Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

Who is this "they" you refer to?

One number like that means you are quoting someone. Who is it you are quoting?

 

Nothing to do with climate change.
August 15, 2023
The Real Cause of the Maui Wildfire Disaster[/paste:font]

This blog will discuss the key reason for the Maui disaster, one not discussed by the media and others: a high amplitude atmospheric wave forced by strong winds interacting with the mountains of northwest Maui.

An atmosphere wave that produced powerful, dry downslope winds on the western slopes of West Maui mountains.




A vertical cross-section of the predicted mountain wave.
Explained in detail below


The terrible disaster in Maui has been leading the news cycle for a week now, with media and others proposing many causes: climate change, drought, dry invasive grasses, and Hurricane Dora to name a few.

But none of them have identified the key reason why so many people died last week and why the damage was so extensive. None explained the 60-90 mph gusts that hit a very localized area. Winds strong enough to shear off wooden power poles, tear roofs apart, and down lines of power lines.


And it wasn't Hurricane Dora, a relatively small tropical storm that passed 700 miles to the south of Hawaii. . . .

The Bottom Line
The Maui event was the result of a high amplitude mountain wave and strong, dry downslope flow on the western slopes of the mountains of West Maui. The mountain wave was the result of strong approaching flow and a stable layer near the crest level of the Maui Mountains.
Strong dry winds support fire and result in rapid movement of the flame front, as well as moving embers ahead. The winds could well have started the fire by damaging infrastructure. As noted in my earlier blog, a huge reserve of dry, flammable grasses was in place.
This event was not the result of climate change, Hurricane Dora, or an extended drought. It resulted from an unusually intense mountain wave/downslope windstorm produced by a fairly rare convergence of conditions.
This event was highly predictable using modern weather prediction technology. The combination of a reasonable weather observing network (which does not exist on Maui) and the use of state-of-science weather modeling, the population of Maui can receive far better warnings that can prevent this tragedy from occurring again.

 

True, Indianapolis Star, “Climate Change is not ‘Theoretical,’” but Its Connection to Extreme Weather Is
". . . . Concerning extreme rainfall and flooding, data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that Indiana’s single day record for precipitation was set in August 1905, more than 118 years of global warming ago. Also, although records do indicate the mid-western United States is receiving modestly more precipitation now on average during the present period of modest warming than it did in the early and mid-20th century, this has not led to a worsening of flooding. In fact, in its most recent report the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it has detected no changes in flooding and that it can attribute no particular floods or patterns in floods to human caused climate change.

Concerning extreme heat, once again data from the NCEI refute Filippelli’s uncorroborated assertion that extreme heat is increasing. Indiana’s single day maximum temperature record, of 116℉ was set in 1936, 87 years of climate change ago. Indeed, more record hot temperatures in the United States were set during the dust bowl decade of the 1930s than in any other decade before or since, and far more record high temperatures for the country were set prior to 1950, before the recent period of modest warming, than have been set or tied in the past 70 years of climate change. Only six high temperature records have been set or tied since 2000 during what most alarmists call the hottest two decades on record. By contrast, 25 state maximum temperature records set in the 1930s still stand as records today. . . . ."

 

Is this up for debate?

 

LOL. I accept your concession that you can not make an intellectual argument or provide evidence for your specious accusations.

I’m not smarter than the vast majority of climatologists. But I’m intelligent enough understand on matters of science evidence produced through application of the scientific method trumps personal opinions and the opinions of journalists and politicians.

You keep your personal unsubstantiated opinions. I’ll continue to share what actual climatologists from around the planet discover through careful study and experimentation. Perhaps someday you will accept instead of deny science.

 

Where have you been for the last ten years?

 

I'm still willing to accept what an entire world of scientists in the various fields of climatology have come up with.

I am absolutely certain that is a better approach that searching out individual papers that seem contrarian, without even questioning why those papers haven't caused scientists in the field serious concern.

One would have to believe their is a nearly perfect world wide conspiracy of scientists, dedicated to fooling the world to accept the approach that you choose.

 

No. You reject the world of science. The studies I present are not contrarian. They are mainstream. Evidenced by the FACT you nor anyone else can point to any evidence to the contrary.

You are rejecting the world of climatology in favor of unsubstantiated opinions.

If you think there is a conspiracy you must provide some evidence for it's existence.

Please use the PF quote function to provide a quote of me rejecting various fields of climatology. Go ahead. Be a man and support your allegations with evidence!

Remember when you asked this question?

If you knew anything about what you call “mainline” science you never would have asked that question. It’s as basic and “mainline” as it comes. If you read IPCC reports you wouldn’t have asked that question. I was able to quickly answer your question with specific knowledge backed up by a peer reviewed study. But it’s so basic and “mainline” the IPCC has been saying similar for decades. Local effects are often far greater than CO2 AGW effects. In many ways. Specifically in heat and dryness on western Maui.

The IPCC had this to say in one of it’s first reports.

This is definitely the case in Lahaina that was once referred to as Venice of the Pacific because there was so much water and streams and wetlands around the settlement. When the forests were destroyed the whole climate changed. This is mainline science. Even the IPCC reported on the phenomenon. Yet you had so little knowledge of this mechanism you were astonished that Hawaii could change the climate of Hawaii. Hawaii changed the climate of western Maui far more than US or Chinese CO2 ever could in a millennium.

But ya’ll don’t even know what’s in the IPCC reports. You think they are “mainline” and yet even THEY conflict with your unsubstantiated opinions. Bottom line is you have no idea what “mainline” science is. No idea whatever. So any time mainline science is presented you are flabbergasted and must reject it as it conflicts with your unsubstantiated biased opinions you pick up from the media etc.

Why would the studies I present cause any climatologist concern? They are produced by climatologists and are even represented in your religious text, the IPCC reports. Unfortunately you never read them…,

 

We all know what the global warming narrative is about

 

Last time: What scientists SAY is irrelevant to a Scientific Consensus. Only thing that matters is what they can PROVE.

 

And that's the point. This thread is based on a claim that has not been (and cannot be) proven. Here's some recent information.
Climate Fact-Check August 2023 Edition
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS SEPTEMBER 15, 2023

 

The general public is not technically equipped to understand whether the scientists have proved it or not. They are depending on a scientific consensus on what has been proved and no such consensus exists.

 

Hurricane Dora has made headlines this week for having partially contributed to the winds that whipped up a ferocious firestorm in Hawaii. Now Dora, already having set a record for longevity in the Pacific Ocean, has made more history, more than three weeks after being born in a different ocean more than 10,000 miles away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/11/hurricane-dora-typhoon-hawaii-record/

 

Last time- Webster's says a consensus is an agreement on opinion. If 89 % of a given sample say AGW is not an emergency, that is a consensus that global warming is not an emergency.

What dictionary are you using @Golem? It sounds to me like you are using an English to Swahili dictionary the converting it back into English with your Swahili to English dictionary. You should stick to Webster's. Prove me wrong.

 

WaPo was wrong.
August 15, 2023
The Real Cause of the Maui Wildfire Disaster

This blog will discuss the key reason for the Maui disaster, one not discussed by the media and others: a high amplitude atmospheric wave forced by strong winds interacting with the mountains of northwest Maui.

An atmosphere wave that produced powerful, dry downslope winds on the western slopes of West Maui mountains.




A vertical cross-section of the predicted mountain wave.
Explained in detail below


The terrible disaster in Maui has been leading the news cycle for a week now, with media and others proposing many causes: climate change, drought, dry invasive grasses, and Hurricane Dora to name a few.

But none of them have identified the key reason why so many people died last week and why the damage was so extensive. None explained the 60-90 mph gusts that hit a very localized area. Winds strong enough to shear off wooden power poles, tear roofs apart, and down lines of power lines.


And it wasn't Hurricane Dora, a relatively small tropical storm that passed 700 miles to the south of Hawaii. . . .

The Bottom Line
The Maui event was the result of a high amplitude mountain wave and strong, dry downslope flow on the western slopes of the mountains of West Maui. The mountain wave was the result of strong approaching flow and a stable layer near the crest level of the Maui Mountains.
Strong dry winds support fire and result in rapid movement of the flame front, as well as moving embers ahead. The winds could well have started the fire by damaging infrastructure. As noted in my earlier blog, a huge reserve of dry, flammable grasses was in place.
This event was not the result of climate change, Hurricane Dora, or an extended drought. It resulted from an unusually intense mountain wave/downslope windstorm produced by a fairly rare convergence of conditions.
This event was highly predictable using modern weather prediction technology. The combination of a reasonable weather observing network (which does not exist on Maui) and the use of state-of-science weather modeling, the population of Maui can receive far better warnings that can prevent this tragedy from occurring again.

 

My yes- the baddest a$$ storm to hit Hawaii is all of recorded history.

Say how long is that historical record anyways? 75 years maybe?

That just a snapshot of history.

So you took a snapshot of a bird that wasn't flying and have come to the conclusion that birds can't fly. You need more history than 70 years out of billions of years if you want an accurate conclusion

 

And they will never be if we keep electing anti-education fascist book-banners like DeSantis.

 

Your pseudo-arguments have been debunked in this forum a long time ago. Please try to keep up...
https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/

 

Are you joking?

That's a philosophy site, not a dictionary.

 

Oh oh! You didn't even know that Logic is a branch of Philosophy.

Never mind. Carry on....

 

You tire me.

Good luck with your blogs though. Even if only you know the definitions of the terms you are using and they are kept Top Secret.

 

Thought it might be interesting to address the claim increases in hurricane frequency have never been part of the AGW narrative. Here is a sample of it being a claim of the folks climate nutters get their information from—the media.

https://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-denying-republican-rep-073459819.html

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna102952

https://news.yahoo.com/wildfires-hurricanes-heat-u-getting-123000784.html

 

That is an absurd statement, even for you. In order to have the technical qualifications to be able to understand ABW would require an education in climatology. Nothing DeSantis has done has anything to do with that.

 

I believe US News rates Florida as the #1 state in the nation for education overall. They must be doing something right.

 

Educated people know they don't need a degree in science to understand a Scientific Consensus.

What is explained in the following link is nothing new to anybody with a general education in the epistemological aspects of science. Usually acquired at a High School level
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/scientific-consensus-vs-opinion-consensus.611928/