Soldiers Are Fighting Climate Change in Central Washington

Comments

1
The navy has already begun fighting climate change.
2
Cliff Mass disagrees. But what would he know? He's just a professor of climatology.
3
Front row seats indeed. The irony will be all the sweeter when the polar pioneer returns to roost for another warm winter as the state still smolders.
5
"only war gives the state enough power to totally displace market dictates and discourses". What about FDR's first years? Markets and financiers were regulated; the federal government became the lead job-creator and provider for the unemployed and impoverished. Political will and a willingness to be a dictatorial executive seem sufficient as war to motivate state action against ravaging markets.
6
@4, i had no idea cliff mass is a witch doctor.
7
Actually, they are fighting flames from horrific wildfires. Good to be precise.
8
@2, 4: cliff was saying the drought is not attributable to CC. but the fires?

the pine bark beetle infestation has changed western forests. my understanding is that progressively milder winters have allowed them to spread their range.

cliff is very cautious, because he's an actual scientist.
9
Good Afternoon Charles,
Your comments were interesting.

Just wanted to add that 'war' rhetoric is common language for intractable foes ('war on poverty', 'war on drugs', 'war on women', etc.) real or perceived. It gets people's attention whether genuine or not (I've never declared a 'war' on women).

Personally, I'm well aware of the disaster unfolding w/o that vocabulary. I saw the haze Sat. & Sun. I can only support the brave efforts of the firefighters be they civilian or soldier. It is most unfortunate.
10
Check out Cliff's dissembling interview he did on Blabbermouth. He basically said there is no firm evidence that the oceans are acidifying, and it is not the proper role of scientists to do anything other than stick to their knitting. They should keep mum about about what to do about climate change because, after all, their scientists, not decision makers or policy experts. He sounded totally bought.
11
Of course meant "they're"
12
Of course forests contain a massive amount of stored carbon, which is released in these fires. So those firefighters are literally reducing the impact of climate change with every tree they extinguish.
14
War
what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
...say it again.


@8 - Pine Bark Beetle infestations... The climate & environmental scientists I know have been saying for over 10 years that the ranges of insects (and some flora) have been shifting northwards for some time now. Likely due to a reduction in moisture (as the glaciers are clearly melting) and increased temperatures. However gradual these changes seem such that they don't represent statistical trends on Cliff Mass's charts, they are equating with stressed trees (more pollen, vulnerability to insects), and insects moving north and staying longer.

Those data existed in 2005.

IMHO "climate change" does not mean a clear "warming trend", but instead "increased weather chaos" as more water vapor enters the atmosphere... so more extremes, generally, and different weather patterns for any given area.

I guess only time will tell on Cliff's charts if we encounter more temperature and snowpack volatility in the years to come -- or less.

But with the amount of carbon, methane, water vapor ... and who knows what other ungodly chemical mixtures various industries are spewing into the air the world over... we're in for a wild ride. And no one knows exactly what timeframe we're looking at either. End of the century? Sure, maybe. Sooner? Possibly.

It's a modern version of Pascal's Wager: Even if you don't necessarily believe in 'climate change' -- or believe it is happening now -- isn't it smarter to assume it is and prepare accordingly?
16
Fighting bushfires is not about extinguishing burning trees. It's about containing the spread of the fire until it either runs out of fuel or gets soaked by the rains. Even in a wet year, there isn't enough water to "put out" a bushfire.
17
@2: No, he's a professor of meteorology. Officially, he's a professor of atmospheric sciences, but his expertise is in meteorology, not climatology. I know he's not a denier, just a skeptic, (as in, an actual skeptic rather than a denier calling himself a skeptic), but there IS a difference between the fields. Of course, actual deniers don't seem to understand the distinction...
18
it's called "Data"

19
@17 - you are correct, I was wrong there.
20
@6 Fuck off Charles. Maybe take a science class or two, or just fucking call the guy up rather than this glib, anti-intellectual bullshit.

Seriously, either put up or shut up.
21
@20, seriously, i'm noticing a pattern in cliff mass that points to an obscurantism dressed up as scientific caution. scientist do not live outside of culture.
22
@21 Then drop the "witch doctor" bullshit and make an actual argument addressing the things he's actually said. If there's a "pattern" like you claim, then write a piece showing several of the things he's said, and how it's "obscurantism" rather than an overly nuanced explanation of an incredibly complicated field of science.

Right now all I'm seeing are people that are ignoring the data being presented and the nuances of that data - hearing "yes climate change is real but right this very second the Pacific Ocean is having a much greater impact on our weather right this very second" and seeing others take it as though he secretly denies climate change is getting a bit old.

So how about a real argument?