In 1871, a massive fire around the Great Lakes killed thousands of people and burned millions of acres. Chicago burned to the ground the same day. Katherine Hayhoe tells us that these fires are caused by man-made CO2.
Hayhoe, along with an international team of scientists, discovered that climate change will disrupt fire patterns across over 80 percent of the globe by the end of the century. Scientists found compelling agreement among long term models that more fires would occur at mid-to-high latitude areas like North America (shorter term models present more variability).”
Can we disrupt the fire patterns enough to prevent mega-fires like 1871 and 1910, which were much larger than anything we have experienced recently?
“There’s no question that humans have altered the background atmosphere on a global scale,” Hayhoe said. “And there’s also no question humans have altered the environment on the local and regional level,” she said, by living near forests and choosing how to manage them. “Climate change is often the final straw in a lot of those cases.”
Technology – Climate Desk – Is the Colorado Wildfire the Future Norm? – The Atlantic
“compelling agreement among long term models”. That is less ‘compelling’ that consensus among agenda driven grant sucking scientists. Hayhoe is the perfect libtard. She lets her emotions do her thinking instead of using reason, logic, and common sense. If you separate the two syllables in her last name, and add an exclamation point to the second syllable, then shout it out, it’s good for a laugh. Heh.
I’m hugely impressed with the horror value of, and the uncanny almost surrealistic story behind the Peshtigo Fire, the greatest U.S. fire in recorded history in terms of deaths caused. The fire also happened on the very same day as the Great Chicago Fire! Google “Peshtigo Fire” to get the stories behind the monster blaze.
What draconian measures and distruction of our economy would be required to reduce CO2 to 1871 levels? The same level that was present for these horrific fires? Seems hardly worth the effort.
“Seems hardly worth the effort.” Well, it wouldn’t require that much effort, though… /SARC! Actually, the crap & trade bill that passed the U.S. House in June 2009 would have mandated 83% CO2 cuts by 2050, and would have taken us back to 1867 per capita CO2 usage levels.
Now, if this bill had squeaked by the senate, then we would already be paying some of the hell that would be coming due. Dems suggested that much of the energy deficit would be made up with windmills and the like. NOT! These highly subsidized alternative energies would break the bank, like it’s doing in Europe, and a bankrupt country can’t continue to lavishly bankroll these fanciful energy sources. Or, the Dems pressed the case that efficiency would make up for the deficit. No, marginal gains in efficiency will occur, but nothing even close to the 5x efficiency gains needed would occur. Now, you could always hold out hope that a new energy technology, like fusion, would be developed and also that it wouldn’t be arbitrarily vetoed by the greens, but that’s wishful thinking.
Fact is, without a doubt, 83% CO2 cuts would wreak havoc with society as it exists today. Yes, industrial civilization would be strangled to death, as per the dreams of the greens. Draconian is putting it lightly. There would be no end to the misery and death that would be unleashed.
that was a very sad day. it is said that people died from that fire was from 1500-2500 but that would be great if any one mention the exact figure