Source?
2 Likes
In prehistoric times, much larger areas of forest burned. The smaller (and relatively larger) burn areas in the past century are down to fire management. This is obviously the key factor. Drought cycles are the next biggest factor, and these have been happening for millennia, independent of the recent warming trend. If somebody wants to pin the most recent drought period (or its intensity) on global warming, the burden of proof is on them.
1 Like
A lot of the articles linked to above have already said that link is there. More sources below.
Quote from one paper:
In addition, we find that human emissions have increased the probability that low-precipitation years are also warm, suggesting that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of the co-occurring warm–dry conditions that have created the current California drought.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say
1 Like
Key word. This is all speculative.
1 Like
AQI’s in Cali are the worst in the world right now. Some places are higher than 900 and my app even showed 2000 in one place (though I hope it was a glitch). That’s more than ten packs of cigs a day. That’s like chain smoking ten cigs at once, 24/7
Same old dance for decades, eh? “No, that’s not a factor.” “Yes it is - here’s why.” “Well, show me evidence it’s a factor.” “Ok, here’s a lot of evidence from scientists.” “Well, those scientists with all their research and evidence, that’s not actual proof, is it?”
Anyway, this is mostly for other people reading the thread, just to make sure the “It’s all the fault of those dummies in California, don’t blame climate change!”, er, speculation, has some pushback.
3 Likes
Buy a place ~20 miles inland and you’ll have a waterfront property by the time you retire.
There’s also the reality that the misguided Smokey the Bear and “prevent wildfires” nonsense was an ani-Native American thing. Ritualistic burning of the native plants, which are supposed to burn up on the surface (root system stays intact) was banned and severely punishable because the White Man decided that what the local population had been doing for millennia was “wrong”. Even into the early 2000’s I was getting crap about forest fire prevention, despite scientists having “discovered” that some plants evolved to burn and need to do so. Native populations knew to burn things up and where to do so, but the White Man Government didn’t want them to be right. So here we are today. Didn’t want any burning at all and now these plants, which are supposed to burn and to burn up quickly, haven’t been set on fire for a century. So people are suffering. Because once again, humans tried fight nature instead of working alongside it.
You can deny man-made climate change all you want, but the reality is that racist policies of the government over the past century (of all political parties) has played a huge role in today’s problems with forest fires.
So scientists need a burden of proof but you can just pull things out of your posterior. Magic.
Yeah don’t worry about sea level rising the tide rises and falls every day !
Glaciers melting…No problem…ice melts every Summer !
3 Likes
The important point is that focusing on climate change does nothing to actually tackle the problem. California already has pretty much the strictest emissions standards in the world, so there’s not much to work with there. Attempting to improve the situation by making some effort to reduce global warming would involve a huge economic cost for minuscule results. Putting more resources into proper fire management, on the other hand, will produce immediate results for bargain prices. The fact that Newsom is focusing on climate change during this current crisis is pure politics.
1 Like
…Eh no.
.Guess what , the temps keep going up if you don’t do anything about climate change.
OK, give me some numbers. How much would you spend on reducing climate change, and what effect would that have on forest fires in California?
You said it won’t do anything.
Of course it will help prevent it from getting worse. That’s why countries like the US need to pull up their bootstraps and take carbon mitigation seriously…Now. If the world lived like the US we would be rowing boats down chongxiao east road by now (that’s not an exaggerations its based on science). California could potentially be unliveable due to drought.
No, I said a huge economic cost for minuscule results.
The problem is much bigger than forest fires in California.
1 Like
That’s what this thread is about. Say you took a billion dollars and either spent it on fire management or global warming mitigation. Which do you think would achieve better results in reducing large forest fires in California? The answer is obvious.
1 Like
Future of California without taking into account unintended consequences of global runaway climate change .
The firea in California are partly caused by a much bigger problem and there will be other natural disasters in their wake as well,not only fires .
It’s de natural cycle, nutin to see here.
1 Like
In 2018 there were headlines everywhere about the Camp fire.
It covered an area of 153,336 acres (62,053 ha) (almost 240 sq. miles
),
Now just in 2020 you have a 2 million acre fire zone.
So yeah my point still stands that things are getting worse quickly due to record temperatures.
1 Like