There have been significant wildfires in Chile since November, and they continue. These are the worst fires Chile has seen in known history, and Chile has been keeping track of its history for quite a while.
Are these fires climate change caused? Apparently so. Chile has had a rain deficit for well over a decade, though it as been extra dry for about five years. Drought experts call it a "mega-drought." Droughts tend to have climate change links, and this one is no exception. A study from just one year ago links anthropogenic climate change to the drought.
Within large uncertainties in the precipitation response to greenhouse gas forcing, the Southeast Pacific drying stands out as a robust signature within climate models. A precipitation decline, of consistent direction but of larger amplitude than obtained in simulations with historical climate forcing, has been observed in central Chile since the late 1970s. To attribute the causes of this trend, we analyze local rain gauge data and contrast them to a large ensemble of both fully coupled and sea surface temperature-forced simulations. We show that in concomitance with large-scale circulation changes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation explains about half of the precipitation trend observed in central Chile. The remaining fraction is unlikely to be driven exclusively by natural phenomena but rather consistent with the simulated regional effect of anthropogenic climate change. We particularly estimate that a quarter of the rainfall deficit affecting this region since 2010 is of anthropogenic origin. An increased persistence and recurrence of droughts in central Chile emerges then as a realistic scenario under the current socioeconomic pathway.
Heat on top of the drought adds to the likelihood of fires. Decreased snow pack from reduced rainfall and increasing temperatures at altitude also contribute.
Here is the Climate Signals attribution schematic for this event. Click through to climate signals for more.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
That does not equate to destroying capitalism.
Try grasping the fact that unbridled capitalism, being devoid of a guiding intellect that could provide it a sense of self-preservation, will ultimately set the stage for its own destruction (part of the cause being the destruction of the environments needed to sustain it).
If we are to preserve capitalism as the institution you whore-ship so fervently, there will need to be a transformation of economic development models into forms that will allow for its long-term sustainability.
Don't be so foolish as to bite the hands that are trying to provide the very thing you desire. And don't be so simple-minded as to think that economic models that have no long-term sustainability built into them can be extended indefinitely just to suit your personal religious views.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,"
Yup. She's saying it's a big task.
What's the problem? Do you think it's easy to do? Or are you agreeing with them? You haven't said anything so far, just repeated what someone else said. Do you think you're the MSM?
#2That's a lot of pejoratives against capitalism (further proving the point of the story I linked):
A) Devoid of a guiding intellect that could provide self-preservation (like Neo-Darwinian "evolution")
B) set own destruction
E) Religious views
I just posted a news story. Didn't even comment on it. And I get all this vitriol...Musta hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like they, huh kid?
Ron, you may be oblivious, but you have a history here... And it is you who rile.
Yes, you did comment on it - in a pejorative fashion yourself. You introduced your own insinuations of non-existent nefarious intentions in #1, intentionally misrepresenting Figures and the FCCC.
One only need look at your own link for all the pejoratives one needs to see to know where you're coming from: "Climate change scare tool", "Destroy capitalism"...
More bullshit and defensiveness from ron. Nothing new here.
I just posted a news story. Didn’t even comment on it. And I get all this vitriol…
But it was fake news. This stuff about 'warming scare' and 'destroying capitalism' is lies. And look who this 'news' article quotes:
"If you look at Ms. Figueres' Wikipedia page," notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
Yup, a lying scumbag at the Cato Institute, that well-known front for vested interest and prolific source of lies about climate change.
I wouldn't wipe my backside on this rubbish ron, so what surprises you about people being irritated when you post it here is beyond me. Perhaps you are a bit thick? I'm looking for a charitable explanation here.
Gotta love that Ron's "news story" is a two-year-old editorial at Investors.com.
Feeble, even by YEC standards.
Of course a less charitable but more plausible explanation for ron posting some old and irrelevant dreck is that he doesn't want any discussion of the Chilean megadrought and wildfires.
Can't have people acknowledging that dangerous climate impacts have already started, can we?
At least there's consistency...always kill the messenger and ignore the point that was being made.
Anyone denying that she, as the leader of the climate change advocacy group, said this/meant this?
"Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism."
I certainly didn't see her admit to any such thing, and those quotes you referenced were already commented upon.
Grasping at straws to deny denial. Sad!
Stop trolling ron. The article was bullshit two years ago and it's still bullshit today.
And it has nothing at all to do with Chilean wildfires and drought and dangerous climate impacts.
Yes ron- your take on what you posted is monumentally dishonest. That behavior is completely consistent for you.
"I just posted a news story. Didn’t even comment on it. "
And still haven't. Seems like you're posting just to let others do the work of working out what the hell you mean, then cry like a carebare snowflake when they do.
What’s the problem? Do you think it’s easy to do? Or are you agreeing with them? You haven’t said anything so far, just repeated what someone else said. Do you think you’re the MSM?
And all ron has is "Waaah! You weren't nice to me!!!!".
We still don't know if he's saying it's easy or agreeing with her.