"An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California".

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it wonderful how the deniers work? Here we are with a week of temperatures at the North Pole above freezing during the polar night, over 100 million trees killed by fire and drought in California in the past few years, and three times that number killed in the Texas drought.

The Final Numbers Are In: Over 300 Million Trees Killed By the Texas Drought



PHOTO BY DAN KITWOOD/GETTY IMAGES

Over 300 million forested trees have been lost to the Texas drought.

The tally of the Texas drought‘s toll continues. After an extensive survey, the Texas A&M Forest Service today puts the number of rural trees killed by the Texas drought at 301 million. That falls right in the middle of a December 2011 estimate by the service that between 100 and 500 million trees had been killed by the drought.

And the Arctic Sea Ice is down 3 standard deviations, same for the Antarctic Sea Ice. And they wish to change to subject to the accuracy of proxy measurements of the past GHG excursions, and whether the recovery took hundred of thousands, or millions of years.

Dingleberry, it fucking doesn't matter! If we screw up big time and create an really bad environment for our descendants, even if it lasts only few hundreds of thousands of year, that is longer than our species has been alive.

And as Nature magazine explained in 2012, “climate attribution” — the attempt to link singular weather events to manmade global warming — “rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming.” As critics have observed, such attribution claims “are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.”

Natural catastrophes and climate change - Swiss Re 2015 Corporate Responsibility Report

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

This general trend will continue. But crucially, losses will be further aggravated by climate change. The scientific consensus is that a continued rise in average global temperatures will have a significant effect on weather-related natural catastrophes. According to the Special Report on Extremes (SREX, 2012) and the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2014) published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a changing climate gradually leads to shifts in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather events.

If climate change remains unchecked, the makeup of the main drivers will thus gradually shift, with climate change accounting for an increasingly large share of natural catastrophe losses.

To assess our Property & Casualty business accurately and to structure sound risk transfer solutions, we need to clearly understand the economic impact of natural catastrophes and the effect of climate change. This is why we invest in proprietary, state-of-the-art natural catastrophe models and regularly collaborate with universities and scientific institutions.

While attributing any one event may be dicey, the trend in increasing events, especially those that are related to a warming world, is well understood by the businesses that are most affected by such trends.

On average, both economic and insured losses caused by natural catastrophes have increased steadily over the past 20 years. The key reasons have been economic development, population growth, urbanisation and a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas.

That's weird, none of these things are caused by more CO2.

That's weird, both Swiss Re and Munich Re state that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Climate change & climate protection | Munich Re
Swiss Re signs climate change pact - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Longknife, you seem to be the definition of stupid people. The type of fires that we are seeing now in no way help the forests.

 

[longknife]

Well, Longknife, you seem to be the definition of stupid people. The type of fires that we are seeing now in no way help the forests.

What the hell are you talking about.

And calling me stupid shows your total lack of class.

When flora burns, the cellulose turns to ash that contains nutrients that return to the soil. Those nutrients provide seeds what it takes to grow. Nature has long used natural fires to replace unneeded growth and replenish the area.

This was proven by the National Park Service when they adopted a policy to let wildfires burn where they don't endanger human habitation.

Also, healthy flora tends to be able to stand up to and survive wildfires.

 

[Old Rocks]

Worked for the Forest Service for a few years. And, no, crown fires in most forests are not good in any way. Yes, ground fires are let burn. Crown fires are not. At least not in normal years. In 2015, crown fires were let go because there were so many, and so fierce of fires, that the priority was saving towns and small cities, farms and ranches. They were doing retardant drops on small towns and the suburbs of small cities. Either you are bone ignorant of what happened last year,or you are play politics with a very serious issue.

 

[ding]

Worked for the Forest Service for a few years. And, no, crown fires in most forests are not good in any way. Yes, ground fires are let burn. Crown fires are not. At least not in normal years. In 2015, crown fires were let go because there were so many, and so fierce of fires, that the priority was saving towns and small cities, farms and ranches. They were doing retardant drops on small towns and the suburbs of small cities. Either you are bone ignorant of what happened last year,or you are play politics with a very serious issue.

Wildfire suppression in the United States has had a long and varied history. For most of the 20th century, any form of wildland fire, whether it was naturally caused or otherwise, was quickly suppressed for fear of uncontrollable and destructive conflagrations such as the Peshtigo Fire in 1871 and the Great Fire of 1910. In the 1960s, policies governing wildfire suppression changed due to ecological studies that recognized fire as a natural process necessary for new growth. Today, policies advocating complete fire suppression have been exchanged for those who encourage wildland fire use, or the allowing of fire to act as a tool, such as the case with controlled burns.

History of wildfire suppression in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

Worked for the Forest Service for a few years. And, no, crown fires in most forests are not good in any way. Yes, ground fires are let burn. Crown fires are not. At least not in normal years. In 2015, crown fires were let go because there were so many, and so fierce of fires, that the priority was saving towns and small cities, farms and ranches. They were doing retardant drops on small towns and the suburbs of small cities. Either you are bone ignorant of what happened last year,or you are play politics with a very serious issue.

 

[ding]

Worked for the Forest Service for a few years. And, no, crown fires in most forests are not good in any way. Yes, ground fires are let burn. Crown fires are not. At least not in normal years. In 2015, crown fires were let go because there were so many, and so fierce of fires, that the priority was saving towns and small cities, farms and ranches. They were doing retardant drops on small towns and the suburbs of small cities. Either you are bone ignorant of what happened last year,or you are play politics with a very serious issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

Look, Ding, I have read all about that, and agree, we needed to let the ground fires go. But the huge crown fires that we have seen in the last 20 years are something entirely different. The place where I have the best memories of growing up, just lost 2/3 of its area to one fire, 175 square miles. These are mostly Ponderosa Pine, old growth, and my great-grandchildren will not see mature trees in their lifetime there. It is a Wilderness area, never logged because most of it is just too steep. Tell me how that is a good thing, given the erosion that will occur at a much higher rate there for decades now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Longknife, you seem to be the definition of stupid people. The type of fires that we are seeing now in no way help the forests.

What the hell are you talking about.

And calling me stupid shows your total lack of class.

When flora burns, the cellulose turns to ash that contains nutrients that return to the soil. Those nutrients provide seeds what it takes to grow. Nature has long used natural fires to replace unneeded growth and replenish the area.

This was proven by the National Park Service when they adopted a policy to let wildfires burn where they don't endanger human habitation.

Also, healthy flora tends to be able to stand up to and survive wildfires.

Damn it, Longknife, you are exposing your ignorance about the recent fire seasons here in the West. No, the healthy flora burned with everything else in all too many of the fires. And had it not been for huge retardant planes, we would have lost some towns. In fact, we lost at least one town in Washington state, and parts of towns in Oregon and California.

http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/02/14/review-of-the-2015-wildfire-season-in-the-northwest/

Weather

The first six months of 2015 were the warmest first six months of any year over much of Oregon and Washington since record keeping began in 1895.

These record-warm temperatures observed during the winter and spring, coupled with below-average precipitation, led to an exceptionally poor snowpack throughout the winter and spring.

From June 1 through September 15, a total of 51,019 lightning strikes were recorded over Oregon and Washington. The average for fire seasons from 2000-2014 through September 15 is 78,775 strikes. While the number of the 2015 strikes was below this average, the background of drought in 2015 enhanced the ability for lightning strikes to ignite multiple fires in short periods of time.



Photo above: Firefighters observe the Cougar Creek Fire southeast of Mt. Adams in southern Washington in 2015. From InciWeb.

The U.S. Forest Service has produced an exhaustive summary and review of the 2015 wildfire season in what they call their Pacific Northwest Region — what the interagency community calls the Northwest Geographic Area — Oregon and Washington.

The report is huge, 281 pages. In addition to general information about the fire activity, it includes sections about weather, air quality, technology, and summaries of 28 fires with 14 of those being covered in greater detail than the others.

The main 281-page report can be be found here (it’s a LARGE file). There is another version they call an “Interactive Story Journal” which provides summary information from the main report as well as interactive web maps, videos, and numerous photos as well as “time-enabled fire progression maps” for selected fires.

Below are some excerpts from the report:

****

Most Severe Fire Season in Modern History

The 2015 fire season in the Pacific Northwest was the most severe in modern history from a variety of standpoints. Oregon and Washington experienced more than 3,800 wildfires (almost 2,300 in Oregon and more than 1,500 in Washington) that burned more than 1,600,000 acres (more than 630,000 acres in Oregon and more than 1,000,000 acres in Washington)—including 1,325 fires representing 507,000 acres on U.S. Forest Service lands (information as of September 30, 2015).

Initial Attack was successful in rapidly containing all but about 119 of these fires. This response represents an almost 97 percent Initial Attack success rate. Approximately 50 of these fire escapes occurred during a ten-day period in mid-August when numerous Large Fires (a wildfire of 100 acres or more in timber or 300 acres or more in grass/sage) were already burning in the Pacific Northwest. During this time, the Northern Rockies and Northern California were also experiencing unusually high numbers of wildfires. This situation limited the ability to rapidly obtain Initial Attack reinforcements as well as almost all types of firefighting resources needed for Large Fires.

 

[ding]

Look, Ding, I have read all about that, and agree, we needed to let the ground fires go. But the huge crown fires that we have seen in the last 20 years are something entirely different. The place where I have the best memories of growing up, just lost 2/3 of its area to one fire, 175 square miles. These are mostly Ponderosa Pine, old growth, and my great-grandchildren will not see mature trees in their lifetime there. It is a Wilderness area, never logged because most of it is just too steep. Tell me how that is a good thing, given the erosion that will occur at a much higher rate there for decades now.

It is not a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. longknife's original comment was not that different from yours. He wasn't wrong about how forest fires serve a purpose. Forest fires kill off the old growth to allow new growth to occur. They are a part of nature.

 

[Old Rocks]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

 

[ding]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

 

[Old Rocks]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

 

[westwall]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

Which you have zero evidence to support. The fact remains that california is drought prone state. It has had MULTIPLE droughts over the last 1200 years that lasted more than 200 years. THAT is a fact. Nothing that you posted is factual. It is merely politically motivated opinion.



California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say – The Mercury News

 

[westwall]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Everything considering you can't show even a one degree rise in the atmosphere. That's called an epic fail dude.

 

[Old Rocks]

When they are the result of increasing droughts created by our GHG emissions, they are not natural. And I can clearly see you give not a damn about the world we hand our descendants.

You are a true believer. You might want to get off of your high horse because your righteous indignation is undeserved. If it helps you to sleep at night blaming me. Go for it. If you want to pretend that you are somehow different than everyone else. Go for it. Please don't expect me to believe it though.

Now what does all that flap yap have to do with the fact that GHGs warm the atmosphere?

Everything considering you can't show even a one degree rise in the atmosphere. That's called an epic fail dude.

Liar

It’s official: 2015 ‘smashed’ 2014’s global temperature record. It wasn’t even close

“This is the first year where the record is clearly above 1 degree Celsius above the 19th century,” said NASA’s Schmidt. NOAA’s data also show that the planet is now more than 1 degree Celsius warmer than the average temperature between 1880 and 1899, said the agency’s Karl.

2015’s El Niño enhanced heat was accompanied by dramatic weather events across the globe, including a record for the number of Category 3 or greater tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere. That tally includes Hurricane Patricia, the most intense hurricane ever recorded by the National Hurricane Center.

And 2016 is warmer yet. Can't you get anything right?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey Westwall, Do you work for Big oil or coal?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do you believe it would have been immediate?

Then why do you believe it is immediate today?

It is not immediate. The last time we were at 400 ppm, 15 million years ago, it was much warmer, and the seas were 50 to 75 feet higher. In fact, in the Eemian, with CO2 only 300 ppm, sea levels were about 20 ft higher. A huge amount of thermal inertia to overcome, either way. And probably not the only impediment to immediate change.

What are you babling about now?

So you admit C02 at only 300 the ocean was 20 ft higher?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey Westwall, Do you work for Big oil or coal?

Hey Matthew you work for Naomi Klein?

 

[westwall]

Hey Westwall, Do you work for Big oil or coal?

Nope. I've been retired for a long time. My first job was with BP but the company I wanted to work for (Dames And Moore) basically ordered me to take the job so I would know what the other side was like.