Scientific America Says, "Chill out over climate change"

[skookerasbil]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

But a view that is in the distinct minority = outside the little climate science clubs, most scientists say the dangers are highly overstated. Of course, this makes the heads of the climate crusaders explode but it is exactly the way it is in 2018. Again........the bomb throwing for the past 20 years has had almost zero effect on policy makers and that's all the proof you need. Fact is, the climate science club still has not made its case. If it had, the Paris Treaty wouldn't have gotten blown to smithereens. The EPA wouldn't be being decimated like it is as we speak. We'd actually have had some climate change legislation in America in the past 10 years instead of none.

It just so happens that most people aren't caring.......ho....hum kinda sizes it all up!

 

[skookerasbil]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

But then s0n..........why is the climate change industry losing in such prolific fashion in 2018?


Please explain that to us!


Except for the "climate science" science club, where is anybody caring in the real world?

 

[westwall]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse?

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

Wrong, as usual, the fires were worse because the way that homes are built is stupid. The home builders build them close together and when a fire comes to them they are a chain reaction waiting to happen. Of course, this is the way houses have ALWAYS been built. Take a look at the fires in ancient Edo, or the Chicago fire, or a whole host of fires that happened in the past. This last fire is NO DIFFERENT from those.

 

[westwall]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Were you an honest person that would tell you that wildfire in CA is not just common, but an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the State.

Were you an honest person, you would not imply that I that I ever said that wildfire in California is not common, or that it is not an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the state.

Of course wildfire is common- but it is becoming more common, and more importantly- it is becoming bigger and hotter.

Natural wildfires in California and elsewhere are almost always caused by lightening strikes. In natural conditions they generally burn fairly small areas and at relatively low temperatures.

But a large portion of wildfires in California now are not caused by lightening strikes but by human causes- campfires, vehicle exhausts, sparks from lawn mowers, arson.

One of the reasons why fires now burn hotter is because we actively suppressed fires for many years when we should have allowed non-threatening fires to burn- and should have been doing more preventative burns in the winter to reduce brush and forest clutter. The hotter fires cause more damage- are more likely to destroy trees that otherwise would survive and kill even the seeds that normally would germinate.

And I am glad to acknowledge that there has been mismanagement of forests- both of public and private forests.

That's funny, were you an honest person you would have mentioned those factors in your initial OP, instead of waiting till you were called on your inherently biased presentation.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I wish the climate cult would put as much energy into getting the islands of garbage cleaned up in the Pacific ocean as they do over climate change since the garbage is an actual, tangible problem affecting us now, as opposed to their nonsensical dogma about global warming.

 

[Syriusly]

After years of ecofreaks like algore and others warming us that the world as we know it is coming to an end, it shocks me that the scientific community may be coming up with different results.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

More @ Scientific American Says ‘Chill Out’ over Global Warming

Oh why do you feel so compelled to lie about Climate Change Longie?

First of all- you are citing an essay in Scientific American- not the opinion of Scientific American. Just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Secondly- here is what the essay actually said:
Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?
Two “ecomodernists” argue that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems

Note that neither of these 'ecomodernists' or the author of the essay argue that human created climate change is real.

What the argument is that humans can solve human created climate change.

Here is one quote:
Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

This entire article refutes your claim that human cause climate change is bogus.

Just another example of you reading the Breitbart headlines and not the facts.

But then s0n..........why is the climate change industry losing in such prolific fashion in 2018?

I cannot explain either your fantasy- or why you think it has anything to do with the intellectual dishonesty of the OP.

Remember- t he Scientific American article cited by the OP supports the conclusion that human cause climate change is real and catacylsmic.

 

[Syriusly]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Were you an honest person that would tell you that wildfire in CA is not just common, but an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the State.

Were you an honest person, you would not imply that I that I ever said that wildfire in California is not common, or that it is not an essential part of the renewal and plant growth of the state.

Of course wildfire is common- but it is becoming more common, and more importantly- it is becoming bigger and hotter.

Natural wildfires in California and elsewhere are almost always caused by lightening strikes. In natural conditions they generally burn fairly small areas and at relatively low temperatures.

But a large portion of wildfires in California now are not caused by lightening strikes but by human causes- campfires, vehicle exhausts, sparks from lawn mowers, arson.

One of the reasons why fires now burn hotter is because we actively suppressed fires for many years when we should have allowed non-threatening fires to burn- and should have been doing more preventative burns in the winter to reduce brush and forest clutter. The hotter fires cause more damage- are more likely to destroy trees that otherwise would survive and kill even the seeds that normally would germinate.

And I am glad to acknowledge that there has been mismanagement of forests- both of public and private forests.

That's funny, were you an honest person you would have mentioned those factors in your initial OP, instead of waiting till you were called on your inherently biased presentation.

That's funny, were you an honest person, you would have mentioned the factors I mentioned in your original post, instead of waiting for me to point out your interently biased perspective.

We can keep doing this all day.

Doesn't change the fact that the OP lied about the Scientific American article, or that the article he cites- supports the conclusion that human caused climate change is both real and dangerous.

 

[Syriusly]

I wish the climate cult would put as much energy into getting the islands of garbage cleaned up in the Pacific ocean as they do over climate change since the garbage is an actual, tangible problem affecting us now, as opposed to their nonsensical dogma about global warming.

Well certainly that garbage in the Pacific ocean is a real problem- though frankly it is not affecting us much now- as much as it will over time due to the degredation of plastics that are working their way through the food chain.

I just wish that the anti-climate human death wish cult would stop punching holes in the life boats as you keep telling everyone that there is no way the Titanic can possible sink.

 

[Syriusly]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse?

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

Wrong, as usual, the fires were worse because the way that homes are built is stupid. The home builders build them close together and when a fire comes to them they are a chain reaction waiting to happen. Of course, this is the way houses have ALWAYS been built. Take a look at the fires in ancient Edo, or the Chicago fire, or a whole host of fires that happened in the past. This last fire is NO DIFFERENT from those.

Sigh.

Yes the way homes are built is often stupid- especially the choices in roofing and siding material.

But this was very, very different from say the great Chicago fire. I speaking of the Northern California fires because I know that area very well, and know what happened there very well.

The houses in the area- in general- consisted of two main groups- houses on the flat lands- mostly suburbia- either within city limits, or just outside of city limits, and houses in the hills- generally either individual homes on good size lots, or fairly dispersed subdivisions.

The first fires started outside of Calistoga, which is a small town, with steep hills on two sides. Winds were fierce and quickly blew through ridges and across hills towards Santa Rosa, taking down power lines and cell towers along the way- the first houses that burned were in the hills- again nothing like crowded urban Chicago. The winds and the fuel whipped up fires with temperatures high enough to melt metals.

The ash from the fires were blown by the winds all over the area and started dozens of other fires. When the first thrust of the fire hit Northern Santa Rosa, it hit low density suburban subdivisions and hill developments first- then blew across Hwy 101 and two other frontage roads to take out a K-Mart- and then headed into the Coffee Park subdivision- which is a typical subdivision found in much of America- and has little in common with urban Chicago of 1871- more densely populated that the first subdivisions, but hardly urban.

Frankly I am beginning to wonder if you have any interest in the facts at all- to compare urban Chicago of 1871 to suburban Coffee Park of 2017 is just bizarre. The housing density is not similar at all.

Nor were the conditions the same. The Northern California fire was essentially started by very high winds which caused rapid spreading- and changed the weather itself. The Chicago fire was started in a very densely populated area of wooden buildings at a time when people kept lots of fuel in their homes- there was no electricity distribution system then- while in NC it looks like the primary cause of the fire may have been damage from the wind to power lines.

 

[westwall]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse?

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

Wrong, as usual, the fires were worse because the way that homes are built is stupid. The home builders build them close together and when a fire comes to them they are a chain reaction waiting to happen. Of course, this is the way houses have ALWAYS been built. Take a look at the fires in ancient Edo, or the Chicago fire, or a whole host of fires that happened in the past. This last fire is NO DIFFERENT from those.

Sigh.

Yes the way homes are built is often stupid- especially the choices in roofing and siding material.

But this was very, very different from say the great Chicago fire. I speaking of the Northern California fires because I know that area very well, and know what happened there very well.

The houses in the area- in general- consisted of two main groups- houses on the flat lands- mostly suburbia- either within city limits, or just outside of city limits, and houses in the hills- generally either individual homes on good size lots, or fairly dispersed subdivisions.

The first fires started outside of Calistoga, which is a small town, with steep hills on two sides. Winds were fierce and quickly blew through ridges and across hills towards Santa Rosa, taking down power lines and cell towers along the way- the first houses that burned were in the hills- again nothing like crowded urban Chicago. The winds and the fuel whipped up fires with temperatures high enough to melt metals.

The ash from the fires were blown by the winds all over the area and started dozens of other fires. When the first thrust of the fire hit Northern Santa Rosa, it hit low density suburban subdivisions and hill developments first- then blew across Hwy 101 and two other frontage roads to take out a K-Mart- and then headed into the Coffee Park subdivision- which is a typical subdivision found in much of America- and has little in common with urban Chicago of 1871- more densely populated that the first subdivisions, but hardly urban.

Frankly I am beginning to wonder if you have any interest in the facts at all- to compare urban Chicago of 1871 to suburban Coffee Park of 2017 is just bizarre. The housing density is not similar at all.

Nor were the conditions the same. The Northern California fire was essentially started by very high winds which caused rapid spreading- and changed the weather itself. The Chicago fire was started in a very densely populated area of wooden buildings at a time when people kept lots of fuel in their homes- there was no electricity distribution system then- while in NC it looks like the primary cause of the fire may have been damage from the wind to power lines.

I live in the woods so am well familiar with wildfire. One south of me just a few years ago burned hundreds of homes. Yes, the Chicago fire was different, and yet similar as well. ALL fires of that magnitude make their own weather and wind patterns. We as people have far more flammable stuff than the people of Chicago ever had, so while there were no large wood piles, the quantity of books, clothes, bedding, and other goodies more than make up for that lack. It seems to me that you are only capable of talking in a very simplistic manner.

Real thought seems to elude you.

 

[westwall]

I wish the climate cult would put as much energy into getting the islands of garbage cleaned up in the Pacific ocean as they do over climate change since the garbage is an actual, tangible problem affecting us now, as opposed to their nonsensical dogma about global warming.

There actually is no island of garbage in the Great Pacific Gyre. That too is a myth.

 

[Syriusly]

There are two possibilities when it comes to human caused climate change- i.e. global warming:
a) The science is wrong- in which case everyone will be okay- whether we do anything or not or
b) The science is rights- in which case most people- sometime in the future- are going to suffer from the effects of the change- the articles cited just argue the suffering won't be as bad as predicted by some.

As humans we have two choices- do nothing- in which case if the science is wrong- then everything will be fine.
But if the science is right- doing nothing will lead to disaster.

We had disastrous fires in California last year. Under the deniers model, you would all stay in your homes and deny that the fires are coming. Under the scientific model, you would prepare for the possibility of the fire threatening your home- packing your most precious belongings, watering down your roof, clearing shrubbery from around you home- getting out before the fires closed down the roads.

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse?

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

Wrong, as usual, the fires were worse because the way that homes are built is stupid. The home builders build them close together and when a fire comes to them they are a chain reaction waiting to happen. Of course, this is the way houses have ALWAYS been built. Take a look at the fires in ancient Edo, or the Chicago fire, or a whole host of fires that happened in the past. This last fire is NO DIFFERENT from those.

Sigh.

Yes the way homes are built is often stupid- especially the choices in roofing and siding material.

But this was very, very different from say the great Chicago fire. I speaking of the Northern California fires because I know that area very well, and know what happened there very well.

The houses in the area- in general- consisted of two main groups- houses on the flat lands- mostly suburbia- either within city limits, or just outside of city limits, and houses in the hills- generally either individual homes on good size lots, or fairly dispersed subdivisions.

The first fires started outside of Calistoga, which is a small town, with steep hills on two sides. Winds were fierce and quickly blew through ridges and across hills towards Santa Rosa, taking down power lines and cell towers along the way- the first houses that burned were in the hills- again nothing like crowded urban Chicago. The winds and the fuel whipped up fires with temperatures high enough to melt metals.

The ash from the fires were blown by the winds all over the area and started dozens of other fires. When the first thrust of the fire hit Northern Santa Rosa, it hit low density suburban subdivisions and hill developments first- then blew across Hwy 101 and two other frontage roads to take out a K-Mart- and then headed into the Coffee Park subdivision- which is a typical subdivision found in much of America- and has little in common with urban Chicago of 1871- more densely populated that the first subdivisions, but hardly urban.

Frankly I am beginning to wonder if you have any interest in the facts at all- to compare urban Chicago of 1871 to suburban Coffee Park of 2017 is just bizarre. The housing density is not similar at all.

Nor were the conditions the same. The Northern California fire was essentially started by very high winds which caused rapid spreading- and changed the weather itself. The Chicago fire was started in a very densely populated area of wooden buildings at a time when people kept lots of fuel in their homes- there was no electricity distribution system then- while in NC it looks like the primary cause of the fire may have been damage from the wind to power lines.

I live in the woods so am well familiar with wildfire. One south of me just a few years ago burned hundreds of homes. Yes, the Chicago fire was different, and yet similar as well. ALL fires of that magnitude make their own weather and wind patterns. We as people have far more flammable stuff than the people of Chicago ever had, so while there were no large wood piles, the quantity of books, clothes, bedding, and other goodies more than make up for that lack. It seems to me that you are only capable of talking in a very simplistic manner.

Real thought seems to elude you.

Clearly all you have are insults and your own very narrow view.

You live in the woods so you are familiar with wildfire? Wow.....I worked for the CDF fighting wildfires- big whoopee.

The Chicago fire was similar only in that all fire requires heat, fuel and oxygen and both fires had them- and that fires of a big enough magnitude can create their own weather.

The two fires didn't start the same way, were in completely different conditions and had completely different kinds of fuels.

But if you want to keep believing that the NC fires were no different from the Chicago fire of 1871- you are operating with a mindset that facts won't sway.

 

[westwall]

Why were the fires disastrous? Could it possibly be that the home builders have encroached upon the natural environment, and then, the forest managers followed a policy that we now know makes fires worse?

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

Wrong, as usual, the fires were worse because the way that homes are built is stupid. The home builders build them close together and when a fire comes to them they are a chain reaction waiting to happen. Of course, this is the way houses have ALWAYS been built. Take a look at the fires in ancient Edo, or the Chicago fire, or a whole host of fires that happened in the past. This last fire is NO DIFFERENT from those.

Sigh.

Yes the way homes are built is often stupid- especially the choices in roofing and siding material.

But this was very, very different from say the great Chicago fire. I speaking of the Northern California fires because I know that area very well, and know what happened there very well.

The houses in the area- in general- consisted of two main groups- houses on the flat lands- mostly suburbia- either within city limits, or just outside of city limits, and houses in the hills- generally either individual homes on good size lots, or fairly dispersed subdivisions.

The first fires started outside of Calistoga, which is a small town, with steep hills on two sides. Winds were fierce and quickly blew through ridges and across hills towards Santa Rosa, taking down power lines and cell towers along the way- the first houses that burned were in the hills- again nothing like crowded urban Chicago. The winds and the fuel whipped up fires with temperatures high enough to melt metals.

The ash from the fires were blown by the winds all over the area and started dozens of other fires. When the first thrust of the fire hit Northern Santa Rosa, it hit low density suburban subdivisions and hill developments first- then blew across Hwy 101 and two other frontage roads to take out a K-Mart- and then headed into the Coffee Park subdivision- which is a typical subdivision found in much of America- and has little in common with urban Chicago of 1871- more densely populated that the first subdivisions, but hardly urban.

Frankly I am beginning to wonder if you have any interest in the facts at all- to compare urban Chicago of 1871 to suburban Coffee Park of 2017 is just bizarre. The housing density is not similar at all.

Nor were the conditions the same. The Northern California fire was essentially started by very high winds which caused rapid spreading- and changed the weather itself. The Chicago fire was started in a very densely populated area of wooden buildings at a time when people kept lots of fuel in their homes- there was no electricity distribution system then- while in NC it looks like the primary cause of the fire may have been damage from the wind to power lines.

I live in the woods so am well familiar with wildfire. One south of me just a few years ago burned hundreds of homes. Yes, the Chicago fire was different, and yet similar as well. ALL fires of that magnitude make their own weather and wind patterns. We as people have far more flammable stuff than the people of Chicago ever had, so while there were no large wood piles, the quantity of books, clothes, bedding, and other goodies more than make up for that lack. It seems to me that you are only capable of talking in a very simplistic manner.

Real thought seems to elude you.

Clearly all you have are insults and your own very narrow view.

You live in the woods so you are familiar with wildfire? Wow.....I worked for the CDF fighting wildfires- big whoopee.

The Chicago fire was similar only in that all fire requires heat, fuel and oxygen and both fires had them- and that fires of a big enough magnitude can create their own weather.

The two fires didn't start the same way, were in completely different conditions and had completely different kinds of fuels.

But if you want to keep believing that the NC fires were no different from the Chicago fire of 1871- you are operating with a mindset that facts won't sway.

Really? I was a Hot Shot way back when. What fires did you work? I pointed out that once a fire reaches a certain level it makes its own weather. Doesn't matter if it's a city fire or a wildfire, they all act the same..

And you are doing fine at hurling your own insults. Just sayin...

 

[IanC]

Several reasons actually.

Certainly home builders have 'encroached on the natural environment' but think about that- that is what home builders to a certain degree always do. I think perhaps what you meant to say is that home builders built in areas that are naturally more dangerous for fire- and that is certainly true- amongst tree covered hills, with narrow windy roads.

But the fires I am talking about had nothing to do with 'forest managers'- because virtually none of the land involved in Northern California was public land managed by any foresters. Virtually all was private land managed by private land owners.

Why were the fires disastrous? Mostly due to wind conditions and more humans living in the area- but also due to alerts not going out early enough to residents to alert them to be ready to run.

Of course under your scenario- you would be advising people not to prepare of evacuation because you don't believe the people sending out the alert.

Wrong, as usual, the fires were worse because the way that homes are built is stupid. The home builders build them close together and when a fire comes to them they are a chain reaction waiting to happen. Of course, this is the way houses have ALWAYS been built. Take a look at the fires in ancient Edo, or the Chicago fire, or a whole host of fires that happened in the past. This last fire is NO DIFFERENT from those.

Sigh.

Yes the way homes are built is often stupid- especially the choices in roofing and siding material.

But this was very, very different from say the great Chicago fire. I speaking of the Northern California fires because I know that area very well, and know what happened there very well.

The houses in the area- in general- consisted of two main groups- houses on the flat lands- mostly suburbia- either within city limits, or just outside of city limits, and houses in the hills- generally either individual homes on good size lots, or fairly dispersed subdivisions.

The first fires started outside of Calistoga, which is a small town, with steep hills on two sides. Winds were fierce and quickly blew through ridges and across hills towards Santa Rosa, taking down power lines and cell towers along the way- the first houses that burned were in the hills- again nothing like crowded urban Chicago. The winds and the fuel whipped up fires with temperatures high enough to melt metals.

The ash from the fires were blown by the winds all over the area and started dozens of other fires. When the first thrust of the fire hit Northern Santa Rosa, it hit low density suburban subdivisions and hill developments first- then blew across Hwy 101 and two other frontage roads to take out a K-Mart- and then headed into the Coffee Park subdivision- which is a typical subdivision found in much of America- and has little in common with urban Chicago of 1871- more densely populated that the first subdivisions, but hardly urban.

Frankly I am beginning to wonder if you have any interest in the facts at all- to compare urban Chicago of 1871 to suburban Coffee Park of 2017 is just bizarre. The housing density is not similar at all.

Nor were the conditions the same. The Northern California fire was essentially started by very high winds which caused rapid spreading- and changed the weather itself. The Chicago fire was started in a very densely populated area of wooden buildings at a time when people kept lots of fuel in their homes- there was no electricity distribution system then- while in NC it looks like the primary cause of the fire may have been damage from the wind to power lines.

I live in the woods so am well familiar with wildfire. One south of me just a few years ago burned hundreds of homes. Yes, the Chicago fire was different, and yet similar as well. ALL fires of that magnitude make their own weather and wind patterns. We as people have far more flammable stuff than the people of Chicago ever had, so while there were no large wood piles, the quantity of books, clothes, bedding, and other goodies more than make up for that lack. It seems to me that you are only capable of talking in a very simplistic manner.

Real thought seems to elude you.

Clearly all you have are insults and your own very narrow view.

You live in the woods so you are familiar with wildfire? Wow.....I worked for the CDF fighting wildfires- big whoopee.

The Chicago fire was similar only in that all fire requires heat, fuel and oxygen and both fires had them- and that fires of a big enough magnitude can create their own weather.

The two fires didn't start the same way, were in completely different conditions and had completely different kinds of fuels.

But if you want to keep believing that the NC fires were no different from the Chicago fire of 1871- you are operating with a mindset that facts won't sway.

Really? I was a Hot Shot way back when. What fires did you work? I pointed out that once a fire reaches a certain level it makes its own weather. Doesn't matter if it's a city fire or a wildfire, they all act the same..

And you are doing fine at hurling your own insults. Just sayin...

A point well taken. One of the reasons why climate modeling cannot capture the effects of clouds. A thunderstorm once initiated, continues to 'burn' itself out just like a fire.

 

[whitehall]

What does "humanity's ongoing conquest of extreme climates" mean? Extreme climates continue and there never has been an ongoing effort to conquer it. The author doesn't debunk the theory of man made climate change he merely cautions against environmental social extremism. The thing the article doesn't mention is that the global warming advocates don't argue about the theory of "global warming" anymore. The advocates act like they were born yesterday and the argument has evolved to "climate change" but the climate hasn't changed. Sometimes March comes in like a lion like it is happening today and sometimes the northeast escapes harsh weather. If the climate didn't change shortly after the greatest conflagration in history, World War 2, when ships loaded with toxic chemicals were sunk almost daily, industry ran practically without environmental constraint and cities and forests and deserts were obliterated in hours it means that mankind does not change weather. As a matter of fact the scientific consensus during the late 50's and early 60's was that the earth might be drifting into another ice age.

 

[Sunsettommy]

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Should We Chill Out about Global Warming?

The line between cataclysmic and apocalyptic is very thin, and often the difference is whether it happens to you or your neighbor. And the people burning fossil fuels will regard this as an opinion that they can continue to pour GHGs into the atmosphere. How many floods like that in Houston can we afford? How many years of fires in the West can we afford?

Houston has been flooded many times since it was founded back in the 1830's, easy to look it up.

Fires in general have been in a long decline since 100 years ago, easy to look it up.

You are being overly influenced by the dishonest, misleading hyperbolic media, who has a long history of promoting a level of B.S. to promote.

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole extreme weather/climate change link was debunked some time ago now....only the hyper-alarmist nutters keep it afloat in 2018!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Even NASA called b's on linkage

 

[Skull]

This group gave us a Manifesto with seven themes that could, gradually, save nature and humanity. Shellenberger of Apocalypse Never fame, is a member.

An ECOMODERNIST MANIFESTO

 

[mamooth]

I wish the climate cult would put as much energy into getting the islands of garbage cleaned up in the Pacific ocean

Ah, the dopey claim that global warming research sucks money from other causes, a favorite of professional propagandists.

Given the tiny sum devoted to global warming research, you have to wonder why anyone falls for it.