Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Sunsettommy, Apr 26, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. Debates are won in the library. I've been there; you don't want to go.
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please spell my name correctly.
     
  3. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is from the author of the Watt's Up With That" article: "The gauges show no increase in the rate of sea-level rise, and the claimed acceleration in satellite-measured sea level is merely an artifact of changing satellites." The tidal gauges and satellite data that began in 1993 are in general agreement. The dark blue curve shown below is from the satellite data and the light blue
    curve is from global tidal gauges.
    ..
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147435/taking-a-measure-of-sea-level-rise-ocean-altimetry

    [​IMG]




    The contribution from meltwater has been rising faster in recent decades relative to the contribution from thermal expansion.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

    [​IMG]
    Observed sea level since the start of the satellite altimeter record in 1993 (black line), plus independent estimates of the different contributions to sea level rise: thermal expansion (red) and added water, mostly due to glacier melt (blue). Added together (purple line), these separate estimates match the observed sea level very well. NOAA Climate.gov graphic, adapted from Figure 3.15a in State of the Climate in 2018.


    In 2012, at the request of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, NOAA scientists conducted a review of the research on global sea level rise projections. Their experts concluded that even with lowest possible greenhouse gas emission pathways, global mean sea level would rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meters) above 1992 levels by 2100. With high rates of emissions, sea level rise would be much higher, but was unlikely to exceed 6.6 feet higher than 1992 levels.

    Both the low-end and “worst-case” possibilities were revised upward in 2017 following a review by the U.S. Interagency Sea Level Rise Taskforce. Based on their new scenarios, global sea level is very likely to rise at least 12 inches (0.3 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100 even on a low-emissions pathway. On future pathways with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise could be as high as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100.


    [​IMG]
    Observed sea level from tide gauges (dark gray) and satellites (light gray) from 1800-2015, with future sea level through 2100 under six possible future scenarios (colored lines). The scenarios differ based on potential future rates of greenhouse gas emissions and differences in the plausible rates of glacier and ice sheet loss. NOAA Climate.gov graph, adapted from Figure 8 in Sweet et al., 2017.

    In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, 8 of the world’s 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

    If we don't take climate change seriously, global sea levels could rise by
    3 feet or more by the year 2100 relative to the year 2000.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2021
  4. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    3,863
    Likes Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you kidding me? That's your bombshell, that climate-related deaths are down? Here's a suggestion for you: go stand on train tracks in open country and, as the train approaches, mock the bystanders by saying, " Where is all the NOISE from this supposedly powerful train?"

    By the time the sound gets to you, in full force, it's too late for you to get out of the way.

    Either you are not the least bit educated about Climate Change, or you are completely misrepresenting the problem, which is a change in the composition of our atmosphere. This leads to a CHAIN of effects, including, initially, global warming, leading to melting of polar ice, which releases more carbon into the atmosphere, and decreases the amount of ice which reflects light, and heat, from the sun, out into space, so both end up increasing the RATE of warming.

    But also, the additional carbon comes down in rain, making water more acidic. The changes in temperatures & chemistry lead to massive die-offs, in ocean life. We also have increasingly more powerful storms, originating in the oceans. All these things have already been observed to have begun. And it is a cycle that, as I mentioned, feeds itself, creating an accelerating curve of change.

    Eventually, enough carbon (currently bound in ice, etc.) has been released so that it actually blocks sunlight from getting through the thick outer curtain of our atmosphere. This will lead to massive die-offs of vegetation, in the lower-light conditions, and also to plummeting temperatures.
    This will lead, in a cyclical pattern that has been documented from taking ice cores, in the arctic-- which tell us a great deal about not only snowfall & temperature, but plant life, & atmospheric chemistry-- to an expansion of polar ice, and actually a Globally Colder Phase, of what is, technically, our current Ice Age.

    The point is that this cycle which, over thousands of years will, granted, eventually sort itself, will be catastrophic for us to go through, unalterably changing things about our world, & how we live in it, and not for the better (at least not for as far in the future as one would have a basis, about which, to even speculate). And you want us to wait until it's so overwhelmingly obvious that it's a problem that needs addressing, that those who won't even acknowledge the current Covid pandemic will agree to act? The flaw in that plan, is that, by that point, nothing we do will have much effect. You are advocating waiting until the world is manifesting full-fledged disease, before turning to inoculation. This is worse than a feckless strategy, to encourage inaction, during the short period when it can actually affect the most beneficial results.
    Would you also like me to give you last week's winning Lotto numbers?
     
    gabmux and Phil Clarke like this.
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonsense.
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Special Report on Sea Level Rise
    Posted on November 27, 2018 by curryja | 193 comments
    by Judith Curry I have now completed my assessment of sea level rise and climate change.

    ". . . Mean global sea level has risen at a slow creep for more than 150 years; since 1900, global mean sea level has risen about 7-8 inches. The implications of the highest values of projected sea-level rise under future climate change scenarios are profound, with far reaching socioeconomic and environmental implications. However, these projections are regarded as deeply uncertain and the highest of these projections strain credulity. . . .

    Emissions scenario choice exerts a great deal of influence on predicted sea level rise after 2050. If RCP8.5 is rejected as an extremely unlikely or impossible scenario, then the appropriate range of sea level rise scenarios to consider for 2100 is 0.2–1.6 m. Values exceeding 2 feet are increasingly weakly justified. Values exceeding 1.6 m require a cascade of extremely unlikely to impossible events, the joint likelihood of which is arguably impossible. . . . "
     
    drluggit likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    [​IMG]

    We’re Not Gonna Drown! Analyses Show COASTAL SEA LEVEL RISE Is Only 1.69 mm Per Year!
    By P Gosselin on 23. March 2021

    UPDATE: Sea level rise near the coasts where people actually live is found to be 1.69 mm/yr. But when crunching the data for the entire ocean, as Willis Eschenbach has shown, a figure of just 1.52 mm/year is computed. Hot shot data analyst Zoe Phin at her site examines sea level rise. There she notes, […]


    [​IMG]
    False Alarm: IPCC Models Say A Warming Antarctica REDUCES Sea Levels -0.8 Of A Meter By 3000
    By Kenneth Richard on 15. March 2021

    The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year−1 mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years. In the 4th IPCC report, Working Group 1 (the physical science) reported that as […]


    [​IMG]
    Sea level Rise Review. Rate Of Rise Depends On Who You Ask. Most Say: “No Alarm”
    By P Gosselin on 21. February 2021

    In the latest video, German climate science site Die kalte Sonne here presents a review of sea level rise. No one disagrees that sea level is rising. But there’s plenty of disagreement on how fast it’s really rising. Tide gauges According to the direct tide gauge measurements, sea level rise has been modest and the […]
     
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Library's online, come to present time.
     
    dgrichards likes this.
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    10,123
    Likes Received:
    6,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oke.
     
  10. Phil Clarke

    Phil Clarke Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2021
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Personally, I tend to steer clear of loaded terms like 'Emergency' or 'Catastrophic' as they require a value judgement.

    The question is just a lame Straw Man, similar to the Catastrophic AGW meme. As William Connolley pointed out

    “One of the more stupid debating tricks of the “skeptics” is to oscillate between "Ha ha, you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming which is obviously not happening so you’re very silly", and when told that CAGW is a strawman that they’ve invented they switch to "If it isn’t catastrophic we’ve got nothing to worry about, have we?"

    To which the answer is always some variant of if you can’t imagine anything between “catastrophic” and “nothing to worry about” then you’re not thinking.”

    There is, right now, no global climate emergency, however the wildfires in California, Australia and Siberia surely count as local emergencies and were made more likely by raised temperatures and prolonged dry spells, in turn attributable to climate change. Heat waves would be another example, Atlantic hurricanes another and there are many more. It is entirely possible that we have no global emergency now, but we are heading towards one if we do not act. The sea level acceleration, denied in the WUWT post, is real and unchecked will likely lead to a sea level rise of at least 65cm by 2100. 50cm would be enough for the Maldives to lose 80% of its land area.

    The 'evidence' presented is a slew of cherry-picks, irrelevances and just plain wrong assertions. There are counter-examples to all, but life really is too short. Here's a few:

    We're told there is no increase in storminess, and shown a graph of Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE). But the US EPA say

    "According to the total annual ACE Index, cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and six of the 10 most active years since 1950 have occurred since the mid-1990s (see Figure 2). Relatively high levels of cyclone activity were also seen during the 1950s and 1960s.

    • The PDI (see Figure 3) shows fluctuating cyclone intensity for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase since 1995 (similar to the ACE Index). These trends are shown with associated variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical North Atlantic for comparison (see Figure 3).

      We're shown a graph from Roy Spencer that is meant to show the models overestimate warming of sea surface temperatures. The graph is comically bad, the axis labelled modelled sea surface temperatures is actually modelled air temperatures, and despite being labelled as global the data is for 60N-60S, among other scientific snafus. Correct these flaws and the discrepancy disappears.
    We're shown a graph showing diminishing wildfires in Canada, we are not told that area burnt by wildfire in the US has doubled since the 1990s.

    We're told there is no acceleration in sea level rise, and pointed to an analysis on the same site by the same author. We are not told about a response by a team of professional scientists that describes this analysis as 'disastrously wrong'.

    You get the picture.

    Sources:

    https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...t-claim-of-no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise/
    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity#3
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires
    https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires
     
    skepticalmike and Cosmo like this.
  11. Phil Clarke

    Phil Clarke Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2021
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Eschenbach's analysis is roundly debunked here.

    https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...t-claim-of-no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise/

    Sceptics are fond of pointing to tide gauges, or more usually a cherry-picked subset of tide gauges. Eschenbach's analysis looks at data from Germany (4 sites), The Netherlands (6) and the USA (5), and the 'analysis' consists visually checking the graphs of data from the sites. The article linked above points out…

    "Only European and US tide-gauge records are shown. Because these tide gauges are relatively close to the places where most of the ice melt that has driven sea-level changes since ~1900, they will see much less sea-level rise from ice melt than the global mean due to gravity and solid-Earth effects. Therefore, without explicitly taking this into account, we cannot say anything about global sea levels based on records in Europe and North America alone. When all available tide-gauge records are combined to compute global sea levels, a clear acceleration in sea level since 1900 is visible"

    And they cite this paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8

    Clearly tide gauges can only measure sea level at the coast, and so can only capture changes at the edge of the oceans, missing the vast majority of global ocean area. There are also prone to non-sea level changes as the land rises or falls. Sea level is not uniform, it can be distorted by oceanic currents, wind patterns and gravitational effects. Which is why we use satellite altimetry. From the same article:

    "Contrary to tide gauges, satellites do cover the global oceans (except some small parts around the poles due to the specific satellite orbits). Regional sea level can show all sorts of decadal fluctuations due to weather and ocean dynamics, which is some sort of redistribution of sea level, but this cancels out on a global scale. Tides, for example, don’t add or remove water from the oceans. Therefore, it’s much easier to detect an acceleration in global sea level. We also track where the extra water is coming from with in-situ floats and satellite gravity observations. These observations tell us remarkably accurately that the acceleration in global sea level is driven by accelerated ice mass losses from Greenland and Antarctica, and due to accelerating thermal expansion because the oceans absorb almost all the excess heat that gets trapped due to the Greenhouse effect (see this paper[4] for all the numbers). Summarizing, we can determine an acceleration in sea level from altimetry and we know what’s causing it."
     
    skepticalmike likes this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's the point of links.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  13. gabmux

    gabmux Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell that to the lobster
     
  14. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  15. dgrichards

    dgrichards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Others in this thread have pretty much trashed the link and exposed it for what I said it was in the very beginning. I didn't have to read the article to figure that out, all I had to do was look at the source. Your smart enough to know that, so why are you wasting your time on this garbage/? Or have I misjudged you?
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The lobster doesn't like it, but I never ask his opinion.
     
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's still just childish dodgeball. I'm forced to conclude you found the material too difficult.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Where is the climate emergency? Part of the coming climate emergency will be in the loss of fresh water supplied by melting glaciers that are rapidly shrinking in size.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-worlds-glaciers-melting-faster-idUSKBN2CF221


    (Reuters) - Nearly all of the world’s glaciers are losing mass - and at an accelerated pace, according to a new study published Wednesday that could impact future projections for ice loss.

    The study go.nature.com/2QBPCTm in the science journal Nature provides one of the most wide-ranging overviews yet of ice mass loss from about 220,000 glaciers around the world, a major source of sea level rise.

    Using high-resolution imagery from NASA’s Terra satellite from between 2000 and 2019, a group of international scientists found that glaciers, with the exception of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets which were excluded from the study, lost an average of 267 gigatonnes of ice per year.

    A gigatonne of ice would fill New York City’s Central Park and stand 341 meters (1,119 feet) high.

    The researchers also found that glacier mass loss accelerated. Glaciers lost 227 gigatonnes of ice annually from 2000 to 2004, but that increased to an average of 298 gigatonnes each year after 2015.

    The melt was significantly impacting sea levels by about 0.74 millimetres a year, or 21% of overall sea level rise observed during the period.

    Glaciers tend to have a faster response to climate change compared with ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and are currently contributing more to sea level rise that either individual ice sheet, scientists said.

    Some glaciers in Alaska, Iceland, the Alps, the Pamir mountains and the Himalayas were among the most impacted by melting, researchers found. Glaciers with surrounding communities provide an important water source and their decline could lead to serious food and water shortages.

    “Those areas are seeing a rapid pace of glacier melt that could be fairly worrying,” McNabb said.

    “We get this increase in melt and that actually increases the availability of water that comes in these rivers... but the problem is, after a period of time, that stops increasing and then decreases fairly rapidly,” he added.
     
    Phil Clarke likes this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What you're missing is the incredible volume of ice. Even the gigaton losses you cite are inconsequential. 99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet that was present in 1900 is still there today. At present melt rates it would take several thousand years to lose even half.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  21. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    My post was about potential water shortages in regions of the world that depend on melting glaciers. I am talking about glaciers in the Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Western Canada, and the Western U.S.
    Much of the Western U.S. is in a long term drought situation now that will get worse in the future so a loss of melting ice flowing into rivers will exacerbate the problem

    "As other data from Thompson and colleagues confirms, the much larger tropical ice fields of the Andes Mountains are also shrinking, which within decades will leave tens of millions of people without drinking water.."
    https://www.nature.com/news/2009/091102/full/news.2009.1055.html


    Acceleration of ice loss across the Himalayas over the past 40 years
    Abstract:
    " Himalayan glaciers supply meltwater to densely populated catchments in South Asia, and regional observations of glacier change over multiple decades are needed to understand climate drivers and assess resulting impacts on glacier-fed rivers. Here, we quantify changes in ice thickness during the intervals 1975–2000 and 2000–2016 across the Himalayas, using a set of digital elevation models derived from cold war–era spy satellite film and modern stereo satellite imagery. We observe consistent ice loss along the entire 2000-km transect for both intervals and find a doubling of the average loss rate during 2000–2016 [−0.43 ± 0.14 m w.e. year−1 (meters of water equivalent per year)] compared to 1975–2000 (−0.22 ± 0.13 m w.e. year−1). The similar magnitude and acceleration of ice loss across the Himalayas suggests a regionally coherent climate forcing, consistent with atmospheric warming and associated energy fluxes as the dominant drivers of glacier change.
    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/6/eaav7266




    Two-thirds of the ice in the glaciers of the Alps is doomed to melt by the end of the century as climate change forces up temperatures, a study has found.
    Half of the ice in the mountain chain’s 4,000 glaciers will be gone by 2050 due to global warming already baked in by past emissions, the research shows. After that, even if carbon emissions have plummeted to zero, two-thirds of the ice will still have melted by 2100.
    If emissions continue to rise at the current rate, the ice tongues will have all but disappeared from Alpine valleys by the end of the century. The researchers said the loss of the glaciers would have a big impact on water availability for farming and hydroelectricity, especially during droughts, and affect nature and tourism.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...laciers-alps-alpine-doomed-climate-change-ice


    Western U.S. may be entering its most severe drought in modern history
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drought-western-united-states-modern-history/

    Extreme drought across the Western U.S. has become as reliable as a summer afternoon thunderstorm in Florida. And news headlines about drought in the West can seem a bit like a broken record, with some scientists saying the region is on the precipice of permanent drought.
    That's because in 2000, the Western U.S. entered the beginning of what scientists call a megadrought — the second worst in 1,200 years — triggered by a combination of a natural dry cycle and human-caused climate change.
    In the past 20 years, the two worst stretches of drought came in 2003 and 2013 — but what is happening right now appears to be the beginning stages of something even more severe. And as we head into the summer dry season, the stage is set for an escalation of extreme dry conditions, with widespread water restrictions expected and yet another dangerous fire season ahead.
    That's because in 2000, the Western U.S. entered the beginning of what scientists call a megadrought — the second worst in 1,200 years — triggered by a combination of a natural dry cycle and human-caused climate change.

    In the past 20 years, the two worst stretches of drought came in 2003 and 2013 — but what is happening right now appears to be the beginning stages of something even more severe. And as we head into the summer dry season, the stage is set for an escalation of extreme dry conditions, with widespread water restrictions expected and yet another dangerous fire season ahead.
     
    Phil Clarke likes this.
  22. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a continuation of the CBS News article on the long-term drought in the SW U.S. Also worth mentioning is the destruction of forests by insects in mostly the western U.S. but also in the eastern U.S.
    that is directly related to human-caused global warming. The air temperature during the winter months does not get cold enough to kill the beetles that are destroying large sections of forests.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drought-western-united-states-modern-history

    But this lack of snowpack is not a one-time issue; it is a trend. Over the past 40 years, snowpack has declined by about 25% over the Western states. Meanwhile, the population continues to increase. Thus, as of late, water demand has been outstripping what mother nature can deliver.

    In general, these water woes are not expected to improve. While there will be wet years, the overall trend is towards drying. Scientists say this is a result of human-caused climate change, which is leading to less reliable rain and warmer temperatures — both consistent with what has been projected by climate computer models. The image below shows a clear trend toward worsening drought since 1900.

    New research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that over the past several decades, precipitation has become more erratic and dry periods between rain storms have expanded. Even if rain or snow falls heavier, that's less important than consistency. Soil moisture and vegetation thrive on precipitation that is spread out more evenly over time, rather than heavy events which tend to run-off, resulting in wasted moisture.

    At the same time, temperatures across the Western U.S. have increased by a few degrees over the past 50 years. The warmer air provides more heat energy to evaporate moisture from vegetation and soil. As a result, the ground continues to dry out, providing flammable fuel for escalating fire seasons.

    In fact, 2020 was the worst fire season in the modern history of the West, with California and Colorado experiencing their largest fires on record. As can be seen in the below visual, the intensity of fires and acres burned tracks with increasing temperatures. Simply put, the warmer and drier it gets, the larger fires become.

    Because of a warming climate, fire season in the West is now two to three months longer than it was just a few decades ago. That means, with the dry season already getting underway in the West, the time to prepare for wildfires is fast approaching.



    "Beetles have killed more than 5% of the forested area in the western U.S." https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/global-warming-fuels-bark-beetles-tree-killing-menaces/

    t’s a good time to be a bug and a bad time to be a tree.
    That’s according to Jeff Hicke of the University of Idaho. Based on aerial surveys, he estimates that since 1997, bark beetles have killed more than 5% of the forested area in the western United States.
    And global warming is likely to make the problem worse.
    Hicke says that droughts in the northwest can leave trees stressed and more vulnerable to attack. Meanwhile, rising temperatures can make the beetles more numerous.
    “For mountain pine beetle, which is the most damaging of the bark beetle species in western North America, we expect warming to reduce beetle mortality during wintertime,” Hicke says.
    Warming also speeds up the development of insects so that more generations of the beetles can be born each year. And like something out of a horror movie, when more beetles emerge at the same time, they can mount mass attacks that overwhelm a tree’s natural defenses.


    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...mate-change-northern-canada-new-jersey-maine/

    Southern pine beetles are among the most destructive insects invading North America’s pine forests today, and they’re spreading farther north as global temperatures rise, putting entire ecosystems at risk and creating fuel for wildfires as they kill the trees they infest. A new study shows the insects’ range could reach Nova Scotia by 2020 and cover more than 270,000 square miles of forest from the upper Midwest to Maine and into Canada by 2080.

    By 2050, conditions will be suitable for the southern pine beetle from Southern Maine to Ohio under any emissions scenario. Beyond that, the insects could even spread into parts of sub-Arctic Canada after 2080 under the highest emissions scenario commonly used in global climate policy talks.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2021
    dgrichards and Phil Clarke like this.
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dishonesty Making Science And Journalism Worst In History
    Posted on April 18, 2020 by tonyheller
    Experts report the western US is having the “worst megadrought in the modern age.”

    [​IMG]

    Megadrought in Western U.S. Worst in Region in 1,200 Years | Time

    Actual data shows that the western US has gotten slightly wetter over the past century, with the last five years above average precipitation.

    [​IMG]

    Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    2013 So Far Among Germany’s Coldest This Century! Glaciers In Swiss Alps Gaining In Mass!

    By P Gosselin on 30. September 2013

    The German national weather service (Deutsche Wetterdienst – DWD) writes in its latest press release on how 2013 is shaping up climate-wise in Germany. No warming anywhere! In fact, the recent trend looks like a strong cooling. Already regions in the German lowlands have seen frost this fall – which is early. For 2013 so […]

    Posted in Cooling/Temperature, Glaciers, Misc., Models | 1 Response

    [​IMG]
    Proof Of Warmer Earlier Climate! Swiss Geologist Studies 10,800-Year Old Tree Trunk Under Alps Glacier
    By P Gosselin on 17. January 2021

    Previously hidden under a Swiss glacier, a 10,800-year old tree trunk was discovered and tells us the Alps were much warmer in the early Holocene than today. Online SRF Swiss Broadccasting recently reported on a fascinating find in the Swiss Alps: a more than 10,000 year old tree trunk that had been until recently buried […]

    Posted in Paleo-climatology | 20 Responses

    [​IMG]
    Very Inconvenient Alps Glacier History…Top Glaciologists: Alps Were Ice-Free 6000 Years Ago
    By P Gosselin on 6. January 2021

    Alps ice-free…6000 years ago, when CO2 was much lower than today’s levels. The latest Klimaschau report, No. 6, looks at glaciers in the Alps over the course of much the Holocene. It turns out that Most of the Alps were ice-free 6000 years ago, glaciologists have discovered. The video presents a new paper authored by […]

    Posted in Glaciers | 8 Responses

    [​IMG]
    Large Increase In Number Of Sunshine Hours Likely Behind Warming, Glacier Retreat In Alps Since 1980
    By P Gosselin on 9. August 2020

    Günther Aigner released a German video with the title “Die Alpengletscher im Klimawandel: Status quo“ (The Alps glaciers in climate change: status quo). Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne Today global warming alarmists insist blaming climate change on man-made CO2 emissions. Yet, everywhere we look it’s difficult to find any correlation between CO2 and warming. Pre-industrial history […]


    • Ooops! Posited pine beetle to increased wildfire risk debunked by CU study

      of bark beetle can actually increase the risk of forest fires in areas affected by the beetle — the study ... by pine beetles not more likely to burn ... Western U.S. forests killed by the mountain pine beetle epidemic
      (lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, limber pine, whitebark, and bristlecone), mountain pine beetle has affected
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That would be the William Connolley who was banned from Wikipedia for data suppression. Meanwhile:

    [​IMG]
    Figure: Last 50-years+ of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.

Share This Page