Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

How about letting seals bark for red herring?

The SEALS can have anything they want...

Bacon or chocolate, please.

While everyone else is chasing tales (rrrfrrrf, hehe), I would like to remind you that the Second Law of Thermodynamics hasn't been repealed. Whatever form of inputs we use for energy, there is going to be loss. Electric distribution is easier, especially if someone fixes the grid up with superconductors and better fail-safes. How to generate the electrical power is another problem. Stack scrubbers are better than mufflers. Fewer persons will have personal vehicles. Living spaces get smaller, and geographic population densities go up. Rail gets fixed.

All this occurs due to economics, eventually. Living through it is the problem.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So... you posted something completely irrelevant to your point as if it weren't. Are we to be impressed by your lack of attention to detail, or by your poor reading comprehension skill? Both?

In any case, the journal article I linked straight-out contradicts your unbacked assertion that the incidence of drought has been increasing.

The point was that global warming will lead to increased droughts. JDG implied that the future benefits of global warming (no scientific evidence to back such a claim) will outweigh the negatives. I listed increased drought frequency as a future consequence. It was JDG arguing about the past. Your article doesn't refute my point because you are confusing the views of each of us for the other.

It flat says that the apparent increase in droughts over the multidecadal past was no more than an artifact of poor data management. The most recent article whose abstract you quoted argues that the overall mix and location of both drought and flood events can only be clearly correlated to AGHG forcings. It then argues that models based off that correlation suggest that further increasing AGHG will result in increased instance of drought.

That is, it talks about the predictions made by a model. As opposed to actual, historical fact -- which was what you were asserting above, and what the Nature article debunked.

Not quite. I can see how that mistake could be made as we were each arguing about past and future at the same time. JDG is trying to argue that patterns of the past will continue unabated. He purposefully ignores any actual studies of how the climate works and what those studies show is going to happen.

You do recognize the difference between data from reality, and the output of simulations, don't you? Though ideally they track, one is (quite emphatically) epistemologically very much not the other. Arguing that "the models predict" is a very different thing (and very much not what you were doing that I rebutted) from arguing that "this thing happened".

Please show me were I claimed that global warming has already increased the frequency/severity of droughts. You are mistaking JDG's focus on the pre-warming past for my discussion of the peri-warming future.

The fact that you want to argue a point completely unrelated to both what you were saying originally, to the point with which I rebutted you, and to the factual basis for my rebuttal? That's just transparent weasel-tactics. Hardly becoming of a person who claims to value scientific inquiry.

----

-edit-
And then, I see, you continued to post quotes defending the different and wholly unrelated assertion. Are we to take it, then, that you have recognized the error in your initial false claim and retracted it? Or is it just that you give so few fucks about coherency and consistency of thought that you feel comfortable arguing "But it's green!" when the question was "2 + 2 = ?"?

No. I'm showing that your source does not in fact support the assertions that global warming is not happening or that it can't be responsible for droughts. If you are not actually trying to imply such claims then we are in fact talking past each other.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The point was that global warming will lead to increased droughts.

Well.. Looking back more closely at what you wrote, I can see how you may have meant it that way. We were indeed talking past each other. Please accept my tipped hat as I step out of the way and gesture you to carry on.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Well.. Looking back more closely at what you wrote, I can see how you may have meant it that way. We were indeed talking past each other. Please accept my tipped hat as I step out of the way and gesture you to carry on.

No problem. It happens.

Global warming has killed 19 firefighters in unique and record-setting fires and heat/wind waves in drought-striken AZ. They are just the latest victims of folks who don't want to regulate energy companies and convert to renewable energy sources, because they don't want the government to act or raise any taxes.

Would they not have died if the government had raised taxes?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Would they not have died if the government had raised taxes?

If the government had raised taxes on carbon pollution, and conversion to renewable energy had begun a few years or a few decades ago, as it could have, helped along by investment in renewable energy companies financed in part by higher taxes, as it could have, NO, those 19 men would not have died.

Yeah, don't think you know that. Natural disasters would still have happened. People would have died.These sorts of sloppy, ill-reasoned arguments really do the global warming fight an injustice.

Scott Pelley reported tonight from the fire lines, interviewing the chief of US fire fighters. No-one out here doesn't believe in climate change, said the chief. We live it! A 100,000 acre fire used to be a rare thing, he said. In the last 15 years, 200,000 acre fires are commonplace.

Give it up, libertarians! Your policy has failed. We need government action on climate change. Your policies of inaction over the last 30 years have caused the climate crisis. How many more will die so you don't have to pay taxes or accept regulations on your rich friends?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Yeah, don't think you know that. Natural disasters would still have happened. People would have died. These sorts of sloppy, ill-reasoned arguments really do the global warming fight an injustice.

Yeah, I think I know that. The only injustice comes from you, in your stubborn, ill-conceived unwillingness to see the facts, and to understand that your ideology is wrong, that taxes must be paid, and the government must act.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Scott Pelley reported tonight from the fire lines, interviewing the chief of US fire fighters. No-one out here doesn't believe in climate change, said the chief. We live it! A 100,000 acre fire used to be a rare thing, he said. In the last 15 years, 200,000 acre fires are commonplace.

Give it up, libertarians! Your policy has failed. We need government action on climate change. Your policies of inaction over the last 30 years have caused the climate crisis. How many more will die so you don't have to pay taxes or accept regulations on your rich friends?

You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?

Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right? You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.

Hear Hear!!PSssst, technically, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that many of those fires were set by Indians in order to manage their environment better. Otherwise, Huzzah! Eric,It continues to baffle me that you don't seem to realize that there are actually lots of issues on which we have some agreement, agreement ruined by your continued insistence on pontificating about subjects on which you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge, and turning them into culture wars battlegrounds. Like energy storage, for one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Global warming has killed 19 firefighters in unique and record-setting fires and heat/wind waves in drought-striken AZ. They are just the latest victims of folks who don't want to regulate energy companies and convert to renewable energy sources, because they don't want the government to act or raise any taxes.

Please don't try to help.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

PSssst, technically, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that many of those fires were set by Indians in order to manage their environment better. Otherwise, Huzzah!

Absolutely. And where do you suppose those Indians got the idea from?

* Controlled burning is part of any serious agriculture operation (organic anyway). For the family farm, burning the fields in the fall every 5 years was the norm (kids were allowed to sit on the barn roof and shoot the rats as they came running out to escape the fire). It was a community event.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically.

Are you really going to confuse the difference between weather (single fire events) with climate (long term trends on fire numbers and sizes)?

Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century

Not at all true.

and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past).

You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?

Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Are you really going to confuse the difference between weather (single fire events) with climate (long term trends on fire numbers and sizes)?

I wasn't comparing wildfires with climate at all. Indeed had I sought to make that link I would had said so. Comprende? You may also notice that the chart in your article starts at 1960, whereas the list in the wiki I linked has fires going back as far as 1825 (I explicitly stated last century and the century before that which you carefully edited out), so your chart is missing some real monsters.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I wasn't comparing wildfires with climate at all. Indeed had I sought to make that link I would had said so. Comprende?

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Pointing out that there have been large fires in the past is ignoring the fact that large fires are far more common than they used to be. A single event compared to the trend for such events.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I wasn't comparing wildfires with climate at all. Indeed had I sought to make that link I would had said so. Comprende? You may also notice that the chart in your article starts at 1960, whereas the list in the wiki I linked has fires going back as far as 1825 (which is why I explicitly stated last century and the century before that), so your chart is missing some real monsters.

The chart I linked to is from one continuous data set. You are trying to compare results from two different data sets without showing that one is an appropriate proxy for the other.

I am not denying that very large wildfires occurred in the past. I am denying your implication that today's fire regime is the same as the fire regimes of the past. No fire ecologists that I've read about have ever made such a claim.

Are you really going to try and keep ignoring the trend from the link I supplied?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Pointing out that there have been large fires in the past is ignoring the fact that large fires are far more common than they used to be. A single event compared to the trend for such events.

Nope, you are very clearly misunderstanding me, but that's quite alright.

Well, before this shin kicking contest gets any further, I would like to take this time to rejoice that, whatever our differences, at least we can all agree that Eric is wrong.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Well, before this shin kicking contest gets any further, I would like to take this time to rejoice that, whatever our differences, at least we can all agree that Eric is wrong.

Is that ever really in doubt?

I try to keep an open mind, and at least allow for the possibility that he might be correct on something at some point. By accident, of course.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

The chart I linked to is from one continuous data set. You are trying to compare results from two different data sets without showing that one is an appropriate proxy for the other.

I am not denying that very large wildfires occurred in the past. I am denying your implication that today's fire regime is the same as the fire regimes of the past. No fire ecologists that I've read about have ever made such a claim.

Are you really going to try and keep ignoring the trend from the link I supplied?

Did you have any data trends going back into the early 1800's or perhaps even further back?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You do realize that wildfires have never been even remotely rare events right? In fact wildfires of enormous size are quite common historically. Indeed, when one goes back in time on the North American list one sees that, if anything, wildfires are burning far less acreage than they were last century and the century before that (thousands of acres now as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions in the past). You do also realize that before they were widely settled, the Great Plains routinely burned (that is, all of the Great Plains) and that this routine burning was of great importance to creating the present-day fertility of the region.

I just posted the testimony of one who knows. Fires are getting bigger and more common due to climate change; that's the fact.

You do further realize that human intervention with the natural process of wildfires (putting them out) actually leads to a significant increase in the risk of wildfires in a given region right?

Because too many people are allowed to live and build houses in places too close to wilderness and subject to fires, so people try to put them out.

You do even further realize that the Arizona wildfire which killed those 19 firemen has only burned 1300 acres right?

But hotter, drier, more-overgrown, and windier conditions.

Please note: These questions are all rhetorical. I am well aware that you actually didn’t know these things.

You might know a bit more, if you pay attention to the facts that don't support your ideology of no government.