Great Lakes water levels and climate change

There it is again, ALL IN or ALL OUT. I'm not taking that stance. My stance is typical human overreaction happens everyday. California has wildfires and a big reason is failure to manage their forests. OH NO, all climate change they say. Hurricane hits landfall, climate change!! Polar Vortex, climate change!! And, Great Lakes water levels, climate change.

These overreactions lessen credibility and further the cause of those who completely deny climate change. 

"Talking about history from a trillion years ago and how the earth ebbs and flows with climate is a pretty stupid approach."

So, a trillion years was before man's belief of the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago? This is WHY you folks who talk like this (over exaggerations) lose credibilty and is EXACTLY my point. The OLDEST reference in my posts are 3800 years of studied climate on a planet billions of years old. Raiders link has an 800,000 yr study on CO2 and CH4 based on ice cores. Now you throw "trillions of years" out there! I disagree, 3800 yrs of study MUST be included. Not leaned on for an excuse, rather to see a complete picture. The 800,000 yr study a bit narrow for my liking, so many other influences in a large time frame, yet the flucuations and timing IS worth noting. Another piece of a very big puzzle!

I've had evironmental studies in college 20 years ago. (night schooling) Does make me an expert? Hell no. My evironment class predicted 2020 as a major turning point in the United States, including the climate, racial makeup, and overall population. I see now it was dead on. My term paper was on the news media reporting of evironmental spills and how they haphazardly/sometimes purposely misreport the truth. Got an "A". I worked in an evironmental field for 40 years, the term paper was easy for me as I had first hand knowledge.....and proof. Nothings changed since then, gotten worse.

So I'm always the sceptic, don't just say so, prove it. And I look at BOTH sides of the coin before making my own conculsions. 

@UNIMAN

 Forest management has next to nothing to do with California wildfires.

You wasted your money. Judging by your posts, you could have watched a QAnon youtube video and saved the money. 

Also, no one, and I mean no one disputes the change in climate. The question is how much is attributed to man. 

Its 'environmental' by the way. Had you done it once, that would be a typo. Three times is not knowing. 

For thousands of years, natural processes cause climate change.  For example, change in Earth orbit.  CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice age but it did amplify warming.  But after ice age, 90% of global warming follow after CO2 increase.  After decades of research, scientists conclude greenhouse effect is the most plausible cause of global warming.  Today, satellites provide evidence of greenhouse effect.  Less heat is leaving than arriving on Earth.

In post industrial age, burning of fossil fuels became the main driver of greenhouse gases and global warming.  Humans produce 90 times more CO2 than volcanoes.  So volcanoes have little impact on global warming in the last century according to Foster, Rahmstof, Lean and Rind. 

National academy of science provides a better explanation of why warming increases risk of extreme weather.  Warming air boosts evaporation which worsens drought.  Warning increases water vapor in atmosphere which lead to more heavy rain and snowstorms.  A warmer and moist atmosphere over oceans makes stronger hurricanes more likely.

There are many, many issues here.  There is a whole other thread where I have provided a lot of the links on this.  The CO2 point is more the releasing of CO2 from the oceans.  But sure, man-made has some effect -- my contention is it is FOR SURE not the main driver.  But sun and glacial cycles, oceans and volcanoes all play parts.  You cannot dismiss these factors for a political agenda.  This is very, very complex.  Folks do not seem to realize how large the earth and the atmosphere is.  It is not like we are clouding up a room.

At any rate -- whatever type link you specifically need, I can provide to you.  I have done a lot a research and have reviewed an awful lot of papers on this.

Two points can be correct at the same time.  For example, we can strive for cleaner energy AND global warming is NOT man-made CO2-driven.

A panel of experts said Wednesday that California’s devastating wildfires were caused primarily by “the way we manage lands and develop our landscape” rather than climate change.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Council for Science and the Environment in Washington D.C., Scott Stephens, a professor of fire science at the University of California, Berkeley, said that perhaps 20 to 25 percent of the wildfire damage resulted from climate change, whereas “75 percent is the way we manage lands and develop our landscape.”

Stephens noted that in past centuries, wildfires were far more widespread than they are today, and played a vital role in California’s ecosystem by helping to thin forests, Thomas Frank reported for E&E News.

In the 18th century, for instance, when California was occupied by indigenous communities, wildfires would burn up some 4.5 million acres a year, said Stephens, whereas from 2013 through 2019, wildfires burned an average of just 935,000 acres annually in California.

Even in 2018, the worst year for California fires, blazes consumed just 2 million acres.

“When you think about what fire used to do in the state, it was so integral to systems. Fire was almost as important as rain to ecosystems,” Stephens said.

Jennifer Montgomery, director of the California Forest Management Task Force, said that climate change did not cause wildfires but “accelerated” them by creating hotter and drier conditions that aggravated naturally occurring blazes.

“Climate change is an amplifier for natural systems and natural occurrences,” Montgomery said.

The comments by Montgomery and Stephens flew in the face of recent assertions by the head of California’s largest power utility who has blamed the wildfires on climate change.

The CEO of PG&E Corp., CEO Bill Johnson, testified at a Senate hearing last month that the wildfires were “a climate-driven experience” caused by extensive drought.

California’s “prolonged, record drought; unprecedented tree mortality; heat waves” and offshore Diablo winds created “a significant and an unforeseen increase in wildfires,” Johnson told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

A December report by California regulators, however, said that PG&E and subsidiary Pacific Gas and Electric Co. had “failed to maintain an effective inspection and maintenance program to identify and correct hazardous conditions on its transmission lines.”

The utility has acknowledged blame for the massive 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85 people and burned more than 150,000 acres in Northern California.

Way more than next to nothing according to the experts.

I mean all that needs to be done is look at the Palmer history in California and read up on the studies.  It really is not hard.  People sometimes just outright accept the media and agenda-driven propaganda without research.

@UNIMAN

 To set the record straight -- I am not an 800,000 year guy.  I was presenting the study.

Also still waiting on links on this.  Nothing yet...

Thanks for sharing, great stuff. 

Have no problem with that. It was a good piece of information!

Thanks for sharing!

@Raiders22

 Look at your own quote, smart guy. "...manage lands and develop our landscape." Manage lands... and develop our landscape. He's not simply talking forest management. He's talking about the impacts of population growth and development. People moving to drier, inland area, and running powerlines. Camping. Holding gender reveal parties involving pyrotechnics. I think many people conflate wildfire with forest fire. And they say see, gotta manage the forest. This gets pushed by the timber industry in the hopes of opening up timber rights. Fact is most wilfires aren't originating in forests, in the conventional sense. They originating is the grassy, scrublands that cover so much of that state. And if anybody has the answer as to how to manage that shit, give them the Nobel Prize. You cut that shit, it rains for two days and it explodes in regrowth, it doesn't rain for 5 months and it just gets dries the hell up again. The state is a tinder box. Increased logging won't change this. Put it this way. Oregon struggles with wildfires too. You never hear about Oregon Forest management though. It's because Oregon is already a timber friendly state. That's all I was saying. I wasn't commenting on how much climate change does, or doesn't contribute to fires.

Yeah -- that is part of it as well.  But if you read the whole report you will see more in detail they are talking more about forest management and not just folks living in the area.  Huge majority are lightening strikes.

Sure grassy fires contribute.  But their point of history still stands --- way less burning than in the past, etc.  Also, as I mentioned, Look at the Palmer lately -- especially California.  You can argue that folks shouldn't live there -- but still their points stand on the forest fires.

There are also reports on the lack of letting the smaller ones burn out the undergrowth from time to time as needed.  A lot more to it than just one catch-all of blaming 'man-made climate change'.

My point is simply they make this top flight news when it is happening like it is climate-driven, mainly -- when it is not.  It is almost purely politically driven.

People are confused by climate science because media allows balanced coverage of views by opposite sides.  Truth versus fiction.  Climate scientists versus lobbyists from fossil fuel industry.  But credibility of source is important in internet age of information.  Key in identifying fake news is to investigate source and find better sources of information. 

90% of books contradicting scientific consensus are never peer reviewed by scientists.  Journal of climatology study found errors in all of the 3% of research papers that deny man-made climate change in the last decade.  Errors such as manipulating data and ignoring context.  Their findings couldn't be replicated by other scientists.

Why does Raider22 claim the scientific consensus is wrong?  That global warming isn't linked to CO2.  United Nations intragovernmental panel on climate change says their 1300 scientists are 95% certain that excess carbon in atmosphere is a man-made problem.  Worldwide, scientists already found natural  processes  cannot explain current global warming.  Carbon dioxide is the worst greenhouse gas amplifying warming because it is more plentiful and last far longer in the atmosphere.  Scientists say CO2 needs to be reduced to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Again with the generic stuff.  Link the studies or give up. 

Or better yet -- try to break down the ones I posted.  I know it is not your wheelhouse.  But try to give it a whirl.

Just to clear up part of my stance I am going to copy a whole article about some of the pertinent points:

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications

/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority

Smoke from forest fires filled the air in Western Washington and immediately the finger of blame was pointed at climate change. Prior to the recent fires, the 2020 fire season had been extremely quiet. No matter how the season ends, however, blaming climate change is politics, not science.

Not all the lands burned in the last week are forests, but forestland is a major source of the smoke we are seeing. The science is quite clear that timber harvests – including commercial timber harvests – are necessary to reduce the number of fire-prone, unhealthy forests.

The state Department of Natural Resources notesthat, “We have a forest health crisis in our state. And because of our forest health crisis, we are seeing more catastrophic wildfires." In their forest health plan, they note, “commercial timber harvesting will be an essential component of restoration efforts.” There is a lot of work to be done in our forests to get them to the point where they are fire resistant.

In recent years, Governor Inslee also recognized this. In his first term, he set a goal to “Increase the average annual statewide treatment of forested lands for forest health and fire reduction from 145,000 to 200,000 acres by 2017.” How did the state do? We don’t know, because the goal was removed from Results Washington when it was clear the state would probably not hit the target.

In September 2016, the Department of Natural Resources confirmed they were not on targetto administer the desired forest health treatments in Eastern Washington.

Today, Results Washington lists no forest health goals, but simply says, “Washington is working to restore forests and enhance forest resiliency to severe wildfires, drought, and insect and disease outbreaks.”

No single management strategy will address all these fires. For timber-related fires, however, it is clear that poor forest health is playing a bigger role than climate change. Unfortunately, it is clear that dealing with unhealthy forests is not a priority.

Instead, the governor and other politicians point to climate change as the primary cause of the fires, focusing their efforts on climate policy. This is not only poor policy, blaming climate change for the fires we are experiencing is dubious.

A look at temperature and precipitation data show a poor correlation to the intensity of fire seasons. Using Yakima as a surrogate for temperatures in E. Washington, the average temperature this summer is just over 72 degrees. Each of the last two years saw average temperatures of just over 71 degrees. In 2017, however, the average temperature was over 75 degrees. (If you want to use another location, like Omak or Colville, you can use these links and check the history.)

The largest number of acres burned in the past five years was in 2018, when temperatures in E. Washington were cooler than this year. By way of contrast, 2017 was an extremely quiet fire year, but average temperature was 3 degrees warmer than the busy 2018 fire season.

Additionally, 2014 was an extremely bad fire year, but average Summer temperatures were lower than the very quiet year of 2017. Precipitation was also very similar.

Simply pointing to temperatures and even precipitation obviously doesn’t tell the whole story, nor is it a useful surrogate for fire activity.

While blaming climate change is a useful political ploy, it distracts from a policy approach that can actually reduce catastrophic fire. Even if the United States meets the most aggressive climate targets, the total impact on global temperatures would be a fraction of a degree by 2100. Given that temperatures can vary from summer to summer by several degrees, the most aggressive climate policy will do nothing to stop the fires.

Thinning, however, can yield benefits in the near future. Focusing on climate change but ignoring harvests in unhealthy forests is backwards and distracts from solutions that are necessary to prevent more smoky summers.

Facebook added a "fact check" to this blog saying it was "partly false." The algorythm that made this claim, however, doesn't say what is false, but simply adds an article claiming that half of wildland fires would not have occurred without climate change. The claim comes from a study using a computer model. Models can be useful, but they are not "facts."

By way of comparison, here is the description of the fuels on a 220,000 acre fire in California this year: " "The fuels in the area consist of large expanses of beetle kill timber, 80-90 percent of the stand." That is serious forest mismanagement. That is forest health. Those are the literal facts on the ground.

It is notable that FB doesn't appear to fact check claims that climate change is the cause of these fires because that leaves out forest health. If we care about good policy - rather than just fighting the political issue of the day - we need to be honest about the facts and the policies that will make a difference to reduce the threat of wildland fire.

That was a simple article that hits most of the highlights without being too detailed and technical about it.  

I understand that some folks will refuse to change their minds no matter the evidence presented.  However, a reasonable person, with a little research and data and views from experts on the other side — just might question whether what they have been led to believe is a given. 

Resurrecting this old thread after I spotted this above.

Soooo, if media DIDN'T ALLOW "free speech" the country would be better for it?

Maybe listening to Lester Holtz too much???? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St0E-gQ7ZCU

Everything my father and his six brothers fought for in WW2 was to keep this country free, to allow freedom and free speech. 

Here you are basically condemning it. Blaming it for others who don't see things as you do.

Shheeeesh!!!