On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:30:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:04:31 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:14:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:07:04 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 9:27:16 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 11:24:17 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 4:01:38 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:54:43 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 2:14:36 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:27:57 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:42:05 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Hey Bill, you global warming nuts have been predicting Armageddon for DECADES:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We've been pretty confident that anthropogenic global warming is going on since the 1990's. We've also known that it isn't happening all that fast.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip> The rest of us aren't. The bottom line is that you can't produce ANY PROOF that AGW exists; if you think otherwise then PRODUCE IT!
> > > > >
> > > > > The bottom line is that you wouldn't take any kind of proof of its existence seriously, so I don't need to bother.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/climatechange/science
> > > >
> > > > There is NOTHING there that DIRECTLY links CO2 to climate change.
> > > https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
> > >
> > > You won't pay any attention to that either. The connection between higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere and higher average temperatures at sea level is pretty direct, but you have to get your head around effective radiating altitudes and other abstruse concepts before it can make sense. You didn't bother before you succumbed to senile dementia, and you won't be able to do it now.
> >
> > And you don't pay attention to the FACT that EVERYTIME the Earth has warmed CO2 concentrations FOLLOWED! And the reason is very SIMPLE: warming causes more living organisms to be produced, generating more CO2.
> That climate change denial factoid is - in fact - a statement about the iced age to interglacial transitions over the past 2.6 million years, when what drove the change was changes in ice cover - albedo - and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was one of the positive feedbacks. It essentially reflected changing ocean temperature - CO2 is more soluble in cold water - rather than any biolgoical activity
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> does seem to have been CO2 driven.
>
> We already know that you are a half-wit, but it's kind of you to confirm it so obviously.
> > > > > There's lots more where that came from, but Sewage Sweeper only trusts misinformation from Fox News.
> > > >
> > > > > > > <snipped the usual climate change denial propaganda from Fox News>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > The risk of wildfires on Maui have nothing to do with AGW; it is about the introduction of non-native vegetation, periodic drought cycles, hurricanes and the lack of preparedness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact that it happened during the hottest northern hemisphere summer on record probably isn't a coincidence. You are brain damaged enough not to notice when Fox News is lying to you, and your opinion on the what made the Maui fire so remarkably devastating is just more incoherent idiocy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Coincidences occur ALL THE TIME in science and history; Maui is no different.
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably not the correct conclusion, but it makes Sewage Sweeper happy. It's the sort of bad logic that will get him incinerated when a forest fire strikes closer to his home. Not a great loss, but hard on his friends and neighbours - getting him out of their hair wouldn't really compensate for losing their homes.
> > > >
> > > > A much more direct correlation is sunspot cycles to climate change, but you don't hear that mentioned much. Fires occur all of the time and have for millennia.
> > >
> > > There was a famously bad paper that did argue that and got shot down in flames because it got its data wrong, but the climate change denial propaganda machine has been citing it ever since. and ignoring the demolition. It's exactly the kind of fatuous nonsense we can rely on you to come up with.
> >
> > I notice that you didn't REFERENCE the paper.
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2236103-major-science-journal-retracts-study-blaming-climate-change-on-the-sun/
>
> You won't pay any attention, so it is a waste of time. I do have a subscription to New Scientist (and have had for some 35 years) but I first came across the story in some
> climate change blogs.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

That paper had NOTHING to do with cosmic rays, as has been researched for years by Henrik Svensmark and others:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5bd6f907d36e3f3e394730b2806fc31795a3cad9

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:59:20 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:20:45 AM UTC-4, Martin Rid wrote:
> > Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> Wrote in message:r
> > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:46:45?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 05:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>> >https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-wildfires-climate-change-92c0930be7c28ec9ac71392a83c87582> https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/10/maui-wildfires-why-weather-climate/ > > This is a man-made disaster, and not from "climate change."John Larkin's reading comprehension has a lot in common with Flyguy's - he sees what he wants to see and ignores the parts that don't support the comment he wants to make.Better control of invasive weeds would have provided less fuel for the fires, but climate change seems to have contributed to the dry conditions and high winds that made the fires unusually intense.-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
> >
> > Dude, Maui get about 6" of rain a year.
> > Its dry and arid.
> > Plus hydrants were dry due to lack of power.
> >
> > Plus strong winds.
> >
> > Leave the change off climate.
> This is the same fallacy of logic all deniers use. By focusing on time localized cause and effect, such as the fuel in the dried out Guinea grass, high velocity trade winds, downed power lines, inability of firefighters to get to where they needed to be, etc, you miss the bigger picture about how this confluence of events came about in the first place.
>
> The Guinea grass was especially dry due to above normal temperatures. Not all dried Guinea grass is the same. Then this unprecedented Hurricane Dora, which has gone coast-to-coast across North America, travelling over 4,000 miles, should have crossed the International Dateline by now, is an extremely rare event. The storm was powerful enough to significantly accelerate the trade winds across Maui despite being no closer than 500 miles.
>
> Right now the origins of the fire are a toss-up between downed power company lines and arson. There's already a class-action forming against the power company because they have the deepest pockets.
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> >
> >
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

The Big Picture is that Hawaiian Electric not only failed to take measures to mitigate wildfires and spending the money instead on renewables, they STARTED the Maui wildfire (https://www.wsj.com/us-news/wildfire-risk-maui-hawaiian-electric-7beed21e):

The growing risk of wildfire on Maui had been known for years. The number of acres burned on the island soared to 39,000 in 2019, from 150 in 1999, according to data compiled by the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization, a nonprofit that works with government agencies and the public.

Several reports released by the group and others in recent years have said the danger is increasing, in part, because of invasive plants that have overtaken former sugar and pineapple plantations. Roughly one-quarter of state land in Hawaii is now covered by invasive grasses and shrubs, according to a study by the University of Hawaii and think tank East-West Center.

In 2018, winds from Hurricane Lane passing to the south helped fuel fires that burned more than 2,000 acres on Maui. The next year was far worse, with the most acres blackened in decades, data from the wildfire management group show.

That July, a 9,000-acre blaze blew out of control in Central Maui, burning 25 acres a minute, according to the Maui News. The blaze prompted hundreds of evacuations and came within 150 feet of Hawaiian Electric’s power plant on Maui, according to the paper. The plant accounts for as much as 80% of the island’s power supplies.

At the end of 2019, Hawaiian Electric issued a press release about wildfire risk. It said it would install heavier, insulated conductors on Maui and Oahu to minimize the risk of sparks when winds picked up, as well as technology to detect disruptions when the conductors came into contact with vegetation or each other. It said it would apply fire retardant on poles in risky areas and consider installing cameras and other devices to monitor weather conditions during fire season.

In filings over the next two years with the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission, which is tasked with approving utility projects and spending, the company made only passing reference to wildfire mitigation.
Renewables push
Former regulators and energy company officials said the utility was focused at that time on procuring renewable energy. Hawaii has been on a push to convert to renewables since 2008, when a run-up in oil prices sent electrical rates at Hawaiian Electric—which relied on petroleum imports for 80% of its energy supply—through the roof. In 2015, lawmakers passed legislation mandating that the state derive 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045, the first such requirement in the U.S.

The company dove into reaching the goals, stating in 2017 that it would reach the benchmark five years ahead of schedule.
In 2019, under pressure to replace the output of two conventional power plants set to retire, the company sought to contract for 900 megawatts of renewable energy, the most it had pursued at any one time.

“You have to look at the scope and scale of the transformation within [Hawaiian Electric] that was occurring throughout the system,” said Mina Morita, who chaired the state utilities commission from 2011 to 2015. “While there was concern for wildfire risk, politically the focus was on electricity generation.”

The drive to reach the renewable goals also preoccupied private energy companies working with Hawaiian Electric and state energy officials, said Doug McLeod, a consultant who served for several years as the Maui county energy commissioner.

“Looking back with hindsight, the business opportunities were on the generation side, and the utility was going out for bid with all these big renewable-energy projects,” he said. “But in retrospect, it seems clear, we weren’t as focused on these fire risks as we should have been.”

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:30:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:04:31 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:14:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

> > > > > A much more direct correlation is sunspot cycles to climate change, but you don't hear that mentioned much. Fires occur all of the time and have for millennia.
> > > >
> > > > There was a famously bad paper that did argue that and got shot down in flames because it got its data wrong, but the climate change denial propaganda machine has been citing it ever since. and ignoring the demolition.. It's exactly the kind of fatuous nonsense we can rely on you to come up with.
> > >
> > > I notice that you didn't REFERENCE the paper.
> > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2236103-major-science-journal-retracts-study-blaming-climate-change-on-the-sun/

Oh, yeah; also, no more recent observations find solar variation significant.
That's a well-explored dry well.

> > You won't pay any attention, so it is a waste of time. I do have a subscription to New Scientist (and have had for some 35 years) but I first came across the story in some
> > climate change blogs.

> That paper had NOTHING to do with cosmic rays, as has been researched for years by Henrik Svensmark and others:
> https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5bd6f907d36e3f3e394730b2806fc31795a3cad9

That's a terrible argument.
The cosmic rays connection (and a dozen other small effects) in the
absence of any quantitative model, is just a bit of cherrypicking. When
you get below a tenth percent, one can waffle through a lot of pages
of explanation, graphs, and abstruse qualities ("storminess"? Really?).

The sun, and cosmic rays, are irrelevancies in climate change this
century,

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:28:41 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:30:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:04:31 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:14:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
>
> > > > > > A much more direct correlation is sunspot cycles to climate change, but you don't hear that mentioned much. Fires occur all of the time and have for millennia.
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a famously bad paper that did argue that and got shot down in flames because it got its data wrong, but the climate change denial propaganda machine has been citing it ever since. and ignoring the demolition. It's exactly the kind of fatuous nonsense we can rely on you to come up with.
> > > >
> > > > I notice that you didn't REFERENCE the paper.
> > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2236103-major-science-journal-retracts-study-blaming-climate-change-on-the-sun/
> Oh, yeah; also, no more recent observations find solar variation significant.
> That's a well-explored dry well.
> > > You won't pay any attention, so it is a waste of time. I do have a subscription to New Scientist (and have had for some 35 years) but I first came across the story in some
> > > climate change blogs.
> > That paper had NOTHING to do with cosmic rays, as has been researched for years by Henrik Svensmark and others:
> > https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=5bd6f907d36e3f3e394730b2806fc31795a3cad9
> That's a terrible argument.
> The cosmic rays connection (and a dozen other small effects) in the
> absence of any quantitative model, is just a bit of cherrypicking. When
> you get below a tenth percent, one can waffle through a lot of pages
> of explanation, graphs, and abstruse qualities ("storminess"? Really?).
>
> The sun, and cosmic rays, are irrelevancies in climate change this
> century,

Hey Bozo, CO2 isn't even a tenth of a percent, yet you think it is HIGHLY relevant.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:28:41 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

> > The sun, and cosmic rays, are irrelevancies in climate change this
> > century,

> Hey Bozo, CO2 isn't even a tenth of a percent, yet you think it is HIGHLY relevant.

That's flaky analysis, of course. The 'tenth of a percent' of a mirror's
aluminum coating on its glass pane, is the only difference between
a mirror and a window. The measure sounds small, but that's
not what determines opacity. Relevance follows opacity, not
percentage.

On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Aug 2023 23:57:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<b0ad8d81-54a9-4beb-a7ac-059bd722a332n@googlegroups.com>:

>On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:28:41 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:=
>
>
>> > The sun, and cosmic rays, are irrelevancies in climate change this
>> > century,
>
>> Hey Bozo, CO2 isn't even a tenth of a percent, yet you think it is HIGHLY=
> relevant.
>
>That's flaky analysis, of course. The 'tenth of a percent' of a mirror's
>aluminum coating on its glass pane, is the only difference between
>a mirror and a window. The measure sounds small, but that's
>not what determines opacity. Relevance follows opacity, not
>percentage.

If even the sun's 11 year cycle can make cloud density change on Neptune,
then what do you think it can do on earth?
And changes in cloud density (clouds disappearing) causes temperatures to rise.
https://www.space.com/neptune-clouds-vanish-solar-activity-responsible

Curious to pictures from space showing clouds over the same periods as shown in that link.

All the CO2 hype is just brainwash to make you buy snake oil remedies.
We are like ants on this earth not doing much to climate, to put it strongly.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 7:01:57 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 5:59:20 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:20:45 AM UTC-4, Martin Rid wrote:
> > > > Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> Wrote in message:r
> > > > > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:46:45?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 05:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs > <bloggs.fred....@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>> >https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-wildfires-climate-change-92c0930be7c28ec9ac71392a83c87582> https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/10/maui-wildfires-why-weather-climate/ > > This is a man-made disaster, and not from "climate change."John Larkin's reading comprehension has a lot in common with Flyguy's - he sees what he wants to see and ignores the parts that don't support the comment he wants to make.Better control of invasive weeds would have provided less fuel for the fires, but climate change seems to have contributed to the dry conditions and high winds that made the fires unusually intense.-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
> > > >
> > > > Dude, Maui get about 6" of rain a year.
> > > > Its dry and arid.
> > > > Plus hydrants were dry due to lack of power.
> > > >
> > > > Plus strong winds.
> > > >
> > > > Leave the change off climate.
> > > This is the same fallacy of logic all deniers use. By focusing on time localized cause and effect, such as the fuel in the dried out Guinea grass, high velocity trade winds, downed power lines, inability of firefighters to get to where they needed to be, etc, you miss the bigger picture about how this confluence of events came about in the first place.
> > >
> > > The Guinea grass was especially dry due to above normal temperatures. Not all dried Guinea grass is the same. Then this unprecedented Hurricane Dora, which has gone coast-to-coast across North America, travelling over 4,000 miles, should have crossed the International Dateline by now, is an extremely rare event. The storm was powerful enough to significantly accelerate the trade winds across Maui despite being no closer than 500 miles.
> > >
> > > Right now the origins of the fire are a toss-up between downed power company lines and arson. There's already a class-action forming against the power company because they have the deepest pockets.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > > > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
> > The Big Picture is that Hawaiian Electric not only failed to take measures to mitigate wildfires and spending the money instead on renewables, they STARTED the Maui wildfire (https://www.wsj.com/us-news/wildfire-risk-maui-hawaiian-electric-7beed21e):
> The Wall Street Journal might think so, but the Murdoch press lies a lot.,
> > The growing risk of wildfire on Maui had been known for years. The number of acres burned on the island soared to 39,000 in 2019, from 150 in 1999, according to data compiled by the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization, a nonprofit that works with government agencies and the public.
> >
> > Several reports released by the group and others in recent years have said the danger is increasing, in part, because of invasive plants that have overtaken former sugar and pineapple plantations. Roughly one-quarter of state land in Hawaii is now covered by invasive grasses and shrubs, according to a study by the University of Hawaii and think tank East-West Center.
> >
> > In 2018, winds from Hurricane Lane passing to the south helped fuel fires that burned more than 2,000 acres on Maui. The next year was far worse, with the most acres blackened in decades, data from the wildfire management group show.
> >
> > That July, a 9,000-acre blaze blew out of control in Central Maui, burning 25 acres a minute, according to the Maui News. The blaze prompted hundreds of evacuations and came within 150 feet of Hawaiian Electric’s power plant on Maui, according to the paper. The plant accounts for as much as 80% of the island’s power supplies.
> >
> > At the end of 2019, Hawaiian Electric issued a press release about wildfire risk. It said it would install heavier, insulated conductors on Maui and Oahu to minimize the risk of sparks when winds picked up, as well as technology to detect disruptions when the conductors came into contact with vegetation or each other. It said it would apply fire retardant on poles in risky areas and consider installing cameras and other devices to monitor weather conditions during fire season.
> >
> > In filings over the next two years with the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission, which is tasked with approving utility projects and spending, the company made only passing reference to wildfire mitigation.
> >
> > Renewables push,,
> >
> > Former regulators and energy company officials said the utility was focused at that time on procuring renewable energy. Hawaii has been on a push to convert to renewables since 2008, when a run-up in oil prices sent electrical rates at Hawaiian Electric—which relied on petroleum imports for 80% of its energy supply—through the roof. In 2015, lawmakers passed legislation mandating that the state derive 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045, the first such requirement in the U.S.
> Sensible, but what has it got to do with wildfires?
> > The company dove into reaching the goals, stating in 2017 that it would reach the benchmark five years ahead of schedule.
> > In 2019, under pressure to replace the output of two conventional power plants set to retire, the company sought to contract for 900 megawatts of renewable energy, the most it had pursued at any one time.
> >
> > “You have to look at the scope and scale of the transformation within [Hawaiian Electric] that was occurring throughout the system,” said Mina Morita, who chaired the state utilities commission from 2011 to 2015. “While there was concern for wildfire risk, politically the focus was on electricity generation.”
> So what. You are talking about two very different activities. The big fire risk was the dried Guinea grass, and if it wasn't on their land they couldn't do anything about it
> > The drive to reach the renewable goals also preoccupied private energy companies working with Hawaiian Electric and state energy officials, said Doug McLeod, a consultant who served for several years as the Maui county energy commissioner.
> >
> > “Looking back with hindsight, the business opportunities were on the generation side, and the utility was going out for bid with all these big renewable-energy projects,” he said. “But in retrospect, it seems clear, we weren’t as focused on these fire risks as we should have been.”
> Utility companies can't do much about fire risks. The big fire risk was the dried Guinea grass, and most of that wasn't on their land so they couldn't do anything about it.

On the contrary, they can clear brush around their power poles, fix sagging power lines and deenergize those lines in high wind conditions.

> Lawyers like suing utility companies because they have deep pockets, but it is still stupid.

Lawyers just represent plaintiffs, often times the estate of the people the negligent utility company killed.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:58:02 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:28:41 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
>
> > > The sun, and cosmic rays, are irrelevancies in climate change this
> > > century,
>
> > Hey Bozo, CO2 isn't even a tenth of a percent, yet you think it is HIGHLY relevant.
> That's flaky analysis, of course. The 'tenth of a percent' of a mirror's
> aluminum coating on its glass pane, is the only difference between
> a mirror and a window. The measure sounds small, but that's
> not what determines opacity. Relevance follows opacity, not
> percentage.

LOL! Now it is mirrors!! Increase your house's insulation by 0.05% and see what happens.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:02:58 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:16:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:28:41 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:30:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:50:03 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:04:31 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:14:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Hey, CO2 isn't even a tenth of a percent, yet you think it is HIGHLY relevant.
>
> The CO2 content of the atmosphere is currently 421 ppm - up from 270 ppm over most of this interglacial, and that is where most of our current 1.5C of anthropogernic global warming is coming from. It couldn't be more relevant, but you are much too ignorant to understand how.

Hey Bozo, you have EXACTLY ZERO EVIDENCE that that is the cause, even after I asked you to produce it.

>
> Cosmic rays are just more pathetic handwaving from the climate change denial propaganda machine, along with imaginary changes in solar output.\\

Cosmic rays DO affect cloud formation, whether you agree or not.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 8/11/23 02:46, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 05:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So how in the world does a verdant Pacific island surrounded by lots of ocean and bathed by cool trade winds and lots of rainfall burst into flames? Seems that would be the last place on Earth anyone would see wildfires. Maui receives a mean of over 400 inches water on its windward side, there are dryer areas with only 20 inches.
>>
>> “Climate change in many parts of the world is increasing vegetation dryness, in large part because temperatures are hotter,” Fleishman said. “Even if you have the same amount of precipitation, if you have higher temperatures, things dry out faster.” [similar to previous situation in California ]
>>
>> Heat is behind what is obviously a global outbreak of wildfires. Heat is desiccating vegetation/ forests/ jungles and turning them into fuel worldwide. Normal rain patterns are not nearly enough to prevent this from happening.
>>
>> Then Hawaii is full of invasives [ ecosystem type not the people ]:
>>
>> "Clay Trauernicht, a fire scientist at the University of Hawaii, said the wet season can spur plants like Guinea grass, a nonnative, invasive species found across parts of Maui, to grow as quickly as 6 inches (15 centimeters) a day and reach up to 10 feet (3 meters) tall. When it dries out, it creates a tinderbox that’s ripe for wildfire.
>>
>> “These grasslands accumulate fuels very rapidly,” Trauernicht said. “In hotter conditions and drier conditions, with variable rainfall, it’s only going to exacerbate the problem.”"
>>
>> "Climate change not only increases the fire risk by driving up temperatures, but also makes stronger hurricanes more likely. In turn, those storms could fuel stronger wind events like the one behind the Maui fires."
>>
>> Hurricane Dora passing 500 miles to the south of the island accelerated the intensity of the normally occurring trade winds from north to south and is what caused the catastrophe.
>>
>> https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-wildfires-climate-change-92c0930be7c28ec9ac71392a83c87582
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/10/maui-wildfires-why-weather-climate/
>
> This is a man-made disaster, and not from "climate change."

Reports are that it was probably due to arson, but as in California,
not clearing decades worth of brushwood can't help either. Yet,
they want to blame the power company for all of it.

Rent seekers, the lot of them...

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:09:59 AM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 11:58:02 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 7:28:41 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
> >
> > > > The sun, and cosmic rays, are irrelevancies in climate change this
> > > > century,
> >
> > > Hey Bozo, CO2 isn't even a tenth of a percent, yet you think it is HIGHLY relevant.
> > That's flaky analysis, of course. The 'tenth of a percent' of a mirror's
> > aluminum coating on its glass pane, is the only difference between
> > a mirror and a window. The measure sounds small, but that's
> > not what determines opacity. Relevance follows opacity, not
> > percentage.
> LOL! Now it is mirrors!! Increase your house's insulation by 0.05% and see what happens.

My house has lots of air exchange; the Earth is in vacuum of space, well insulated
against that kind of heat movement. Mirrors is the way to prevent radiative heat transfer,
which is what drives global warming.

Increase your planet's thermal insulation by 0.05 % and... no result. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Nichevo. Rien.