Slashdot Mirror

Plenty of scientists are saying there is not a scientific link between the fires and climate change, even Vox ran a story with that.

Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change...

Surprisingly, Aliens or climate change aren't the only possible explanations. I know, hard to believe but hear me out.

It's beginning to be widely accepted that fighting forest fires has contributed to making the big ones worse. When we stop small forest fires, that means dead fall and dried planet matter continue to accumulate. It turns out, larger trees used to survive small forest fires, and the smaller fires cleared out the dead fall and dried material. With us stopping those fires though, enough tinder is accumulating that when a fire does hit, it's bigger, stronger and worse than ever before.

I know, citation please, so here's a fire forest researcher from UBC from a region of Canada where we fight multiple forest fires every year saying the same thing.

Before you get too sad though, there is a silver lining. The faculty member mentions that changing forest fire management might be opposed by standard logging industry practices, so we can still hate on corporate/industrial causes for the problem, hurray!

The question isn't whether there are other contributing factors to the California wildfires, I'm pretty sure I've been hearing about the deadfall thing for the past 20 years.

It's also not a question whether the recent hot and dry climate in California is a significant contributing factor, because the answer is obviously.

The question is whether climate change is a significant contributing factor to the recent hot and dry climate in California, and that's a somewhat trickier question.

First you need to decide whether climate change really does make events like that more likely, and if you've made that determination you need to decide how comfortable you are trying to justify it in a peer-reviewed paper. Not all climatologists are agreed that the science is quite at that point.

Plenty of scientists are saying there is not a scientific link between the fires and climate change, even Vox ran a story with that.

Maybe they should go talk to the experienced firefighters that say that fire is behaving in ways they have never seen before. Things are changing and barring ALIENS! the only reasonable explanation is climate change...

Surprisingly, Aliens or climate change aren't the only possible explanations. I know, hard to believe but hear me out.

It's beginning to be widely accepted that fighting forest fires has contributed to making the big ones worse. When we stop small forest fires, that means dead fall and dried planet matter continue to accumulate. It turns out, larger trees used to survive small forest fires, and the smaller fires cleared out the dead fall and dried material. With us stopping those fires though, enough tinder is accumulating that when a fire does hit, it's bigger, stronger and worse than ever before.

I know, citation please, so here's a fire forest researcher from UBC from a region of Canada where we fight multiple forest fires every year saying the same thing.

Before you get too sad though, there is a silver lining. The faculty member mentions that changing forest fire management might be opposed by standard logging industry practices, so we can still hate on corporate/industrial causes for the problem, hurray!

I'm not sure why he has a problem with the coining of a term. Does he prefer they use another phrase, or rather that they not study the phenomenon at all? See no evil hear no evil I suppose? Regardless of what we call it, (and "marine heat wave" seems like a practical enough name) the evidence for the phenomenon is clear in the satellite data as well as in the economic impacts.

It is, disproportionally in the Arctic. So there is less sea ice there and the difference between the Arctic air and the more southerly air is less pronounced than usual. A larger differential in air temperatures drives stronger Polar Vortex winds. The Polar Vortex is a circular wind pattern that is strong enough to trap the cold air, keeping it in the Arctic where it belongs. When the Polar Vortex weakens, that cold is able to leak out and freeze the middle latitudes.

The key to note though is that the overall global average temperatures are rising, due to the extreme warming at the poles. Occasional colder than normal weather in more temperate areas are nowhere near enough to put a damper on the rising global average.

Other Polar Vortex related cold spells occurred in January 2014 and February 2015.

Links:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-is-this-polar-vortex-that-is-freezing-the-u-s/

https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/polar-vortex1.htm

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/polar-vortex-explainer/63115

https://weather.com/science/weather-explainers/news/polar-vortex-april-2016-cold-outbreak-east

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-weakened-polar-vortex-blamed-american.html

90C in a car? Are you sure you didn't mess up with the conversion?

I doubt he was mistaken. A car parked in the sun when it's 100F(38C) can quickly surpass 170F(77C). There are a lot of places in Texas that get hotter than that.

I didn't see what the outside temperature was in this link was, but at 1:30 in the afternoon the interior temperature was 85C. They managed to bake cookies.

http://www.theweathernetwork.c...

This is a recent article backed with some scientific data.

"Ignore the facts" meaning "healthy skepticism".

There's nothing "healthy" about your "skepticism". It is entirely one-sided and engineered to insulate your from inconvenient truths.

Like when the CRU at UEA was caught manipulating the numbers (and then conveniently "lost" them) ? Those facts?

I would refute your claims, except that you left out all specifics other than the target you wish you discredit with vague allegations, however, assuming you're referring to "climategate", eight separate investigations found that the claims you are repeating were invented bullshit based on quote-mining thousands of emails.

or the fact that the Polar Cap has more ice now than it should given Global Warming? (should be gone according to Al Gore!) Those facts?

More facts that aren't. Arctic ice losses are consistently out-pacing actual predictions, so there is less sea ice in the Arctic than the IPCC predicted there would be. Also, Al Gore (who is not a scientist) actually said that one study predicted ice could be gone in less than 22 years, and a second study by a U.S Navy researcher warned it could happen in as little as seven years.

Or the "starving polar bear" facts ?

What about starving polar bears?

Or any of the other 97.4% of the predictions gone wrong. Those facts?

http://www.westernjournalism.c...

Yea, a link to a conservative blog post written three years ago about a Fox News article about a Nature Climate Change article, is certainly evidence of something... It took me a while to find it, but the actual commentary article says that runs that they did of the CMIP5 models over-estimated warming from 1993 to 2012 according to the HadCRUT4 temperature data. So, it's 97.4% of the predictions from a single set of models as run by three researchers that are overestimating observed warming, and they then point out a number of reasons why that might be the case.

According to that map, the UK was 1-2 degrees warmer than normal, and much of northern Europe was 2-4 degrees warmer than normal. Yet, news reports state the UK's summer was one of the coldest in decades, 5-6 degrees C colder than normal, the end of 2014 was also exceptionally cold, and while Feb 2014 was slightly above average, during the 2004 to 2014 period, it was only 0.4 degrees higher than the 1860's average for the period from 2005 to 2014, which at 5.2 degrees is also the exact same as the February average for 2014 only.
How does a slight, less than one degree warming over 150 years for one month counteract the 5-6 degree colder summer and "bitterly cold" end of the year?

I stand by my assertion that something is seriously wrong with how we measure average global temperatures.

You're just n the wrong part of Canada:
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/cabc0313
4 Deg Celsius and Partly Cloudy. It will likely rain later tonight, whatever the forecast says.

Who has a couple feet of snow?

Ever heard of Canada? ...although we'd call it 60cm. We even managed a respectable 1.4 cm snow this June.

In cold climates it can get quite hot in the summer.

Compare:
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/CL6158350/caon0696 - Toronto weather
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/C02744/usca0982 - San Diego weather

The summer highs aren't that different.

In cold climates it can get quite hot in the summer.

Compare:
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/CL6158350/caon0696 - Toronto weather
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/C02744/usca0982 - San Diego weather

The summer highs aren't that different.

Well said. People arguing with AGW gave up on data, if they ever did, a long time ago.

Northern Hemisphere Jet Stream summary

I thought they said it was cold? It was -38F when I left for work this morning. Check out the weather for Winnipeg Canada @ http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/camb0244 Note: -40F =-40C and 1C ~ 1.5F.

The problem with weather forecasting is that they try to forecast way too far in advance. Checking out my local forecast, I see that they have until tuesday on the forecast. An entire week is too long to predict for weather. But they go further. There's now the 14 day trend. None of that is even worth looking at. I only trust the next day or two, and even that is a little fuzzy sometimes.

The problem with weather forecasting is that they try to forecast way too far in advance. Checking out my local forecast, I see that they have until tuesday on the forecast. An entire week is too long to predict for weather. But they go further. There's now the 14 day trend. None of that is even worth looking at. I only trust the next day or two, and even that is a little fuzzy sometimes.

Disclaimer before I start, I don't know whether this theory is valid or not. It's interesting to think about though.

Iceland is easy to explain -- it was settled by white people fairly recently (less than 2000 years). I don't actually know if anyone was there before the Vikings. I have the impression nobody was though.

Scandinavia is considerably warmer than northern Canada. Here's the climate data from Inuvik (http://theweathernetwork.com/weather/stats/pages/ C02139.htm) and Oulu, Finland (http://theweathernetwork.com/weather/stats/pages/ C00419.htm), for example. Maybe the influence of the Gulf Stream. Even the area I grew up in, despite being ten degrees further south, is a touch cooler: http://theweathernetwork.com/weather/stats/pages/C 02127.htm.

Other possible explanations include Scandinavia being in better (genetic) touch with the rest of Europe than the Inuit were with more southern regions.

Wordpress may have problems in design and whatnot, but unlike Blogger, Wordpress works under Ubuntu Dapper and Firefox.

By `works', I mean it doesn't cause my browser to crawl to a halt, and the CPU fan to speed up. It's not the speed of my computer (3.06Ghz P4), and besides the site works fine in the Mozilla suite browser. There's something about Firefox that makes it extremely slow and unstable on certain websites. I found out that Blogger is one but another is The Weather Network, the most popular weather site in Canada.

I am aware of both, and no I didnt get them mixed up. (I will qualify that I currently only have IE7 Beta 3 on this machine, but this feature exists in other versions, and the instructions might be different.)

Security zones allow you to define different browser settings based on your trust of the site. Restricted sites allows you to still go to the site, but applies the most restrictive policy to the site. -such as disableing active content. Go the http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ and see how it looks. Then add it to the restricted sites list and go back. The page still loads -but looks quite different.

The Content filter is meant to control what webpages users can access - exactly what this person wants. If you add * to the never allow list in Content filters restricted list it will disallow all websites, and then you allow the specific website you want to go to. I tried this before I posted and it did work. Content filter has many issues when you attempt to use it to filter based on violence, nudity and language. Content filter relies on RASCi ratings to be embeded as META tags on the website. Many sites dont have META tags with RASCi Information, and RASCi itself has folded into a different organization and has changed the way rateings are detected by browsers (which IE7 suprisingly hasen't incorperated) and require the user to install a plugin iirc.

What about Firefox/Ubuntu live cd etc?
Why are users allowed to install software? are they running as administrators? I also mentioned Microsofts toolkit for locking down public worksations, and defining what software can run on a system. this would take care of that. as for live cd's, bootable floppy's and usb keys; why is the bios allowing anything but the C: drive to boot, and why isint the bios passworded? if the machine has sensitive research data there is no reason anyone should be able to boot off any other device - if the admin has too, he knows the password.

My original solution takes 5 minutes to implement, and uses tools that already exist on the system. It doesnt muck with a network, or make you buy or find a firewal - and spend time writing or finding rules to do what the user wants. And most importantly it just works.

Yeah, http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/cities/ca n/pages/CAON0383.htm I had to walk to the bus station this morning for work :(. Snowing like crazy too, couldn't see three feet in front of me and the sidewalk was wiped from existance. Came home to shovel snow up to my knees off the driveway. I miss Vancouver.

Move to Canada and that exhaust would be quite welcome. It's not even winter yet and it's cold. (sorry, time for the cold winter/igloo jokes to start)

(...)in countries like Finland where everyone has different sets of tires for summer and winter.
I'm sure they though of it. If Hydro-Quebec wants to use the car localy, They better use winter tires...

check the weather for Montreal and Quebec and compare with Finland or with Helsinki-Vantaa, Finland

(...)in countries like Finland where everyone has different sets of tires for summer and winter.
I'm sure they though of it. If Hydro-Quebec wants to use the car localy, They better use winter tires...

check the weather for Montreal and Quebec and compare with Finland or with Helsinki-Vantaa, Finland

(...)in countries like Finland where everyone has different sets of tires for summer and winter.
I'm sure they though of it. If Hydro-Quebec wants to use the car localy, They better use winter tires...

check the weather for Montreal and Quebec and compare with Finland or with Helsinki-Vantaa, Finland

Though there are some places (like Ireland, I've heard tell) where simply predicting rain every day will be correct 80% of the time. There is nothing special about predicting rain, or any other given weather, in a place with strong statistical trends, eg your example, such as predicting rain in Prince Rupert (B.C.), or say snowfall in Phoenix. The whole point about developing this field is being able to predict the unusual and severe weather, weather that might cost lives, livestock, money, danger, whatever. The rest is just gravy, IMHO.

They're not, for the most part. It's just that the local weath is much colder then average.

• Machall - best..webcomic...ever (updates: "tues, thurs, sat" but more like when he gets around to it)
• Penny Arcade - a very popular, and very funny gaming comic (M W F)
• Megatokyo - a well drawn comic with a strong story mangaish (M W F)
• Ctrl-Alt-Del - cut and paste, but always funny (Daily)
• Something Positive - kinda cut and paste, but often very funny (daily)
• Real Life - cut and paste, but still a pretty funny gaming comic (mostly daily)
• Calvin and Hobbes - rereleasing C+H online, 10 years delayed...my personal fav (daily)
• Errant Story - a well drawn, story based modernish fantasy comic (updates every other day or so)
• Angst Technology - a game software firm and their antics (updates almost daily)

• (as if you need the link)Slashdot
• CBC News Canadian news from the CBC
• Debian Planet good debian news
• Footnotes GNOME news
• Ars Technica another tech site, often has interesting projects too...
• Anime News Network exactly what the name implies.
• Unconventional Conformity a blog.
• The Weather Network - for my local weather
• 
  
  And well, thats about it. That I check frequently at least. I do like webcomics and strongly suggest that you check out Machall Megatokyo and Errant Story if you don't already though! And then there's also everything2 but its not news and I can't check it daily (or else I would do nothing all day but read!) its too good at just drawing you in. And the anime turnpike to go browsing through Anime fansites...

And I just downloaded it this morning! DOH!

Oh well, I'll be at that again, but it sure is nice how apple keeps us users up to date. I have been using Safari since the day of the keynote, and I can't see one single reason to go back.

Even without tabs, the sheer speed of it negates (my/the) need to have a page load in the background. The Weather Network used to be one of the worst pages to load on IE, it would take days just to see what's happening outside the window. It's so fast on Safari, I've even considered it as my homepage...

On a compatibility note, I have had more problems with banks, etc. with IE and mozilla than Safari. Even when I thought I would be relegated to obscurity because of a non-ms-browser, non-ms-os, Safari comes through. Not always, to be sure, but enough to have seriously surprised me for a marginal beta browser.

Safari... the next iTunes...