Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If the ice sheet atop the Arctic Ocean disappears, then under intense heating of the waters of the Arctic Ocean around the summer solstice the Arctic Ocean could become a source for heavy precipitation over places that go from having tundra climates to short-summer subarctic climates. Such could change rainfall patterns elsewhere -- and not all to the benefit of people who live in zones that could get drier.

And release a lot of methane, which further increases warming; it's a scary cycle indeed! We should have acted long ago.

My emotions say that the Republican-Libertarian-DINO enabling of the "special interests, including the oil and coal cartels that want no reduction in consumption of fossil fuels" by the voters and politicians is criminal.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And release a lot of methane, which further increases warming; it's a scary cycle indeed! We should have acted long ago.

My emotions say that the Republican-Libertarian-DINO enabling of the "special interests, including the oil and coal cartels that want no reduction in consumption of fossil fuels" by the voters and politicians is criminal.

The special interests offer jobs and cheap energy -- but paradoxically 'cheap energy' usually destroys jobs. It usually substitutes for labor.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Doesn't it embarrass you, even if just a little, to be responding to multiple published studies with no more than unsupported assertions?

You mean the part where I quoted from the studies themselves?

I mean, it's hilarious from over here, if in a bit of a sad way. If you are representative of the state of education in the american school system... well, let's say the unique-in-the-world high rate of post-graduation functional illiteracy in the USA becomes a lot more understandable.

If, as it turns out contrary to the evidence of these last couple days, you do have a sense of shame and intellectual integrity, please feel free to hunt around until you can find some actual science to back up your assertions. I'm in no great rush, so go ahead and take all the time you need.

Whatever. [/ dion voice]

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Sure thing.
Since you asked so nicely, here's some actual data about what we were actually talking about.
Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA
"Since the late 1800s , human activities and the ecological effects of recent high fire activity caused a large, abrupt decline in burning similar to the LIA fire decline. Consequently, there is now a forest “fire deficit” in the western United States attributable to the combined effects of human activities, ecological, and climate changes. Large fires in the late 20th and 21st century fires have begun to address the fire deficit, but it is continuing to grow."

Where have all the fires gone?
"In the United States, few places know as much fire today as they did a century ago."

Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States
even has a pretty picture on page 26 (page 17 of the file) showing the decline in fire incidence. Oh, and you can see your trendline at the tail end of the dataset, even. It looks like fire incidence might be back up all the way to the level it was at in the 1920s...

There's more, but I'm not inclined to do more of a lazy man's work for him. Find it your own damn self -- it's out there if you actually, you know, look.

You forgot NASA!

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You forgot NASA!

From your link.

Global average fire abundance has decreased significantly since 1900 as technological advances in fire-fighting -- particularly planes and flame retardants -- have become available. By 2050, according to the model, global warming will have reversed that steady decline, and the global climate will again become the primary driver of fire abundance worldwide.

Also note that the model does not match the dataset I linked to. My dataset was for the US, which I thought was what we were discussing, and the model is for global. If you do want to discuss global, I have no problem accepting this model for discussion.

From the global fire history source for the NASA study:

The record of global biomass burning over the last 2,000 years can be divided into four distinct intervals: (1) 1-1750, when climate drove the long term downward trend in biomass burning; (2) 1750 to late nineteenth century, when population-driven land-cover changes along with increases in global temperatures produced the sharp increase in biomass burning; (3) late nineteenth to mid-to-late twentieth century, which includes the striking decrease in biomass burning that accompanies the decrease in rate of land-cover change; and (4) the past several decades, which is beyond the resolving power of the global charcoal record, when increased biomass burning is reported in many tropical regions. (emphasis mine)

1- according to this record late nineteenth and early twentieth century burning was very high. Late twentieth century burning however was low, which matches the dataset I originally linked to.

2 - this record does not differentiate between wildfires and intentional burning.

3 - the authors themselves state that you can not compare recent years to the record.

4 - once again we see that the denier fails to actually read and understand the studies he links to. Par for the course.

In summary: as to Copper's original claim that last century saw more wildfire than we see today (implying that climate change is inconsequential or nonexistent), the first half of last century probably saw more acres burned on average than today. The second half definitely saw fewer acres burned than today. In addition, examining the record more closely reveals that the peak burning was due to humans changing the manner in which they used the land. As that changing subsided (most of the convertible land was already converted or management of forests became a priority), the biomass burning decreased. However, the current trend of increasing burning is apparently NOT tied to human land use changes. In fact the research supports the conclusion that climate change is starting to be and will increasingly be the primary driver of wildfires.

Isn't it interesting how examination of the actual data touted by deniers always ends up refuting their basic position?

Here is a current link delineating where and how severe the droughts are.

Boy, the libertarian nuts like Justin never tire of making excuses for the failure of their ideology, even to the point of letting the entire planet burn up. I know their behavior burns me up! Only in America, I guess, do we have such extremists in such excess. Lots of hot air!

I've wondered if global warming might relieve the aridity of Southern California-by creating a hurricane season.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I've wondered if global warming might relieve the aridity of Southern California-by creating a hurricane season.

Not with the cold California current off the coast. Any tropical storm would be sapped of its energy before it hit any part of coastal California -- provided that it didn't go through the Gulf of California instead.

There have been suggestions that the Sonoran Desert was much greener during the Ice Age (about like northern Nevada) when the westerlies went farther south. Warmer conditions might allow more of a monsoon season. In between such times, as now, southeastern California and southwestern Arizona are desert.

Hurricanes head north through the Gulf of California and go onto land? Could that result in tornados?

What happens if you have both global dimming and excessive greenhouse gasses? I suspect that the most favorable possibility is that the weather turns weird.

My concern is that global dimming may become less in the near future. The sooty sulfides that contribute hugely to global dimming are also a health issue and smog issue. They can also be dealt with using stack scrubbers. The west put a large dent in global dimming even before dimming became a well known issue, just for health reasons. China, India and other developing countries are reaching the point where stack scrubbers are an obviously cost effective life style step.

When they move on it, a significant check on greenhouse warming will be removed.

I've seen several suggest that global dimming may be a major contributing factor to the failure of many models to accurately account for how much warming has, and hasn't, been going on.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

From the global fire history source for the NASA study:

The record of global biomass burning over the last 2,000 years can be divided into four distinct intervals: (1) 1-1750, when climate drove the long term downward trend in biomass burning; (2) 1750 to late nineteenth century, when population-driven land-cover changes along with increases in global temperatures produced the sharp increase in biomass burning; (3) late nineteenth to mid-to-late twentieth century, which includes the striking decrease in biomass burning that accompanies the decrease in rate of land-cover change; and (4) the past several decades, which is beyond the resolving power of the global charcoal record, when increased biomass burning is reported in many tropical regions. (emphasis mine)

1- according to this record late nineteenth and early twentieth century burning was very high. Late twentieth century burning however was low, which matches the dataset I originally linked to.

2 - this record does not differentiate between wildfires and intentional burning.

3 - the authors themselves state that you can not compare recent years to the record.

4 - once again we see that the denier fails to actually read and understand the studies he links to. Par for the course.

In summary: as to Copper's original claim that last century saw more wildfire than we see today (implying that climate change is inconsequential or nonexistent), the first half of last century probably saw more acres burned on average than today. The second half definitely saw fewer acres burned than today. In addition, examining the record more closely reveals that the peak burning was due to humans changing the manner in which they used the land. As that changing subsided (most of the convertible land was already converted or management of forests became a priority), the biomass burning decreased. However, the current trend of increasing burning is apparently NOT tied to human land use changes. In fact the research supports the conclusion that climate change is starting to be and will increasingly be the primary driver of wildfires.

Isn't it interesting how examination of the actual data touted by deniers always ends up refuting their basic position?

Are you still arguing with your own arguments? Ah, I see that yes indeed you are.

Wow, sometimes it comes down to the presentation -



http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

Originally Posted by playwrite

Wow, sometimes it comes down to the presentation -



http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

I'll say. They had a global network of thermometers capable of accurately measuring to within a hundredth of a degree back in the 1880s?

Who knew?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'll say. They had a global network of thermometers capable of accurately measuring to within a hundredth of a degree back in the 1880s?

Who knew?

Dude, the issue of the warming is settled -

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...anted=all&_r=0

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

You still got whether man-made and the impacts still up in the air (pun), but continuing to deny the warming just makes you look magic ponyish. Get over it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'll say. They had a global network of thermometers capable of accurately measuring to within a hundredth of a degree back in the 1880s?

Who knew?

Everyone who actually studies this.

Chart with appropriate confidence intervals.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Everyone who actually studies this.

Chart with appropriate confidence intervals.

So... you're just going to pretend the last conversation never happened? Or were you planning on addressing your being called on the previous set of incorrect assertions you made? As for me, I'd rather deal with one set of your crap at a time. Keeps the confusion to a minimum...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Dude, the issue of the warming is settled...

What does that have to do with your claim that the presentation was key, followed by a presentation that is clearly crap?

Were you trying to talk science? Because your pretty, content-free, colored lines with as-good-as-made-up* numbers really very strongly implied otherwise.

----
-edit-
* do you know what "significant digits" are? How they work? And why they matter? If not, educate yourself; if so, then you were just flat-out lying.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So... you're just going to pretend the last conversation never happened? Or were you planning on addressing your being called on the previous set of incorrect assertions you made? As for me, I'd rather deal with one set of your crap at a time. Keeps the confusion to a minimum...

It's all right there, with direct references to the primary literature and everything. It's not my fault you failed to actually read them before citing them as somehow supportive of your claim.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What does that have to do with your claim that the presentation was key, followed by a presentation that is clearly crap?

Were you trying to talk science? Because your pretty, content-free, colored lines with as-good-as-made-up* numbers really very strongly implied otherwise.

----
-edit-
* do you know what "significant digits" are? How they work? And why they matter? If not, educate yourself; if so, then you were just flat-out lying.

Do you know what confidence intervals are?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What does that have to do with your claim that the presentation was key, followed by a presentation that is clearly crap?

Were you trying to talk science? Because your pretty, content-free, colored lines with as-good-as-made-up* numbers really very strongly implied otherwise.

----
-edit-
* do you know what "significant digits" are? How they work? And why they matter? If not, educate yourself; if so, then you were just flat-out lying.

Let's see --

I have not only NASA on one side, but a former skeptic running the BEST project. On the other side, we got you. Hmm, now if I was in magic pony land, this might be a tough call.

Have I told you I don't do magic pony land?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

It's all right there, with direct references to the primary literature and everything. It's not my fault you failed to actually read them before citing them as somehow supportive of your claim.

So... you're going to continue to pretend that your non sequitors were answers, then? That's your business, I guess.

It continues to strike as odd just how poorly thought-out the positions of a soi-disant 'science' guy are.