things more burnable. Well, according to the AI return to your question….

I did read recently that 8 of the 10 biggest fires in California records have happened in the past 5 years.

IMG_5495.jpeg
 
I can’t see anything good coming from the near instantaneous creation of conspiracy theories in 21st century America. Conspiracism swamping reason. Just seems like, overall, this trend destabilizes and guarantees divisiveness. Here’s the latest irrational bit of nonsense, applied to the LA firestorms…

One response to the proliferation of conspiracism in the United States(and yes, one can argue, conspiracy theories are not really more widespread, just a lot more visible due to social media) is the creation of a comical parody of conspiracism in the form of the “Birds are not real” movement. This guy got it, and decided to have some fun with our tendency to look for conspiracies everywhere. Good job, but I think quite a few now actually believe it! Well, of course, when you think of it, lol. My favorite fact: those pigeons are not resting on the overhead wires, they’re charging their batteries. And they’re watching you!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsgnrYog6W0


IMG_5496.jpeg
 
You can research that question if you’d like
None of the material is responsive to structures. They're already dry. Furthermore, it discounts the educated opinions of experts in the field of burning buildings. Climate change does not make buildings more burnable. Slashing the funding for fire departments does reduce the ability of fire departments to fight fires. The Los Angeles government choosing to completely drain the Pacific Palisades reservoir that fed the fire hydrants in the months before the fire started basically guaranteed the fire could not be stopped.


This was a failure attributable entirely to government. Placing blame for this tragedy on climate change instead of the officials who made the decisions to kneecap the area's ability to fight fires is roughly on the same level as placing blame on Jewish space lasers. So many losing so much isn't Jews and it isn't Exxon. Just stop.
 
None of the material is responsive to structures. They're already dry. Furthermore, it discounts the educated opinions of experts in the field of burning buildings. Climate change does not make buildings more burnable. Slashing the funding for fire departments does reduce the ability of fire departments to fight fires. The Los Angeles government choosing to completely drain the Pacific Palisades reservoir that fed the fire hydrants in the months before the fire started basically guaranteed the fire could not be stopped.


This was a failure attributable entirely to government. Placing blame for this tragedy on climate change instead of the officials who made the decisions to kneecap the area's ability to fight fires is roughly on the same level as placing blame on Jewish space lasers. So many losing so much isn't Jews and it isn't Exxon. Just stop.
If you don't think climate change is a significant variable(s) in the outcome of this disaster (and, yes, I know that you don't), then you're nuts.

(I came in here to see the shape that your nuts-ness is taking these days. You seem to be plowing ahead in the same direction and with the same blinders as you were years ago. If only consistency alone were a virtue.)
 
None of the material is responsive to structures. They're already dry. Furthermore, it discounts the educated opinions of experts in the field of burning buildings. Climate change does not make buildings more burnable. Slashing the funding for fire departments does reduce the ability of fire departments to fight fires. The Los Angeles government choosing to completely drain the Pacific Palisades reservoir that fed the fire hydrants in the months before the fire started basically guaranteed the fire could not be stopped.


This was a failure attributable entirely to government. Placing blame for this tragedy on climate change instead of the officials who made the decisions to kneecap the area's ability to fight fires is roughly on the same level as placing blame on Jewish space lasers. So many losing so much isn't Jews and it isn't Exxon. Just stop.
While you’re focused on your usual diversionary BS, others may find this of interest. I was not familiar with the term hydroclimate whiplash, but this is quite interesting.

Getting to the fundamental causes is always enlightening. But you wouldn’t know anything about fundamental causes. You avoid or misidentify them.

You can remain in your politicization mind set, I’m sure failure in preparation occurred, as it does in nearly every disaster. So, you just keep on with your usual huffing and puffing.

You see, the trouble with you and Trump is you put your head in the sand where the very existence of climate change is concerned. Meaning, there will be more events like this, and Trump will be remembered as one of the American leaders who essentially said “F*** it. F*** the fundamental causes. Call it a hoax. Just blame our enemies for failing”. That’s brilliant. Just a brilliant response to the underlying problems.

Your criticism of Ca. governor, etc. is duly noted. And toward the end of this piece, needed improvements in that area are in fact urged.

You should have just spoke your mind in the first place, rather than asking me how fast the wood burns, or whatever. Just be upfront for once. I’m not here for you to set up, lol..

Maybe this has something to do with what happened in LA this past week:


“The devastating wildfires that have ravaged Southern California erupted following a stark shift from wet weather to extremely dry weather — a phenomenon scientists describe as hydroclimate whiplash.

New research shows these abrupt wet-to-dry and dry-to-wet swings, which can worsen wildfires, flooding and other hazards, are growing more frequent and intense because of human-caused climate change.

“We’re in a whiplash event now, wet-to-dry, in Southern California,” said Daniel Swain, a UCLA climate scientist who led the research. “The evidence shows that hydroclimate whiplash has already increased due to global warming, and further warming will bring about even larger increases.”

The extreme weather shift over the last two years in Southern California is one of many such dramatic swings that scientists have documented worldwide in recent years….

…..”This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold: first, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels,” Swain said.

….As fossil fuel burning and rising levels of greenhouse gases push temperatures higher, Swain and other scientists project that extreme weather swings will continue to become more frequent and volatile, with precipitation increasingly concentrated in shorter, intense bursts, interspersed with more severe dry spells.

The scientist also cited another recent example of whiplash in California. Immediately after the severe 2020-22 drought, the state was hit by a series of major atmospheric river storms in 2023 that brought heavy rains and historic amounts of snow, leading to flooding and landslides.

Among other examples, the scientists pointed to torrential rains and flooding in East Africa in 2023, which followed a long drought that destroyed crops and displaced people.

“Increasing hydroclimate whiplash may turn out to be one of the more universal global changes on a warming Earth,” Swain said.
 
Do you mean like claiming climate change makes structures more burnable?
Again, you should have just said what you wanted to say. You don’t need to lead into points you plan to make by using me to launch what you plan.

I would say, based on your dissertation on wood, that claiming directed energy beams from space started the LA firestorm is more conspiratorial in nature, in its very tone, than someone claiming climate change is making structures more burnable. The former seems way the hey more extreme than the latter.

In fact, your point is not even a conspiracy at all. I was saying nothing good can come of the near instantaneous creation of conspiracy theories. Whatever you’re talking about might be misinformation, but it’s not a conspiracy, therefore you make no sense whatsoever. So no, burning wood was not what I meant. And again, I was focused on conspiracy theories, and fundamental causes, not your horse****.




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8-GB2f1HwE



 
Last edited:
Why are some of you still trying to talk sense into someone who merely wants to piss you off? Put him on ignore, just like most of us have, and move on. If you stopped talking to him he’d disappear from our website. He sees your attention as oxygen for his stupidity. Choke him out

The truth is, bad things happen in life. They’re made worse by climate change. Building in the hills of Southern California is risky just like building beach front in an area that sees annual hurricanes. There’s just a lot that cannot be prevented or mitigated. The Santa Anna winds are powerful. You’re not stopping a fire in dry conditions with 100 mph winds.

Sadly, one side wants to politicize everything. From lying about vaccine effectiveness to lying about FEMA after hurricanes to lying about fire department budgets being slashed (facts matter, they’ve increased according to the LA times). I’m sure in the following years we’ll learn what could be done better regarding infrastructure and maintenance. There’s always room for improvement. But there’s only so much that can be done to avoid and mitigate natural disasters. Especially in places that are prone to get fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

Btw, why don’t Democrats use their weather control machines to turn off the wind? And why is every natural disaster the fault of Democrats? It’s funny how one side is expected to be the adults in the room (always) who the other side can just share nonsensical stuff all the time. Not sustainable in a democracy. Wonder why so many Russian bots keep helping this one side?
 
there fixed it for you And if you think that's not the case then you have zero credibility.
Unfortunately the "completely ill-equipped imbecile" part, in this instance, applies equally as validly to both sides.
 
This was a failure attributable entirely to government. Placing blame for this tragedy on climate change instead of the officials who made the decisions to kneecap the area's ability to fight fires is roughly on the same level as placing blame on Jewish space lasers. So many losing so much isn't Jews and it isn't Exxon. Just stop.
Beating a dead horse, but did want to point out the only one laying heavy on the blame is you. I didn’t talk about blame at all, just pointed out crazy conspiracies and provided you with an AI answer to your question. AI wrote that, not me. The underlying causes, related to man made climate changes, I think of those as “causes”, not “blames”.

I told you I didn’t trust AI, and I told you that you could do research on your question as well. The AI blurb was as far as I cared to go. Otherwise, never heard of your observation about dry wood and climate changes, but gave you the AI answer. So what’s the above about? lol. It’s about you laying blame. Not me. You! It’s about you tooting your horn.

Just stop?? Me?? Project much? I won’t stop considering the effects of climate change on natural disasters.
 
I won’t stop considering the effects of climate change on natural disasters.
Obviously. When anything happens, you ask a climate scientist. When a structure burns, you ask a climate scientist why. When crime goes up, you ask a climate scientist why. When the Jazz lose, you ask a climate scientist why. Your being so closed to considering things beyond climate change is leaving you ill informed.

Contrary to your claims, I do know a thing or two about where I live. The fires in that part of southern California are not climate change. They are geographic inevitability. That part of southern California has been burning every year since before humans were a thing. The Santa Ana winds happen whenever there is a high pressure over Utah. The Coriolis effect causes a clockwise rotation of air flow bringing hot, dry high desert air toward the LA basin. The heights of the San Gabriel mountains wring the last bit of moisture out before the air plunges 2 miles straight down causing adiabatic heating of 20 degrees. We have 100+ degree winds going 100+ miles per hour with a relative humidity of zero multiple times per year, every year.

The natural vegetation has adapted to make routine fire part of its lifecycle. It doesn't matter if it is a wet year or a dry year. The vegetation dries out completely and it burns which activates the seeds which sprout immediately after the fire. The fires have been so routine for so long the native Chumash people's name for the area that is now Los Angels translates to "smoke filled valley".

Go forward several centuries and the hillsides are now housing developments, which is fine if you have adequate fire suppression to keep fire under control. Where you get into trouble is when you have buildings in the geographic area of inevitable fire and you slash the fire suppression infrastructure. It isn't climate change. It is climate as it has always been forever in that geographic area, and blame for the burning buildings is to the cutting of the ability to hold back nature from doing what it has always done.
 


What a helpful fellow is South African Elon Musk. Maybe he’ll get a first responder killed, and not by the fires….

“Some of Trump’s closest allies, however, have been actively stoking divisions. Musk, in a barrage of X posts disseminated to his 200-plus million followers in recent days, also seized on false claims and racist ideas to cast blame on Democrats and diversity policies for the wildfires, according to a Washington Post analysis.

Musk downplayed the role of climate change, placing blame on individual female firefighters of color and lesbian firefighters, posting their names and faces but providing no evidence that they were responsible for the continued spread of the fires. Musk also responded to an hour-long propaganda video by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones that claimed the fires — which experts say were caused by the combination of dry conditions and incredibly strong winds and were exacerbated by climate change — were “part of a larger globalist plot” to cause the collapse of the United States. “True,” Musk replied.

The attacks are the latest in a pattern of Trump and his allies blaming California Democrats and spreading false information about the government’s response to natural disasters. On the campaign trail last year, Trump threatened to withhold federal aid from California unless the state changed how it manages water, and he spread misinformation about the government’s response to Hurricane Helene.
During his first presidential term, Trump blamed Newsom for wildfires in California, suggesting the state should have “raked” its forests better.

Yikes…


IMG_5506.jpeg
 
Last edited:

As flames have engulfed large swaths of Los Angeles, Elon Musk has been inundating his 212 million followers with posts casting blame for the blazes on Democrats and diversity policies, amplifying narratives that have taken hold among far-right activists and Republican leaders, including President-elect Donald Trump.

Musk has posted or replied to more than 80 posts about the fire, many of which pinned the devastation on liberal policies, in some cases based on false claims or racist ideas, according to a Washington Post analysis.

He downplayed the role of climate change, placing blame on individual female firefighters of color and lesbian firefighters, including posting their names and faces. He boosted an hour-long propaganda video by right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones that claimed the fires were “part of a larger globalist plot” to cause the collapse of the United States; Musk replied simply, “True.” And he repeatedly amplified claims that the Los Angeles Fire Department’s investments in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs cost lives by wasting money that could have been spent on disaster response, suggesting that the destruction could have been mitigated if more White men had been retained.


“DEI means people DIE,” Musk said on X. (The Los Angeles Fire Department did not respond to a request for comment.)
 
. It isn't climate change. It is climate as it has always been forever in that geographic area, and blame for the burning buildings is to the cutting of the ability to hold back nature from doing what it has always done.
100% false. Go back to school….you're nothing but an extremist Right wing apologist. You’re truly pathetic….
 
100% false. Go back to school….you're nothing but an extremist Right wing apologist. You’re truly pathetic….
Zero things I wrote, from the cause of the Santa Ana winds or their frequency or their characteristics, to the life cycle of the native flora, or to the term the natives people used to describe the area is false or even debatable. What I have are facts. All you seem to have are empty insults.
 
Did you actually read it? The paper blows up your narrative. The declaration of it being a "factor" was a clever way to hide what the factor was. Here is the actual text of the paper:

"The collective picture that emerges from these three stations is that this was indeed a highly unusual Santa Ana event, though perhaps not entirely unprecedented. We did not find any statistically significant trends in wind speeds during Santa Ana days at these three locations. We are also hard pressed to name a mechanism whereby a warming climate would favor development of such an extreme Santa Ana event, and indeed the small body of research done so far suggests that climate change is generally associated with somewhat weaker Santa Ana winds in a warmer world (Abel et al. 2011, Guzman-Morales and Gershunov 2019). This may not preclude a role for climate change in intensifying the strongest events, but further evidence is needed to support a role for climate change in the extreme nature of the January 7-8 Santa Ana event. "

The "factor" of climate change was to make the LA fires less bad. That is what the scientists wrote in your linked paper.
 
Did you actually read it? The paper blows up your narrative
Yes I read it. And no, they did not blow up my narrative. Without the climate change components they noted, the 2025 fires would have been ”somewhat smaller and less intense”. Once again, I have, all along, been referring to long term underlying causes, which includes man made climate change, initiated by industrialization centuries ago now. But, as they also note below, we can expect those underlying causes to continue to make for worse events. And obviously, not just from fires. The extreme warmth of Mexico waters helped last years hurricanes increase greatly in strength, and quickly. I am not going to eliminate climate change when looking at future events, if doing so is wrong. I’m not a climate change denier. I want to understand those long term causes. The ones Trump calls “a hoax”.

The below, if I had spelled it out originally, is something I agree with. I never said no fires at all would have occurred were it not for climate change:

“Further research is needed to understand how the factors above combined to produce the observed behavior of the January 2025 fires, including the overall contribution of the factors’ climate-change components. Based on current understanding of the importance of fuel moisture and fuel loads for wildfire behavior in grassland and chaparral ecosystems, we believe that the fires would still have been extreme without the climate change components noted above, but would have been somewhat smaller and less intense. Continued climate change is inevitable over the coming decades, and therefore so is the expectation of even more intense wildfires when all of the other necessary conditions for fire occur (e.g. fuel abundance, dryness, extreme winds, and ignitions).”

(I’ll return that paper to its original location in this thread)
 
What I have are facts.
Probably through discussing this with you, but, after the most recent posts, I get the impression you assume I am claiming no Jan. 2025 LA firestorms without manmade global warming. I’m not. Manmade global warming is playing a role, both in the LA fires, and other natural disasters in recent years. Fires and hurricanes are the most obvious that come to mind.
 
I am not going to eliminate climate change when looking at future events
I never indicated you should eliminate looking at climate change, only that you should expand your horizons beyond only climate change. Information from biologists on characteristic of flora, geographers talking about the effects of topography, or archaeologists sharing bit on ancient peoples native to the land should not be shut down with shrieks of "100% false" and "extreme right wing apologist". Science is more than climatologists and authoritarianism experts willing to make sensational claims online.
 
Back
Top