Do you like facts? ๐ค I hope you do, because you're about to be sacked with some. ๐
Here we go. . .
First, climate change does ๐๐๐ cause forest fires. That isn't how this works.
Fires require an ignition source and fuel. โ๏ธ
Ignition sources may be natural (e.g., lightning) or it can be man-made (e.g., by accident from improperly disposed cigarette butts, improperly discarded pellet / wood stove ash, an out-of-control campfire or fallen power lines, or perhaps even intentionally by arson). But, climate change is not one of them.
The ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ of the Pacific Palisades fire hasn't been determined.
But, what is known is that it is being fueled by dried out vegetation and is being stoked by Santa Ana Winds (SAWs) with hurricane-force wind gusts. These winds are a byproduct of a tight horizontal pressure gradient between a tropospheric ridge situated over the Great Basin and a cut-off low spinning over Baja California. Southwesterly downslope flow accelerated by a tight gradient can easily dry out vegetation, especially small-diameter fuels like twigs and leaves, priming a forest for a fire should one be ignited.
While the warming atmosphere โ and, for sake of argument, we will assume that it is entirely due to mankind's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions โ might make ๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ weather conditions more conducive for forest fires in Southern California, there is yet to be an established โconsensusโ on exactly how fires will change in the region with increased global warming. The reason for this is because air temperature during the event and precipitation deficits over the preceding weeks and/or months aren't the only โ or necessarily even the most important โ factors in fire burn area (e.g., Keeley et al., 2021).
Keeley et al. (2021) found that all SAW-driven fires in Southern California that occurred between 1948 and 2018 had a human ignition source. While the majority between 1948 and 1983 were linked to campfires, arson and powerline failures have been the dominant cause since 1984. These results are similar to those in Balch et al. (2017), which found that 97% of fires in Southern (Mediterranean) California were caused by a human ignition source between 1992 and 2012.
๐ The maximum temperature during SAW-driven fires ranged from 42.6-95.4ยฐF (5.9-35.2ยฐC). For January, these values ranged from 44.1-81.1ยฐF (6.7-27.3ยฐC). With a statistical t-test, they found that fires that burned over 1,000 hectares (2,471.05 acres) were not linked to higher-than-average air temperatures, and this also held true for very large fires burning >5,000 hectares (12,355.27 acres). Only 5-20% of the variation in area burned during winter is explained by air temperature.
๐ Precipitation surplus / deficits in the week before a SAW event also did not play a significant role in the incidence and severity of wind-driven fires in the area between 1948 and 2018. This is largely because small-diameter fuels like twigs and leaves will dry out quickly when the weather conditions change.
The study concludes that 75% of SAW events do ๐๐๐ result in forest fires.
Rather, more human ignitions increase the likelihood that a fire escapes containment and becomes a large destructive fire, regardless of air temperature or soil / fuel moisture conditions both preceding and during a fire event. So, while rising air temperature and lower precipitation can increase fire risk in the future, it is a very small part of the bigger picture.
What's more, it is unclear at this point in time exactly how SAW events will change in response to a warming climate.
One study, Rolinski et al. (2019), has found a recent observational increase in SAW days over the past two decades and links this to increased jet stream ridging patterns in California.
However, Guzman-Morales & Gershunov (2019) finds that a weakening of the southwest pressure gradient that drives these SAWs ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ in their global climate models (GCMs) in response to GHG forcing on the climate system, although the trends are diminished in the late autumn and winter months.
There is evidence of some influence of GHG forcing on creating a more favorable fire weather environment in Southern California in recent decades.
However, burn area associated with SAW events isn't very dependent on the air temperature during the fire, and antecedent precipitation and fuel moisture aren't very critical either. This is because downslope airflow is sufficient enough to dry out most vegetation in just a matter of hours, creating a tinderbox should a forest be set ablaze. And, how SAW evolve with a changing climate is unclear.
But, placing powerlines underground can significantly reduce fire risk in the future, and having better forest management (e.g., controlled burning and mechanical thinning of underbrush) will as well.
Climate change is real, but grifters like Senator Bernie Sanders need to stop pinning every natural disaster that happens on it, and using these crises as a crutch to advance their political agendas. Junk science is bad for policymaking and leads to ineffective solutions to the challenges facing society.
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the most pervasive myths in science is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of โclimate scientistsโ agree that all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it.
Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums to weasel a way out of an honest discussion.
The โconsensus of scientistsโ is not organic. Rather, it was manufactured through questionable data processing methods in two studies published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021).
Led by cognitive psychologist John Cookโa Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Scienceโhe and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011.
Of the 11,944 abstracts, a total of 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era.
Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts that endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW in at least some capacity, while 78 (1.9%) questioned or rejected AGW. The remaining 40 (1%) of papers expressed uncertainty.
But, it gets even more nuanced than that if we look at the abstracts and pick them apart. On whether global warming is being caused entirely by human activities, by nature, or by a combination of both, of those 4,014 papers, they state, warming is caused:
๐ด Entirely by humans: 64 papers (1.59%)
๐ค >>50% by humans: 922 (22.96%)
๐ก Equally natural + man-made: 2,910 (72.50%)
๐ข >>50% by natural cycles: 54 (1.35%)
๐ต Man is causing no warming: 24 (0.60%)
๐คท Don't know: 40 (1.00%)
So, a โ97% consensusโ can be contrived by either (a) omitting the 7,930 (66.4% of) abstracts in the 11,944-paper sample that did not explicitly state a position on the drivers of global warming, or by (b) lumping all 3,896 abstracts that endorsed at least some anthropogenic component as entirely endorsing AGW.
Either way, that's sausage-making. ๐ญ
Because either way you compute this data honestly, there is far from a โ97% consensusโ that most or all global warming is man-made. There's only a 24.6% consensus on that, at best. There is a 97% consensus that at least ๐ ๐๐๐ of that warming is man-made, but that doesn't mean that all (or even most) has been.
In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren't actually climate-related. Thatโs fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles.
Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not.
So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn't take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, the authors could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually existed if all of the relevant papers were considered.
The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over Cook et al. (2013) is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance.
๐งต 1/4 (Keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
But, wait, there's more. . .
Climate activists often argue that the authors of Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) were justified in excluding the 66.4% and 68.8% of papers, respectively, that did not express a position on the causes of global warming, on the grounds that those studies were not focused on identifying or discussing causal links.
But, that's hand-waving. ๐
Not all studies that endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) specifically investigated the physical driver(s) of surface air temperature (SAT) change since the mid-19th century. In fact, in order to qualify as endorsing (or rejecting) AGW, a paper merely needed to take a stance on the issue, regardless of whether or not the study's focus was on the physical drivers of climate change.
You will find when reading through the literature that even papers challenging the conventional narrativeโsuch as on topics like climate model performance, trends in extreme weather, and/or the efficacy of โnet zeroโ energy policiesโinclude a disclaimer stating that mankind's carbon dioxide (COโ) emissions are the proximate cause of all global warming. This is done so that the paper satisfies the reviewers and journal editors enough to get accepted for publication. This is the science equivalent of a land acknowledgement to be in good standing with gatekeepers.
As a good recent example, in Vecchi et al. (2021), the authors challenged the idea that recent increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency are a true climate-related trend, arguing that increases are due to technological advancements in observation and that natural variability drives oscillatory patterns seen once counts are adjusted. They say,
But, the authors more than likely had to include the greenhouse gas (GHG) statement in order to not come across as โdenialistsโ and be met with rejection by the journal editors, who more often than not, have predetermined conclusions and worldviews that they don't want to be challenged.
๐งต 2/4 (keep reading) โฌ๏ธ
Another point I should add about Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) is that neither paper frame their findings as being a reflection of the โconsensus of scientists.โ So, when climate activists claim that 97-99% of experts agree, that's not accurately stating what these studies purport.
Rather, the papers actually attempted to quantify the โscientific consensusโ on AGW, which is a consensus of what the published literature says. That is different from a โconsensus of scientists,โ which is essentially nothing more than an expert opinion poll.
What's more, neither of these reviews addressed the million-dollar question, which is whether or not global warming has been [or will be] dangerous. Just because our GHG emissions ๐๐๐ฆ have caused some or even most of the warming since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, that tells us nothing remotely useful about the level of danger posed by it short- and long-term.
So, what do we actually know about what scientists think about (a) the cause(s) of global warming and (b) whether or not they think it is dangerous?
Dissenting voices to climate alarm are told that their criticisms are null because they are standing at odds with the consensus of scientists; it is declared that โAll climate experts and scientific institutions agree,โ therefore any arguments to the contrary, even if they have teeth, are labeled as โdenialism.โ
But, what exactly do the so-called experts agree on? That is never specified. ๐ค
Let's look deeper into this โconsensus.โ ๐
๐งต1/x
Citation of a โconsensus of scientistsโ in discourse regarding climate change is the run-of-the-mill alarmist's attempt to weasel his or her way out of a discussion where he or she cannot defend his or her position with evidence.
So, the alarmist falls back on expert opinion as a last resort attempt to shut down discussion and label his or her opponent as a โscience denier.โ The only time I see consensus invoked in a discussion is when the topic of conversation involves a lot of uncertainty and is up for debate.
After all, nobody ever says.
โข โThe consensus of scientists is that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth.โ
โข โEvery scientific organization agrees that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (round).โ
โข โAll experts agree that water freezes at 0ยฐC.โ
โข โVirtually all scientists agree that โ๐ = โ๐ + โ๐.โ
That's because these are established scientific facts. No serious person stands at odds with them.
Consensus is only cited in discussions where there is debate and uncertainty on an issue.
๐งต2/x
But wait, it gets better. โ๏ธ
The โconsensus of scientistsโ with respect to climate change is mostly manufactured; it isn't organic.
When someone asserts that โAll scientists agree,โ it's a reference to two particular studies published in the prestigious academic journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL): the โ97% consensusโ contrived in Cook et al. (2013) and the โ99% consensusโ found in Lynas et al. (2021). ๐
Well, since the claim of a โconsensus of scientistsโ is supported by two peer-reviewed papers, then it must be true, right?! ๐๐
This all sounds good at face value, but the devil is in the details. โ๏ธ
Led by cognitive psychologist John Cook, a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and the founder of the climate blog Skeptical Science, he and his team of eight co-authors examined the abstracts of a total of 11,944 climate-related papers published over the 21-year period 1991 to 2011.
Of the abstracts reviewed, a total of 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on the cause(s) of global warming since, say, 1950. That is the clear majority of the subset of papers.
Now, of the remaining 4,014 studies that endorsed either anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (referred to by its acronym AGW hereafter) theory or natural climate warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed the AGW position. Just 78 of them (1.9%) rejected AGW, and 40 (1%) expressed uncertainty.
So, the โ97% consensusโ was contrived by omitting 7,930 of the 11,944 (66.4% of) abstracts because they did not explicitly articulate a position on the cause(s) of global warming over the last several decades.
That's what you call sausage-making. ๐ญ
But, what about the โ>99% consensusโ? Surely, that one is legitimate, right? ๐ค
In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren't actually climate-related. Okay, fair enough. Discard those. And, that's what the authors did. And, so the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 articles.
Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them had ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on AGW. That's a clear majority. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were simply discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse one position or the other, a total of 845 (99.5%) of them agreed with AGW while just four of them did not.
So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn't take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming and went with those that endorsed a certain position. By doing this, they could artificially create a consensus on an issue where none actually exists.
The only advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over the former is that each paper was examined rather than just the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the flawed methodology of ignoring the overwhelming majority of papers which took the neutral pathway.
The most frequent counter argument given to these critiques is that the authors were correct for ignoring the 66.4% and 68.8% of studies reviewed in Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021), respectively, that neither endorsed nor rejected AGW because they did not focus on causal links and the physical driver(s) of global warming.
But, that's all hand-waving. ๐
Why, you ask? I'll tell you why. ๐
Not all of the studies that endorsed AGW focused on the physical drivers of global surface air temperature (SAT) change. To qualify as endorsing AGW, the study had to, at minimum, take a position somewhere in the body text, even as a disclaimer [which many studies that cast doubt on alarmist points of view on extreme weather events or climate model performance do in order to pass through peer-review and be published].
So, trying to argue that it was okay for the authors of these two studies to dismiss papers that didn't endorse one position or another because they didn't focus on physical drivers is not at all a valid criticism to my points because many that explicitly sided with AGW theory didn't focus on that either.
Another point I should add here is that none of these reviews address the million-dollar question on whether or not global warming is dangerous. That by all means remains an open question. The science is far from being โsettledโ on that matter.
One more thing I should add here is that discussion around these studies frames their findings as being a reflection of the โconsensus of scientists.โ But, they aren't. You see, Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) attempt to quantify the โscientific consensusโ on AGW. That is, a consensus of what the published literature says. A โconsensus of scientistsโ would be essentially an opinion poll of experts. So, a โconsensus of scientistsโ is different from a โscientific consensus.โ
So, what do scientists themselves actually think on physical causes of climate warming? Do we have that information? What actually is the โconsensus of scientistsโ on this matter?
CNNโs Jim @Acosta interviewed childrenโs TV science educator and mechanical engineer, @BillNye, yesterday to offer his expertise on hurricanes, and to take a jab at Florida Governor @RonDeSantis, who โ and I quote their headline โ โโฆdenies climate change fueled [Hurricane] Milton.โ
๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐ฒ๐: โ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐ฆ. . .โ, then goes on to explain why we should vote [for Kamala Harris] with the climate in mind.
Letโs take a look at these claims one-by-one to see if they have any merit.
๐งต 1/4
The studies that Acosta refers to are two new โflashโ modeling attribution studies conducted by scientists for the World Weather Attribution (WWA) โ an international academic collaboration which attempts to quantify how much climate change contributed to a particular extreme weather event.
Neither of these โstudiesโ have been subject to the โpeer-reviewโ process, but nonetheless are receiving widespread media circulation to feed hungry audiences with sensationalistic junk. The irony of this is that the alarmist arm-wavers require skeptics to have their thoughts circle-jerked through the โpeer-reviewโ process in order for it to be considered valid.
I guess this doesn't apply to scientists who adhere to the establishment narrative on climate change. So long as you say nothing deviant from their accepted standards, your feet aren't held to the fire.
Even more laughable is that the Milton โstudyโ was published not even two days after the hurricane made landfall. It's bunk. No ensemble of scientists can conduct research that fast and publish a half-baked preprint with definitive results on quantification.
๐งต 2/4
Extreme [weather] event attribution studies in and of themselves are junk.
Climate change does ๐๐๐ cause, fuel or influence any one weather event โ that's not how this works.
Walk with me. . . ๐ถโโ๏ธ
๐ช๐๐๐๐๐๐ is defined by the IPCC as,
Thus, climate ๐๐๐๐๐๐ is a change in the statistics of the state variables describing the climate system (e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.).
Therefore, climate and climate change are outcomes; they're ๐๐๐ causes. The average weather is ๐๐๐ a force that causes things to occur.
Do not put the cart before the horse.
If you're confused here, maybe some emojis will help:
๐ซ๐๐
โ ๐๐
Case in point, as a pristine example, a baseball player's batting average does ๐๐๐ result in individual hits, strikes or balls. Similarly, a change in batting average does ๐๐๐ cause hitting performance to either improve or deteriorate. A change in his batting average is an outcome.
Dr. @RogerPielkeJr wrote a very nice essay on this on his Substack; I highly recommend this read. The use of the IPCC definitions and baseball analogy were both pulled from his writeup. Credit to him.
I'm an atmospheric science major, and I also watched @ClimateTheMovie.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the movie, the scientists interviewed often made great points, and much of what this โscience journalistโ has argued is crap.
Time to debunk the debunker. 1/? ๐งต
Maarten argues that โThe โwarmโ Medieval and Roman periods... were actually REGIONAL. Current warming is EVERYWHERE.โ
Except... that's not what the United Nations' IPCC said in their First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990. Directly from Chapter 7.2.1 on Page 202,
โThere is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000-6,000 BP), at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era at this time... Parts of Australia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland. This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum... South Japan was also warm. This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was caused by an increase of greenhouse gases.โ
Figure 7.1 is captioned as showing โglobal temperature variations.โ Figure 7.1 (c) covers the last 1,000 years, and it is evident that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was anomalously warm relative to the modern era. In later reports, this diagram was replaced with Michael Mann's โHockey Stickโ graph.
This Dutch science journalist then goes on to argue that the Ljungqvist (2010) [1] Northern Hemispheric temperature reconstruction shown in the movie is โTWENTY YEARS OLD,โ and argues that it is wrong because of the widely accepted Mann et al. 1999 โHockey Stickโ reconstruction that is now used in the IPCC reports and serves as a basis for guiding global policymaking.
Except... for the fact that Moberg et al. (2005) [2] is very similar to Ljungqvist (2010) and the schematic diagram of global temperature used in the IPCC's 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR).
References:
[1] Ljungqvist (2010) - A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia.
[2] Moberg et al. (2005) - Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data: