Climate Nearing “Point of No Return”

[tstorm823]

From the data provided previously in the thread. I already made a post showing the averages trending to increasing over time, and an alternate model to smooth out the giant spikes from extreme years.

But you know what? I'll humor you. Your latest model (now that you don't want to use the first one you used) uses data from the Canadian government, fair enough, a reasonable source. It claims to source it's data from https://www.ciffc.ca/publications/canada-reports , but what's odd is that it doesn't include 2022 or 2023 despite those reports being available. So I went and plugged those numbers into the graph.

I think it helps. It doesn't include the 80's, which by every account I can find were milder than the 90's and onward (almost like things are getting worse over time), but I think it still makes the point.

If you look at the first graph I found, it included the 80s, which were at least roughly equivalent to the 90s, but only if you include 80-82. Adding more similar data would assuredly flatten that trend as the effect of outliers is diminished. I don't think it's coincidental that the first alternate graph presented started in 1983, that agency was started in 1982, likely in response to two consecutive years of giant wildfires.

Unless the argument is that climate change kicked in and started the fire problem in 2023, it's just not a good argument. Though I appreciate the effort in the data analysis.

I don't know if this is a grammatical mistake or what, but you cannot possibly mean that. But even were that-- or what you actually mean-- the case, the potential for plants to become more dry and flammable is pretty well understood and documented. As is, at least in general terms, the evil of the United States-- because that's the real topic of discussion, apparently.

I'm saying that others here may genuinely believe what they are saying based on their own knowledge and faculties of reason. With you however, it does not matter what you know, or think you know, or pretend to treat logically, as your only motivation is the overthrow of the geopolitical order. If you can rationalize climate change flipping the system over, you will not only argue it is real and the effects are dire, you will actually desire for that to be the case. You want crisis and catastrophe. You want apocalyptic climate disasters for exactly the same reasons you want Israel eliminated and Ukraine conquered by Russia: you see these all as pathways to the end of current hegemony.

It's not just a bunch of hypotheticals on equal footing with the 'everything will be fine' hypothesis.

Everything will be fine. That's hardly a hypothesis, that's human existence. Whatever circumstances we are presented with become the current fine. Even if fires expand enormously, everything will be fine. To disregard this and catastrophize leads one to fear not only things as they are but things as they never will be. We live in a world with earthquakes and tornados and floods. You can't say that things are the best you could possibly imagine, nature kills lots of people. And yet, you could call it all fine, because it is what you know, and if everything stayed as it currently is, you would call that fine. You are terrified of change, because it's not what you know, and you've talked yourself into thinking of only the ways your currently accepted "fine" might get worse. But the future will be fine, even if it is different, even if nature kills lots of people, it will still be fine. Historically, things tend to get better for people, and when they do, that will still only be fine.

 

[Silvanus]

Everything will be fine. That's hardly a hypothesis, that's human existence. Whatever circumstances we are presented with become the current fine. Even if fires expand enormously, everything will be fine. To disregard this and catastrophize leads one to fear not only things as they are but things as they never will be. We live in a world with earthquakes and tornados and floods. You can't say that things are the best you could possibly imagine, nature kills lots of people. And yet, you could call it all fine, because it is what you know, and if everything stayed as it currently is, you would call that fine. You are terrified of change, because it's not what you know, and you've talked yourself into thinking of only the ways your currently accepted "fine" might get worse. But the future will be fine, even if it is different, even if nature kills lots of people, it will still be fine. Historically, things tend to get better for people, and when they do, that will still only be fine.

What a load of horseshit. This is a sophist's justification to stand by and not bother to mitigate damage and suffering.

If you're hung up on the value judgement implicit in the word 'fine', then let's put that aside and talk about the facts of what the researchers and scientists are saying. The increased likelihood and severity of drought and wildfire in those areas-- including Western Canada-- were not just woolly "maybes" and "mights". They're clearly and explicitly saying the risks and severity are increasing. You've now been presented with numerous studies and definite committal statements from scientists and researchers on that.

Now, you can argue that you consider ever-worsening (and avoidable) drought, famine, wildfire etc to be "fine" if you want. If you want to show how morally bereft and callous your brand of Christian kindness actually is. But you cannot argue that the scientists are just providing random hypotheticals of no greater likelihood than the null hypothesis. Because anybody even halfway literate can see that they're not.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Adding more similar data would assuredly flatten that trend as the effect of outliers is diminished.

that is not how outliers work

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you look at the first graph I found, it included the 80s, which were at least roughly equivalent to the 90s, but only if you include 80-82. Adding more similar data would assuredly flatten that trend as the effect of outliers is diminished. I don't think it's coincidental that the first alternate graph presented started in 1983, that agency was started in 1982, likely in response to two consecutive years of giant wildfires.

Unless the argument is that climate change kicked in and started the fire problem in 2023, it's just not a good argument. Though I appreciate the effort in the data analysis.

I'm saying that others here may genuinely believe what they are saying based on their own knowledge and faculties of reason. With you however, it does not matter what you know, or think you know, or pretend to treat logically, as your only motivation is the overthrow of the geopolitical order. If you can rationalize climate change flipping the system over, you will not only argue it is real and the effects are dire, you will actually desire for that to be the case. You want crisis and catastrophe. You want apocalyptic climate disasters for exactly the same reasons you want Israel eliminated and Ukraine conquered by Russia: you see these all as pathways to the end of current hegemony.

Everything will be fine. That's hardly a hypothesis, that's human existence. Whatever circumstances we are presented with become the current fine. Even if fires expand enormously, everything will be fine. To disregard this and catastrophize leads one to fear not only things as they are but things as they never will be. We live in a world with earthquakes and tornados and floods. You can't say that things are the best you could possibly imagine, nature kills lots of people. And yet, you could call it all fine, because it is what you know, and if everything stayed as it currently is, you would call that fine. You are terrified of change, because it's not what you know, and you've talked yourself into thinking of only the ways your currently accepted "fine" might get worse. But the future will be fine, even if it is different, even if nature kills lots of people, it will still be fine. Historically, things tend to get better for people, and when they do, that will still only be fine.

Sadly it would be improper to mix data from different sources into a comparison. The only source that shows 1980-1982 doesn't give any hard numbers for it, just unlabeled bars on a graph, which is fine for what it's trying to show, but improper to do any data analysis with.

You picked a good source with the Canadian government though. If you want I have a chart that does try to downplay unbalancing factor of outliers, and to your credit it does flatten the slope a little.



Not a lot mind you, but a little.

Though I'm arguing with someone who thinks massive draughts and famines are "fine". Man, I never want to hear you complain about the Holodomor.

 

[tstorm823]

You've now been presented with numerous studies and definite committal statements from scientists and researchers on that.

It really is like you go out of your way to be wrong. You could take just a touch of assuredness off of most of what you're saying and be valid, but you go that extra little bit to make sure you can't possibly be right.

 

[Silvanus]

It really is like you go out of your way to be wrong. You could take just a touch of assuredness off of most of what you're saying and be valid, but you go that extra little bit to make sure you can't possibly be right.

I'd love to hear what inane quibbles or misrepresentations you're relying on to dismiss those sources now. It's almost a shame-- though unsurprising-- you've given up actually engaging with what they're saying.

 

[Agema]

I agree, what you're saying isn't controversial. Everything you are saying is measured and hypothetical. You're not saying that climate change is setting Canada on fire, as was suggested by the first comment I responded to. I don't believe you would be willing to make such a claim, I'm sure you could just as easily weigh the possibility that Canada becomes more temperate on average. Hence, the devil's advocate comment. I don't think you are defending the idea of climate change causing massive Canadian wildfires because that's your personal belief about current events, I think you're making good arguments for the possibility because the people who do actually believe that is the obvious truth are incapable of defending themselves.

So, do you think any researchers might have looked at the data - for instance on rainfall patterns, humidity and general temperature - to see whether there has been an increase in dry / warm spells in places that have experienced wildfires?

I feel Silvanus has some awareness of whether such studies have been conducted.

 

[Bedinsis]

Hey, @Agema, did you manage to log into your old account again?

 

[Agema]

Hey, @Agema, did you manage to log into your old account again?

Yeah, I accessed from a new computer and so had to put in my details. Not really thinking about it at the time, I put the old ones in on autopilot, and it worked. So I guess whatever was up all that time back got fixed.

 

[tstorm823]

I feel Silvanus has some awareness of whether such studies have been conducted.

Silvanus knows how to google his existing beliefs and find something to agree with him. That's not a rare talent worth deferring to. I have tremendously more respect and consideration for crimson5phoenix following data wherever it happened to lead.

Like, it's not in any way difficult to find a quality source that says:
"There is medium confidence that annual mean precipitation has increased, on average, in Canada, with larger percentage increases in northern Canada. Such increases are consistent with model simulations of anthropogenic climate change. Annual and winter precipitation is projected to increase everywhere in Canada over the 21st century, with larger percentage changes in northern Canada. Summer precipitation is projected to decrease over southern Canada under a high emission scenario toward the end of the 21st century, but only small changes are projected under a low emission scenario."

https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/Climate-change/pdf/CCCR-Chapter4-TemperatureAndPrecipitationAcrossCanada.pdf

Hey look, climate models suggest the boreal forests that do most of the burning will get more precipitation annually without notable decreases in any season. But what does finding that accomplish? I googled the answer I wanted and it was there, because every possible answer is there to be found somewhere. Empty, uninterpreted data is tremendously more valuable.

I'd love to hear what inane quibbles or misrepresentations you're relying on to dismiss those sources now. It's almost a shame-- though unsurprising-- you've given up actually engaging with what they're saying.

If you recall, I never particularly cared what they said in the first place.

 

[Silvanus]

If you recall, I never particularly cared what they said in the first place.

Yes, your derision towards expert opinion and research is well known.

Hilariously, even the source you posted above states that wildfire likelihood is increased in Canada as a result of climate change. Even when you "Google the answer you wanted", you still fail to find one that doesn't support what I'm saying.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, your derision towards expert opinion and research is well known.

Hilariously, even the source you posted above states that wildfire likelihood is increased in Canada as a result of climate change. Even when you "Google the answer you wanted", you still fail to find one that doesn't support what I'm saying.

It doesn't support what you're saying, because you go out of your way to be wrong. It says that the likelihood of specific instances may have been impacted by anthropogenic climate change. Please, read the words of anyone else arguing with me here not named Seanchaidh and compare what they're saying to what you're saying.

 

[Agema]

Like, it's not in any way difficult to find a quality source that says:
"There is medium confidence that annual mean precipitation has increased, on average, in Canada, with larger percentage increases in northern Canada. Such increases are consistent with model simulations of anthropogenic climate change. Annual and winter precipitation is projected to increase everywhere in Canada over the 21st century, with larger percentage changes in northern Canada. Summer precipitation is projected to decrease over southern Canada under a high emission scenario toward the end of the 21st century, but only small changes are projected under a low emission scenario."

https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/Climate-change/pdf/CCCR-Chapter4-TemperatureAndPrecipitationAcrossCanada.pdf

Am I to take it your point here was to make the point of cherry-picking data by you cherry-picking data? I mean, the source you just cited has a section specifically addressing wildfires and points out the increased risk in numerous areas due to anthropogenic climate change. Even from a neutral perspective, It seems odd to ignore the part explicitly dealing with the central topic of discussion to base your conclusions on.

 

[Silvanus]

It doesn't support what you're saying, because you go out of your way to be wrong. It says that the likelihood of specific instances may have been impacted by anthropogenic climate change. Please, read the words of anyone else arguing with me here not named Seanchaidh and compare what they're saying to what you're saying.

I've been saying that the risk of wildfire is increased by anthropogenic climate change and that scientists are clear on that point. You've been insisting otherwise.

Then you provide the source, which says;

"Higher temperatures in the future will contribute to increased fire potential ("fire weather")"

Huh! So not "might", but "will". And not just a specific incident, but "fire potential". You could almost call this a clear statement.

Some others from the piece;

"The changing frequency of temperature and precipitation extremes can be expected to lead to a change in the likelihood of events such as wildfires, droughts and floods"

"Higher temperatures in the future will contribute to increased values in the FWI [Fire Weather] indices and, therefore, increased fire risk".

 

[tstorm823]

Am I to take it your point here was to make the point of cherry-picking data by you cherry-picking data? I mean, the source you just cited has a section specifically addressing wildfires and points out the increased risk in numerous areas due to anthropogenic climate change. Even from a neutral perspective, It seems odd to ignore the part explicitly dealing with the central topic of discussion to base your conclusions on.

I mean, yes. But also, pointing at increased risk in numerous areas and treating it as generalized increased risk is completely one sided counterfactual analysis. You don't get to generalized risk statements without also considering times and places of decreased risk as well. Which I think is something everyone but Silvanus can understand, and is ultimately the point I'm trying to get across. Not every bad thing is climate change, and not every effect of climate change is going to be bad. At no point have I ever suggested there will be no detrimental effects (for humans) from climate change, and I think everyone understands except captain absolute.

I've been saying that the risk of wildfire is increased by anthropogenic climate change and that scientists are clear on that point.

You're just not understanding.

 

[Silvanus]

You don't get to generalized risk statements without also considering times and places of decreased risk as well. Which I think is something everyone but Silvanus can understand, and is ultimately the point I'm trying to get across.

I understand that perfectly well. I also understand that vaguely pointing to the possibility of decreases in some areas doesn't negate an overall increased risk, because that's completely inane. By that rationale we can't say there's a trend unless it's uniformly in one direction everywhere: crime is up dramatically in 45 states but slightly down in the other 5? No general trend, talking of a trend is "one-sided" and "counterfactual", all is well and action isn't needed!

Every source so far, including the one you found when "googling your own conclusion", say the likelihood of these extreme weather conditions-- including wildfire-- will overall increase with climate change.

 

[Satinavian]

ou don't get to generalized risk statements without also considering times and places of decreased risk as well

No one denied single rare instances where risk decreases. But that does not contradict the indusputable overall average increase.And that is the anyone looking at the big picture is concerned about.

Not every bad thing is climate change, and not every effect of climate change is going to be bad.

No, not every effect. Only the vast majority of effects.


No one is trying to absolute statements excluding every single deviation. That is nothing but a strawman you use to avoid having to acknowledge the average.

 

[tstorm823]

Every source so far, including the one you found when "googling your own conclusion", say the likelihood of these extreme weather conditions-- including wildfire-- will overall increase with climate change.

I'm sorry that you don't know how to read.

No one denied single rare instances where risk decreases.

That's literally how this started. It is a common suggestion that Canada is one of the places that would be a "climate winner", overall benefitting from global warming trends. The post was this:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/12/us/wildfire-smoke-from-british-columbia-causing-dangerous-air-quality/index.html

Canada: supposed safe haven from climate change.

The implication here is "nowhere is safe from climate change, everyone will suffer". And the users who have managed to not poop their pants have appropriately gotten a like or complement from me. "Stop pooping your pants" is not a high bar to hold someone to.

 

[Satinavian]

I'm sorry that you don't know how to read.

That's literally how this started. It is a common suggestion that Canada is one of the places that would be a "climate winner", overall benefitting from global warming trends. The post was this:

The implication here is "nowhere is safe from climate change, everyone will suffer". And the users who have managed to not poop their pants have appropriately gotten a like or complement from me. "Stop pooping your pants" is not a high bar to hold someone to.

I don't see the contradiction.

Climate change will bring some good and bad things to Canada and among the bad things are more and more severe wildfires. Even your own link states that that climate change is expected to be horrible for Canadian forestry while potential benefitial for agriculture.

Is the problem that one might conclude that even Canada, the suppossed winner of Climate change does not look all that enticing ? That alone does is not the same as anyone claiming there was no place anywhere that benefits from climate change.

 

[Ag3ma]

That's literally how this started. It is a common suggestion that Canada is one of the places that would be a "climate winner", overall benefitting from global warming trends. The post was this:

I can't help but point out that the "climate winners" are mostly places where the terrain likely to experience increased habitability is barely-populated tundra.

In other words, to all intents and purposes, everyone loses: because substantially no-one lives in the places due to improve most. And it's not like the mass population movement (possibly billions) required to exploit these areas, people fleeing areas going downhill, is going to be a problem-free experience. It's most likely going to be a slow if substantial humanitarian, economic, and political trauma.