123
Los Angeles burns: What you need to know | This is terrible. This is climate change. (www.theclimatebrink.com)
submitted 2 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Over a human lifespan, the modeled impacts of the suppression bias exceed those from fuel accumulation or climate change alone, suggesting that suppression may exert a significant and underappreciated influence on patterns of fire globally. Managing wildfires to safely burn under low and moderate conditions is thus a critical tool to address the growing wildfire crisis.

The paper says that management techniques are a significant factor, alongside fuel accumulation and climate change. As the person you're responding to says, there are several contributing factors, a significant one of which is climate change. The paper you point to doesn't disagree with this.

We can't approach these events with a black-and-white question, "Is it due to climate change or not?" We know that climate change increases the likelihood and severity of some extreme weather events, floods and forest fires. We know that other factors also influence these things. Usually all you can conclude about a particular fire, storm or flood is that climate change made such events more likely and raised the chances of them being severe. Other factors are always at work too. It's not realistic, for the most part, to look for particular incidents that are caused by climate change only.

[-] troed@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, as you quoted, forest (mis-)management is a bigger factor than climate change.

Now check the claims made in what we're discussing.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Now check the claims made in what we’re discussing.

OK. The article says:

Climate change doesn’t cause any of these factors. But climate change can affect them. For example, we are confident that climate change is making rainfall more variable, with bigger swings from wet to dry extremes. This promotes vegetation growth and then drying it out. Additionally, humans are also causing a warming of the climate system, which accelerates the drying of vegetation by increasing evaporation rates and extending drought periods.

In this way, climate change is turbocharging the wildfire just like it turbocharges heat waves and hurricanes.

Of course, other factors also play a role, such as the amount and arrangement of available fuel. Forest management practices over the past century have led to accumulations of understory vegetation and dead organic material in many forests. The expansion of cities into wildland areas introduces more potential ignition sources, adds structures and infrastructure that can fuel fires, and creates zones where preventive measures like prescribed burning are challenging to implement.s claim of yours seems to be what we're discussing:

We all seem to agree about all of this. Climate change is a significant contributing factor, and so are the quantity of fuel available and forest management practices. But then ~~you argued~~ CORRECTION: I attributed this comment to the wrong person:

yes it contributed to these fires, but to use these fires as a debate point in the realm of climate change is cheap and stupid

~~This seems to be the point on which we disagree. So I have checked the article and checked your claims and I still don't understand, when climate change is a significant cause of these fires, why you think it is "cheap and stupid" to discuss how climate change contributes to them. The article itself admits that there are other causes. Why do you think we should talk about those but not climate change? Why is one contributing factor "cheap and stupid" to discuss but not the others?~~ CORRECTION: I was arguing with the wrong person.

[-] troed@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago

No, I didn't say that. Check who you're quoting.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Sorry about that, I misread the thread.

this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
123 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5493 readers
228 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net