Sounds drastic. A few questions that I think need to be asked. What’s the increase in population prone to bushfires since the data began? What’s the % of property loss as % of increased population? What % of these fires were deliberately lit, and or accidentally lit due to lightning strikes, power line down etc. What % of the burnt affected area in your study had a fuel reduction burn in the decade preceding the fires? Who funded the research? Sounds very biased.
@douglasengle2704
25 күн бұрын
1:19:25 You can't have climate change when there is no predictive long term model for California climate. California weather cycles stretch over decades instead of a year making for a climate with weather extremes that can be decades apart. There were century long droughts discovered in the South West United States area of today from geologic information back in the 1400 - 1600 meaning the climate could have weather cycles in periods of centuries. California is dependent on winter storms to get its rain that are highly dependent on the El Niño Southern Oscillation that takes place every two to seven years. The average rain fall estimated going back 30 - 40 years for the building of the Hoover Dam in Nevada during the early 1930s is now recognized as not having gone back far enough to get a true average with that period being much wetter than normal. It's impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. This video has the United Nations Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
Пікірлер: 2