Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign

[vz71]

? I do. Engines run very hot, on top of man made paved roads that get hot. This does not include the smokeless toxics that go up. This said. Think about when you are on a busy road, in the middle of the day. How hot is that?

I can’t tell if you are joking or not.
Perhaps the best kind of humor.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Dovekin]

I am sorry if I am being so obscure. I originally had not expected I would have to show that different climates have different impacts on wildfire, but that seems to be where questioning “climate change” has brought.

I would argue that like Oregon and Washington, it’s an issue made worse by intentional arson. If one wants to look deeper at this, I strongly suggest to look at a North America fire map which shows a definite difference between the degree of fires in the western US vs western Canada. If it was just natural causes, the two regions would not be as different as they are. But somehow, miraculously the fires in eastern Washington stop at the Canadian border. Climate change? I don’t think so.

@Zzyzx_Road here is using the change at the Canadian US border to assert that intentional arson is the cause of differences in rates of wildfires. I am accepting his unstated position that fewer Canadians are arsonists than Americans, though I did make one comment about that. (Fewer Canadian arsonists is the only way his comments make sense to me, but I may be misunderstanding)

Looking at the climate maps, it is obvious that the climate changes at the Washington/British Columbia border. Semiarid eastern Washington has more fires than subarctic BC. This is a restatement of the part of Zzyzx’s remark that I italicized above, using the Köppen climate descriptors.

My contention is that semiarid climates have more and longer wildfires than subarctic climates. The change in climate at the border is natural and accounts for the differences between the two regions, contrary to Z’s assertion “if it was just natural…”

This change from one climate to another is not the same as climate change caused by global warming. In the one we change location, while in the other we change through time. But it does allow us to see the difference between different climates. We can reasonably conclude that if we change from one climate to another, wildfire behavior changes. We do not have to adopt an external agent to explain the fires, like Americans start more fires than Canadians.

Climate has an effect on fires. The change in wildfire behavior in CA shows that the climate has changed.

I hope that is clearer.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Now, this is me, just rationalizing. I do not know if this be true, but makes sense. Fires make smoke. Smoke makes shade, and thus help bring down temperature in that shade. Plus thermal particles of smoke, somewhat help the atmosphere block harmful rays.

Long term yes.

In the short term no. The canopy of smoke acts like a layer of insulation, reducing the Dissipation of heat.

Long Term the same canopy of smoke if it never Dissipates ( such as the result of Large Meteor hit or an all out Nuclear War ) the shade from the smoke creates a Nuclear Winter / Ice Age Winter due to this shading effect which insulates the resulting cold.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here are wildfires and floods in he USA now that are visible evidence of climate change.

Wildfires and floods are visible evidence of wildfires and floods.

They prove nothing about the climate, given that they are part of the history of the places where they most occur and occasionally in places where they infrequently occur.

Hurricanes are actually decreasing over time.

"The UN Climate Panel found in its latest report that hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones) haven’t increased: “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

For the United States, the trend of all land-falling hurricanes has been falling since 1900, as has that of major hurricanes. In the 51 years from 1915, Florida and the Atlantic coast were hit by 19 major hurricanes. In the 51 years to 2016, just seven. In the last 11 years, only two hurricanes greater than category 3 hit the continental USA — a record low since 1900. From 1915 to 1926, 12 hit."

No, global warming isn’t causing worse hurricanes

It’s human nature to assign blame for catastrophic events. In medieval times, witches were blamed for weather woes. Trials and burnings increased when weather got worse. In hurricane season today, …

nypost.com

 

[twf]

BC is huge. I can drive 12 hours from Vancouver and only be half way up the province. There is not one climate zone. It varies greatly. You mention subarctic…sure…waaay up in northern BC. In the Vancouver area its pretty much the same as Seattle… humid and wet with mild winters… the southern interior is similar to eastern Washington - dry with hot summers.

 

[Dovekin]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The large area of semi arid climate in eastern Washington appears only in one valley at about the midpoint of the border. Most of the other valleys are humid continental, while the mountains on both sides of the border are indeed subarctic.

I do not understand why people are disputing these maps.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

You never looked at the Canadian government’s own wildfire map for which I supplied the link above or else you disregarded it because it doesn’t support your thesis. So I’ll post a screen shot of that map to allow other CAF readers judge for themselves.

Please note the yellow areas just north of the border with Washington that Canada has marked as “high fire danger”. This area is about 1/3 the size of the entire state of Washington. Then note the tan area within the yellow areas that Canada has marked as “very high fire danger”.

There are display options in the overlay: I picked season to date hotspots and as it turns out that they have an approximation of the areas affected by fire in both Washington and Oregon states. Compare these to the similar climate region in BC adjacent to the border.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In short, the US has an arson problem. Canada doesn’t.

 

[Dovekin]

If you are using this to say the climate in British Columbia is the same as that in Washington, then you have lost me. This map shows the relative risk of fire compared to other areas in BC. It does not say the risk in BC is the same as the risk in Washington, or less than Washington, or greater. It does not say anything about Washington beyond showing this season’s wildfires.

If you look at the climate maps, you will see the climates change right about at the border. The climates in BC are all wetter and colder than in Washington. Warm summer humid instead of
semi arid, subarctic instead of hot summer mediterranean. The border coincides with a natural change that you do not acknowledge.

Your thesis says there is no natural reason for the difference in the number of fires across the border, so arson rates must explain it. It is a pretty weak argument to begin with, that Canadians start fewer fires. You only have to look at Saskatchewan/North Dakota border to see nearly identical wildfire patterns on both sides. The climate maps show the same climates at that part of the border.

I am sure arson, population density and other factors affect wildfires. But there is more going on than just that.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I never said all of BC.

What I said is there is a part of BC adjacent to the border that the government of Canada considers a “high fire danger” zone and that this area is about the 1/3 the size of the state of Washington. But you continue to completely and totally ignore that. Which leads me to believe you think the Canadian government is lying about the extent of the fire danger on their side of the border at that spot, that all those areas the Canadian government marked as “high fire danger” are not so.

 

[christofirst]

The Bobcat Fire here in L.A. reached our Benedictine monastery, St. Andrew’s Abbey. The monks had to evacuate Thursday, and are safe. They think they were spared much property damage. Prayers, please!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cathoholic]

Praying at your request.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

Irrelevant for proving climate change, but still relevant as recognition of the likely cause of that individual observation.

OK. I will remember that for weather events that I say are a likely refutation of the global warming game.

That’s going to go both ways Leaf.

(To everybody else. There it is.
Their actions suggest they either
don’t believe their own weather vrs. climate point,
or they selectively believe it.)

Covfefe.

.

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Turning again to gambling, it would be as if you went into a casino and lost your money on a game of craps. The fact that you lost does not prove the dice were weighted. But knowledge that the dice were weighted does enable you to say afterwards with some degree of truth “I lost because the dice were weighted.”

I just want to tell the readers here. The proverbial “weighted dice” are the “models” (they sure can’t go on raw temperatures).

Don’t be fooled by the global warming machine who’s leaders don’t even believe what they are saying.

I used to think there was a substantial global warming element, but a just as substantial political element.

Now I see a much more political dimension.

I learned that from the leaders of the globull warming community whose actions say they DENY global warming.

 

[Dovekin]

Which leads me to believe you think the Canadian government is lying about the extent of the fire danger on their side of the border at that spot, that all those areas the Canadian government marked as “high fire danger” are not so.

We all know what liars those Canadians are!

I cannot find a map of Washington that is comparable to the BC fire risk map.i can speculate that the large numbers of fires in Washington are in extreme risk areas, while there are no extreme risk areas in BC. (That is almost a tautology, fires happen where there is a risk of fires)

Why are there areas at extreme risk of fire in Washington? It might be that they are areas that arsonists enjoy, another near tautology. Or it could be that semiarid areas that are adjacent to more heavily forested areas are the places at highest risk.

I do not have a way to decide between those options.

 

[PaulinVA]

What do Republicans/Conservatives get out of denying climate change?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

What do Republicans/Conservatives get out of denying climate change?

In this particular instance, there is the demand on the part of posters such as the one I’ve been engaging with that climate change is the primary cause of the fires and all other factors are less, sometimes much less significant. I’m not denying climate change, I’m just saying other factors are important, some more so.

In other words, other very relevant factors such as development, fire suppression, forestry management and arson are all important, some more so than climate change. It’s as if the climate change folks think that the development and the fire suppression that went with development involved in going from 1.5m population in 1900 to 39.5m in 2020 is far less significant than climate change. Think about that mentality for a moment. The mentality that requires us to ignore the poor forestry practices at the state level in recent decades; that was highlighted with the PG&E fires. The mentality that requires us to downgrade the effects of fire suppression and poor forestry management on the ecosystems.

Don’t forget that with the increase in population came the increase in criminal conduct. Including arson. There we’ve seen citizen patrols during the dry season for decades in some areas. For instance, check out Topanga Canyon near Los Angeles. That neighborhood is painfully aware of the danger represented by arson, both accidental and intentional, and has been that way since long before climate change became a buzz phrase.

The most one can say about climate change in California is that it may have helped to aid the conditions and that’s all that can be said about it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What do Republicans/Conservatives get out of denying climate change?

Not all conservatives deny it. I don’t. But I don’t think it’s due to using fossil fuels and I think it’s possible to “cure” some aspects of it. What do I get out of denying the fossil fuel origins of it? The impetus to study the real “climate scientists”, largely in the agriculture departments of universities, who figure out ways to improve the soil by carbon sequestration, water retention and improved methods of agriculture. If you look at the world today, enormous areas are desertified by poor agricultural practices. Those practices do, indeed, induce climate change.

But I still deny the assertions of the fake “climate change scientists” who aren’t really climate change scientists. All they’re going to accomplish is the impoverishment of people worldwide, the enrichment of dictators, and further waste of otherwise good land.

Concerning the wildfires in the west, we need to consisder the fact that it’s not all poor forestry leading to fuel buildup. One of the bad things about government management of land is that their practices encourage desertification; the suppression of grass and water retention, and the encouragement of woody plants.

 

[Dovekin]

In this particular instance, there is the demand on the part of posters such as the one I’ve been engaging with that climate change is the primary cause of the fires and all other factors are less, sometimes much less significant.

If this is a reference to me, let me just say I have NEVER said climate change is the primary cause. My position is much closer to the conclusion “ that it may have helped to aid the conditions and that’s all that can be said about it.”

I introduced the idea that modern fires are not as large as historic fires because of factors like population density. This led to changes in forest and fire management. To assert I do not recognize such factors is a distortion.

The record high temperatures this year have affected the wildfires in the west. While this is a weather phenomenon, record highs do point to climate change. And the differences that record highs make, ie the faster burning, larger fires of this year are what has been predicted by global warming experts.

Our major differences have been over his peculiar interpretation of fire rates in Washington and British Columbia. Without explanation he dismisses the possibility of a natural cause. (he seems to think it is because Canadians are not arsonists?) The only relevant maps that I can find that compare Washington and BC consistently are the climate maps that show BC to be colder and wetter. He denies that change of climate is significant or even exists, which takes climate change denial into new territory.

Meanwhile the August fire complex in California has grown from 795k to 836k acres while we discussed this. It is approaching twice the size if CA’s next largest fire, the 495k Mendocino fire in 1918. The ~12k acres it has been adding each day would be a large wildfire on its own. 30% contained, please pray for the firefighters to succeed in containing it and for no more lives and injuries to anyone from his disaster.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Arson arrests. The mainstream media will not publicize this for obvious reasons because “climate change” so one has to go to alternate media to find this sort of information. This is a point I posited above that Canada does not have an arson problem whereas the US does, and that is reflected in the wildfire maps.

As you look at this map, I have two points for you:
First, it doesn’t take that many people to wreak this kind of havoc.
Second, these were just the ones who got caught. Think how many more got away with it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Is is possible that Canada has different criteria than the US?

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Is is possible that Canada has different criteria than the US?

I’m not sure what you’re driving at, but you’re welcome to try to make the case if you specify the criteria you think are different for the two countries. Have at it.