Wildfires not caused by 'climate change' but by (a) poor forestry management, (b) long spells of dry weather , coupled with human negligence or malicious activity. There were forest fires fairly recently in California during November, a colder month.
I think that there is a difference, Simon, between those who take their views in a wholesale fashion, and those who are more retail minded. The former have always been in the majority, I think. As Charles MacKay wrote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
In my experience, the fiercest proponents of the AGW agenda know next to nothing about it.
Try these questions:
1. How much has the Earth warmed over the last 100 years or so? The answer is about 1 degree C.
2. How much of that change was us, and how much of it would have occurred had we been absent? Actually, nobody knows this but there is likely an anthropgenic and a natural component.
3. What percentage of greenhouse gasses are natural and what percentage anthropogenic? Ans, 97% is natural and 3% done by human activity.
Several of the California wildfires were caused by fallen power lines in high winds. Now the regional power company turns off power in those areas in those conditions. Also lightening strikes in normally dry forests in the summer has started some of the burrns. I suspect several of the others were started by climate change supporters. Years ago there were selective burns under controlled conditions to remove brush and grasses. People didn't like the smoke so now we get burns where the smoke will blot out the sun.
As Simon states, climate change has been going on since the earth was formed. Some places benefit and others don't. The Sahara Desert was once wet and tropical, Canada was covered by an ice sheet, and the oceans were low enough for Asians to cross a land bridge into the Americas.
Something that doesn't get covered is how much the air and water in western countries has been cleaned up. When I was young, most of the locomotives were steam and coal fired. And there were thousands more than the diesels and electric locomotives we have now. Cities had dozens of coal fired factories, large buildings were usually heated by coal fired furnaces, the rivers passing thru Pittsburgh routinely caught fire, rivers passing thru industrial areas had no fish, In Los Angeles visibility at times was a couple miles, and sometimes people working in high rise buildings there couldn't see the ground.
We have cleaned the water and air. Cars and trucks burn much cleaner. Developing countries like India and China are the problem. Greta and her followers need to put their effort there.
IF pollution is so bad, someone explain why, contrary to predictions, we have more Arctic sea ice and the polar bear population has exploded.
Interesting. Do you know of an arson connection relating to the extreme bush fires in Australia a couple of years ago?
An off topic remark: call me paranoid, but I'm getting the impression that Google is trying to divert attention from your Youtube channel very recently. Since a couple of days, when clicking on 'Simon Webb Youtube' I'm getring diverted to previously visited other channels, only after five or six attempts I've got access to your channel, and then only to your most recent posted video.
This is not happening when accessing other channels.
As with most political agendas the trick is to follow the money, who profits? There are plenty taking grants to study 'Global Warming' but the finance will soon run out unless Global Warming can be found, so no pressure there. Perhaps more research should go into 'How did the Elizabethans create The Little Ice Age?'
You only get grants if it is likely that your research will support the policies. No one will get funded for researching the Anthropogenic Little Ice Age.
Judging from the response to those questioning other aspects of the orthodoxy, I, too, Simon, expect the likelihood is pretty high. The only glimmer of hope regarding this particular topic is that contrary evidence is sound and based on long-term records. (Plus the failure, over many years, of past predictions.)
But, yes, the mere questioning is likely to prove problematic.
This is close to home for me. I attracted a personal attack (a social media pile on) in 2020 for posting the following question as a facebook conversation starter in a FB community entitled "Freethinkers": How likely is it that environmental activist arsonists were responsible for the NSW (OZ) bush fires of late 2019?:):) Perhaps it is worth accessing data on extreme weather events, although I suspect there is the issue of changing definitions over time and perhaps the faithfulness of the recording. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-natural-disaster-events?country=~Extreme+weather
Few other scientific disciplines attract as many negative comments as climatology, indeed the only serious rival to this dubious crown is evolution. Unfortunately nearly all the detractors have few if any recognisable scientific qualifications beyond basic school level. Even fewer are skilled in a relevant subject.
One common argument is 'climate changes anyway', referring to events tens of thousands of even millions of years ago. They are quick to point out more recent pre industrial periods when the weather in Europe was warmer or cooler than now.
Then we have '50 years ago scientists predicted a new ice age', therefore they cannot be trusted to be right now. Another is to claim 'most CO2 comes from vulcanism' , yet another is 'increased CO2 is good for plants' and we will have more to eat, or will remove the CO2 faster.
However, these points are either wrong, most CO2 does NOT come from volcanoes. Isotope analysis shows that. Or they assume the other effects such as insolation (energy from the sun), the earth's orbit etc have somehow been excluded from the climate models. This is incorrect, the models do include these effects plus many more the detractors have failed to mention. Some wildfires have been started deliberately, but others have not (especially in unpopulated areas). The higher the temperature the fiercer the fires and the more likely they are to start.
Even fairly recently we had disclaimers saying individual events were not directly linked to climate change and now they have. What has changed? The models have improved, we collect more data and have powerful computers to run them. For example the much mentioned summer of 1976 produced temperature peaks of 35 C, running models with data from that period could not produce maxima more than 40. Yet two years ago we broke through the 40 barrier, the underlying global temperatures were higher and the models correctly showed these temperatures were possible. We are now going to get more 40 plus temperatures in England from now onwards.
Climate change is happening and it is us, CO2 percentages are now 1/3 of the maximum over the last million years. What we do about it is another matter entirely.
I think medicine and climate are the two least bankable areas of science. In these domains it really seems scientists are operating on a wing and a prayer and that today's science is tomorrow's embarrassment.
Simon, Portugal is currently suffering from terrible wildfires almost all of which started at the same around 10 PM on September 12. Climate change is so curious it even starts multiple fires during the night! This was so ridiculous that the climate change narrative was not even attempted.
Wildfires not caused by 'climate change' but by (a) poor forestry management, (b) long spells of dry weather , coupled with human negligence or malicious activity. There were forest fires fairly recently in California during November, a colder month.
True. And...
(c) The forests of the world are actually increasing in size, not shrinking. So more forests means more forest fires.
Yes, not everybody realises that there are more forests now than there were in 1959!
I think that there is a difference, Simon, between those who take their views in a wholesale fashion, and those who are more retail minded. The former have always been in the majority, I think. As Charles MacKay wrote:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
That is a very apt quotation!
In my experience, the fiercest proponents of the AGW agenda know next to nothing about it.
Try these questions:
1. How much has the Earth warmed over the last 100 years or so? The answer is about 1 degree C.
2. How much of that change was us, and how much of it would have occurred had we been absent? Actually, nobody knows this but there is likely an anthropgenic and a natural component.
3. What percentage of greenhouse gasses are natural and what percentage anthropogenic? Ans, 97% is natural and 3% done by human activity.
You'll be amazed how little they know.
Several of the California wildfires were caused by fallen power lines in high winds. Now the regional power company turns off power in those areas in those conditions. Also lightening strikes in normally dry forests in the summer has started some of the burrns. I suspect several of the others were started by climate change supporters. Years ago there were selective burns under controlled conditions to remove brush and grasses. People didn't like the smoke so now we get burns where the smoke will blot out the sun.
As Simon states, climate change has been going on since the earth was formed. Some places benefit and others don't. The Sahara Desert was once wet and tropical, Canada was covered by an ice sheet, and the oceans were low enough for Asians to cross a land bridge into the Americas.
Something that doesn't get covered is how much the air and water in western countries has been cleaned up. When I was young, most of the locomotives were steam and coal fired. And there were thousands more than the diesels and electric locomotives we have now. Cities had dozens of coal fired factories, large buildings were usually heated by coal fired furnaces, the rivers passing thru Pittsburgh routinely caught fire, rivers passing thru industrial areas had no fish, In Los Angeles visibility at times was a couple miles, and sometimes people working in high rise buildings there couldn't see the ground.
We have cleaned the water and air. Cars and trucks burn much cleaner. Developing countries like India and China are the problem. Greta and her followers need to put their effort there.
IF pollution is so bad, someone explain why, contrary to predictions, we have more Arctic sea ice and the polar bear population has exploded.
Clearly climate change causes people to spontaniously become arsonists! It is the only possible explanation!
That sounds logical!
Spontaneous combustionists.
Interesting. Do you know of an arson connection relating to the extreme bush fires in Australia a couple of years ago?
An off topic remark: call me paranoid, but I'm getting the impression that Google is trying to divert attention from your Youtube channel very recently. Since a couple of days, when clicking on 'Simon Webb Youtube' I'm getring diverted to previously visited other channels, only after five or six attempts I've got access to your channel, and then only to your most recent posted video.
This is not happening when accessing other channels.
As with most political agendas the trick is to follow the money, who profits? There are plenty taking grants to study 'Global Warming' but the finance will soon run out unless Global Warming can be found, so no pressure there. Perhaps more research should go into 'How did the Elizabethans create The Little Ice Age?'
You only get grants if it is likely that your research will support the policies. No one will get funded for researching the Anthropogenic Little Ice Age.
Judging from the response to those questioning other aspects of the orthodoxy, I, too, Simon, expect the likelihood is pretty high. The only glimmer of hope regarding this particular topic is that contrary evidence is sound and based on long-term records. (Plus the failure, over many years, of past predictions.)
But, yes, the mere questioning is likely to prove problematic.
This is close to home for me. I attracted a personal attack (a social media pile on) in 2020 for posting the following question as a facebook conversation starter in a FB community entitled "Freethinkers": How likely is it that environmental activist arsonists were responsible for the NSW (OZ) bush fires of late 2019?:):) Perhaps it is worth accessing data on extreme weather events, although I suspect there is the issue of changing definitions over time and perhaps the faithfulness of the recording. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-natural-disaster-events?country=~Extreme+weather
It can cause a lot of unpleasantness just to ask such questions!
Few other scientific disciplines attract as many negative comments as climatology, indeed the only serious rival to this dubious crown is evolution. Unfortunately nearly all the detractors have few if any recognisable scientific qualifications beyond basic school level. Even fewer are skilled in a relevant subject.
One common argument is 'climate changes anyway', referring to events tens of thousands of even millions of years ago. They are quick to point out more recent pre industrial periods when the weather in Europe was warmer or cooler than now.
Then we have '50 years ago scientists predicted a new ice age', therefore they cannot be trusted to be right now. Another is to claim 'most CO2 comes from vulcanism' , yet another is 'increased CO2 is good for plants' and we will have more to eat, or will remove the CO2 faster.
However, these points are either wrong, most CO2 does NOT come from volcanoes. Isotope analysis shows that. Or they assume the other effects such as insolation (energy from the sun), the earth's orbit etc have somehow been excluded from the climate models. This is incorrect, the models do include these effects plus many more the detractors have failed to mention. Some wildfires have been started deliberately, but others have not (especially in unpopulated areas). The higher the temperature the fiercer the fires and the more likely they are to start.
Even fairly recently we had disclaimers saying individual events were not directly linked to climate change and now they have. What has changed? The models have improved, we collect more data and have powerful computers to run them. For example the much mentioned summer of 1976 produced temperature peaks of 35 C, running models with data from that period could not produce maxima more than 40. Yet two years ago we broke through the 40 barrier, the underlying global temperatures were higher and the models correctly showed these temperatures were possible. We are now going to get more 40 plus temperatures in England from now onwards.
Climate change is happening and it is us, CO2 percentages are now 1/3 of the maximum over the last million years. What we do about it is another matter entirely.
I think medicine and climate are the two least bankable areas of science. In these domains it really seems scientists are operating on a wing and a prayer and that today's science is tomorrow's embarrassment.
Simon, Portugal is currently suffering from terrible wildfires almost all of which started at the same around 10 PM on September 12. Climate change is so curious it even starts multiple fires during the night! This was so ridiculous that the climate change narrative was not even attempted.
Yes, that is very curious! Other countries have seen mysterious fires all springing up at around the same time.