Maui Wildfires

[GeddyLee09]

At the onset of the fires the media was quick to add in that climate change was a contributing factor as we see in this article.

Maui's fire became deadly fast. Climate change, flash drought, invasive grass and more fueled it

A dangerous mix of conditions appear to have combined to make the wildfires blazing a path of destruction in Hawaii particularly damaging, including flash drought, high winds, low humidity and dry vegetation.

apnews.com

Now as new evidence comes out the tune has changed somewhat.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/25/us/maui-wildfires-unaccounted-for-list/index.html

Bare electrical wire and leaning poles on Maui were possible cause of deadly fires

In the first moments of the Maui fires, when high winds brought down power poles, slapping electrified wires to the dry grass below, there was a reason the flames erupted all at once in long, neat rows -- those wires were bare, uninsulated metal that could spark on contact.

apnews.com

 

[NoleinATL]

Isn't that two different items being discussed?
The first article discusses flash droughts drying out the vegetation which would have been the fuel for the fire that was caused by the Electric companies failing infrastructure.
The first article does not state climate change caused the fire and there is nothing in the second article that disputes the role climate change may have played, actually strengthens it with mentions of the dry grass.
how do you feel the narrative changed based on the links supplied?

 

[GeddyLee09]

Isn't that two different items being discussed?
The first article discusses flash droughts drying out the vegetation which would have been the fuel for the fire that was caused by the Electric companies failing infrastructure.
The first article does not state climate change caused the fire and there is nothing in the second article that disputes the role climate change may have played, actually strengthens it with mentions of the dry grass.
how do you feel the narrative changed based on the links supplied?

Headline. A contributing factor is one thing or it could be a hundred things that may or may not be a cause of the event. The cause or spark in this case would be the ignition source. Its clear from the first headline what they were trying to convey. Very different from the second one.

 

[NoleinATL]

Headline. A contributing factor is one thing or it could be a hundred things that may or may not be a cause of the event. The cause or spark in this case would be the ignition source. Its clear from the first headline what they were trying to convey. Very different from the second one.

There is no mention of causation in the first headline ( see below)
"Maui’s fire became deadly fast. Climate change, flash drought, invasive grass and more fueled it"

The first headline speaks to fueling the fire, the second headline discusses causation which would make sense based on the article discussing a lawsuit being filed.

Two different topics entirely, the cause of the fire seems to be accepted as a result of the electrical wires, the resulting horrific spread of the fire was because of the amount of fuel and the high winds which the first article says are the result of climate change.
The two headlines are different because they discuss different topics, not because of a narrative change.

 

[F4Gary]

The rich elite are now salivating over all that prime ocean front land. Aspen in Maui.

 

[GeddyLee09]

There is no mention of causation in the first headline ( see below)
"Maui’s fire became deadly fast. Climate change, flash drought, invasive grass and more fueled it"

The first headline speaks to fueling the fire, the second headline discusses causation which would make sense based on the article discussing a lawsuit being filed.

Two different topics entirely, the cause of the fire seems to be accepted as a result of the electrical wires, the resulting horrific spread of the fire was because of the amount of fuel and the high winds which the first article says are the result of climate change.
The two headlines are different because they discuss different topics, not because of a narrative change.

So you don't think the intended message in the first headline was that climate change was the cause or the main contributing factor? I do. I think the headline was written that way to project that very idea. Now that the cause has been found along with other circumstances its not mentioned as predominately. The media does this to convey an idea so people that tend to not read the article are stuck with that idea. That's just how I read it though. Maybe they are just trying to report the truth.

 

[GeddyLee09]

The rich elite are now salivating over all that prime ocean front land. Aspen in Maui.

Yep. Its being reported that the fire issues were discussed as early as 2018 with little support for mitigation. Also being said that roads were closed for evacuations and water was withheld to fight the fires. Oh and the sirens not used. Looks like a large helping of "mismanagement".

 

[NoleinATL]

So you don't think the intended message in the first headline was that climate change was the cause or the main contributing factor? I do. I think the headline was written that way to project that very idea. Now that the cause has been found along with other circumstances its not mentioned as predominately. The media does this to convey an idea so people that tend to not read the article are stuck with that idea. That's just how I read it though. Maybe they are just trying to report the truth.

No, I do not read it that way as there is not one mention of causation, the article discusses the way climate change fueled the fire not started the fire.

 

[GeddyLee09]

No, I do not read it that way as there is not one mention of causation, the article discusses the way climate change fueled the fire not started the fire.

Not to start a argument but I don't really see where climate change fits into this. I guess you could say warming helped but there's not enough historical data to know for sure. Invasive grasses from all the deserted pineapple plantations provided much of the fuel in addition to a weather pattern providing strong trade winds drying out the grass. At that point all it needed was a spark which it got from a spark of all things.

 

[NoleinATL]

Not to start a argument but I don't really see where climate change fits into this.

That is your prerogative and I understand. The words "climate change" have become such a hot-button issue for the opposite ends of the political spectrum. One side desperately wants everyone to believe it is real and scary and the other side wants everyone to deny its existence, so there is little middle ground to have productive discussions on the topic.

Based on the articles linked and others I have read the "fuel" for the fire was created by a combination of things that are related to weather/climate or it was man-made. If it was an everyday weather occurrence, climate change, or a space laser as some have asserted, I do not know. Even if I did know, it is unlikely I could convince you it was an everyday weather occurrence, climate change, or a space laser if you had already settled on a reason for the creation of the fuel.

My original comment was based on your assertion that there was a narrative change which I disagreed with as you linked two articles covering two separate topics, causation and the creation of the fuel for the fire.
If you believe climate change should not be discussed as an underlying reason for the increased amount of fuel, that is a different discussion, which as mentioned I do not know if it is or not.

 

[seminole72]

On a related subject, former AA punter Ron Stark had a very personal experience w/ the fire. His daughter's home was right on the edge of the firs and they couldn't get to it for a while. Ron and his wife also live on the island.

One great Nole athlete

 

[trunole1]

That is your prerogative and I understand. The words "climate change" have become such a hot-button issue for the opposite ends of the political spectrum. One side desperately wants everyone to believe it is real and scary and the other side wants everyone to deny its existence, so there is little middle ground to have productive discussions on the topic.

Based on the articles linked and others I have read the "fuel" for the fire was created by a combination of things that are related to weather/climate or it was man-made. If it was an everyday weather occurrence, climate change, or a space laser as some have asserted, I do not know. Even if I did know, it is unlikely I could convince you it was an everyday weather occurrence, climate change, or a space laser if you had already settled on a reason for the creation of the fuel.

My original comment was based on your assertion that there was a narrative change which I disagreed with as you linked two articles covering two separate topics, causation and the creation of the fuel for the fire.
If you believe climate change should not be discussed as an underlying reason for the increased amount of fuel, that is a different discussion, which as mentioned I do not know if it is or not.

The real issue is tying weather events to climate change. The climate is always changing and right now that extra CO2 is making the world greener! How is this a bad thing?

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

 

[NoleinATL]

The real issue is tying weather events to climate change. The climate is always changing and right now that extra CO2 is making the world greener! How is this a bad thing?

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon

www.nasa.gov

I do not believe any of the links in this thread or posters tied a weather event to climate change, so not sure about the point you are attempting to make, who you are referencing or if it is just a general statement and you quoted my comment.

That said, is a 7-year-old article the best indicator of a net positive if as you stated climate is always changing?
If the Climate has in fact changed since the 2016 study your link references and now research concludes that additional CO2 is a net negative, I would say that is how it is a bad thing.

The changing nature of climate is what makes this an interesting topic, but a difficult one to discuss based on how dogmatic some people have become concerning "climate change".

Below is a 2021 study that questions the 2016 study your link references

This finding questions the study by Zhu et al. (2016) that identified CO2 fertilization as the globally prevailing driver of Earth's greening trend. We find that many clusters of greening and browning bear the signature of climatic changes. The greening of sub-Saharan grasslands and savannas is consistent with an increase in rainfall. Climatic changes, primarily warming and drying, determine the patterns of vegetation changes in the northern ecosystems, i.e., greening of Eurasian boreal forests and North American tundra, but also the emerging browning trend in the Eurasian tundra.
Slowdown of the greening trend in natural vegetation with further rise in atmospheric CO2

 

[GeddyLee09]

I do not believe any of the links in this thread or posters tied a weather event to climate change, so not sure about the point you are attempting to make, who you are referencing or if it is just a general statement and you quoted my comment.

That said, is a 7-year-old article the best indicator of a net positive if as you stated climate is always changing?
If the Climate has in fact changed since the 2016 study your link references and now research concludes that additional CO2 is a net negative, I would say that is how it is a bad thing.

The changing nature of climate is what makes this an interesting topic, but a difficult one to discuss based on how dogmatic some people have become concerning "climate change".

Below is a 2021 study that questions the 2016 study your link references

This finding questions the study by Zhu et al. (2016) that identified CO2 fertilization as the globally prevailing driver of Earth's greening trend. We find that many clusters of greening and browning bear the signature of climatic changes. The greening of sub-Saharan grasslands and savannas is consistent with an increase in rainfall. Climatic changes, primarily warming and drying, determine the patterns of vegetation changes in the northern ecosystems, i.e., greening of Eurasian boreal forests and North American tundra, but also the emerging browning trend in the Eurasian tundra.
Slowdown of the greening trend in natural vegetation with further rise in atmospheric CO2

I think the point trying to be made is that in many news stories covering a weather event (storm, flood, fire) climate change, global warming ect... is named as a factor in these events. Climate does and should change in both the short and long term. What we don't know is how all this correlates together and how it fits in with long term weather and climate patterns. There just isn't enough long term data to know for sure.

 

[trunole1]

I think the point trying to be made is that in many news stories covering a weather event (storm, flood, fire) climate change, global warming ect... is named as a factor in these events. Climate does and should change in both the short and long term. What we don't know is how all this correlates together and how it fits in with long term weather and climate patterns. There just isn't enough long term data to know for sure.

Amen! What dire predictions have been correct? Blaming manmade CO2 is a hoax of epic proportions. Without CO2 life on earth doesn't exist! Basic biology 101.

 

[NoleinATL]

I think the point trying to be made is that in many news stories covering a weather event (storm, flood, fire) climate change, global warming ect... is named as a factor in these events. Climate does and should change in both the short and long term. What we don't know is how all this correlates together and how it fits in with long term weather and climate patterns. There just isn't enough long term data to know for sure.

Why do you feel Climate Normals are an undersized data set data to make correlations?

 

[trunole1]

I do not believe any of the links in this thread or posters tied a weather event to climate change, so not sure about the point you are attempting to make, who you are referencing or if it is just a general statement and you quoted my comment.

That said, is a 7-year-old article the best indicator of a net positive if as you stated climate is always changing?
If the Climate has in fact changed since the 2016 study your link references and now research concludes that additional CO2 is a net negative, I would say that is how it is a bad thing.

The changing nature of climate is what makes this an interesting topic, but a difficult one to discuss based on how dogmatic some people have become concerning "climate change".

Below is a 2021 study that questions the 2016 study your link references

This finding questions the study by Zhu et al. (2016) that identified CO2 fertilization as the globally prevailing driver of Earth's greening trend. We find that many clusters of greening and browning bear the signature of climatic changes. The greening of sub-Saharan grasslands and savannas is consistent with an increase in rainfall. Climatic changes, primarily warming and drying, determine the patterns of vegetation changes in the northern ecosystems, i.e., greening of Eurasian boreal forests and North American tundra, but also the emerging browning trend in the Eurasian tundra.
Slowdown of the greening trend in natural vegetation with further rise in atmospheric CO2

Wonder how much grant money was paid for that research? lol

 

[NoleinATL]

Amen! What dire predictions have been correct? Blaming manmade CO2 is a hoax of epic proportions. Without CO2 life on earth doesn't exist! Basic biology 101.

That is the unfortunate side of a climate discussion currently. Historically one side has made outrageous predictions and then the other side proudly beats its chest proclaiming everything is false because that outrageous prediction did not materialize, never never-ending cycle.

In reference to your comment on CO2, are you stating there is no manmade CO2 or is there a specific event you are referencing?

 

[GeddyLee09]

Why do you feel Climate Normals are an undersized data set data to make correlations?

Our current climate norms are based on recent data from the last 100-150 years (weather data). Even if we compare that to the current interglacial period 100k years its still a small data set. Compared to the age of the planet its extremely small.

 

[trunole1]

That is the unfortunate side of a climate discussion currently. Historically one side has made outrageous predictions and then the other side proudly beats its chest proclaiming everything is false because that outrageous prediction did not materialize, never never-ending cycle.

In reference to your comment on CO2, are you stating there is no manmade CO2 or is there a specific event you are referencing?

Manmade CO2 certainly exists just like water vapor " the primary green house gas"
is also increasing due to mankind. So again what real dire predictions have been correct? Not beating chest but I don't believe that anyone (not you) that uses the phrase "Settled Science" for any issue from climate change, fear of CO2, flu shots claiming to be vaccines ETC ETC. is only looking for a way to empty my wallet and demand obedience.

 

[trunole1]

More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate 'emergency' a myth

The global coalition of scientists say that politics and a journalistic frenzy has propelled a doomsday climate change hysteria. The signatories also ask other scientists to "address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming."

justthenews.com

 

[NoleinATL]

So again what real dire predictions have been correct? Not beating chest but I don't believe that anyone (not you) that uses the phrase "Settled Science" for any issue from climate change, fear of CO2, flu shots claiming to be vaccines ETC ETC. is only looking for a way to empty my wallet and demand obedience.

You stated there was a hoax, then posted that there is manmade CO2, so what specific CO2 claim "Blaming manmade CO2 is a hoax of epic proportions." , just curious as there are a few to choose from.

I never claimed there were real dire predictions that were or were not correct, my point was that the extremists on one side make outrageous claims that do not materialize, and then the other end of the spectrum trumpets that as a signal not to take anything to do with climate change seriously, it is a neverending cycle that is not beneficial.

 

[NoleinATL]

Our current climate norms are based on recent data from the last 100-150 years (weather data). Even if we compare that to the current interglacial period 100k years its still a small data set. Compared to the age of the planet its extremely small.

Climate Normals are a 30-year period, that were first produced in 1950s, with the most recent being published in 2020. What data set are you referencing when stating the last 100-150 ( weather data)?

In relation to the age of the earth sure, but even a small data set can be used to make a correlation if numbers are quantifiable.

 

[F4Gary]

What was this thread about?

 

[trunole1]

You stated there was a hoax, then posted that there is manmade CO2, so what specific CO2 claim "Blaming manmade CO2 is a hoax of epic proportions." , just curious as there are a few to choose from.

I never claimed there were real dire predictions that were or were not correct, my point was that the extremists on one side make outrageous claims that do not materialize, and then the other end of the spectrum trumpets that as a signal not to take anything to do with climate change seriously, it is a neverending cycle that is not beneficial.

Propagating dire false predictions is not beneficial to the planet or mankind.

 

[NoleinATL]

Propagating dire false predictions is not beneficial to the planet or mankind.

I agree, people should not make nonsensical predictions as it does more harm than good.

So what was the specific CO2 hoax of epic proportions you were going to cite?

 

[fsu1jreed]

Is Ocean Acidification also a hoax? Because that's basic high school chemistry and ENTIRELY due to anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions

 

[GeddyLee09]

Climate Normals are a 30-year period, that were first produced in 1950s, with the most recent being published in 2020. What data set are you referencing when stating the last 100-150 ( weather data)?

In relation to the age of the earth sure, but even a small data set can be used to make a correlation if numbers are quantifiable.

Yes weather data. And yes you could use a small data set like 30 years compared to 100,000 or even 4.5 billion but what would that tell you? What I'm saying is that we don't know how long these cycles are.

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?

Earth has warmed in the past due to changes in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and naturally occurring increases in greenhouse gases. Our ability to understand and explain past changes is one reason we are confident that recent changes are due to humans.

www.climate.gov

What's the hottest Earth's ever been?

Earth’s hottest periods occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

www.climate.gov

 

[GeddyLee09]

Is Ocean Acidification also a hoax? Because that's basic high school chemistry and ENTIRELY due to anthropomorphic fossil fuel emissions

ENTIRELY? Doesn't nature emit about 20 times more C02 into the atmosphere than humans do?

 

[trunole1]

I agree, people should not make nonsensical predictions as it does more harm than good.

So what was the specific CO2 hoax of epic proportions you were going to cite?

CO2 IS CO2 regardless of the source natural or manmade. Which is more prevalent on earth? It's not even close. If all of the US's manmade CO2 was eliminated what difference would it make? A fools folly! It is all about power and money for a small group wishing to control everyone else. "Rules for thee not for me!"

That is the hoax of epic proportions.

 

[BrianNole777]

CO2 IS CO2 regardless of the source natural or manmade. Which is more prevalent on earth? It's not even close. If all of the US's manmade CO2 was eliminated what difference would it make? A fools folly! It is all about power and money for a small group wishing to control everyone else. "Rules for thee not for me!"

That is the hoax of epic proportions.

What's your expertise in this area?

What's your degree in?

Do you have a PhD in a scientific field?

Just curious.

 

[trunole1]

What's your expertise in this area?

What's your degree in?

Do you have a PhD in a scientific field?

Just curious.

biology teacher BA with emphasis on ecology and health education.

What is your expertise ?

 

[BrianNole777]

biology teacher BA with emphasis on ecology and health education.

What is your expertise ?

You're a teacher? 😞

I'm not an expert in science or vaccines which is why I rely on the near consensus of the experts.

It's interesting and sad to me how many non-experts think they're experts on subjects like these.

 

[GeddyLee09]

What's your expertise in this area?

What's your degree in?

Do you have a PhD in a scientific field?

Just curious.

 

[BrianNole777]

You promised to put me on ignore, Gaddy.

Can you do that?

 

[GeddyLee09]

You promised to put me on ignore, Gaddy.

Can you do that?

Nah. Too much fun not to.

Can you come up with a new question?

 

[Ohio1nole]

You're a teacher? 😞

I'm not an expert in science or vaccines which is why I rely on the near consensus of the experts.

It's interesting and sad to me how many non-experts think they're experts on subjects like these.

I’m not a football coach nor have I ever played a down in my life.. am I allowed to take part in discussion about fsu football?

 

[trunole1]

You're a teacher? 😞

I'm not an expert in science or vaccines which is why I rely on the near consensus of the experts.

It's interesting and sad to me how many non-experts think they're experts on subjects like these.

Fact! Science is not settled by a vote! Learn the Scientific Method. How do the experts get paid for their consensus? lol

 

[BrianNole777]

I’m not a football coach nor have I ever played a down in my life.. am I allowed to take part in discussion about fsu football?

Sure.

You're just not allowed to call plays.

 

[BrianNole777]

Nah. Too much fun not to.

Can you come up with a new question?

So, you lied when you promised you would put me on ignore?