Do you like facts? π€ I hope you do, because you're about to be sacked with some. π
Here we go. . .
First, climate change does πππ cause forest fires. That isn't how this works.
Fires require an ignition source and fuel. βοΈ
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 ππππππ πππππ 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 β and, for sake of argument, we will assume that it is entirely due to mankind's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions β might make ππππ‘πππ weather conditions more conducive for forest fires in Southern California, there is yet to be an established βconsensusβ 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 β or necessarily even the most important β 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.
π The maximum temperature during SAW-driven fires ranged from 42.6-95.4Β°F (5.9-35.2Β°C). For January, these values ranged from 44.1-81.1Β°F (6.7-27.3Β°C). 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.
π 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 πππ 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 π ππππππππ 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.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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 βAll climate experts and scientific institutions agree,β therefore any arguments to the contrary, even if they have teeth, are labeled as βdenialism.β
But, what exactly do the so-called experts agree on? That is never specified. π€
Let's look deeper into this βconsensus.β π
π§΅1/x
Citation of a βconsensus of scientistsβ 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 βscience denier.β 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.
β’ βThe consensus of scientists is that the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth.β
β’ βEvery scientific organization agrees that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (round).β
β’ βAll experts agree that water freezes at 0Β°C.β
β’ βVirtually all scientists agree that βπ = βπ + βπ.β
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.
π§΅2/x
But wait, it gets better. βοΈ
The βconsensus of scientistsβ with respect to climate change is mostly manufactured; it isn't organic.
When someone asserts that βAll scientists agree,β it's a reference to two particular studies published in the prestigious academic journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL): the β97% consensusβ contrived in Cook et al. (2013) and the β99% consensusβ found in Lynas et al. (2021). π
Well, since the claim of a βconsensus of scientistsβ is supported by two peer-reviewed papers, then it must be true, right?! ππ
This all sounds good at face value, but the devil is in the details. βοΈ
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 ππ ππππππππ 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 β97% consensusβ 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. π
But, what about the β>99% consensusβ? Surely, that one is legitimate, right? π€
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 ππ ππππππππ 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. π
Why, you ask? I'll tell you why. π
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 βsettledβ 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 βconsensus of scientists.β But, they aren't. You see, Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021) attempt to quantify the βscientific consensusβ on AGW. That is, a consensus of what the published literature says. A βconsensus of scientistsβ would be essentially an opinion poll of experts. So, a βconsensus of scientistsβ is different from a βscientific consensus.β
So, what do scientists themselves actually think on physical causes of climate warming? Do we have that information? What actually is the βconsensus of scientistsβ on this matter?
CNNβs Jim @Acosta interviewed childrenβs TV science educator and mechanical engineer, @BillNye, yesterday to offer his expertise on hurricanes, and to take a jab at Florida Governor @RonDeSantis, who β and I quote their headline β ββ¦denies climate change fueled [Hurricane] Milton.β
ππ’π₯π₯ ππ²π: βππππ, πππ πππ’π‘πππ¦. . .β, then goes on to explain why we should vote [for Kamala Harris] with the climate in mind.
Letβs take a look at these claims one-by-one to see if they have any merit.
π§΅ 1/4
The studies that Acosta refers to are two new βflashβ modeling attribution studies conducted by scientists for the World Weather Attribution (WWA) β an international academic collaboration which attempts to quantify how much climate change contributed to a particular extreme weather event.
Neither of these βstudiesβ have been subject to the βpeer-reviewβ 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 βpeer-reviewβ 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 βstudyβ 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.
π§΅ 2/4
Extreme [weather] event attribution studies in and of themselves are junk.
Climate change does πππ cause, fuel or influence any one weather event β that's not how this works.
Walk with me. . . πΆββοΈ
πͺππππππ is defined by the IPCC as,
Thus, climate ππππππ 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 πππ causes. The average weather is πππ 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:
π«ππ
β ππ
Case in point, as a pristine example, a baseball player's batting average does πππ result in individual hits, strikes or balls. Similarly, a change in batting average does πππ 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 βscience journalistβ has argued is crap.
Time to debunk the debunker. 1/? π§΅
Maarten argues that βThe βwarmβ Medieval and Roman periods... were actually REGIONAL. Current warming is EVERYWHERE.β
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,
βThere 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.β
Figure 7.1 is captioned as showing βglobal temperature variations.β 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 βHockey Stickβ graph.
This Dutch science journalist then goes on to argue that the Ljungqvist (2010) [1] Northern Hemispheric temperature reconstruction shown in the movie is βTWENTY YEARS OLD,β and argues that it is wrong because of the widely accepted Mann et al. 1999 βHockey Stickβ 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: