Comments on: Researchers Study Link Between Climate, Wildfires
By Craig moore on 09-02-10
I did a search and found that there are several previous studies that examine the tenuous linkage of AGW climate change and wildfires. Now there is a very recent study that examines the linkage of disaster losses and climate change: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1
===quote===
The analysis of twenty-two disaster loss studies shows that economic losses from various weather related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, have increased around the globe. The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.
===end quote===
So what is this study going to do that hasn’t already been studied and opined upon?
By fcb on 09-02-10
Another waste of tax payers money…$3.85 million research project
By Craig moore on 09-02-10
Ah moose, you take all the fun out of it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/03/california-wildfires-caused-by-cooler-pacific-la-nina/
By inthemiddle on 09-02-10
Global Climate Change = Warmer WintersWarmer Winters = fewer beetle larvae killed by sub zero temps
More beetles = More dead trees
More dead trees = More and bigger fires in dry summers
By Kalispell Native on 09-02-10
One of the biggest GW critics has changed his mind.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course
quote==
In a book to be published this year, Lomborg calls global warming “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and calls for the world’s governments to invest tens of billions of dollars annually to fight climate change.
Lomborg’s former foes in the environmental movement are so far unimpressed by news of his conversion. Calling him a “shrewd self-promoter,” Grist.org’s Jonathan Hiskes marveled at Lomborg’s ability to “play the media” in simply “adopting a position already held by millions of sensible people.” And Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Mike Childs told the U.K. Guardian, “It appears that the self-styled skeptical environmentalist is beginning to become less skeptical as he enters middle age.”
close quote
By Vud on 09-03-10
Moose -
Ponder this:
If Springs are wetter than normal; the underbrush grows thicker than normal… (Oh…Forget about that lightening !)
...and Moose tends to stay out of forest for fear of being physically wet too !
Later forest gets drier than normal- Moose goes into forest, and stays there longer - He smokes Virginia Slim while reading warning label on cigarette pack - Moose laughs and laughs…then throws butt into underbrush.
Run Moose run.
See Craig. It can still be fun.
later,
By Craig moore on 09-03-10
Vud, a mad moose is more likely to throw something with a vertical cleft rather than the short end of a cigarette into the underbrush.
By Craig moore on 09-03-10
Regarding Lomborg, he has never been a skeptic. Rather he has attempted to prioritize its importance. That’s what his Copenhagen Consensus project was all about. The Guardian had this a couple of days ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/aug/30/lombard-missing-questions-climate-change
===quote===
Now that the ongoing published science on global warming has veered sharply toward worst-case scenarios across a range of climate impacts, in Smart Solutions to Climate Change, a new volume edited by Lomborg, he writes: “The risks of unchecked global warming are now widely acknowledged” and “we have long moved on from any mainstream disagreements about the science of climate change”. This is the lipstick, but the pig is still a pig. This is because Lomborg still argues in this book, as he did in the others, that cost-benefit economics analysis shows that it is prohibitively expensive for the world to sharply reduce CO2 emissions to the extent required by the scientific evidence: “Drastic carbon cuts would be the poorest way to respond to global warming.”
===end quote===
Getting back to the topic, again I ask, what is this study going to do that hasn’t already been studied and opined upon?
By Vud on 09-03-10
From the lead article:
” Whitlock said by looking at fire from an international framework, researchers hope to improve models for predicting fires and their effects. “
Lame response I know, but as this is my 3rd posting this morning I’m afraid if I don’t hurry, Hammer will come on and start yelling at me again.
By Craig moore on 09-03-10
Moose, if you pull that off I hope you get sand in your shorts!
By Kalispell Native on 09-03-10
Craig: I agree. I REALLY hope he gets sand in his shorts.
By Craig moore on 09-03-10
TorC, not dancing, crying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmQLccLYOYY
By Vud on 09-03-10
Craig -
...vertical cleft ?
...sand in his shorts ?
By Craig moore on 09-03-10
Hey Vud you started it with talk about butts in the underbrush.
Have a nice weekend.
By Craig moore on 09-04-10
Regarding the purpose of this study, “been there, done that:” http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/08/new_paper_on_australian_bushfi.shtml
===quote===
This study re-evaluates the history of building damage and loss of life due to bushfire (wildfire) in Australia since 1925 in light of the 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria in which 173 people lost their lives and 2,298 homes were destroyed along with many other structures. Historical records are normalised in order to estimate building damage and fatalities had events occurred under the societal conditions of 2008/09. There are relationships between normalised building damage and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Indian Ocean Dipole phenomena, but there is no discernable evidence that the normalised data is being influenced by climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases. The 2009 Black Saturday fires rank second in terms of normalised fatalities and fourth in terms of normalised building damage. The public safety concern is that of the 10 years with the highest normalised building damage the 2008/09 bushfire season ranks third, to the 1925/26 and 1938/39 seasons, in terms of the ratio of normalised fatalities to building damage. A feature of the building damage in the 2009 Black Saturday fires in some of the most affected towns - Marysville and Kinglake - is the large proportion of buildings destroyed either within bushland or at very small distances from it (<10 m). Land use planning policies in bushfire-prone parts of this country that allow such development increase the risk that bushfires pose to the public and the built environment.
===end quote===
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.