Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

To date, this has been true.

 

Really? They got winds in Maui from the circulation of a hurricane a thousand miles away. Most hurricanes are roughly circular. That means that they would have had winds over a diameter of two thousand miles. Such a hurricane would cover most of the US. Dora was a strong hurricane, but not a record beater with winds extending out that far.

You are systematically demolishing your own argument.

 

Sorry, but science finds global warming "not guilty" of the Maui fire.
August 11, 2023
The Origin of the Hawaii Fires/Preventing a Similar Tragedy in the Future

The terrible fires around Lahaina, Maui have resulted in a death toll of 67 (which will certainly rise) and an economic loss of billions of dollars.

We can take steps to prevent this from happening again, including understanding why this event occurred and building the observation, warning, and action infrastructure as California.

Why did this event occur?

The origin of this disaster is now becoming clear: massive amounts of dry, dead fuel (mainly grass), strong downslope winds produced by strong trades interacting with local mountains, and human ignition, most probably from powerlines.

Dry grass and shrubs

Maui was a tinderbox ready to burn explosively. As noted in a number of articles and Hawaiian government websites, a large portion of Hawaii is covered by highly flammable, invasive, non-native grasses. . . .

 

There has been no increase in disastrous events.
21st Century Global Disasters
Guest Blogger
A new peer-reviewed paper out this week by Alimonti and Mariani asks whether global disasters have increased. Their answer is that they have not. . . .

 

An abject failure to remove dead wood and underbrush from the forests along with the whole sale introduction of non native plants into the region.

 

It won't. It can't!! There is no way, short of using multiple rounds of nuclear fission, which is how nukes work, to get H2 molecules out of one that has but a single Carbon and 2 Oxygen atoms, aka CO2. There is no H in CO2.

 

I have no "beliefs" about AGW. I only have facts. Saying you believe or don't believe AGW is like saying you believe or don't believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. "Beliefs" regarding scientific fact were something common in the 17th Century. Quite ridiculous today.

 

I have good reasons for my beliefs. You appear to have no good reason for believing your "facts" except that is what you have been told to do.

 

Or a volcano that blew up causing the largest explosion in recorded history ejecting unprecedented H20 into the atmosphere...except for estimates that occurred millions of years ago, many scientists said it wouod have an immediate impact on temps and it did.

The US cutting anything more than we already have won’t do ****. If China and India continue ignoring the world it doesn’t matter we do. THEY are the largest culprits by a long shot. Destroying our economy for no reason only punishes us while the rest of the world laughs.

 

Once we take care of OUR polluters, we'll be able to take care of China's. We would be at that stage now, if it hadn't been for Trump.

 

Thank you for the irrelevant factoid.

 

. You seriously believe we'll have any influence on Xi?
Wanna buy a bridge:'

 

Why is that "irrelevant"? You're talking about climate change, allegedely DRASTIC climate change and you refuse to consider the numbers OTHER drastic climate changes that have occurred. What you're really trying to do is organize yet another climate panicked circle jerk.

 

The WHOLE country has failed. And this includes BOTH parties. By caving-in to the science denialists. They are the problem. And politicians who DO understand scientific fact but won't stand up to them are also the problem.

 

And does your belief include that fact that climatologists estimate that CO2 comprises a tiny percentage (1-3%) of the GHG effect? Probably not.

 

His responsibility is to fly MORE. To where there are scientists he can consult on what policies need to be adopted. And adopt them! It should be higher up in the list.

 

"Guilty"? You thought hurricanes CAUSE fires? Funny!

 

Correction: Double checked my source - hard copy - the actual GHG contribution of Co2 is (3-7%)

 

I have no interest in beliefs. Only in facts.

 

Don't try to run from your own error. From your OP:

Maui is Global Warming. So are this record heat wave, floods, droughts,... we have seen this year. As will tomorrow's next natural tragedy, whatever that may be.

 

There’s a lot more at the below link.


PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE 2022 SIGNS CLIMATE DECLARATION: THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY ‐ CLAUSER & a global network of over 1,609 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message: Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming


https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1691337615587332096?

 

Isn't the analysis so far saying a very large high north of Hawaii and a hurricane south of it caused the 80kt winds that fanned and pushed the fire? Sure of ignition so far not identified; I've seen downed power lines, or human activity. So far the .13C temp change in the past decade hasn't been mentioned by any sane, knowledgeable person.

 

"Facts" based on what?

 

The EPA gets accused of using false data on global warming. It’s a long report and worth taking a look at.

https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0072-0193/attachment_1.pdf

In sum, the EPA has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in what it has failed to consider and what it has considered as the basis for the Proposed Rule.

EPA has failed to consider critical aspects and data that reflect the enormous social benefits of CO2, the enormous social benefits of fossil fuels, the scientific proof that there is no danger of catastrophic global warming from the use of fossil fuels and resulting CO2 emissions, and the disastrous consequences of restricting or eliminating them, including eliminating 61% of electricity in the United States provided by fossil fuel electricity plants. Under State Farm and its progeny, failing to consider such crucial aspects of the problem that the rule purports to address is the hallmark of arbitrary and capricious agency action.

EPA, by the same token, has erred by relying on data and other unscientific sources that only worsen its failures stated above. Consensus, peer review, government opinion from the IPCC, models that do not work, omission of contradictory data, and fabrication of supporting data do not pass muster under even the basic principles of the scientific method and do not provide scientific knowledge. These flimsy methods of analysis should not provide the foundation for far-reaching national environmental policy.

Taken together, the EPA’s proposed Fossil Fuel Power Plant rule is fatally flawed and should not be adopted, or at minimum must be revised from the ground up. As scientists, we urge the EPA to change course from the fraught path it has outlined in the Proposed Rule.

 

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!