I think ScrotieMcB makes a valid point though. We can assume that climate change is a contributing factor but I've seen people overstating this to say that the drought is caused by climate change.
No, I'm saying that global warming is a factor in the opposite direction. The drought isn't happening because of global warming, it's happening in spite of global warming. The question isn't "how much longer is the drought because of global warming?" the question is "how much shorter is the drought because of global warming?" What, did you honestly believe that every last consequence of global warming would be a negative, that somehow sea levels would rise to drown coastal cities in water AND the clouds would disappear and the land would dry out, simultaneously? That doesn't make any fucking sense, unless you dont understand how clouds and rain work.
Implying that "climate change" (meaning: global warming) is responsible for the wildfires is no less dishonest and propagandist than Trump implying (but not explicitly stating) that California government mismanagement of the forests was a necessary cause for this disaster. Indeed, Trump's deception is smaller by any reasonable standard.
I get it now. Without any agreement on the evaluation on which incorrect statement is worse or better (because I don't care) I agree with your premise.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
Last edited by Turtledove on Nov 16, 2018, 11:04:13 PM
There is a correlation between climate change and weather patterns.
Yes, there is... in the opposite fucking direction. Global warming causes less of the planet's water to be tied up in ice, leading to higher sea levels, more precipitation, stronger storms, increased cloud cover, and higher humidity. Global warming makes plant life more robust (through both increased CO2 and the aforementioned humidity), allowing it to encroach on previously arid areas and grow denser in its preexisting habitats. Increased humidity also increases the potential spread of waterborne and "airborne" pathogens, as well as the risk of fungal infection.
1 degree hotter isn't going to make the forests suddenly burst aflame or significantly increase the burn time of a preexisting fire. But 1 degree warmer will melt a lot of glacier in areas that would have been just below freezing otherwise. The current direction of climate change is roughly equivalent to spraying the California wildfires once or twice with a giant spraybottle of water, generating a fine mist that hovers in the air for a second or two. Not a particularly strong way to fight a fire — which is why it wasn't much help — but it's astonishingly stupid to act as if the spray accelerates the fire.
For fuck's sake, it's as if you guys don't even know what global warming is, and just assume you can blame any "weather" you don't like on it. Next thing we know you'll be renaming it something more vague like "climate change" for just that very purpose.
I'll just post the conclusion:
"Changes in average precipitation is much more difficult for climate models to predict than temperature. There are many parts of the world where models disagree whether there will be more or less rain and snow in the future. However, there are some regions, particularly the Mediterranean and southern Africa, where nearly all models suggest rainfall will decrease. Similarly, increases in rainfall are expected in high latitude areas, as well as much of South Asia.
There is much more agreement by the models that a warming climate will increase the severity of extreme rainfall and snowfall almost everywhere. A warmer world will, they project, also increase soil evaporation and reduce snowpack, exacerbating droughts even in the absence of reduced precipitation."
Climate change used to more normally be called global warming. We are experiencing an overall global warming. But climate change may be a more accurate description because normal weather patterns are being impacted which means that some places might become dryer or wetter than historical norms while other areas see the opposite.
Yes, as the globe warms we would expect more overall precipitation but that doesn't mean it's going to be uniformly distributed around the world. Some areas might become dryer while most areas will become wetter. It really means that the weather is more likely going to change. How it changes is going to be different from place to place.
I think people are confused. Climate change is study of change in the pattern of weather, and related changes in oceans, land surfaces and ice sheets, occurring over time scales of decades or longer. Global warming is a scientific theory within the discipline. The climate of any particular place is influenced by a host of interacting factors. People who think global warming is Climate change is stuck in the 70'.
Droughts are defined by reduced precipitation and increased evaporation. California’s drought had both.
PS: Housing problem is a greater contributing factor. Houses are being build on fire prone areas in California.
Last edited by deathflower on Nov 17, 2018, 12:25:13 AM
I’m certainly no expert on the matter; those are genuine questions I have. It seems a little hypocritical to me to always blame Trump, or climate change, or anything else not ourselves; as if it could only ever be one thing or the other. Regardless of political affiliation, if governments want to assume so much responsibility, then they had damn well better do a good job.
Your initial instincts on this issue are correct. I've yet to find a link to a podcast/recording, but some time ago one syndicated radio show with the host Lars Larson interviewed the person who had been officially responsible for managing the state of Oregon's forests for over 20 years and got his input on the various fires and causes. What he said was very similar to what Trump has said - the lack of proper forest management has been the primary factor that allowed fires to become more frequent and larger.
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Trump said that he would stop federal funding which could only mean he was blaming the California government.
Trump was flat out lying. Read some articles on the California wild fires. All the experts say that he was wrong.
They didn't and they don't all say that. Some of the experts California has hired to advise them on their forest management advise the state to do many of the very things Trump is criticizing California for not doing.
Like most paid for consults, the advice is couched in language that allows the state to have excuses for not following the advice, including upfront costs and political popularity. These consults were paid and commissioned by the State of California - not some outsider group.
The factor of people buying houses close to the forests makes it worse by the mechanism that they don't want to see or hear of any trees nearby being chopped down. They specifically moved there to be near such trees, and fight tooth and nail with anyone trying to clear out fire hazard trees. California accommodates them, and with hefty property taxes, encourages them to keep doing this sort of thing.
Not cutting trees doesn't cost California anything up front, and they expect the federal government to bail them out on the backside.
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Climate change used to more normally be called global warming. We are experiencing an overall global warming. But climate change may be a more accurate description because normal weather patterns are being impacted which means that some places might become dryer or wetter than historical norms while other areas see the opposite.
Yes, as the globe warms we would expect more overall precipitation but that doesn't mean it's going to be uniformly distributed around the world. Some areas might become dryer while most areas will become wetter. It really means that the weather is more likely going to change. How it changes is going to be different from place to place.
I think people are confused. Climate change is study of change in the pattern of weather, and related changes in oceans, land surfaces and ice sheets, occurring over time scales of decades or longer. Global warming is a scientific theory within the discipline. The climate of any particular place is influenced by a host of interacting factors. People who think global warming is Climate change is stuck in the 70'.
Droughts are defined by reduced precipitation and increased evaporation. California’s drought had both.
PS: Housing problem is a greater contributing factor. Houses are being build on fire prone areas in California.
Thank you for the wise words and the link to the interesting paper.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
Trump said that he would stop federal funding which could only mean he was blaming the California government.
Trump was flat out lying. Read some articles on the California wild fires. All the experts say that he was wrong.
They didn't and they don't all say that. Some of the experts California has hired to advise them on their forest management advise the state to do many of the very things Trump is criticizing California for not doing.
Like most paid for consults, the advice is couched in language that allows the state to have excuses for not following the advice, including upfront costs and political popularity. These consults were paid and commissioned by the State of California - not some outsider group.
The factor of people buying houses close to the forests makes it worse by the mechanism that they don't want to see or hear of any trees nearby being chopped down. They specifically moved there to be near such trees, and fight tooth and nail with anyone trying to clear out fire hazard trees. California accommodates them, and with hefty property taxes, encourages them to keep doing this sort of thing.
Not cutting trees doesn't cost California anything up front, and they expect the federal government to bail them out on the backside.
Why don't people listen to experts? Their advice would be expensive and unpopular. I would have never guessed.
There is a correlation between climate change and weather patterns.
Yes, there is... in the opposite fucking direction. Global warming causes less of the planet's water to be tied up in ice, leading to higher sea levels, more precipitation, stronger storms, increased cloud cover, and higher humidity. Global warming makes plant life more robust (through both increased CO2 and the aforementioned humidity), allowing it to encroach on previously arid areas and grow denser in its preexisting habitats. Increased humidity also increases the potential spread of waterborne and "airborne" pathogens, as well as the risk of fungal infection.
1 degree hotter isn't going to make the forests suddenly burst aflame or significantly increase the burn time of a preexisting fire. But 1 degree warmer will melt a lot of glacier in areas that would have been just below freezing otherwise. The current direction of climate change is roughly equivalent to spraying the California wildfires once or twice with a giant spraybottle of water, generating a fine mist that hovers in the air for a second or two. Not a particularly strong way to fight a fire — which is why it wasn't much help — but it's astonishingly stupid to act as if the spray accelerates the fire.
For fuck's sake, it's as if you guys don't even know what global warming is, and just assume you can blame any "weather" you don't like on it. Next thing we know you'll be renaming it something more vague like "climate change" for just that very purpose.
"Changes in average precipitation is much more difficult for climate models to predict than temperature. There are many parts of the world where models disagree whether there will be more or less rain and snow in the future.
Okay, so in short it's difficult AF to figure out how this increased precipitation will be distributed. But can you find any credible models that disagree that overall worldwide precipitation will increase? And if global warming increases worldwide humidity and precipitation overall, and you don't know precisely how it will be distributed, wouldn't it be safer to assume precipitation would increase in a particular area than to assume a decrease?
A warmer world will, they project, also increase soil evaporation and reduce snowpack, exacerbating droughts even in the absence of reduced precipitation."
This is technically correct (the best kind). However, it's a tad misleading in part because water evaporated from earth's surface isn't disintegrated nor banished to the Phantom Zone; increased evaporation means faster cloud formation and a faster rain cycle. This means that even if the amount of non-ice water on the planet remained constant, global warming would increase precipitation by cycling the same water faster. Considering that drought would become significantly shorter and more rare under global warming, drawing undue attention to how its effects would hurt more (that is, exacerbated) is showing only cons and no pros.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Trump said that he would stop federal funding which could only mean he was blaming the California government.
Trump was flat out lying. Read some articles on the California wild fires. All the experts say that he was wrong.
They didn't and they don't all say that. Some of the experts California has hired to advise them on their forest management advise the state to do many of the very things Trump is criticizing California for not doing.
Like most paid for consults, the advice is couched in language that allows the state to have excuses for not following the advice, including upfront costs and political popularity. These consults were paid and commissioned by the State of California - not some outsider group.
The factor of people buying houses close to the forests makes it worse by the mechanism that they don't want to see or hear of any trees nearby being chopped down. They specifically moved there to be near such trees, and fight tooth and nail with anyone trying to clear out fire hazard trees. California accommodates them, and with hefty property taxes, encourages them to keep doing this sort of thing.
Not cutting trees doesn't cost California anything up front, and they expect the federal government to bail them out on the backside.
Cali tree hugers/bureaucrats are the worst. They wont cut down pretty trees that even Indians knew to do and instead cause massive fires/death/global warming gasses. Just like they make us sit in stop and go traffic 3 hours spewing global warming gasses because they refuse to expand "ugly" lanes.
And like you say cost issue. Rather provide illegals with free college/in state tuition, fat pension for useless (I'd say deleterious in most cases) govt workers, and other dead beats free shit than fix problems.
Git R Dun!
Last edited by Aim_Deep on Nov 17, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
