Are warnings of San Diego fire conditions another example that we need to listen to scientists?

Question

In the 70s a few scientists warned that if we didn't start getting our sulfur dioxide emissions under control, we might trigger an ice age. As a result, we did just that (SO2 emissions have decreased since 1980 - see pages 12-14 in the link below), avoiding the potentially catastrophic scenario.

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

In the 80s we were warned that our CFC emissions were causing a hole in the ozone layer. As a result we phased them out in the mid-90s.

In 1999 we were warned that the Y2K bug would cause computers to crash. As a result we fixed the software.

Last year researchers in San Diego warned that "fire crews, land managers, ecologists and others need a better understanding of how global warming is making wildfires more frequent, bigger and more destructive"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061114-9999-1m14fires.html

Isn't it time to start listening to scientists' warnings about global warming?

Is anyone reading the whole question?

I'm not saying global warming magically started the fires. I'm saying researchers have pointed out that climate change is creating conditions ripe for strong wildfires.

Read the whole question next time.

Answer 1

Yes of course we need to listen and take some action now.

Some of the answers to this question are very, very, frightening. In essence many are saying, no matter what humanity does to the environment, it is ok, it can be fixed somehow, it will not have any negative impact because it is all natural cycles that we can not influence so we don't need to take any action to minimize the effects at all?

It is not just a frightening attitude but an extremely dangerous one too.

I quote from Jablob Yahoo Answers October 2007see link below for source of question:

The Question: Does Human-caused disturbance in ecosystems ever turn out well?

Jablob's Answer: 'Of course not. Every intervention leads to a greater, even more intractable problem. We can't engineer an entire planet or apply a "fix" to 4 billion years of evolution.

I know you know these things already, but heres some food for thought for you to use and the denialists to consider.

Fundamentalist thiests believe that a god will make everything right in the end regardless of what we do. Cornucopian economists believe human ingenuity will find a solution to whatever problems we create, and be able to stay one step ahead of disaster. I won't bother to list all our failed interventions; it's common knowledge and the irrational don't comprehend / won't believe anyway.

We live in a closed system. From a purely logical standpoint if we allow uncontrolled population growth and development, eventually resources will be exhausted and the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate will be degraded to the point where it will no longer function. The idea that Jesus will return and wave his hand making everything right is beyond silly; it's dangerous. The idea that an improved technology can circumvent fundamental limits is a fallacy. We are many generations away (or perhaps an infinite distance away) from such a complete understanding of the natural world that we could substitute technology for natural systems.

Start with the premise that the world is finite. The earth is a bounded sphere. Furthermore, the biosphere is smaller than you might think. The crust, the ocean and the atmosphere are a small portion of the earth. 90% of life is in margins of the land where it’s not too dry, too hot or too cold, in the shallow and upper portions of the ocean, in the lower portions of the atmosphere. The atmosphere you can breathe is only a few miles thick; the entire troposphere no more than 10 miles. You can see farther than the atmosphere is thick on a clear day. The biosphere doesn’t reach up and down endlessly. In the words of the shuttle astronauts, when you see it from space, the biosphere is a thin gossamer veneer wrapped around the planet.

Taking this further, the web of life has been in a state of dynamic equilibrium since the beginning of life on earth. Every corner of the globe is populated by exactly the right number and types of species that keeps things in balance. It’s possible that everything here is related and interdependent; biological processes, weather, geology, solar and astronomical cycles, even the position of our solar system within our galaxy. Since the beginning of the earth all have influenced one another and we now have the exquisitely balanced system that allows for our existence. However you believe this came into being; it is the objective reality to us humans and is the current unalterable state of affairs on this planet. You cannot change the laws of physics. You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. No matter how much you or I wish it were not so, how much you believe we can somehow circumvent the limits, how much you believe someone will come and save us before its too late, every bit of objective science in existence today only reinforces the fact that we are bound to and by the environment we live in.

Taking this to the logical extreme, if you change anything at all, anywhere, you potentially disturb the balance and the outcome is not knowable with any certainty. When you disturb an ecosystem the first thing that happens is the number of species declines by an order of magnitude. A diminished system does not function in a regenerative capacity anywhere near as efficient as the original did, and becomes vulnerable to total collapse. Would you say that this gives humanity license to change things at will? Or would it be more prudent to wait and perhaps for example apply the great law of the Iroquois – “In our every deliberation we must consider the impact on the next seven generations”. With our current state of knowledge our attempts to engineer the planet amount to a giant uncontrolled global experiment. Right now we have several of these experiments running concurrently, and it's been suggested the solution is to add more! Every intervention tried so far has lead to greater, even more intractable problems, with unforeseen consequences only to be found later, after Pandora's Box has been opened. No magic technology will be found. Our excesses will always outstrip our attempts to mitigate them. As has been the case throughout human history, up to this very moment, our wisdom will always lag behind our knowledge. Our curiosity is at the same time our greatest strength and weakness; except now we have a lever so big we can move the whole world'.

Answer 2

I sure hope you are just being facisious. You cannot be that naive.

So all those SO2 emmission decreases made such a huge impact on the climate that we avoided an ice age in just what 10 years? How long were SO2 emmissions being dumped into the atmosphere? So you are telling me that in 10 years, we averted something that MIGHT be caused by practices since the start of the industrial age, some 150 years ago? Boy we must be good!!!!

And yet again, some 15 years ago we stopped using CFC's that we had been using for some 50-60 years to fix something that is now known to be a natural cyclical occurrence of nature. The "Ozone Hole" is a result of changes on the sun and nothing more. We have no control over that in any way.

So should we listen to a guy who claimed to have invented the internet, a field entirely different from meteorology and the climate, that we Americans are the largest and most vicious perpatrators to the destruction of our climate because of CO2 emmissions?

Please read that last one out loud. You will be absolutely amazed at how stupid that proposal sounds. The scientists that are claiming global warming are the same one's who predicted the ice age and the ozone hole. How accurate were they then? So how accurate are they now?

You find me a sigle scientist who can make it rain in Georgia or stop the wind in California, then I will listen to anything that one guy has to say about the climate and the weather.


EDIT: For those who want to know what fires have to do with global warming, go find out what is in smoke from a forest fire and then ask how much has been introduced to the atmosphere over the past week. Not to mention the physical temperature of the fires. I am sure they heated the air around them, but how far out did that heating go? I bet we would have been a lot colder here in New Orleans the last couple of days had it not been for those fires!!!

Answer 3

Well, the short answer is "yes".

There are more factors involved in the destructiveness of fires than global warming. Urban sprawl is a big reason that fires are causing so much damage.

I suppose the 80mph winds could have some link to global warming, but there have always been strong winds there, so maybe not.

Anything that impacts global weather patterns is going to have an impact on pretty much everything that is impacted by weather.

Reducing global carbon emissions isn't the same as eliminating the use of certain types of chemicals (ozone). I don't know that San Diego and California could have done anything differently even if they listened to the scientists last year.

Answer 4

When the Spanish first sailed into San Diego bay, they saw fires burning the hills and felt Santa Ana winds. That was in the year 1520. There is a certain amount of hype about global warming, isn't there? Our weather has been amazingly stable for the past 100 years. Isn't it possible that fluctuations are natural and a part of Earth's history? Who caused the ice ages? There was a mini ice age as recently as 1776. My ancestors came to America around the year 1740 because there were a series of years in Europe that were so cold that there was no food. What caused that? Why did it warm up after that in the 1800's? Why are we so sure we are causing the weather to change. Maybe it usually IS changing and has been stable for an unusually long time.

Answer 5

These fires are not from global warning. Come on give me a break. I live in San Diego, it happened from a broken cable something like that and the rest were arson cases. Plus it doesn't help that we have been in a 7 year drought. Get your facts straight before you start spreading global warming bullshit facts. Not to say that its not real. Katrina was caused by global warming. Fires here NOT!

Answer 6

Fire crews knew about the dnager of wildfires long before scientists did.

If you are worried about global warming maybe we should crank up those sulfur dioxide emissions that were going to cause that ice age to counter global warming.

Scientists don't have a clue what Mother Nature is going to do. They can't see far enough in the future to really understand what is going on.

OBTW we've had global warming going on since the peak of the last ice age. Scientists are just now finding out about it.

Answer 7

"I'm not saying global warming magically started the fires. I'm saying researchers have pointed out that climate change is creating conditions ripe for strong wildfires."

That's exactly right Dana.

To me It's the idea that if we overbuild in sensitive areas, ignoring natural cues, nature will come back and bite us. As others have stated, doesn't matter what started the fire, we shouldn't be in the way. But that's another matter.

Answer 8

God is in control of the climate - NOT man! Global warming is a load of crap. It's merely an outrageous dream that Al Gore had one night, then woke up the next morning, claiming it's real. He has a wild imagination, Gore does! Scientists are the smartest dumb people on the earth. Wake up and smell the roses and read the prophesies in the bible - not what scientists spit out of their mouths!

Oh yeah - and scientists said we were headed for an ice age - NEVER happened - still coming or what? LOL! They're all a joke!

Answer 9

Per capita isn't this the region of the United States who support the scientists? I agree with the concept of Global Warming and a possible mini-ice age, but that cannot change the possibility of arson.

Answer 10

Scientists don't know whats causing global warming. It may even be a natural cycle that we are in now. The fact of the matter is people living in areas such as southern California know that there is a big chance of fires and they live there anyway. Global warming alarmist are just wanting to tax us more and control our lives more. Its becoming a religion. I have my own religion thank you, and I don't need your junk science either.