| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
 Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:59 am |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | drm, there is no reason to suspect a major planet-wide drying trend. |
I have never said that and don't believe it will be the case. Climate change will not on average dry out the planet. It may even become wetter as the atmosphere holds more moisture, but most model forecasts say that total aggregate precip will not change much. But some areas will become drier, and some of those areas are likely to be in the western US. We have discussed this before.
| thunderhead wrote: | | The relative humidity trends and precip trends worldwide are neutral...as one might expect since the same amount of sunlight is striking the same water fraction. |
True, none of which is relevant to what I posted. Global aggregate data is meaningless to a discussion of wildfires in the western US or Australia.
| thunderhead wrote: | | I do agree that a quicker snow-melt will increase the length of the dry season a bit in some places that are both dry summer AND heavy snow in the winter(like Cascades higher elevations for an obvious local example) and that could drive up fires a bit... |
The studies I presented indicated more than a bit. A lot more than a bit. Do you know of any more recent studies that indicate less?
| thunderhead wrote: | | but this trend of blaming every part of every weather event on global warming is nonsense. |
Which I have never done. The studies I just posted discussed other causes as well. gb's posts on attribution also were quite nuanced on how climate change attribution works.
| thunderhead wrote: | | Bottom line is a portion of the west coast forests are supposed to burn every summer, and summers are supposed to be dry here. What we have here is not particularly unusual from a global perspective. |
But it is unusual from a regional perspective. I posted studies but all you ever do in response is say that, gosh, it just ain't gonna be so bad. In the end, your arguments exist purely on faith that something will just make it so, or by some dodge that points to an irrelevant metric, as you have repeatedly done above, usually by looking at global trends. Research so far indicates that we have already seen dramatic changes in fire regimes in certain areas due to climate change and that these will magnify greatly by later this century if dramatic action is not taken. If you can point to any research that disagrees with this, please post, in preference to hand-waving.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:59 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | Quote: | | I've lived in Washington my whole life and this is by far the smokiest period Western Washington has ever seen. |
And meanwhile, it is not the smokiest season over 95% of the continent. Your local bias is interfering with your view of global trends. Also, i am not allbrghtmd. I know it will upset you, but plenty of people that look at data have reached the conclusion that the threat is not actually that threatening. You would too, I suspect, if you looked at the data rather than the scary sounding headlines. |
That is a trivial argument, albrghtmd. The ridge is in the west and has been quasi-stationary since early June, building into our area around July 1st. The flow pattern around the ridge (which has broken many records) means the smoke has stayed in Western North America - mostly Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and the southern half of British Columbia - although lately under the Rex block - the smoke has spread south to cover other states in the Western US.
Look for the smoke to spread into the Northern Rockies and across Canada and likely the northern tier of states within the next week. Watch the Canada smoke forecast as we get rid of the Rex block in our area.
Obviously, with the anomalous record-breaking ridge, there has been a trough over the northern half of the US east of the Rockies - as it is now. The weather east of the Rockies has also been anomalous.
Nobody said there has been a worldwide drying trend (where would you get that idea?) Why would you expect that? For every 1 degree C rise in temperature 7% more water can be held in the atmosphere. The dry areas are getting drier, the wet areas are getting wetter as pattern changes develop. There are a number of studies that demonstrate this latter point and tie it back to global climate change.
You might want to review some of the 143 studies to update your understanding.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | But it is unusual from a regional perspective. |
Any isolated event or major storm is unusual from a regional perspective. But that doesn't mean its unusual in the planetary picture. We are just the lucky ones in this case. Most of the planet is having a very normal fire season. This can be said for most weather events. I'm sure the people in the path of the giant tornado feel like the world has turned against them, even when that giant twister's frequency is normal from a global point of view.
| Quote: | | A lot more than a bit. |
But most of that is other human land-use changes, not global warming. For the weather data itself, you can see precip unchanged, slightly higher snow levels, snowmelt happening a little earlier, which is a change but not a very large change.
| Quote: | | But some areas will become drier |
Not really. Precip trends are neutral at every major airport I have surveyed except one location. These are the best/longest-period-of-record data sources. Sure you can(and many studies do) wiggle some minor change potential into such data. But you don't go from nonexistent or small changes to 'massive fire increase caused by global warming'. A bit of an increase in some places? Sure.
| Quote: | | Which I have never done. |
You don't. Gb does.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:39 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | Any isolated event or major storm |
I didn't refer to an isolated event or an individual storm. The studies I posted dealt with longterm trends, some going back 4 or 5 decades. This has gotten beyond ridiculous trying to deal with your dodges and misdirections. Not going to spend any more time trying to correct them.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:49 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | Quote: | | But some areas will become drier |
Not really. Precip trends are neutral at every major airport I have surveyed except one location. These are the best/longest-period-of-record data sources. Sure you can(and many studies do) wiggle some minor change potential into such data. But you don't go from nonexistent or small changes to 'massive fire increase caused by global warming'. A bit of an increase in some places? |
SEACI Part I and Part II - look it up.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Quote: | | I didn't refer to an isolated event or an individual storm. |
This entire round of debate started in reference to this year's big BC fires. Clearly a single event or data point in such context.
| Quote: | | The studies I posted dealt with longterm trends |
Yes, but each one is dramatically flawed.
The first, least flawed, seems to have cherry picked years, conveniently starting in the 1970s and ignoring higher fire years in the 60s.
here is the raw data: https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html A clear upward trend, but not as dramatic as some claim. Plus, this trend is statistically correlated with land use changes and increased human population, as well as with global warming. Obviously global warming contributes to some, but not all of fire increase.
The second is pure trash. It makes a number of basic logic mistakes and glosses over land use and population changes entirely. The claim must be legit because it matches with what we want to think(their model). ROFL. Hilariously wrong.
The third attempts to use temperature to calculate drought, a clear violation of basic physics. Temperature is not water. It is not a good proxy for water.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:49 am |
|
|
Flawed? You should get on the peer review list for the scientists. I am sure they would be real interested in your analysis. 
You can fool some of the people some of the time, albrghtmd.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Classic appeal to authority logical fallacy. Amateur mistake.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:10 am |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | Classic appeal to authority logical fallacy. Amateur mistake. |
Sorry you made an amateur mistake, but it is not surprising.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:30 pm |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | Flawed? You should get on the peer review list for the scientists. I am sure they would be real interested in your analysis.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, albrghtmd. |
They should be. Any real scientist is very interested in falsification of their claims. That is, if their claims can even be falsified in the first place...
Then, there's confirmation bias, power lust, and the $$ train
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12832 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:48 pm |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | I've lived in Washington my whole life and this is by far the smokiest period Western Washington has ever seen. |
huh?
When the Yacolt fire was burning in 1902, the residents of the community of Evergreen, Washington (on the lower end of the Queets River) thought that since the sun hadn't come up that day and they were having to fire up their kerosene lamps so they could cook breakfast, Armageddon had finally arrived and they gathered together to pray.
(Not sure where you can find the details... it's either in "Evergreen on the Queets" or "River Near the Sea - an Ethnohistory of the Queets River Valley".)
You might also want to check out "The Big Fire" story posted here in the "Let's burn all the trees!" thread.
You think THIS is smoky?
You ain't been around long enough. Used to be way worse. This is nothing.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:21 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Then, there's confirmation bias, power lust, and the $$ train |
Confirmation bias and the granting process can be problems, not sure about power lust. But since the physical evidence keeps piling up, in many forms, from many different lines of research, there isn't any indication that these are major problems now.
The best way to get rich as a scientist now would be to come up with actual proof that it isn't happening or won't happen. Meanwhile skeptics and deniers with scientific credentials can always make a good paycheck from the likes of Heartland if they are willing to compromise their integrity.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:36 am |
|
|
| drm wrote: | | MtnGoat wrote: | | Then, there's confirmation bias, power lust, and the $$ train |
Confirmation bias and the granting process can be problems, not sure about power lust. But since the physical evidence keeps piling up, in many forms, from many different lines of research, there isn't any indication that these are major problems now.
The best way to get rich as a scientist now would be to come up with actual proof that it isn't happening or won't happen. Meanwhile skeptics and deniers with scientific credentials can always make a good paycheck from the likes of Heartland if they are willing to compromise their integrity. |
Most of those less than 3% of scientists who dispute man's roll in global warming/climate change may be scientists, but even fewer are actually in the fields of science that are directly related to meteorology and climate.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:17 am |
|
|
The physical evidence 'piling' up is all correlation, not causation. Big difference. Besides, when we look at unaltered temps, the physical evidence is far from piling up. It is not legitimate to screw with data for modeling use and then proclaim temps never ever actually measured anywhere, have had an effect on anything in the real physical world. No 'adjusted' temperature ever heated or cooled a single molecule in this universe, after all.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6309 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:57 am |
|
|
Go on believing. You have a cause - a dumb one, but a cause.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
