more OT: Smoke in San Francisco...

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 9:42:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

The destabilized jet stream is what came down and exploded those flames like a furnace bellows. And a destabilized jet stream is a direct consequence of global warming, as has been explained numerous times.
That\'s silly. When the first Spanish arrived here, the natives warned
them about the fires. Plants capture CO2. In California, it returns to
the atmosphere by burning.

Okay, so in your mind, the 60MPH northerly wind gusts had no effect on the rapid spread and increased intensity of the fires already burning?

Looks like a bunch of dead and destitute people would disagree with you.

The Leventhal Center for Advanced Urbanism, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology division, estimates that at least 25 percent of Californians now live in what the center calls fire-prone locations.

Also silly. It\'s closer to 100%. Always has been.
Jon Keeley, a U.S. Geological Survey research scientist, said that population growth makes wildfires more deadly, and more likely.
Certainly building death traps like Paradise is criminal. The houses
all burned but the trees didn\'t.

That\'s the point. Tens of millions of people living in areas they shouldn\'t be requires probably thousands of miles of PG&E overhead electrical line which by its very nature is fragile. Meaning lines don\'t hold up well with trees falling on them or extremely intense fires burning at their base.

“More people on the landscape means more opportunity for a fire during one of these wind events,” he said.

The National Park Service agreed that too many people is the leading cause of wildfires; 85 percent are human-caused.
The cause doesn\'t matter. There will always be ignition sources,
lately lightning. The fewer the ignition sources and the more
resources available to put fires out, the bigger the uncontrollable
fire storms get. And our airhead governor says the fires are proof of
Climate Change.

Absent forest management, more ignition sources is good.

A Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysis confirmed that development in wildfire-prone regions has dramatically increased. The report found that between 1990 and 2015 home construction within the perimeter of recent wildfires increased to 286,000 from 177,000.
We have a cabin in the woods, and just spent $3K to have the trees
trimmed and the brush cleaned up. The first floor is made of concrete
blocks. The local powers are brutal about keeping this area safe from
fires, but it\'s expensive.

Between the intense feet and embers, a flammable structure would need to be isolated by 500 feet to avoid spontaneous ignition.

By 2050, California’s population will exceed an unsustainable 50 million, a 25 percent increase from the current level. Try to imagine the apocalyptic vision of a California with 10 million more people, all of whom will need, to name a few essentials, housing, water, electrical power, transportation and education.
Things don\'t just build up and overnight become a crisis.

Apparently they have when the state wakes up one morning and suddenly finds millions of people need to be evacuated.

Extrapolation is a good way to scare yourself.

A bunch of other undeniable, scientific, databased statistics about the super-overpopulated mismanaged mess you have there:
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/joe_guzzardi_overpopulation_sparks_california_wildfires_20200830

Your governor is a confused idiot.
I\'ve met him. Couldn\'t agree more.
--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

No, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Dream on. These may be your preferred explanations for what is going on, but it takes an idiot like you to think that unprecedented fires reflect an unprecedented (and previously un-noticed) level of mismanagement. It\'s taking wishful thinking to absurd levels - and if we wanted absurd idiocy, you would be the obvious source.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydeny

Hey SL0W MAN,

Only an IDIOT would claim that the forests have been properly managed in the last 50 years, so I guess you are ACCEPTING that dubious accolade. I STRONGLY suggest that you google \"mismanagement of forests\" and get back to me with what you find.

 

[server]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 9:42:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

The destabilized jet stream is what came down and exploded those flames like a furnace bellows. And a destabilized jet stream is a direct consequence of global warming, as has been explained numerous times.
That\'s silly. When the first Spanish arrived here, the natives warned
them about the fires. Plants capture CO2. In California, it returns to
the atmosphere by burning.

Okay, so in your mind, the 60MPH northerly wind gusts had no effect on the rapid spread and increased intensity of the fires already burning?

I don\'t recall saying that. Got a link?

Looks like a bunch of dead and destitute people would disagree with you.



The Leventhal Center for Advanced Urbanism, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology division, estimates that at least 25 percent of Californians now live in what the center calls fire-prone locations.

Also silly. It\'s closer to 100%. Always has been.
Jon Keeley, a U.S. Geological Survey research scientist, said that population growth makes wildfires more deadly, and more likely.
Certainly building death traps like Paradise is criminal. The houses
all burned but the trees didn\'t.

That\'s the point. Tens of millions of people living in areas they shouldn\'t be requires probably thousands of miles of PG&E overhead electrical line which by its very nature is fragile. Meaning lines don\'t hold up well with trees falling on them or extremely intense fires burning at their base.

The natural California fires weren\'t extremely intense. The bigger
trees survived.

We have immense fire storms now, because we put the small ones out.

“More people on the landscape means more opportunity for a fire during one of these wind events,” he said.

The National Park Service agreed that too many people is the leading cause of wildfires; 85 percent are human-caused.
The cause doesn\'t matter. There will always be ignition sources,
lately lightning. The fewer the ignition sources and the more
resources available to put fires out, the bigger the uncontrollable
fire storms get. And our airhead governor says the fires are proof of
Climate Change.

Absent forest management, more ignition sources is good.

A Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysis confirmed that development in wildfire-prone regions has dramatically increased. The report found that between 1990 and 2015 home construction within the perimeter of recent wildfires increased to 286,000 from 177,000.
We have a cabin in the woods, and just spent $3K to have the trees
trimmed and the brush cleaned up. The first floor is made of concrete
blocks. The local powers are brutal about keeping this area safe from
fires, but it\'s expensive.

Between the intense feet and embers, a flammable structure would need to be isolated by 500 feet to avoid spontaneous ignition.

Steel roof, no gutters, nothing flammable for the required distance
around the house, all the small stuff trimmed, pine needles raked.
That\'s what people should do if they want to live in a forest. We
won\'t get a firestorm because everything is managed for miles in all
directions.

Costs us roughly $500 a year.

You can\'t do a lot to protect your property from floods, tornadoes,
hurricanes, landslides, or arsonists.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

No, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Dream on. These may be your preferred explanations for what is going on, but it takes an idiot like you to think that unprecedented fires reflect an unprecedented (and previously un-noticed) level of mismanagement. It\'s taking wishful thinking to absurd levels - and if we wanted absurd idiocy, you would be the obvious source.

Only an IDIOT would claim, so I guess you are ACCEPTING that dubious accolade. I STRONGLY suggest that you google \"mismanagement of forests\" and get back to me with what you find.

As usual, you fail elementary comprehension. I didn\'t claim \" that the forests have been properly managed in the last 50 years\". I claimed that unprecedented fires probably didn\'t reflect an unprecedented level of mismanagement. It would have had to have kicked in very suddenly to explain why this years fires are so much worse than those you have had in previous years (which you presumably want to blame on mismanagement in the same forests).

You can\'t manage forests in a way that prevents fires. You can usually manage them in a way that makes the fires that do happen small and localised, but an exceptionally dry summer can give the fires more fuel and more opportunities to leap over to the next bit of forest.

Climate change does seem to have a habit of delivering exceptionally dry summers to some places, some of the time.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/09/10/la-nina-pacific-ocean-more-drought-wildfire-outlook/

El Nino and La Nina are climate changes, but they\'ve been alternating for as long as we\'ve kept records (and probably a lot longer). More CO2 in the atmosphere probably changes what actually happens all the way through the alternation, but I\'ve yet to come across anything that spells this out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:14:41 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 9:42:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

The destabilized jet stream is what came down and exploded those flames like a furnace bellows. And a destabilized jet stream is a direct consequence of global warming, as has been explained numerous times.

That\'s silly. When the first Spanish arrived here, the natives warned
them about the fires. Plants capture CO2. In California, it returns to
the atmosphere by burning.

Or rotting.

<snip>

That\'s the point. Tens of millions of people living in areas they shouldn\'t be requires probably thousands of miles of PG&E overhead electrical line which by its very nature is fragile. Meaning lines don\'t hold up well with trees falling on them or extremely intense fires burning at their base.

The natural California fires weren\'t extremely intense. The bigger
trees survived.

We have immense fire storms now, because we put the small ones out.

What makes you think that? You know very little about the \"natural California fires\".

“More people on the landscape means more opportunity for a fire during one of these wind events,” he said.

The National Park Service agreed that too many people is the leading cause of wildfires; 85 percent are human-caused.

The cause doesn\'t matter. There will always be ignition sources,
lately lightning. The fewer the ignition sources and the more
resources available to put fires out, the bigger the uncontrollable
fire storms get.

If nobody does fuel reduction burns in dry periods in winter, which happens a lot in Australia.
It helps, but it doesn\'t prevent all forest fires.

> >>And our airhead governor says the fires are proof of Climate Change.

Nothing air-headed about that. No individual fire is \"proof\" of anything, but a lot of unprecedentedly intense fires happening at much the same time does suggest that something usual is going on . Atmospheric CO2 levels at 410 ppm haven\'t been usual for the past 20 million years, so it\'s goig to be a prime suspect.

> >> Absent forest management, more ignition sources is good.

Fuel reduction burns are a form of forest management.

A Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysis confirmed that development in wildfire-prone regions has dramatically increased. The report found that between 1990 and 2015 home construction within the perimeter of recent wildfires increased to 286,000 from 177,000.

We have a cabin in the woods, and just spent $3K to have the trees
trimmed and the brush cleaned up. The first floor is made of concrete
blocks. The local powers are brutal about keeping this area safe from
fires, but it\'s expensive.

Between the intense feet and embers, a flammable structure would need to be isolated by 500 feet to avoid spontaneous ignition.

Steel roof, no gutters, nothing flammable for the required distance
around the house, all the small stuff trimmed, pine needles raked.
That\'s what people should do if they want to live in a forest. We
won\'t get a firestorm because everything is managed for miles in all
directions.

Until it turns out that it needed to be managed even more intensively.

Costs us roughly $500 a year.

You can\'t do a lot to protect your property from floods, tornadoes,
hurricanes, landslides, or arsonists.

To avoid floods you build on high ground. To avoid hurricanes, don\'t build too near the coast. To avoid tornadoes, you don\'t build in Tornadoe Alley.

To avoid landslides you consult a geologist.

Avoiding arsonists is more difficult - universal health care helps by getting onto the nut-cases early, but that isn\'t infallible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:33:28 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

The destabilized jet stream is what came down and exploded those flames like a furnace bellows. And a destabilized jet stream is a direct consequence of global warming, as has been explained numerous times.

That\'s silly. When the first Spanish arrived here, the natives warned
them about the fires. Plants capture CO2. In California, it returns to
the atmosphere by burning.

There\'s nothing silly about a jet stream altering weather.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pakistan_floods>

Official death toll was a couple thousand, but malnutrition reached
70% of the population.

Things don\'t just build up and overnight become a crisis.
Extrapolation is a good way to scare yourself.

While \'overnight\' is not the most useful timescale for this, others are available,
and \'scare\' is entirely appropriate for what the models predict as well as
what the news reports tell us. It\'s NOT extrapolation to use a model, it\'s
only extrapolation to sketch and extend a graph.

Inability to understand and use models is curable with education.

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:41:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

No, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Dream on. These may be your preferred explanations for what is going on, but it takes an idiot like you to think that unprecedented fires reflect an unprecedented (and previously un-noticed) level of mismanagement. It\'s taking wishful thinking to absurd levels - and if we wanted absurd idiocy, you would be the obvious source.

Only an IDIOT would claim, so I guess you are ACCEPTING that dubious accolade. I STRONGLY suggest that you google \"mismanagement of forests\" and get back to me with what you find.

As usual, you fail elementary comprehension. I didn\'t claim \" that the forests have been properly managed in the last 50 years\". I claimed that unprecedented fires probably didn\'t reflect an unprecedented level of mismanagement. It would have had to have kicked in very suddenly to explain why this years fires are so much worse than those you have had in previous years (which you presumably want to blame on mismanagement in the same forests).

You can\'t manage forests in a way that prevents fires. You can usually manage them in a way that makes the fires that do happen small and localised, but an exceptionally dry summer can give the fires more fuel and more opportunities to leap over to the next bit of forest.

Climate change does seem to have a habit of delivering exceptionally dry summers to some places, some of the time.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/09/10/la-nina-pacific-ocean-more-drought-wildfire-outlook/

El Nino and La Nina are climate changes, but they\'ve been alternating for as long as we\'ve kept records (and probably a lot longer). More CO2 in the atmosphere probably changes what actually happens all the way through the alternation, but I\'ve yet to come across anything that spells this out.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

Hey SL0W MAN,

As usual, you would be WRONG - there has been an \"unprecedented\" level of mismanagement for the last 10 years. In fact, it has led to an \"unprecedented\" level of DEAD TREES:
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-09-13/150-million-dead-trees-wildfires-sierra-nevada
Once these DEAD TREES start to burn the conflagration can\'t be stopped, except by Winter. Various envirowaco groups and endangered species laws have prevented the removal of these DEAD TREES.
This is NOT some \"new phenomena,\" but has been known for years:
https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/242/Report242.pdf
We were talking about it FIFTY YEARS AGO!

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 10:18:38 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.

So what? If you are looking at 10th percentile, seven different centuries have been
among the wettest of the last 7000 years.

Wet centuries doesn\'t mean low fire danger, either. It takes a wet season to build up fuel,
and a dry season to support bad fires, and those both happen in all centuries.

> Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall — the kind that would cause devastating floods today.

That long-term record is a second-rate guide, now that human intervention has changed the
boundary conditions. It hasn\'t got any ability to think and project a future scenario, so it has
to be called \'historical baseline\' and shelved appropriately.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:18:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:41:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

<snip>

> Climate change has LITTLE to do with this catastrophe:

Or nothing you can understand.

Climate change, which accentuated drought severity and is promoting record-breaking heat waves this summer, “is like the frosting on the cake,” said conservationist Craig Thomas.

But you are too fucking STUPID to understand this: this problem has been in the making for DECADES. Didn\'t you even read my references?

Sure I did, and I clearly understood them rather better than you did.

> OBVIOUSLY NOT, this IS NOT the \"worst drought\" in history:

The combination of a very dry summer with a lot of inflammable vegetation does seem to have been unusual. Nobody said anything about \"the worst drought in history\".

> Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.

So what? Global warming delivers a warmer ocean surface, and at present this is evaporating 6% more water than it used to (or at least the vapour pressure of water immediately above the warmer ocean surface is 6% higher).

> Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall — the kind that would cause devastating floods today.

One of the problems with heavy rain in the modern era is that it runs off cleared land a lot faster than it runs off scrub-land, and flows down rivers without flood plains a lot faster than it runs down rivers without levees along their banks.

> The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.

If you look back long enough you will see more improbable events. That\'s how statistics work.

As I seem to keep reminding you, you are remarkably stupid. There weren\'t any newspapers published in California from 850 to 1320, so we don\'t know much about the forest fires in that period.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:17 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:18:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:41:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0
snip
Climate change has LITTLE to do with this catastrophe:
Or nothing you can understand.
Climate change, which accentuated drought severity and is promoting record-breaking heat waves this summer, “is like the frosting on the cake,” said conservationist Craig Thomas.

But you are too fucking STUPID to understand this: this problem has been in the making for DECADES. Didn\'t you even read my references?
Sure I did, and I clearly understood them rather better than you did.
OBVIOUSLY NOT, this IS NOT the \"worst drought\" in history:
The combination of a very dry summer with a lot of inflammable vegetation does seem to have been unusual. Nobody said anything about \"the worst drought in history\".
Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.
So what? Global warming delivers a warmer ocean surface, and at present this is evaporating 6% more water than it used to (or at least the vapour pressure of water immediately above the warmer ocean surface is 6% higher).
Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall — the kind that would cause devastating floods today.
One of the problems with heavy rain in the modern era is that it runs off cleared land a lot faster than it runs off scrub-land, and flows down rivers without flood plains a lot faster than it runs down rivers without levees along their banks.
The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.
If you look back long enough you will see more improbable events. That\'s how statistics work.

As I seem to keep reminding you, you are remarkably stupid. There weren\'t any newspapers published in California from 850 to 1320, so we don\'t know much about the forest fires in that period.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey SL0W MAN,

It\'s called HISTORY - study it BEFORE you start ranting, especially when you use the word \"UNPRECEDENTED!!!\"

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:46:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:17 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:18:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:41:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0
snip
Climate change has LITTLE to do with this catastrophe:
Or nothing you can understand.
Climate change, which accentuated drought severity and is promoting record-breaking heat waves this summer, “is like the frosting on the cake,” said conservationist Craig Thomas.

But you are too fucking STUPID to understand this: this problem has been in the making for DECADES. Didn\'t you even read my references?
Sure I did, and I clearly understood them rather better than you did.
OBVIOUSLY NOT, this IS NOT the \"worst drought\" in history:

The combination of a very dry summer with a lot of inflammable vegetation does seem to have been unusual. Nobody said anything about \"the worst drought in history\".

Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.

So what? Global warming delivers a warmer ocean surface, and at present this is evaporating 6% more water than it used to (or at least the vapour pressure of water immediately above the warmer ocean surface is 6% higher).

Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall — the kind that would cause devastating floods today.

One of the problems with heavy rain in the modern era is that it runs off cleared land a lot faster than it runs off scrub-land, and flows down rivers without flood plains a lot faster than it runs down rivers without levees along their banks.

The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.

If you look back long enough you will see more improbable events. That\'s how statistics work.

As I seem to keep reminding you, you are remarkably stupid. There weren\'t any newspapers published in California from 850 to 1320, so we don\'t know much about the forest fires in that period.

It\'s called HISTORY - study it BEFORE you start ranting, especially when you use the word \"UNPRECEDENTED!!!\"

History is what is documented in written records. What happened in California between 850 and 1320 is pre-historic. We can work out what was going on from geological records and tree rings, but that isn\'t \"history\" but scientific deduction.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:54:04 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:46:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:17 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:18:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:41:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0
snip
Climate change has LITTLE to do with this catastrophe:
Or nothing you can understand.
Climate change, which accentuated drought severity and is promoting record-breaking heat waves this summer, “is like the frosting on the cake,” said conservationist Craig Thomas.

But you are too fucking STUPID to understand this: this problem has been in the making for DECADES. Didn\'t you even read my references?
Sure I did, and I clearly understood them rather better than you did.
OBVIOUSLY NOT, this IS NOT the \"worst drought\" in history:

The combination of a very dry summer with a lot of inflammable vegetation does seem to have been unusual. Nobody said anything about \"the worst drought in history\".

Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years.

So what? Global warming delivers a warmer ocean surface, and at present this is evaporating 6% more water than it used to (or at least the vapour pressure of water immediately above the warmer ocean surface is 6% higher).

Looking back, the long-term record also shows some staggeringly wet periods. The decades between the two medieval megadroughts, for example, delivered years of above-normal rainfall — the kind that would cause devastating floods today.

One of the problems with heavy rain in the modern era is that it runs off cleared land a lot faster than it runs off scrub-land, and flows down rivers without flood plains a lot faster than it runs down rivers without levees along their banks.

The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.

If you look back long enough you will see more improbable events. That\'s how statistics work.

As I seem to keep reminding you, you are remarkably stupid. There weren\'t any newspapers published in California from 850 to 1320, so we don\'t know much about the forest fires in that period.

It\'s called HISTORY - study it BEFORE you start ranting, especially when you use the word \"UNPRECEDENTED!!!\"

History is what is documented in written records. What happened in California between 850 and 1320 is pre-historic. We can work out what was going on from geological records and tree rings, but that isn\'t \"history\" but scientific deduction.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

So, what happened to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians ISN\'T history, SL0W MAN? As usual, you are out of your FUCKING MIND, man! You just don\'t want to accept that the libtard explanation of the CA wildfires is WRONG. The explanation is simple: decades for incredible forest mismanagement. CA has long endured droughts, and SCIENCE proves it.

 

[rangerssuck]

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:

On 09/11/20 03:44, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

Hey SL0W MAN,

No SL0W MAN, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Isn\'t that what I said up thread ?. So many people have lost everything
due to decades of mismanagement and a local government that seem
incapable of doing anything to fix the problem. Too much fuel, expect
bigger fires.

Why do so many vote for such idiots ?...

Chris

Local government? The vast majority of the California forest is owned by the Federal government.

 

[server]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
<rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
On 09/11/20 03:44, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

Hey SL0W MAN,

No SL0W MAN, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Isn\'t that what I said up thread ?. So many people have lost everything
due to decades of mismanagement and a local government that seem
incapable of doing anything to fix the problem. Too much fuel, expect
bigger fires.

Why do so many vote for such idiots ?...

Chris

Local government? The vast majority of the California forest is owned by the Federal government.

But most people live in towns and cities, which could be protected
from fires. Paradise CA was a death trap firebomb. Embers ignited the
houses (flammable roofs, gutters full of leaves, dry lawns right up
the the house) but not the trees.

Some towns in CA are brutal about enforcing fire safety. If you don\'t
manage your property, they\'ll do it for you and send a gigantic bill.

This is our cabin in the woods. It has been inspected and maintained
for fire safety.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ywyu4diiew80q92/20200912_101925.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhdx4uc4h0qrxoj/20200912_110537.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lg2jzttcxaxru4j/Sides.jpg?raw=1

Steel roof, no vents or gutters, no attic, concrete block first floor,
defensible space, trees trimmed, pine needles picked up. If you want
to have a house in the woods, do it right.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 19, 2020 at 1:28:15 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
range...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
On 09/11/20 03:44, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

This is our cabin in the woods. It has been inspected and maintained
for fire safety.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ywyu4diiew80q92/20200912_101925.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhdx4uc4h0qrxoj/20200912_110537.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lg2jzttcxaxru4j/Sides.jpg?raw=1

If one of those trees close to the place catch fires and fall against one of those timber walls, or on the wooden stairs and deck, it will burn.

You wouldn\'t need a whole tree - a decent sized branch would do it.

Steel roof, no vents or gutters, no attic, concrete block first floor,
defensible space, trees trimmed, pine needles picked up. If you want
to have a house in the woods, do it right.

And try for bit closer to right than that. It looks very like some friends\' houses in the bush in Australia which had been fine for decades until a serious bush fire went through. You need quite a wide tree-and-shrub free space around the dwelling before you can be too optimistic.

When I was a graduate student a couple of us decided to drive down to the surf - some 60 odd miles away - on a rather hot summer day. We drove some of the way along a four lane dual carriage-way, and went through some bushfire smoke on the way down. We couldn\'t come back along that road. The fire front had gone across the road about half an hour after we\'d driven through the smoke and killed a bunch of people who\'d found that they were driving into flames as well as smoke . The flames were hot enough to stop and burn their cars and kill them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 9/13/2020 2:11 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:14:41 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 9:42:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

snip

The destabilized jet stream is what came down and exploded those flames like a furnace bellows. And a destabilized jet stream is a direct consequence of global warming, as has been explained numerous times.

That\'s silly. When the first Spanish arrived here, the natives warned
them about the fires. Plants capture CO2. In California, it returns to
the atmosphere by burning.

Or rotting.

snip

That\'s the point. Tens of millions of people living in areas they shouldn\'t be requires probably thousands of miles of PG&E overhead electrical line which by its very nature is fragile. Meaning lines don\'t hold up well with trees falling on them or extremely intense fires burning at their base.

The natural California fires weren\'t extremely intense. The bigger
trees survived.

We have immense fire storms now, because we put the small ones out.

What makes you think that? You know very little about the \"natural California fires\".

“More people on the landscape means more opportunity for a fire during one of these wind events,” he said.

The National Park Service agreed that too many people is the leading cause of wildfires; 85 percent are human-caused.

The cause doesn\'t matter. There will always be ignition sources,
lately lightning. The fewer the ignition sources and the more
resources available to put fires out, the bigger the uncontrollable
fire storms get.


If nobody does fuel reduction burns in dry periods in winter, which happens a lot in Australia.
It helps, but it doesn\'t prevent all forest fires.

And our airhead governor says the fires are proof of Climate Change.

Nothing air-headed about that. No individual fire is \"proof\" of anything, but a lot of unprecedentedly intense fires happening at much the same time does suggest that something usual is going on . Atmospheric CO2 levels at 410 ppm haven\'t been usual for the past 20 million years, so it\'s goig to be a prime suspect.

Absent forest management, more ignition sources is good.

Fuel reduction burns are a form of forest management.

A Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysis confirmed that development in wildfire-prone regions has dramatically increased. The report found that between 1990 and 2015 home construction within the perimeter of recent wildfires increased to 286,000 from 177,000.

We have a cabin in the woods, and just spent $3K to have the trees
trimmed and the brush cleaned up. The first floor is made of concrete
blocks. The local powers are brutal about keeping this area safe from
fires, but it\'s expensive.

Between the intense feet and embers, a flammable structure would need to be isolated by 500 feet to avoid spontaneous ignition.

Steel roof, no gutters, nothing flammable for the required distance
around the house, all the small stuff trimmed, pine needles raked.
That\'s what people should do if they want to live in a forest. We
won\'t get a firestorm because everything is managed for miles in all
directions.

Until it turns out that it needed to be managed even more intensively.

Costs us roughly $500 a year.

You can\'t do a lot to protect your property from floods, tornadoes,
hurricanes, landslides, or arsonists.

To avoid floods you build on high ground. To avoid hurricanes, don\'t build too near the coast. To avoid tornadoes, you don\'t build in Tornadoe Alley.

To avoid landslides you consult a geologist.

Avoiding arsonists is more difficult - universal health care helps by getting onto the nut-cases early, but that isn\'t infallible.

Notice how the tidy homes with fresh paint kept in good condition
survive the thermal pulse of a nuclear detonation better than the trashy
poor-people homes:

<https://youtu.be/kn0XEa4B144?t=324>

Just another example of how poverty is un-patriotic.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:28:15 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
On 09/11/20 03:44, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

Hey SL0W MAN,

No SL0W MAN, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Isn\'t that what I said up thread ?. So many people have lost everything
due to decades of mismanagement and a local government that seem
incapable of doing anything to fix the problem. Too much fuel, expect
bigger fires.

Why do so many vote for such idiots ?...

Chris

Local government? The vast majority of the California forest is owned by the Federal government.

But most people live in towns and cities, which could be protected
from fires. Paradise CA was a death trap firebomb. Embers ignited the
houses (flammable roofs, gutters full of leaves, dry lawns right up
the the house) but not the trees.

Some towns in CA are brutal about enforcing fire safety. If you don\'t
manage your property, they\'ll do it for you and send a gigantic bill.

This is our cabin in the woods. It has been inspected and maintained
for fire safety.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ywyu4diiew80q92/20200912_101925.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhdx4uc4h0qrxoj/20200912_110537.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lg2jzttcxaxru4j/Sides.jpg?raw=1

Steel roof, no vents or gutters, no attic, concrete block first floor,
defensible space, trees trimmed, pine needles picked up. If you want
to have a house in the woods, do it right.


I would also have some means of storing water like a swimming pool and a gas driven pump.

Dan

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

Science teaches us to doubt.

Claude Bernard

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:58:09 -0700 (PDT), \"dcaster@krl.org\"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:28:15 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 2:03:43 PM UTC-4, Chris wrote:
On 09/11/20 03:44, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"

Welcome to the side effects of climate change. We had that in Sydney at the end of last year.

My wife bought an air-purifier to minimise the number of smoke particles ending up in her lungs.

The local hospitals qot swamped by people who had more serious respiratory problems.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

Hey SL0W MAN,

No SL0W MAN, welcome to the effects of DECADES of forest mismanagement and fire suppression, most recently aggravated by envirowacos blocking the removal of dead trees.

Isn\'t that what I said up thread ?. So many people have lost everything
due to decades of mismanagement and a local government that seem
incapable of doing anything to fix the problem. Too much fuel, expect
bigger fires.

Why do so many vote for such idiots ?...

Chris

Local government? The vast majority of the California forest is owned by the Federal government.

But most people live in towns and cities, which could be protected
from fires. Paradise CA was a death trap firebomb. Embers ignited the
houses (flammable roofs, gutters full of leaves, dry lawns right up
the the house) but not the trees.

Some towns in CA are brutal about enforcing fire safety. If you don\'t
manage your property, they\'ll do it for you and send a gigantic bill.

This is our cabin in the woods. It has been inspected and maintained
for fire safety.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ywyu4diiew80q92/20200912_101925.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhdx4uc4h0qrxoj/20200912_110537.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lg2jzttcxaxru4j/Sides.jpg?raw=1

Steel roof, no vents or gutters, no attic, concrete block first floor,
defensible space, trees trimmed, pine needles picked up. If you want
to have a house in the woods, do it right.


I would also have some means of storing water like a swimming pool and a gas driven pump.

Dan

Swimming pools are nasty, and gasoline is dangerous. We have a few
very long garden hoses to put out small fires. A giant water tank is
uphill, gravity fed to our neighborhood. In case of a big fire, the
thing to do is leave.

We won\'t have a big fire. The safety rules are enforced for miles in
all directions.

I\'ve never seen a residential swimming pool in Truckee. Hardly any in
San Francisco either.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 19:14:24 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:32:50 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 9:42:11 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

As if enough wasn\'t going wrong already. I hear that the ash was
falling like serious snow at times. \"It felt like night until about
4pm.\"


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
\"Bunter\", he said, \"I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason\"

The destabilized jet stream is what came down and exploded those flames like a furnace bellows. And a destabilized jet stream is a direct consequence of global warming, as has been explained numerous times.
That\'s silly. When the first Spanish arrived here, the natives warned
them about the fires. Plants capture CO2. In California, it returns to
the atmosphere by burning.

Okay, so in your mind, the 60MPH northerly wind gusts had no effect on the rapid spread and increased intensity of the fires already burning?

I don\'t recall saying that. Got a link?


Looks like a bunch of dead and destitute people would disagree with you.



The Leventhal Center for Advanced Urbanism, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology division, estimates that at least 25 percent of Californians now live in what the center calls fire-prone locations.

Also silly. It\'s closer to 100%. Always has been.
Jon Keeley, a U.S. Geological Survey research scientist, said that population growth makes wildfires more deadly, and more likely.
Certainly building death traps like Paradise is criminal. The houses
all burned but the trees didn\'t.

That\'s the point. Tens of millions of people living in areas they shouldn\'t be requires probably thousands of miles of PG&E overhead electrical line which by its very nature is fragile. Meaning lines don\'t hold up well with trees falling on them or extremely intense fires burning at their base.

The natural California fires weren\'t extremely intense. The bigger
trees survived.

We have immense fire storms now, because we put the small ones out.






“More people on the landscape means more opportunity for a fire during one of these wind events,” he said.

The National Park Service agreed that too many people is the leading cause of wildfires; 85 percent are human-caused.
The cause doesn\'t matter. There will always be ignition sources,
lately lightning. The fewer the ignition sources and the more
resources available to put fires out, the bigger the uncontrollable
fire storms get. And our airhead governor says the fires are proof of
Climate Change.

Absent forest management, more ignition sources is good.

This is cool:

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/el-nino.jpg?itok=ISZXilNa

That tree survived a lot of small fires. It wouldn\'t have survived a
modern fire storm.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 1:48:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 7:40:08 AM UTC-7, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 7:44:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 3:23:52 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 6:13:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 10:36:05 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:54:04 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:46:53 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 12:36:17 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 3:18:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:12:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 9:57:25 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 12, 2020 at 10:41:40 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 13, 2020 at 12:02:25 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 9:34:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 12:44:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 7:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 11:42:11 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wyrjcsjemde1gqw/AACymDmZ2Ul7OZwed4XovQL5a?dl=0

<snip>

Why listen to the EXPERTS that say not only is is \"plausible\" - but it ACTUALLY HAPPENED. There are ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION dead trees in California that NOBODY did anything about.

What were they supposed to do about it? As have I said, the only way of stopping them catching fire in summer would have been to set them on fire in winter, which might have been difficult. Australia\'s 2019/2020 bushfire season started early, in part because quite a few of the early fuel reduction burns got away and burnt a lot more bush than they should have. It didn\'t stop the fires that got going later in the season from being unprecedently bad.

What the fuck do you think would happen when God lit a match? You are SO DENSE that your brain ought to be used for heavy armor plating!

What\'s that got to do with forest mismanagement? If you want to claim that the forests could have been better managed you do have spell out what they should have done, and how it would have made the fires less bad.

They could have sold the dead trees to timber companies. Even if they gave the dead trees away and paid the timber companies to take the dead trees, they would have been ahead of what they did do. As is they got nothing for the timber and incurred lots of expense fighting the current fires.

No, dead trees have NO commercial value. They can only be used as firewood, which is EXACTLY how they are being used.

Every bit of commercial timber sold today is part of a dead tree. If a tree dies before it gets cut down, less of the timber in the tree will be worth turning into structural or decorative timber, bit some of it will have some commercial value.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney