Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
bigrgib
Senior MemberPosts: 1,018
Like?
Re: Science magazine becomming a rag of the left?
In reply to boggis the cat, 9 months ago

boggis the cat wrote:

bigrgib wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

bigrgib wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Myself, I don't know if it's a BS claim, or not. However, from what you wrote, the article is not necessarily incorrect.

For example, if global warming has resulted in less precipitation in the area than use to be the case, enough that there were more dead trees around that could easily catch fire when struck with lightening, then global warming would be an indirect cause for the fire.

Like I said, I don't know one way or another. The article might be total BS, but the fact that lightening sparked the fire does not mean that global warming did not contribute to the conditions that made the chance of a fire much more likely.

That's true but the point he's trying to make, I think, is that there have been droughts and hot weather, and hence wildfire prone conditions, way before AGW is supposed to have kicked in.

AGW would have started when humans started digging up and burning fossil fuels.

Oh yeah? year 1000 BC?

The usual date quoted is 1750, coincident with the start of the industrial revolution (which was, in fact, a revolution in shifting to fossil fuels).

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "way before AGW is supposed to have kicked in".

CO2 emissions rise significantly after WW2.

Base period for many global temp anomaly is 1951 -1980

I meant way before WW2 when temps were actually lower than the reference period and also CO2 emissions.

Now compare that graph to atmospheric CO2 concentration; then compare to the rise in global surface temperatures.

Correlation doe not prove causation, but when there is no other explanation...

Focus, kid.

The topic at hand is not whether the consensus view on climate change attribution is correct or not, but on bad reporting on recent wildfires.

The BS would be assuming, without further proof, that present conditions are caused by AGW.

The proof is in the soil conditions caused by climate change, as GB is referring to -- less rainfall in spring leads to drier soil and kills more trees, then in summer you get hotter conditions (less evaporation of moister) and have more dead wood available for when a fire starts.

That soil conditions have happened naturally since, like, forever

But only rarely.

so they are not proof of AGW per se. That is the point, Gore effect is disgusting.

When the frequency of 'rare' climate related events changes, this points to a change in the underlying climate. This is happening across the globe.

"Points" , huh? let's leave your use of weasel words for the time being.

The idea of a higher frequency of drought episodes is not acknowledged by the consensus represented by the IPCC. In the SREX they mention (pag 6 of the full report)

There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]

Therefore, attributing Arizona wildfires to climate change is an interpretation unless supported by a reputable source. Presenting an interpretation is bad journalism. And disgusting.

Australia has also had increasingly severe wildfires as climate change has changed the conditions there.

Such as Australia. I pointed this out as there is sometimes an attempt made to claim that these events are only happening in North America, or NA and Europe, or NA and Europe and Russia, or... etc.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow