Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "High winds, lack of rain and climate change stoking California fires, say experts | BBC News" video.

  1. "The most destructive windstorm in decades" so it was windier in the past when human effects were less.
    6
  2. The extremely biased UN's IPCC AR6 report WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms evidence is lacking or the signal is not present for Fire Weather (hot and windy), leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal both for the recent past or by 2050 even under the most extreme climate modelling (RCP 8.5).
    4
  3. It snows in winter. Shock.
    4
  4. @andrew30m  There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! There's always bad weather somewhere in the world. As regards the belief in weather event attribution the IPCC states “Scientists cannot answer directly whether a particular event was caused by climate change, as extremes do occur naturally, and any specific weather and climate event is the result of a complex mix of human and natural factors. Instead, scientists quantify the relative importance of human and natural influences on the magnitude and/or probability of specific extreme weather events.” It is not possible to attribute whether an individual heatwave, drought or a flood, or any climate event, extreme or otherwise is due to human factors. People are fooled into believing it is, thanks to the magic of attribution science. One cannot prove that changes in the climate are man-made, but in tactical attribution science it is presented as a fact. To provide proof of this one would need to observe another Earth-like planet to which no GHGs (greenhouse gases) are added. This is obviously impossible. It is untestable. It is unverifiable. It is not a fact. It is not Science. It's wishful thinking often expounded for legal or political purposes as WWA’s (World Weather Attribution) chief scientist, Friederike Otto, freely admits, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”
    3
  5. Forest fires are endemic to Californian. If you build homes in known fire prone areas they will catch fire at some point. That is what has happened. This has got nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    2
  6. @andrew30m  It appears to be warming, but less than predicted. Moreover, there is no climate crisis.
    2
  7. The Santa Ana winds that cause the fires to spread are a well documented weather phenomenon. There frequency is unrelated to any climate change man-made or otherwise.
    2
  8. @Lev1232  Burn acreage was much, much, higher in the US during the 1920's, 30's and 40's. It peaked in 1930 at well over 50,000,000 acres. The trend is downwards (1926-2020 NIFC US) eventhough CO2 has increased exponentially. For 2000 onwards the average burn acreage is much less than 10,000,000 acres. The number of fires has also declined. Remember CO2 was increasing all the time. Burn area for US in 2023 was 3rd lowest on record. It was under 3 million acres well below the ten year average of 7 million, the lowest since 1998 (NIFC), and 3% of the burn in the 1900s. It's not hard to understand.
    2
  9.  @Lev1232  Even the extremely biased UN's IPCC AR6 report WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms evidence is lacking or the signal is not present for Fire Weather (hot and windy), leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal both for the recent past or by 2050 even under the most extreme climate modelling (RCP 8.5). Duhh.
    2
  10.  @JSM-bb80u  But it's a lot lower than the 1930s. That's why they hide that part of the data.
    2
  11. @JSM-bb80u  The data doesn't agree with you. Annual share of the total land area burnt by wildfires in the US went from 0.6% (2012) to 0.4% (2024)(GWIS/FAO UN). There's basically no increasing trend in the data. The areas burnt are comparatively tiny. It's just on the news because it's affecting lots of poorly sited homes in LA.
    2
  12. @JSM-bb80u  I refer you to the data I have already quoted. All the recent values are dramatically lower than those of the 1930s.
    2
  13. @andrew30m  The planet may be warming in places but not as predicted. There's very little else that can be discerned and attributed to humans climatically. Apart from Fire Weather, the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Mean precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
    1
  14.  @JSM-bb80u  There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Mean precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
    1
  15.  @JSM-bb80u  There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Mean precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
    1
  16.  @JSM-bb80u  I'm trying to say there is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. None. Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Mean precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
    1
  17. @nuqwestr  The houses in Herculaneum were poorly sited, and destroyed by an act of nature, just like these buildings in LA. The difference is those Romans had no idea about the nature of Vesuvius, whereas modern Californians should be fully aware that wildlife has always been endemic in the state. More precautions should have been taken. There is nothing the Romans could have done. There's plenty the Californians could have done.
    1