That reminds me of an article I scrolled through yesterday.
"Scientists blame fossil fuel production for more than a third of Western wildfires"
Excerpt
quote
The world’s top fossil fuel firms may be responsible for more than a third of the acreage scorched by wildfires in Western North America over the past four decades, a new analysis has found.
About 19.8 million acres—or about 37 percent of the total area burned in the Western U.S. and Southwest Canada since 1986—can be linked to the heat-trapping emissions released by the world’s 88 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, according to the study, published on Tuesday in Environmental Research Letters.
Excerpt
quote
The researchers relied on a measure called “vapor pressure deficit,” which allowed them to gauge the ability of air to draw water out of plants and soils. This gauge of atmospheric “thirst,” they explained, is a critical tool for tracking how climate change is exacerbating wildfires.
Using vapor pressure deficit allowed the authors to track how emissions linked to major fossil fuel producers have had a direct impact on the steep hikes in both the acreage burned and fire-danger conditions.
The scientists also used models to demonstrate that emissions tied to the big 88 companies are responsible for raising the global average temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century—or nearly half the observed warming during that time.
Originally posted by rinselberg: That reminds me of an article I scrolled through yesterday.
"Scientists blame fossil fuel production for more than a third of Western wildfires"
Which comic book were you reading ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: About 19.8 million acres—or about 37 percent of the total area burned in the Western U.S. and Southwest Canada since 1986—can be linked to the heat-trapping emissions released by the world’s 88 largest fossil fuel and cement producers, according to the study, published on Tuesday in Environmental Research Letters.
It seems as though you have not realized that one can dazzle with brilliance or baffle with bull zhit. You have been baffled by bull zhit !
Name those heat-trapping emissions. Do you believe the fossil fuel and cement producers "released" heat-trapping emissions ? How many have you released ? What is Kerry's, the Climate Czar, and Al Gore's contribution ? I bet you don't even know the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. 0.04%. What was it 50 years ago ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The researchers relied on a measure called “vapor pressure deficit,” which allowed them to gauge the ability of air to draw water out of plants and soils. This gauge of atmospheric “thirst,” they explained, is a critical tool for tracking how climate change is exacerbating wildfires.
Comedic gold. Do you ever put any critical thinking into what you read ?
What is the “vapor pressure deficit” today ? What was it 50 years ago ? Do you even know what vapor pressure is ? I think not !
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Using vapor pressure deficit allowed the authors to track how emissions linked to major fossil fuel producers have had a direct impact on the steep hikes in both the acreage burned and fire-danger conditions.
My. The bull zhit is getting deep. Did the vapor pressure deficit allow authors, or scientists, to claim to be able to correlate vapor pressure deficit and the acreage burned and fire-danger conditions ?
Originally posted by cliffw: I bet you don't even know the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. 0.04%. What was it 50 years ago?
I don't need to know those numbers "off the top of my head". I can look them up online.
This number that's been put up by "cliffw", of 0.04%, is misleading. The fractional percentage of 0.04% provides only one decimal digit of significance. That's not accurate enough for this context.
Forum member "cliffw" is paying homage to the idea that CO2 is only a very small fractional percentage of the atmosphere, even after all the CO2 emissions from humans over the past 150 or so years, and so—ergo—this "trace" amount cannot be important in shaping and conditioning the earth's climate.
This idea is a canard. It's an idea that appeals to human intuition, but it is not based, as a rap or hip-hop artist might say it. It is an idea that is not connected to the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-19-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't need to know those numbers "off the top of my head". I can look them up online.
This number that's been put up by "cliffw", of 0.04%, is misleading. The fractional percentage of 0.04% provides only one decimal digit of significance. That's not accurate enough for this context.
0.04% is not misleading. Look it up ! It is also two decimal digits.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Forum member "cliffw" is paying homage to the idea that CO2 is only a very small fractional percentage of the atmosphere, even after all the CO2 emissions from humans over the past 150 or so years, and so—ergo—this "trace" amount cannot be important in shaping and conditioning the earth's climate.
This idea is a canard. It's an idea that appeals to human intuition, but it is not ... connected to the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect.
You are the one preaching that the Earth is doomed because CO2 levels are increasing.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-21-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: You are the one preaching that the Earth is doomed because [carbon dioxide] levels are increasing.
Hardly. It's just a question of how much more greenhouse effect-driven climate change humanity collectively decides to "dial in"... and how rapidly or how gradually it happens.
?
