3 ms·

The Decade of Sock Hops, Poodle Skirts, and Climate Change Awareness

27 points by Petiver 3y ago

cpncrunch 3y ago
It doesn't help climate change awareness by pushing shoddy science like this. Author says "in the 1950s, the state’s fire season lasted about four months; today, it is effectively year round, and the acreage burned during the most severe seasons (1950 versus 2020) has increased eightfold (to say nothing of lives and property lost)." but there is no reference for that. Here are stats of wildfire activity from 1987, which shows the number of fires is dropping, and acreage burned is about the same (it varies a lot): https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/our-impact/fire-statistics/fires-acres-all-agencies-thru-2018.pdf?rev=bdb130cf3de24d00addcba1d2b08561f&hash=07DBEC4EFA15DC6CA9AD88BAAE613A01 https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.az... Esstimates show that fire acreage has reduced from 4.5 million acres a year pre gold rush to less than half of that figure now: https://archive.is/U0NhA https://archive.is/U0NhA It's counter-productive to use fake science to push climate change awareness, as it will have the opposite of the intended effect, and will just allow people to ignore it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rnk 3y ago
  That first link you gave shows a lot of variation, but doesn't give any info to compare to 1950s because it only goes to 1987, as you said. So we can't use that to make any conclusions about now versus 1950s. I think we also have to consider the intensity of fires. Supposedly, fires are hotter now because there's a lot more accumulated fuel since there are no longer so many smaller fires. In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    :In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions Its in the second link and i summarised it. Acres burned has actually reduced. If you read that second link it gives 1950s data. Acres burned reduced in 1950s and then increased, but is still lower than pre goldrush. Looks like the author cherrypicked the 1950s.
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago
      ...and yet you're cherry picking information from the article, the main point being that global warming was a well known phenomena in the 1950's! I just don't get it - this is an existential threat, and people are still in denial.
      - cpncrunch 3y ago
        I was actually going by the picture and the very first sentence: "A wildfire tore through Fort McMurray, Alberta, on Saturday, May 7, 2016...Earth’s weather, now, not in the future—and it’s full of fire". I read the article to see what it said about wildfires and climate change, as there has been a lot of invalid hyperbole about that very subject recently (including a recent Guardian opinion piece which incorrectly stated that Canada's wildfires have increased, when the Canadian Wildfire Database actually shows the opposite). Not unexpectedly, this article also misrepresents climate change as increasing wildfires. It's just very irritating all these terrible arguments that are doing so much to justify climate denialism even though they are attempting to do the opposite. Here is the Guardian article I'm referring to which first got my ire up about this subject: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/20/canada-wildfires-big-oil https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/20/canada... and here is the data: https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb What the heck do we need to do to get climate change activists to take climate change science seriously?
      - ttonkytonk 3y ago
        @cpncrunch - for some reason it's not letting me respond directly to your comment. The link you have provided seems to show a decrease in total fires but some increase in actual area burned. It's natural for media to exaggerate somewhat. There's been many reports of an increase of the wildfire season in California, though it's not necessarily all driven by global warming.
- radiospiel 3y ago
  wouldn't call it "shoddy" without proof. The numbers that you link don't come close to cover the 50ies. Yet, albeit showing a declining numbers of fires, do show an excessive growth of affected area; if I would dwell in California I would be deeply worried.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    The mercury news link i gave does give 1950s data. Sorry i didnt clarify. See my other comment.
nathan_compton 3y ago
"somehow we lost track of the science" Weird way to say that oil companies mounted a conscious and well funded propaganda campaign to muddy the waters and prevent action.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
Now read the predictions about nuclear power from the 1950’s. If we had kept up our focus on nuclear power and didn’t allow ourselves to be influenced by the anti-nuclear Greens, we would have had far more zero carbon nuclear power available today and be in a far better position with respect to climate change.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  influenced by the anti-nuclear Greens You can blame TMI, Chernobyl & Fukushima for this, along with a lack of will from politicians who are actually in power.
- clydethefrog 3y ago
  Why are the anti-nuclear Greens are always blamed for this development? They did not achieve any of their other goals on their agenda (we are still eating more and more meat and destroying nature) but somehow they managed to succeed in this goal - that also pretty much favours the agenda of the powerful and wealthy fossil foil industry.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    Recently, the alliance with the Greens was one of the big reasons why Germany's nuclear power plants were shuttered (and coal was increasingly used to replace the capacity).
thangalin 3y ago
Popular Science mentioned the same effect in 1912. * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5 https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.... * https://i.ibb.co/nQKZfzC/climate-change.png https://i.ibb.co/nQKZfzC/climate-change.png * https://tinyurl.com/climate1911 https://tinyurl.com/climate1911 (Google Books link)
ttonkytonk 3y ago
This is why in The Republic (the dramatic setting being a chance, informal discussion about justice), the ruling class was not allowed to have private property - because it warps their judgement. What's interesting is that despite this prohibition, Socrates refuses to concede that they would not be happy, the implication being that their jobs as rulers would be sufficient. Notice how many games involve power and control. How much happier might people be, if they had some real power in decision-making in their communities!

27 points by Petiver 3y ago

It doesn't help climate change awareness by pushing shoddy science like this. Author says "in the 1950s, the state’s fire season lasted about four months; today, it is effectively year round, and the acreage burned during the most severe seasons (1950 versus 2020) has increased eightfold (to say nothing of lives and property lost)." but there is no reference for that. Here are stats of wildfire activity from 1987, which shows the number of fires is dropping, and acreage burned is about the same (it varies a lot): https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfire-website/our-impact/fire-statistics/fires-acres-all-agencies-thru-2018.pdf?rev=bdb130cf3de24d00addcba1d2b08561f&hash=07DBEC4EFA15DC6CA9AD88BAAE613A01 https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.az... Esstimates show that fire acreage has reduced from 4.5 million acres a year pre gold rush to less than half of that figure now: https://archive.is/U0NhA https://archive.is/U0NhA It's counter-productive to use fake science to push climate change awareness, as it will have the opposite of the intended effect, and will just allow people to ignore it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rnk 3y ago
That first link you gave shows a lot of variation, but doesn't give any info to compare to 1950s because it only goes to 1987, as you said. So we can't use that to make any conclusions about now versus 1950s. I think we also have to consider the intensity of fires. Supposedly, fires are hotter now because there's a lot more accumulated fuel since there are no longer so many smaller fires. In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions.
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  :In any case, I don't see any information you presented that leads to your conclusions Its in the second link and i summarised it. Acres burned has actually reduced. If you read that second link it gives 1950s data. Acres burned reduced in 1950s and then increased, but is still lower than pre goldrush. Looks like the author cherrypicked the 1950s.
  - ttonkytonk 3y ago
    ...and yet you're cherry picking information from the article, the main point being that global warming was a well known phenomena in the 1950's! I just don't get it - this is an existential threat, and people are still in denial.
    - cpncrunch 3y ago
      I was actually going by the picture and the very first sentence: "A wildfire tore through Fort McMurray, Alberta, on Saturday, May 7, 2016...Earth’s weather, now, not in the future—and it’s full of fire". I read the article to see what it said about wildfires and climate change, as there has been a lot of invalid hyperbole about that very subject recently (including a recent Guardian opinion piece which incorrectly stated that Canada's wildfires have increased, when the Canadian Wildfire Database actually shows the opposite). Not unexpectedly, this article also misrepresents climate change as increasing wildfires. It's just very irritating all these terrible arguments that are doing so much to justify climate denialism even though they are attempting to do the opposite. Here is the Guardian article I'm referring to which first got my ire up about this subject: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/20/canada-wildfires-big-oil https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/20/canada... and here is the data: https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb What the heck do we need to do to get climate change activists to take climate change science seriously?
    - ttonkytonk 3y ago
      @cpncrunch - for some reason it's not letting me respond directly to your comment. The link you have provided seems to show a decrease in total fires but some increase in actual area burned. It's natural for media to exaggerate somewhat. There's been many reports of an increase of the wildfire season in California, though it's not necessarily all driven by global warming.
radiospiel 3y ago
wouldn't call it "shoddy" without proof. The numbers that you link don't come close to cover the 50ies. Yet, albeit showing a declining numbers of fires, do show an excessive growth of affected area; if I would dwell in California I would be deeply worried.
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  The mercury news link i gave does give 1950s data. Sorry i didnt clarify. See my other comment.

nathan_compton 3y ago

"somehow we lost track of the science" Weird way to say that oil companies mounted a conscious and well funded propaganda campaign to muddy the waters and prevent action.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

Now read the predictions about nuclear power from the 1950’s. If we had kept up our focus on nuclear power and didn’t allow ourselves to be influenced by the anti-nuclear Greens, we would have had far more zero carbon nuclear power available today and be in a far better position with respect to climate change.

dfxm12 3y ago
influenced by the anti-nuclear Greens You can blame TMI, Chernobyl & Fukushima for this, along with a lack of will from politicians who are actually in power.
clydethefrog 3y ago
Why are the anti-nuclear Greens are always blamed for this development? They did not achieve any of their other goals on their agenda (we are still eating more and more meat and destroying nature) but somehow they managed to succeed in this goal - that also pretty much favours the agenda of the powerful and wealthy fossil foil industry.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  Recently, the alliance with the Greens was one of the big reasons why Germany's nuclear power plants were shuttered (and coal was increasingly used to replace the capacity).

thangalin 3y ago

Popular Science mentioned the same effect in 1912. * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5 https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.... * https://i.ibb.co/nQKZfzC/climate-change.png https://i.ibb.co/nQKZfzC/climate-change.png * https://tinyurl.com/climate1911 https://tinyurl.com/climate1911 (Google Books link)

ttonkytonk 3y ago

This is why in The Republic (the dramatic setting being a chance, informal discussion about justice), the ruling class was not allowed to have private property - because it warps their judgement. What's interesting is that despite this prohibition, Socrates refuses to concede that they would not be happy, the implication being that their jobs as rulers would be sufficient. Notice how many games involve power and control. How much happier might people be, if they had some real power in decision-making in their communities!