Climate change and California fires

[Stalin]

Deafening silence from the usual suspects on the events predicted by the climate change model..

"Climate change has made the grasses and shrubs that are fuelling the Los Angeles fires more vulnerable to burning, scientists say.

Rapid swings between dry and wet conditions in the region in recent years have created a massive amount of tinder-dry vegetation that is ready to ignite.

Decades of drought in California were followed by extremely heavy rainfall for two years in 2022 and 2023, but that then flipped again to very dry conditions the in autumn and winter of 2024.

Scientists say in a new study that climate change has boosted what they call these "whiplash" conditions globally by 31-66% since the middle of the 20th Century.

The wildfires have spread across parts of the Los Angeles area, leading to at least five deaths, burning down hundreds of buildings, and prompting evacuation orders for more than 179,000 people.

"This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold," said lead author Daniel Swain from UCLA.

"First, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels with the extreme dryness and warmth that followed."

The researchers say that with every degree of warming the atmosphere is able to evaporate, absorb and release 7% more water.

This "expanding atmospheric sponge" as the scientists term it, not only leads to flooding when things are wetter, but it pulls extra moisture out of the plants and soils when the drier conditions set in.

Climate change: What role is it playing in the California fires

Experts say that rising global temperatures are making wild fires more likely in California.

www.bbc.com

Hydroclimate volatility on a warming Earth - Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Rapid transitions between extreme wet and extreme dry conditions — ‘hydroclimate whiplash’ — have marked environmental and societal impacts. This Review outlines observed and projected changes in hydroclimate whiplash, suggesting that subseasonal and interannual volatility will increase markedly...

www.nature.com

Comrade Stalin
Moscow

 

[Scooby]

The idiot liberals in California don't clear the forestation underbrush. That is the #1 reason for these fires being so out of control.

If climate change was real it would be a global phenomenon. How come only ultra liberal California experiences these types of fires regularly?

 

[Stalin]

I am very impressed.

You obviously know a lot more about science than the people who put humans on the moon and the overwhelming majority of climate
scientists.

However it is more possible that you are a tits-up scientifically illiterate doofus just repeating some BS from a mega-lite website somewhere.

If climate change is not real, then the greenhouse effect is not real,

So tell me

What would the average temperature of the earth's surface be if carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas ?

Earnestly awaiting your reply

Comrade Stalin
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

The idiot liberals in California don't clear the forestation underbrush. That is the #1 reason for these fires being so out of control.

If climate change was real it would be a global phenomenon. How come only ultra liberal California experiences these types of fires regularly?

It IS a global phenomenon, imbecile. There have been huge fires in Europe and Australia. You are simply ignorant of reality.

 

[the annoying thing]

I am very impressed.

You obviously know a lot more about science than the people who put humans on the moon and the overwhelming majority of climate
scientists.

However it is more possible that you are a tits-up scientifically illiterate doofus just repeating some BS from a mega-lite website somewhere.

If climate change is not real, then the greenhouse effect is not real,

So tell me

What would the average temperature of the earth's surface be if carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas ?

Earnestly awaiting your reply

Comrade Stalin
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry

nope hes right they do not clean it up people have shingle roofs and a lack of funds due to cali spending on stupidty

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

The government of California does not put roofs on houses, the owners do that.

 

[the annoying thing]

The government of California does not put roofs on houses, the owners do that.

the government of California is InCharge of the building and fire codes egg in case you did not notice.
Shingle roofs are well know for starting fires and spreading.

 

[the annoying thing]

Also cali has had severe water problems and instead of building desalination plants they spent it on other projects that are not needed that's why they went from 100 billion surplus to 78 billion in debt under Newsom in 4 years

Turning Seawater into Drinking Water Daily Output and Efficiency of Desalination Plants

Explore how desalination plants turn seawater into drinking water, producing millions of cubic meters of fresh water daily. Learn about the efficiency and regional applications of this vital technology.

waterroplant.com

 

[Boris Norris]

The idiot liberals in California don't clear the forestation underbrush. That is the #1 reason for these fires being so out of control.

If climate change was real it would be a global phenomenon. How come only ultra liberal California experiences these types of fires regularly?

You're a ignorant fool.
Dumb as dogshyt.

 

[the annoying thing]

You're a ignorant fool.
Dumb as dogshyt.

Hès right I lived out there its not one of Newsoms priority's.

MSN

 

[Stalin]

Earnestly awaiting your reply

Comrade Stalin

I am still waiting..

Maybe the question is too hard.

How about this one.

Do you think the greenhouse effect exists ?

comrade stalin BSc

 

[Scooby]

What would the average temperature of the earth's surface be if carbon dioxide was not a greenhouse gas ?

Anyone who answers that question is just guessing - even the so-called climate scientists (whose predictions are proven false time and time and time again).

 

[Boris Norris]

Anyone who answers that question is just guessing - even the so-called climate scientists (whose predictions are proven false time and time and time again).

Do you believe climate change from fossil fuels is a hoax?

 

[Stalin]

Anyone who answers that question is just guessing - even the so-called climate scientists (whose predictions are proven false time and time and time again).

As i suspected, your are ignorant of basic earth science...

i should be paid for teaching you science ( as I am indeed a qualified science teacher )

read and learn

"
If the Earth had no atmosphere, then the entire energy received from the sun would reach the surface undisturbed, to be reflected from and/or absorbed by it. As it stands, the Earth's surface reflects part of the solar energy. This is what makes the part of the Earth lit by the sun visible from space (Figure 8) in the same way that the moon and the other members of the solar system are visible to us, despite the fact that they lack an inner source of visible radiation. The most obvious aspect of Figure 7 is the brightness of the Earth's cloud cover. A significant part of the Earth's reflectivity can be attributed to clouds (this is but one reason why they are so important for the Earth's climate). In climate texts the reflectivity of a planet is referred to as the albedo of the planet and is expressed as a fraction. The Albedo of Earth depends on the geographical location (can you tell from Figure 7 which has higher albedo, the land or the ocean?). On the average however, the Earth's albedo is about 0.3. This fraction of incoming radiation is reflected back into space. The other 0.7 part of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by our planet.

Effective temperature.​

By absorbing the incoming solar radiation, the Earth warms up and its temperature rises. If the Earth would have had no atmosphere or ocean, as is the case for example on the moon, it would get very warm on the sunlit face of the planet and much colder than we experience presently, on the dark side (the little warmth on the dark side would come from the limited amount of heat stored in the ground from the previous daytime - this is, to some extent, what we experience in a cloud-free, land locked desert climate).


We have seen that all heated objects must emit electromagnetic radiation, particularly so if they are surrounded by empty space. This radiation is referred to as outgoing. As long as the incoming radiative flux is larger than the outgoing, the radiated object will continue to warm, and its temperature will continue to increase. This in turn will result in an increase in the outgoing radiation (according to the Stefan-Boltzman law the outgoing radiation increases faster than the temperature). At some point the object will emit as much radiation as the amount incoming and a radiative equilibrium (or balance) will be reached. Using what we have learned about radiative heat transfer and some geometric calculation we can calculate the equilibrium temperature of an object if we know the amount of incoming energy. Here is how we do that in the case of a planet rotating around the Sun:


First let us denote the solar radiative flux at the top of the planets atmosphere by S (for solar constant) and the albedo of the planet by A. Then let us figure out the total amount of radiation absorbed by the planet. To overcome the difficulty posed by the fact that the planets are spherical and their surface tilts with respect to the incoming radiation, note that the amount distributed over the sphere is equal the amount that would be collected on the planets surface if it was a disk (with the same radius as the sphere), placed perpendicular to the sunlight. If the planet's radius is R the area of that disk is πR2. Thus:


heat absorbed by planet = (1 - A) πR2S


The total heat radiated from the planet is equal to the energy flux implied by its temperature (from the Stefan-Boltzman law) times the entire surface of the planet or:


heat radiated from planet = (4πR2) σT4


In radiative balance we thus have:

(4πR2 ) σT4 = (1 - A) πR2S


Solving this equation for temperature we obtain:

Te = [(1-A)S / 4σ] 1/4


We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C). With this temperature the Earth radiation will be centered on a wavelength of about 11 μm, well within the range of infrared (IR) radiation.


Because of the spectral properties of the Sun and Earth radiation we tend to refer to them as "shortwave" and "longwave" radiation, respectively.

Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

 

[Stalin]

more...

The greenhouse effect.​

The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is the effect of our atmosphere, or more precisely, the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is traditionally referred to as the greenhouse effect referring to the warming of garden plots by covering them with a glass enclosure.


Here is how the greenhouse effect works: The Earth's atmosphere contains many trace (or minor) components (see Figure 9 for the composition of the atmosphere). While the major atmospheric components (Nitrogen and Oxygen) absorb little or no radiation, some of the minor components are effective absorbers (Figure 10). Particularly effective is water vapor, which absorb effectively in the IR wavelength range (Figure 10).


Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight most of it is absorbed at the surface (some is reflected, as we saw earlier, from the surface and by clouds and other light particles suspended in the air). When the surface warms and emits IR radiation, this radiation can not freely escape into space because trace gases such as water vapor absorb it. These gases (and their surrounding air) warm up, emitting radiation towards the Earth's surface, as well as upward, towards space (half is emitted up and half down). This effectively traps part of the IR radiation between ground and the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. The surface temperature then rises above the effective temperature calculated above (Te). The effect is similar to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.


So how then is radiative balance maintained? All that the IR absorbing gases do is make it more difficult for heat to escape, they don't (and can't) stop the heat output, because half of their emission is directed upward towards space. The greenhouse effect forced the planet to raise it's surface temperature until the amount of heat radiated from the top of the absorbing layer is equal to the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. It is at the top of the absorbing layer that the effective temperature is reached, while down at the surface of the Earth it is much warmer.

Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

got that ?

comrade stalin
moscow university