Tom Toles for August 27, 2013

Only in America.

Tell me Tom Troll, and you other climate change chicken littles, how are forest fires caused BY climate change when 90% of forest fires are caused by arson, and the other 10% by lightning, volcanic eruptions, etc?.http://www.wbir.com/news/article/242966/2/Arson-forest-fires-fueled-by-dangerous-conditions.http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-forest-fires.html.There’s just no stopping your inability to actually THINK for yourselves, is there?

Ah, political cartoons. Troll early, troll often…

Actually, everybody here is right. The evidence of climate change IS incontrovertible. Forest management practices of the past HAVE contributed to fire problems today. Some of us DO care about wildlife, but not necessarily for its own sake; we care for the health of “mountain lions and bunny rabbits” the way miners used to care about the health of the canary in the mine. Climate of some sort IS natural and inevitable, but ACCELERATED climate change is a problem for all of us, and IS effecting millions of people at this moment, not only in some imagined future. There IS some hysteria about climate change that is unwarranted, but deniers are like those who urged the Titanic to make full steam ahead in spite of real danger, whereas, while panic is never useful, caution is. And it doesn’t matter a whit if Harley is buying what is being sold. His opinion is relevant, as is mine. The facts only are relevant, and those are what we all will have to reckon with in the end. And Ottodesu is right, also. America is the only place where climate change denial is big business, and widely credited. The rest of the world seems more evidence-driven, and less ideology-driven.

I misspoke when I said, “The rest of the world seems more evidence-driven, and less ideology-driven.” We at least do better than the Middle East, where ideology always seems to trump the facts.

Our world weather patterns are in an unusual state of instability. What is known is that millenia of ice deposits are melting, that the oceans are slowly rising. Is it a coincidence that this is happening now, or a result of increasing fossil fuel use and shortsighted agricultural techniques?.Humans can change the climate, and they have done it in localized ways. Goats and cattle can change a fragile landscape. Slash and burn agriculture causes erosion and change of environments. How will weather patterns differ when the small changes merge, when the huge Amazon forests are gone? When the north polar ice cap is melted? How would life have changed if the ozone layer had continued to deteriorate? (hint: a whole lot). National Geographic Magazine has an article, “Rising Seas” in its September issue. It will take hundreds of years for the physical world map to appear as depicted, and it’s probably too late already to stop most changes. But before then, the political world map will be changing, too, with environmental refugees on the move. How long will all the glittering tinsel wealth accumulated over a few centuries be last then?

I was going to go with forest fire management practices as a major causal factor here. OK, maybe drought has something to do with it.

Cite what ‘UN report’ exactly, SuperMax.

Guardian 10 Jan 2013 (Hickman):“The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years. It says that the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017 – as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.”

“Man deciding to live in such areas are victims of their own stupidity when it is evident there are fires and always will be fires.”-Man deciding to live in which areas, Earth? Name one place that people live that fire doesn’t happen.

Not a UN report. It was from our own NOAA. PolitiFact did a rating of half true on the statement. Here’s the link… http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/aug/25/steve-goreham/global-warming-skeptic-says-global-surface-tempera/

So there’s no chance that 100+ years of aggressive fire suppression had anything to do with it? I guess facts are only good when they support your position.

“After all, isn’t a room cooler if the windows are dirty?”So you think invisible CO2 bounces the sun’s heat back into space?

It is stupid yes there is climate change It has been going on since the earth was formed. look at the last ice age was that reversed by animal farts.

“Did you know we are in an “ice age”?”

Yes, we are in a cycle of ice ages, and a new one was about to begin. Check out my blog post on this.

Russia is going to explore the arctic ocean coast for oil.Reporter Dan Sanford for the BBC was up there showing open water where ice floes used to be. The walrus and polar bear population could be in danger.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23842254

This cartoon is rather simplistic, given the complex nature of the question. While climate change may be a factor, so are many others, including fire suppression techniques that have been used for decades. Additionally, and I’m not claiming that any specific fires are a result of this, but some believe that the rise in fires is related to terrorism. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-calls-massive-forest-fires-montana/story?id=16263981There are some reports that one of this summer’s fires in Colorado was subject to investigation of having been a terrorist act.

Yes, all those are factors, as covered in the National Geographic article. Amazing, isn’t it, that a slight rise in temperature expands the volume of the oceans by a significant amount? I haven’t seen that emphasized much until now, although I did read in Smithsonian Magazine in the early 80s that sea level is not the same level world-wide. Warmer areas are higher than cooler areas, and satellites with modern technology verify this. .Read that NGM article, all of you. Other parts of the world are preparing for the future with engineering projects, but not us — we prefer to deny and squabble.

“If We were allowed to clear the underbrush and thin out the Forest of rotting Timber, this would reduce the fuel for the fires.”Very good, Tigger. But PianoGuy seems to think that this wouldn’t help, because forest fires are caused by arsons\, lightning and volcanoes. I see you chose not to respond to that assertion.

One should note the number of acres burned in forest fires has been decreasing the last few years….

Considering the majority of fresh water is in the glaciers, yes it is responsible for the majority of the rising ocean

Additionally due to unique properties in water, the volume is greater when it is colder

Nor arte you answering what I am asking. But obviously that was asking too much of you.

“There has been no change in the earths temperature in 16 years.”Then kindly explain the accelerated melting of the polar ice cap and almost every glacier on the planet.

“I miss the good old days, where scientists actually invented things and made life better for people. Now the ONLY funding available is for making up data regarding global warming.”.I guess you haven’t heard of a little creation called the iPhone (or hundreds of others like it).Venture out of your cave and actually experience the world you so often criticize.

I started fighting wild land fires in the early 1960’s (yes, I know zit, and onguard, that personal experience doesn’t count) and REGIONAL proof of human caused climate change in Europe was documented a decade before that by Dasmann and others. I participated in some of the earliest prescribed fires in the early 1970’s, in Yosemite as a matter of fact.

It was THE TIMBER INDUSTRY that fought prescribed fire programs, for decades, and refused to participate in needed thinning, unless they were GUARANTEED A PROFIT, but being given “good stuff” to take whenever a thinning project was designed. Environmentalists objected to giving away the forests with these plans, they were NOT objecting to sound management!

Climate change, and centuries, not just decades, of poor management practices dictated BY INDUSTRY!, STILL leave our forests and rangelands subject to fire extremes. When Reagan came in, with Watt, many sound policies were changed and “stupid stuff” was mandated by the guy who said “When you’ve seen one tree (redwood) you’ve seen them all”, and the idiot at Interior Watt, who declared we HAD to destroy ALL RESOURCES as soon as possible, FOR PROFIT, because Jesus was coming back, and would be here in JIm “the nerd’s” lifetime.

We got stuck with a bunch of Reagan appointees screwing up management long after he left, because he converted political appointees, to permanent Civli Service, at the highest levels of the government agencies. That disaster pre-dates “W”, but he took up the charge to destroy resources, with dedication, to further the “needs” of industries such as timber, grazing, mining, and oil and gas.

Yeah, I know, having only 50 years actual, hands on, and professional experience with land management, and yes, observing what was happening with human changes to the environment, and the building disaster, counts for nothing, compared to Rush LImbaugh and Hannity’s “expert input”.

Toles simply has it RIGHT!

Well, if it’s good enough for the Red Chinese then it’s the perfect program for America.How illogical a bit of logic is that?We should lead by example, not follow meekly in the wake of Red China.

“Just how is melting ice making the oceans rise? If you sit a glass of ice water on the counter & let the ice melt, the glass does not overflow! It stays the same. This is nonsense.”-It is not nonsense. The ice sheet sitting on the (humongous) island of Greenland averages over a mile thick, and contains 683,751 cubic miles of ice – all land-locked. It’s BIGGER relative, the Antarctic ice sheet, only has a portion in the water, is closer to 2 miles thick, and contains 6,357,688 cubic miles of ice. Melting off 87% of Earth’s fresh water supply will certainly affect the oceans.

As somebody said a few comments back, much of the extra water that causes the oceans to rise would come from glaciers (Himalayas, Greenland, Antarctica, et al), land-based, and also all yearly snow-melt rapidly coming down the mountains. Areas of land deforested would not soak up rainfall, instead pouring it into rivers, then the oceans. You should visit the following site that I just picked out at random:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

China is also developing solar power at a great rate, and buying oil at a great rate. “All of the above” at a great rate.

Please, cora, teach us more science, please.

“Just how is melting ice making the oceans rise? If you sit a glass of ice water on the counter & let the ice melt, the glass does not overflow! It stays the same. This is nonsense.”You seem to be confusing glaciers and icebergs. Since glaciers are over land, when they melt their water runs into the oceans, where it adds to the volume, not replaces it.

“I’d love a solar panel. You going to pay for it?”I found that by financing a roof array of enough solar panels to supply all my needs, the monthly payment would be roughly the same as my current monthly electrical bill. Maybe your situation would be similar?

Actually, it does not stay the same. The frozen mass is actually greater in density and size than the liquid form. That’s why when you put a bottle of water in the freezer the ice causes the container to expand and possible break because the ice expands. When it melts it returns back to its original state, what doesn’t evaporate that is. that’s elementary science and it’s sad no one gets that.This doesn’t mean that melting caps, if that were to happen, would not have an effect. Certainly if any massive and quick melt occurred, which is not scientifically back not even by the most extreme theories of a minute increase of global temperature over a hundred years, the effects would be likened to a river overflowing from a severe rain. It can be disastrous in the immediate vicinity, like a volcano explosion, but would flow somewhere eventually. In the case of ice caps melting i have no respect for anyone claiming detriment of flooding because 1st grade science is able to disprove that theory. The only real potential detriment of flooding would occur from ice caps on mountains melting.~The other aspect of science not discussed is what are the potential problems and benefits. Example, science shows that when large chunks of the southern ice shelf broke off that life ended up thriving in what were once lifeless waters. This was caused by the mineral deposits that traveled with the glaciers. This ended up being a benefit and no towns or shore were flooded or harmed in the process… and we did have the largest break several years back. I have no clue what the potential effects of cap melting would mean scientifically and according to the history of nature studies. But it’s near impossible to get objective science anymore. Nowadays science starts with the conclusion and then builds information to prove, in theory of course, the conclusion – all without accounting for other potential data that may not fit in to the desired model or might wholly refute the entire theory. This is not science, this is fantasy.~In my grade school science program, I sought to prove that the Energizer battery lasted the longest and my controls were the same manufactured flashlights, two of each testing group (two EG, two Dura, two generic, etc.) and equal time the flashlights were on in 30 min spans.In the end, the Energizer did last the longest, because I wanted it to. I just did little things like turning it on last and off first, and subjectively judging the dimness of the light created vs the Duracell at the end of the studies allotted time. This is the same type of fraudulent science I see and hear all the time nowadays and it’s sad, if not sick.

Edit: on paragraph 2 the phrase “In the case of ice caps melting i have no respect for anyone claiming detriment of flooding because 1st grade science is able to disprove that theory.” is directed to the Polar caps, not mountain caps. Poor clarity on my part.

Joadtom never gave links to his “information.” Therefore no one can corroborate or refute his statement. As to the Earth’s temperature not rising for 16 years, an NPR (Yes, I know, that bastion of liberalism) item from 2 weeks ago explained that, while the Earth’s temperature is not warming, the oceans temperatures are, by absorbing heat from several sources. Eventually the oceans will no longer be able to act as a “heat sink”, and that heat will radiate into the atmosphere. And by “eventually” they meant decades, not centuries.

“Man made climate change is a lie.”I couldn’t help but notice that you never, ever back up statements like this, MDavis. Any particular reason for that?I’m guessing you think that evolution is a “lie” as well, right?

In just 90 seconds, this guy explains how climate change is making the world more flammable. http://bit.ly/1diOKXG

This is a test

DJ Gravity X: I have several shelves of books, and research papers (government and other sources) talking to forest management, and all the inter-related biological and physiological impacts of sound vs unsound, management. It’s a little to wrap up in a blog, but: Going back to Pinchot/Roosevelt and the intent of the original “FOREST PRESERVES” that were intended to hold back federal forests in reserve, while still harvesting a rational amount of that resource, on a sustained yield basis, goes back to 1916!

Ecotype also determines proper harvest type, lodgepole NEEDS to be clearcut every 4 decades or so, while Douglas fir shouldn’t be clearcut at all, and harvested only in uneven age stands, harvesting trees at least 100years old. Redwoods don’t BECOME rot-resistant wood until the tree is at least 300 years old! “Second growth redwood”, rots faster than white fir!!

The “politics” of Reagan’s appointees was they threw all that in the crapper. On range management, they ignored the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act, and began mandating grazing rates, and “rest periods” totally out of keeping with sustained yield of the native grasses, and even destroyed millions of acres of SEEDINGS with overgrazing!

I’ve observed weather patterns, and CLIMATE pattens, over much of the U.S., and especially the west, for a long time. I’ve seen some drastic, long-term, changes in temperature, and of course, moisture patterns. An example folks don’t point to often is the “mining” of snow in the Wasatch Range to provide snow for the ski areas, while intensifying the drought in the “rain shadow” to the east in Utah. That IS an example of anthropogenic climate change, that isn’t often noted, as noted.

In much of the west, biological systems, affecting things like pika, and grizzly bear, have started falling apart. Pika can’t go any higher in the mountain to keep up with the temperature change, and the seeds grizzlies feed on are disappearing, as the pine forest changes.

The utter absurdity is that while smoke from the Yosemite fires is noted on all the “weather reports” as visible from space, they do NOT point out the changes on the land base through agriculture, mining, and city building that is the result of seven BILLION people modifying the environment, and the HUGE impact that has on the globe! Geophysical, as well as climate changes are recorded in thousands of scientifically supported research. The “denier” position is supported by the “junk science” conservatives whine about, and only a tiny fraction of true “scientists” support those hypotheses, because they have no foundation in a full assessment of the data. Picking isolated bits of data out of context, is NOT science, but it IS the foundation of “denier proofs”.

DJ, WHAT “land grabs”? The United Stats government, through war or purchase acquired all the land in the U.S., especially in the west. Western states all entered the union being given the land they acquired, while the federal government retained ownership of the public domain, for "disposal"over time, and in the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1978, finally recognized that disposal of all that land was NOT in the best interest of the nation.

Each state had their own legislation when they entered the union, and interestingly, Nevada, where “sagebrush rebels” protested federal ownership, REFUSED TO ACCEPT over 90% of the land they were offered by the federal government when they entered the union!

There has never, in any state, been a “land grab” by the federal government, not ever, but a lot of states have whined. On the east side of the nation, the federal forest lands were acquired at fair market value. Military reservations have a more “interesting” history across the nation.

Interesting how “we simply don’t know” and “a catastrophe is possible” gets turned into “we should bury our heads and do nothing” by the Republicans.

I read that article, thanks.Not sure how exemplifying one of the 3% that are uncertain benefits the denier case. (Actually, she wasn’t all that uncertain about anything except the magnitudes.)The article was long on “what a nice person she is” (and surely is indeed) and rather short on the peer reviewed science.http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/17/global_warming_climate_scientists_overwhelmingly_agree_it_s_real_and_is.html

By the time that conservatives admit that climate change might possibly be real, it will be far too late to do anything about it. So quit worrying and let your grandchildren deal with it.