OT Fires in California...

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:30:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

It makes sense that all that burning of oil and gas and coal would
increase CO2. This real issue is, is that good or bad? Plants like it.

http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG
Well, it is one of a plant\'s nutrients, after all. Grasshoppers, though, have
a complaint: the fast-growing grasses aren\'t nutritious enough.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2020/03/10/814130193/why-taller-grass-can-be-bad-news-for-grasshoppers

So, what is CA doing to mitigate these fires? Answer: NOTHING - they are making matters WORSE by giving incentives to increase the fuel load in forests:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/18/65883/californias-cap-and-trade-program-may-vastly-overestimate-emissions-cuts/
Mitigate them? We spend megabucks to put them out.

News flash: putting out fires IS NOT mitigation:

It certainly mitigates their consequences. Once a fire is out, it doesn\'t move on to burn anything new.

Other examples of mitigation measures include:
Hazard mapping.

Mapping the hazard doesn\'t mitigate anything. It may let you observe the area carefully enough to mitigate the hazard out of existence when it moves from a potential to an actual risk.

> Adoption and enforcement of land use and zoning practices.

That can help , if the practices are - in fact - thorough enough to be useful.

> Implementing and enforcing building codes.

Ditto.

> Flood plain mapping.

You do have to have some idea of how high the flood is going to go when it arrives. Levees that are two metres above the normal water level aren\'t all that effective against a three metre surge.

> Reinforced tornado safe rooms.

If you can get into them before the tornado hits. If you can\'t they don\'t mitigate anything.

> Burying of electrical cables to prevent ice build-up.

That\'s not mitigating anything. Buried cables can\'t accumulate ice. That particular problem hasn\'t been so much mitigated as eliminated.

> Raising of homes in flood-prone areas.

If you can raise them far enough.

> In other words, CA is not \"mitigating\" fires by putting them out.

Not in any sense that Flyguy can understand. He doesn\'t understand much, and most of what he thinks he understands is wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:14:50 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 7:49:54 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 1:25:04 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 8:29:46 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0e56oi7loq9hym/Fires_Aug_2020.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6h1maxj1y1cvbdd/Smoke_Aug_2020.JPG?raw=1

Didn\'t YOU say that SED was for electronics ONLY?
No, I said that this is an electronics design group. I do sometimes
ask posters if they actually design electronics. If it were a knitting
group, I might ask them what they knit.
Except that when you ask that \"question\" your aim seems to be to punish people who aren\'t flattering you as fulsomely as you feel you deserve.
Electronic design engineers have other interests, and it\'s not
unreasonable to mention them now and then. The fires in CA are
certainly affecting a lot of tech industries and engineers. The thread
was non-political, non-insulting, and clearly labeled OT and did no
harm to the group. Grown-ups can have polite conversations about all
sorts of stuff.

But the majority of posters here don\'t design electronics and are here
to exchange endless spirals of childish insults and tribal politics.
By which you mean they don\'t flatter you about your electronic design skills as enthusiastically as you think you ought to.
You find this deficit actively insulting.

There is a lot of tribal politics posted here. Your enthusiasm for climate change denial puts you in the right-wing nit-wit tribe along with James Arthur and Flyguy.
There are a few people here who are seriously competent at electronic
design. They are usually polite and helpful and share what they can;
two have written important books.
Win Hill is admirable. Phil Hobbs is pretty good.
I have met and worked with some of the posters here. I hired one and
that worked out very well for both of us. If I get lucky, I might find
another great engineer here, or another friend. Ideally, someone who
hikes and skis and actually understands electricity.
And is willing to flatter you as extravagantly as you feel you deserve.
Sadly, I know some seriously good engineers who won\'t post here
because of the horrible clucking of the nasty old hens who dominate
the group. If you don\'t design, that\'s no loss to you. Cluck on!
As far as I know, John Larkin posts more than anybody else, and that does mean that he come closer to dominating the group than anybody else.

He does strike me as spending quite a bit of time clucking like a nasty old hen, mostly about how other posters are unkind to him.

He\'s not all that interested when other people post electronic design problems - most of them seem to be a bit too demanding for him to want to stick his neck out by suggesting solutions. Nobody here knows enough to post something helpful in response to every electronic query. and quire a few of the queries are from dumb newbies and require quite a lot of work to translate into questions that are specific enough to be worth answering.

We do get enough interesting questions and useful replies to allow the group to persist, but there is a great deal of off-topic noise.

The signal to noise ratio isn\'t high, and you do have to trawl through a lot of noise to get to the occasional signal. The occasional social - or anti-social - interaction is a side effect, but it may be what keeps the group active.

The internet bully is pushing everybody else with his NONSENSICAL rules! The DEFENSE against such BULLYS is just to IGNORE THEM!

Go for it. Flyguy is a reliable source of ignorance, but he doesn\'t seem to be all that good at ignoring minor irritations. He can talk the talk, but he can\'t walk the walk.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:12:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 6:16:44 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 3:31:04 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 2:02:44 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
--
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:13c9:: with SMTP id g9mr2016961qkl..436.1598670666318; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6f26:: with SMTP id i6mr4355754qtv.390.1598670666058; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ribqag$4ri$1...@dont-email.me
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=110.174.91.153; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 110.174.91.153
References: <j2n7kfh5e746lff1c...@4ax.com> <oNR0H.407363$dTb.1....@fx41.ams1> <ecq7kfp0be9t08vlv...@4ax.com> <5b0bkf989b48cm247...@4ax.com> <5h2bkfpglue223qr2...@4ax.com> <8791734a-4fbf-41ff...@googlegroups.com> <daaa791e-a7bd-4d93...@googlegroups.com> <ri5von$s85$2...@dont-email.me> <a9291fba-32f8-46f9...@googlegroups.com> <ribqag$4ri$1...@dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e279bf7d-75b4-449b...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT Fires in California
From: Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:11:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:606816

On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 6:44:07 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Flyguy wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
snip
Many \"green energy\" pushers feign science but they know nothing about science.

Like Flyguy and John Doe? You get ignorant idiots on both sides of every controversy.

Coincidentally... Such things as California wildfires spew GIGATONS of pollutants into the air. And all those (gone) trees won\'t be converting CO2 into oxygen for many years.

Obviously. They also kill people and burn houses.

One of several persistent trolls from Australia...

Says the top-posting troll whose nym marks him as clearly American, and whose content marks him as remarkably stupid.

He doesn\'t really understand what a troll is, which is curious when he\'s textbook example of the breed - short on content and long on abuse.

Hey, you ARE THE TROLL here.

I\'m sure Flyguy likes to think that, and he\'s stupid enough that he might actually believe it. It\'s not remotely true, and he won\'t believe that either, which isn\'t all that strange considering all the fatuous nonsense that he does seem willing to believe. One of our regular posters was labelled AlwaysWrong for a while.

It was pretty silly. Nobody is reliably wrong.

Flyguy might qualify for FrequentlyWrong - he does seem to latch onto a lot of stuff that is clearly aimed at the hopelessly gullible.

So says the internet <snipped the particularly predictable bit

So kind of Flyguy to notice. Sadly, his reaction is noise, rather than signal.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:31:29 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>I love it when CA burns, we get nice colored sunsets.

Not really. The sunsets around Santa Cruz CA have been more like a
blood red sun surrounded by red, gray, and black smog.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=california+fires+blood+red+sun&tbm=isch>

I live in Ben Lomond which is in the CZU fire area. I evacuated early
and have been living my formerly palatial office for the previous 15
days.
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/CZU-Fire/Office-2020-08-29.jpg
The office was almost empty because I had given notice and was
scheduled to be out by the end of August.

I haven\'t returned to my house quite yet. I\'m told it\'s fine. The
fire was stopped about 1500 ft from my house (blue marker):
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/CZU-Fire/Jackson%20Ave%202020-08-29.pdf>
More fire related stuff I collected:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/CZU-Fire/>

It might be of interest to watch the progression of the fire starting
with Aug 16:
<https://firms2.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#t:adv;d:2020-08-16;l:countries,street;@-122.1,37.1,11z>
The calendar (timeline) is at the bottom of the map. Click forward
one day at a time. The winds arrived on Aug 19 with spectacular
results. Give the map a few seconds for the red/org squares to appear
when changing dates.

Observation: Some of the most enthusiastic long term planners tend to
be those with little stake in the outcome or costs.




--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[John Doe]

Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hey SL0W MAN, you ARE THE TROLL here.

He knows.

Australia is a province of China, they (mostly) do is they are told.

 

[John Doe]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

But the majority of posters here don\'t design electronics and are
here to exchange endless spirals of childish insults and tribal
politics.

That\'s a troll.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 21:14:44 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 7:49:54 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 1:25:04 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2020 at 8:29:46 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0e56oi7loq9hym/Fires_Aug_2020.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6h1maxj1y1cvbdd/Smoke_Aug_2020.JPG?raw=1

Didn\'t YOU say that SED was for electronics ONLY?
No, I said that this is an electronics design group. I do sometimes
ask posters if they actually design electronics. If it were a knitting
group, I might ask them what they knit.
Except that when you ask that \"question\" your aim seems to be to punish people who aren\'t flattering you as fulsomely as you feel you deserve.
Electronic design engineers have other interests, and it\'s not
unreasonable to mention them now and then. The fires in CA are
certainly affecting a lot of tech industries and engineers. The thread
was non-political, non-insulting, and clearly labeled OT and did no
harm to the group. Grown-ups can have polite conversations about all
sorts of stuff.

But the majority of posters here don\'t design electronics and are here
to exchange endless spirals of childish insults and tribal politics.
By which you mean they don\'t flatter you about your electronic design skills as enthusiastically as you think you ought to.
You find this deficit actively insulting.

There is a lot of tribal politics posted here. Your enthusiasm for climate change denial puts you in the right-wing nit-wit tribe along with James Arthur and Flyguy.
There are a few people here who are seriously competent at electronic
design. They are usually polite and helpful and share what they can;
two have written important books.
Win Hill is admirable. Phil Hobbs is pretty good.
I have met and worked with some of the posters here. I hired one and
that worked out very well for both of us. If I get lucky, I might find
another great engineer here, or another friend. Ideally, someone who
hikes and skis and actually understands electricity.
And is willing to flatter you as extravagantly as you feel you deserve.
Sadly, I know some seriously good engineers who won\'t post here
because of the horrible clucking of the nasty old hens who dominate
the group. If you don\'t design, that\'s no loss to you. Cluck on!
As far as I know, John Larkin posts more than anybody else, and that does mean that he come closer to dominating the group than anybody else.

He does strike me as spending quite a bit of time clucking like a nasty old hen, mostly about how other posters are unkind to him.

He\'s not all that interested when other people post electronic design problems - most of them seem to be a bit too demanding for him to want to stick his neck out by suggesting solutions. Nobody here knows enough to post something helpful in response to every electronic query. and quire a few of the queries are from dumb newbies and require quite a lot of work to translate into questions that are specific enough to be worth answering.

We do get enough interesting questions and useful replies to allow the group to persist, but there is a great deal of off-topic noise.

The signal to noise ratio isn\'t high, and you do have to trawl through a lot of noise to get to the occasional signal. The occasional social - or anti-social - interaction is a side effect, but it may be what keeps the group active.

--
SL0W MAN, Sydney

The internet BULLY, SL0W MAN, is pushing everybody else with his NONSENSICAL rules! The DEFENSE against such BULLYS is just to IGNORE THEM!

Then do it.

 

[John Doe]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

The internet BULLY, SL0W MAN, is pushing everybody else with his
NONSENSICAL rules! The DEFENSE against such BULLYS is just to
IGNORE THEM!

Then do it.

If it worked, you wouldn\'t be replying. Blocking other people so you
do not know what they are doing is stupid. Conventional blocking is
worse than useless.

MUTUAL BLOCKING would turn the Internet into a civilized place.
Preventing them from seeing your posts (and branches) at the same
time you cannot see their posts (and branches). Unfortunately,
moderators enjoy moderating (contrary to what they say), so mutual
blocking doesn\'t happen.

Between now and then... On USENET, the best filter is simply \"Ignore
Subthread\" with a single keystroke or voice command like \"branch\"
(if you do speech). At the top of the thread or for any branch of
the thread. The ability to single-key ignore a thread branch is
especially useful in your own thread when you don\'t want to be
bothered by stuff you are uninterested in.

 

[Flyguy]

Hey SL0W MAN,

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming. If anything, the evidence points to the OPPOSITE.
> During ice ages, the atmospheric CO2 level was 180 ppm, and during interglacials it has been about 270 ppm. This is the biggest single factor that explains why the earth was colder during ice ages - the extensive snow cover over the northern parts of the northern hemisphere also contributed, but not as much.

NOT conclusive.

Global warming is relatively recent, whereas CO2 emissions have been increasing steadily with the industrialization of the world.
Not all that steadily - by which Flyguy would presumably mean \"linearly\" if he understood what was going on.

You show you complete ignorance: steadily IS NOT linearly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png
CO2 emissions went up dramatically after 1941, but global temperatures dropped.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere went from about 270 ppm before we were burning enough to fossil carbon to matter to about 315 ppm in 1958, when Keeling started measuring it - that\'s an extra 45 ppm over about a century or so. It\'s now about 410 ppm, so it has gone up 95 ppm in sixty years. We don\'t know enough about the exact CO2 level in 1941 to say how fast it was rising, but it certainly wasn\'t rising anything like as fast as it is now

Alarmists LOVE to point to glacial retreat as PROOF of global warming. What\'s wrong with that? Glaciers started retreating in 1850, long before CO2 began rising. Multiple studies now show that glacial retreating was caused by carbon soot , NOT CO2. Just another example of conventional wisdom being shown to be group stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

The temperature did drop a little, but that was probably natural variation - the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seems to have been responsible for most of it. There\'s a similar sort of variation over an oscillation between the El Nino state of the Pacific and the La Nina state, but that happens over a shorter time scale, and it got noticed earlier. The first publication to mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was in 1994, and it didn\'t call it that . The name seems to have been invented in 2000 by Michael Mann (when he was already famous for his \"hockey stick\" graph).

\"PROBABLY?\" That, sure as hell, IS NOT conclusive. But it does show that \"conventional wisdom\" that increasing CO2 levels will definitely increase global temperatures is WRONG and is really conventional stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Sulphur dioxide pollution from burning sulphur-rich coal in power stations creates acid rain - which is why power stations started getting SO2 scrubbers in their smoke stacks from the 1970\'s - but it also creates a reflective aerosol in the stratosphere, which may have had a global cooling effect which has now largely gone away.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends

\"MAY\" is NOT conclusive - you continue to make my case for me.

This has become the defacto religion of the left.
What Flyguy imagines to be \"a religion\" is actually rather solidly grounded in scientific research, none of which he knows anything about.

\"Probably\" and \"may\" IS NOT \"solidly grounded scientific research\" - it is mere speculation by alarmists like you.

You know the alarmists REALLY don\'t believe their own bullshit when they fly on private jets to global warming conferences.

 

[Flyguy]

On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 9:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:30:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

It makes sense that all that burning of oil and gas and coal would
increase CO2. This real issue is, is that good or bad? Plants like it.

http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG
Well, it is one of a plant\'s nutrients, after all. Grasshoppers, though, have
a complaint: the fast-growing grasses aren\'t nutritious enough.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2020/03/10/814130193/why-taller-grass-can-be-bad-news-for-grasshoppers

So, what is CA doing to mitigate these fires? Answer: NOTHING - they are making matters WORSE by giving incentives to increase the fuel load in forests:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/18/65883/californias-cap-and-trade-program-may-vastly-overestimate-emissions-cuts/
Mitigate them? We spend megabucks to put them out.

News flash: putting out fires IS NOT mitigation:
It certainly mitigates their consequences. Once a fire is out, it doesn\'t move on to burn anything new.
So what? The original problems are still there: too much fuel in the forests and
Other examples of mitigation measures include:
Hazard mapping.
Mapping the hazard doesn\'t mitigate anything. It may let you observe the area carefully enough to mitigate the hazard out of existence when it moves from a potential to an actual risk.
Adoption and enforcement of land use and zoning practices.
That can help , if the practices are - in fact - thorough enough to be useful.
Implementing and enforcing building codes.
Ditto.

Flood plain mapping.

You do have to have some idea of how high the flood is going to go when it arrives. Levees that are two metres above the normal water level aren\'t all that effective against a three metre surge.

Reinforced tornado safe rooms.

If you can get into them before the tornado hits. If you can\'t they don\'t mitigate anything.
Burying of electrical cables to prevent ice build-up.
That\'s not mitigating anything. Buried cables can\'t accumulate ice. That particular problem hasn\'t been so much mitigated as eliminated.
Raising of homes in flood-prone areas.
If you can raise them far enough.
In other words, CA is not \"mitigating\" fires by putting them out.
Not in any sense that Flyguy can understand. He doesn\'t understand much, and most of what he thinks he understands is wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Mitigating means you are eliminating or, at least, reducing the root cause of these fires. The root cause is an over-load of fuel in the forests. So-called \"environmentalists\" are blocking this, particularly the removal of dead trees. Thus when fires do start, and the inevitably will, the fire becomes a conflagration rather than quick burning of underbrush. Think about it: forests were around a LONG TIME before man showed up and there wasn\'t catastrophic destruction.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 9:29:23 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 9:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:30:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

In other words, CA is not \"mitigating\" fires by putting them out.
Not in any sense that Flyguy can understand. He doesn\'t understand much, and most of what he thinks he understands is wrong.

Mitigating means you are eliminating or, at least, reducing the root cause of these fires. The root cause is an over-load of fuel in the forests.

Actually, the root cause is usually lightning strikes. No ignition source means no fire, no matter how much dry vegetation there is to burn.

> So-called \"environmentalists\" are blocking this, particularly the removal of dead trees.

They don\'t block it in Australia - we have fuel reduction burns every winter (when it isn\'t actually raining). It doesn\'t stop the vegetation burning in summer.

> Thus when fires do start, and the inevitably will, the fire becomes a conflagration rather than quick burning of underbrush. Think about it: forests were around a LONG TIME before man showed up and there wasn\'t catastrophic destruction.

How would you know? \"Many plant species in fire-affected environments require fire to germinate, establish, or to reproduce.\"

What might look like a catastrophe to you might look like a growth opportunity to some of the plants involved.

And we have been having climate change - from ice ages to inter-glacials - roughly every 100,000 years for the past few million years. The forests that have been around for \"a long time\" have moved around to cope with the regularly changing climate.

What\'s going on at the moment is moving the planet back to a state that\'s closer to the one it last experienced some 20 million years ago. The forests are going to have to move a bit further this time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 9:29:23 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 9:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:30:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
snip
In other words, CA is not \"mitigating\" fires by putting them out.
Not in any sense that Flyguy can understand. He doesn\'t understand much, and most of what he thinks he understands is wrong.

Mitigating means you are eliminating or, at least, reducing the root cause of these fires. The root cause is an over-load of fuel in the forests.
Actually, the root cause is usually lightning strikes. No ignition source means no fire, no matter how much dry vegetation there is to burn.
No, stupid, that is just an IGNITION SOURCE, not the root cause.
So-called \"environmentalists\" are blocking this, particularly the removal of dead trees.
They don\'t block it in Australia - we have fuel reduction burns every winter (when it isn\'t actually raining). It doesn\'t stop the vegetation burning in summer.
We are talking CALIFORNIA here, which, the last time I checked, is NOT in OZ.
Thus when fires do start, and the inevitably will, the fire becomes a conflagration rather than quick burning of underbrush. Think about it: forests were around a LONG TIME before man showed up and there wasn\'t catastrophic destruction.
How would you know? \"Many plant species in fire-affected environments require fire to germinate, establish, or to reproduce.\"
It\'s called EVIDENCE, stupid, of which we have had MANY such fires, including some that are burning RIGHT NOW. Whole towns have been eviscerated, including in OZ.

What might look like a catastrophe to you might look like a growth opportunity to some of the plants involved.

An entire town getting eviscerated is definitely a catastrophe, stupid.
And we have been having climate change - from ice ages to inter-glacials - roughly every 100,000 years for the past few million years. The forests that have been around for \"a long time\" have moved around to cope with the regularly changing climate.
The forests CAN\'T adapt to idiot environmentalists, stupid.

What\'s going on at the moment is moving the planet back to a state that\'s closer to the one it last experienced some 20 million years ago. The forests are going to have to move a bit further this time.

See above.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 10:31:00 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 9:29:23 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 9:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 2:30:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 8:58:27 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 4:31:39 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 3:15:02 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
snip
In other words, CA is not \"mitigating\" fires by putting them out.
Not in any sense that Flyguy can understand. He doesn\'t understand much, and most of what he thinks he understands is wrong.

Mitigating means you are eliminating or, at least, reducing the root cause of these fires. The root cause is an over-load of fuel in the forests.

Actually, the root cause is usually lightning strikes. No ignition source means no fire, no matter how much dry vegetation there is to burn.

No, stupid, that is just an IGNITION SOURCE, not the root cause.

If you haven\'t got ignition you haven\'t got a fire. If you haven\'t got fuel you can\'t have a fire , so fuel is a necessary pre-condition for a fire but it\'s not the root cause.

So-called \"environmentalists\" are blocking this, particularly the removal of dead trees.

They don\'t block it in Australia - we have fuel reduction burns every winter (when it isn\'t actually raining). It doesn\'t stop the vegetation burning in summer.
We are talking CALIFORNIA here, which, the last time I checked, is NOT in OZ.

It\'s got exactly the same problems, which is why we are shipping a few firefighter over to California to help you out.

The Australian example makes it clear that fuel reduction isn\'t a complete answer to the problem.

Thus when fires do start, and the inevitably will, the fire becomes a conflagration rather than quick burning of underbrush. Think about it: forests were around a LONG TIME before man showed up and there wasn\'t catastrophic destruction.

How would you know? \"Many plant species in fire-affected environments require fire to germinate, establish, or to reproduce.\"

It\'s called EVIDENCE, stupid, of which we have had MANY such fires, including some that are burning RIGHT NOW.

That\'s not evidence about what happened before there were idiot environmentalists around.

Whole towns have been eviscerated, including in OZ.

What might look like a catastrophe to you might look like a growth opportunity to some of the plants involved.

An entire town getting eviscerated is definitely a catastrophe, stupid.

But towns haven\'t been around for a long time, so that can\'t have been the kind of catastrophe you were thinking of.

And we have been having climate change - from ice ages to inter-glacials - roughly every 100,000 years for the past few million years. The forests that have been around for \"a long time\" have moved around to cope with the regularly changing climate.

The forests CAN\'T adapt to idiot environmentalists, stupid.

Why not? What\'s special about idiot environmentalists? They don\'t think hard enough about what they are asking for, but most of the problems for which the forests have evolved solutions don\'t involve any thinking at all.

What\'s going on at the moment is moving the planet back to a state that\'s closer to the one it last experienced some 20 million years ago. The forests are going to have to move a bit further this time.

See above.

Presumably Flyguy wanted to remind me that he can always find something moronic and irrelevant to say. He didn\'t need to bother.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 9:15:29 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

Hey SL0W MAN,

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming. If anything, the evidence points to the OPPOSITE.
During ice ages, the atmospheric CO2 level was 180 ppm, and during interglacials it has been about 270 ppm. This is the biggest single factor that explains why the earth was colder during ice ages - the extensive snow cover over the northern parts of the northern hemisphere also contributed, but not as much.
NOT conclusive.

It clearly isn\'t conclusive enough to persuade congenital idiots like you - but the problem there isn\'t with the evidence but with the idiot in question

Global warming is relatively recent, whereas CO2 emissions have been increasing steadily with the industrialization of the world.
Not all that steadily - by which Flyguy would presumably mean \"linearly\" if he understood what was going on.

You show you complete ignorance: steadily IS NOT linearly.

It would have to have meant that if your argument was to have been worth anything

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png

CO2 emissions went up dramatically after 1941, but global temperatures dropped.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere went from about 270 ppm before we were burning enough to fossil carbon to matter to about 315 ppm in 1958, when Keeling started measuring it - that\'s an extra 45 ppm over about a century or so. It\'s now about 410 ppm, so it has gone up 95 ppm in sixty years. We don\'t know enough about the exact CO2 level in 1941 to say how fast it was rising, but it certainly wasn\'t rising anything like as fast as it is now.

Alarmists LOVE to point to glacial retreat as PROOF of global warming. What\'s wrong with that? Glaciers started retreating in 1850, long before CO2 began rising. Multiple studies now show that glacial retreating was caused by carbon soot , NOT CO2. Just another example of conventional wisdom being shown to be group stupidity.

Actually, glacial retreat is just one more effect of global warming. The first big chunk of long term evidence was ice core samples from Greenland - which took us back about 200,000 years - and Antarctica which took as aback about 800,000 years. Other proxies have taken us back to a bout 20 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

The temperature did drop a little, but that was probably natural variation - the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seems to have been responsible for most of it. There\'s a similar sort of variation over an oscillation between the El Nino state of the Pacific and the La Nina state, but that happens over a shorter time scale, and it got noticed earlier. The first publication to mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was in 1994, and it didn\'t call it that . The name seems to have been invented in 2000 by Michael Mann (when he was already famous for his \"hockey stick\" graph).

\"PROBABLY?\" That, sure as hell, IS NOT conclusive. But it does show that \"conventional wisdom\" that increasing CO2 levels will definitely increase global temperatures is WRONG and is really conventional stupidity.

It doesn\'t. Rising CO2 levels do increase the average global temperature, but they aren\'t the only thing that affects iy. The other things that affect it are mostly cyclical, so they go away again if you wait long enough. Extra CO2 will too - but the processes that we know about that move CO2 levels back to equilibrium have a time constant of about 800 years. The fact that sun is getting progressively bigger isn\'t cyclical but it is remarkably slow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Sulphur dioxide pollution from burning sulphur-rich coal in power stations creates acid rain - which is why power stations started getting SO2 scrubbers in their smoke stacks from the 1970\'s - but it also creates a reflective aerosol in the stratosphere, which may have had a global cooling effect which has now largely gone away.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends

\"MAY\" is NOT conclusive - you continue to make my case for me.

The people who believe in the cooling effect of SO2 in the stratosphere are pretty convinced, and want to deliberately burn lots of sulphur as a short term fix for global warming . I think that they are nuts - almost certainly correct about the cooling effect, but dangerously wrong in proposing it as a possilbe countner-measure.

This has become the defacto religion of the left.

What Flyguy imagines to be \"a religion\" is actually rather solidly grounded in scientific research, none of which he knows anything about.
\"Probably\" and \"may\" IS NOT \"solidly grounded scientific research\" - it is mere speculation by alarmists like you.

What gets published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature isn\'t \"speculation\", and I\'m not an alarmist

> You know the alarmists REALLY don\'t believe their own bullshit when they fly on private jets to global warming conferences.

At the moment we are dumping about 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That\'s about five tons a head.

The advanced industrial countries are doing most of it - the US leads with 16.5 tons per head and Australia is close behind at 15.4 tons.

We are going to have to make drastic changes to the way we get our energy to get the numbers down to the roughly half a ton per head that the planet could cope with. Getting those drastic changes underway sooner rather than later justifies a certain amount of extravagance.

We probably won\'t have to change the amount of energy we use - there\'s much more than enough energy available from solar power alone to cover all we use at the moment, and in Australia it\'s cheaper to collect it than it is to burn fossil carbon. Getting the solar cells , installing them and putting in the infra-structure to cope with intermittent production is taking a while, and Australia\'s coal producers want to slow the process down as much as they can, which includes spending money on lying propaganda aimed at idiots like you.

The process of producing that propaganda is an industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

and the product works on it\'s target audience, which does extend up to people rather smarter than you are. John Larkin is another sucker who has fallen for it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 4:15:29 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

> You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with ...

Welcome to the ideas of science! While there are observations made, and
theories built to encompass what those observations indicate, there\'s never
a conclusion. When we understand thermal transfer through radiation,
the evidence IS linked, but you don\'t get that without accepting the
applicable theory, and can call it all \'coincidence\'. Or \'conspiracy\'.

Similar observations are made by flat-earthers, who have never seen any
conclusive evidence that our planet is round.

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 9:15:29 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
Hey SL0W MAN,

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming. If anything, the evidence points to the OPPOSITE.
During ice ages, the atmospheric CO2 level was 180 ppm, and during interglacials it has been about 270 ppm. This is the biggest single factor that explains why the earth was colder during ice ages - the extensive snow cover over the northern parts of the northern hemisphere also contributed, but not as much.
NOT conclusive.
It clearly isn\'t conclusive enough to persuade congenital idiots like you - but the problem there isn\'t with the evidence but with the idiot in question

LOL! But the hysteria has convinced brain-dead zealots such as yourself!! Listen to you, you present \"maybes\" and \"probables\" as if they are SCIENTIFIC FACT, which THEY ARE NOT!! You are dumb to swallow this shit like a religious zealot and browbeat the rest of us that don\'t fall in line.

Global warming is relatively recent, whereas CO2 emissions have been increasing steadily with the industrialization of the world.
Not all that steadily - by which Flyguy would presumably mean \"linearly\" if he understood what was going on.

You show you complete ignorance: steadily IS NOT linearly.
It would have to have meant that if your argument was to have been worth anything
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png

CO2 emissions went up dramatically after 1941, but global temperatures dropped.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere went from about 270 ppm before we were burning enough to fossil carbon to matter to about 315 ppm in 1958, when Keeling started measuring it - that\'s an extra 45 ppm over about a century or so. It\'s now about 410 ppm, so it has gone up 95 ppm in sixty years. We don\'t know enough about the exact CO2 level in 1941 to say how fast it was rising, but it certainly wasn\'t rising anything like as fast as it is now.

Alarmists LOVE to point to glacial retreat as PROOF of global warming. What\'s wrong with that? Glaciers started retreating in 1850, long before CO2 began rising. Multiple studies now show that glacial retreating was caused by carbon soot , NOT CO2. Just another example of conventional wisdom being shown to be group stupidity.
Actually, glacial retreat is just one more effect of global warming. The first big chunk of long term evidence was ice core samples from Greenland - which took us back about 200,000 years - and Antarctica which took as aback about 800,000 years. Other proxies have taken us back to a bout 20 million years ago.

Glacial retreat IS NOT the effect of global warming, which is INSIGNIFICANT to explain it. Think about it (I know this is difficult for you), HOW MUCH is the freezing level raised by 0.5C? A few hundred feet, at best. This DOES NOT explain glacial retreat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

The temperature did drop a little, but that was probably natural variation - the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seems to have been responsible for most of it. There\'s a similar sort of variation over an oscillation between the El Nino state of the Pacific and the La Nina state, but that happens over a shorter time scale, and it got noticed earlier. The first publication to mention the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was in 1994, and it didn\'t call it that . The name seems to have been invented in 2000 by Michael Mann (when he was already famous for his \"hockey stick\" graph).

\"PROBABLY?\" That, sure as hell, IS NOT conclusive. But it does show that \"conventional wisdom\" that increasing CO2 levels will definitely increase global temperatures is WRONG and is really conventional stupidity.
It doesn\'t. Rising CO2 levels do increase the average global temperature, but they aren\'t the only thing that affects iy. The other things that affect it are mostly cyclical, so they go away again if you wait long enough. Extra CO2 will too - but the processes that we know about that move CO2 levels back to equilibrium have a time constant of about 800 years. The fact that sun is getting progressively bigger isn\'t cyclical but it is remarkably slow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Sulphur dioxide pollution from burning sulphur-rich coal in power stations creates acid rain - which is why power stations started getting SO2 scrubbers in their smoke stacks from the 1970\'s - but it also creates a reflective aerosol in the stratosphere, which may have had a global cooling effect which has now largely gone away.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends

\"MAY\" is NOT conclusive - you continue to make my case for me.
The people who believe in the cooling effect of SO2 in the stratosphere are pretty convinced, and want to deliberately burn lots of sulphur as a short term fix for global warming . I think that they are nuts - almost certainly correct about the cooling effect, but dangerously wrong in proposing it as a possilbe countner-measure.

Not only is your science bad, but your SPELLING is ATROCIOUS!! sulphur, possilbe, countner - all in TWO SENTENCES. Only an IDIOT could have such bad spelling!!

This has become the defacto religion of the left.

What Flyguy imagines to be \"a religion\" is actually rather solidly grounded in scientific research, none of which he knows anything about.
\"Probably\" and \"may\" IS NOT \"solidly grounded scientific research\" - it is mere speculation by alarmists like you.
What gets published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature isn\'t \"speculation\", and I\'m not an alarmist
You know the alarmists REALLY don\'t believe their own bullshit when they fly on private jets to global warming conferences.
At the moment we are dumping about 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That\'s about five tons a head.

The advanced industrial countries are doing most of it - the US leads with 16.5 tons per head and Australia is close behind at 15.4 tons.

No, the bulk of it is coming from China and India, and it is increasing.

We are going to have to make drastic changes to the way we get our energy to get the numbers down to the roughly half a ton per head that the planet could cope with. Getting those drastic changes underway sooner rather than later justifies a certain amount of extravagance.

The IS a way to reduce it, but it means using nuclear energy. The left equates this to nuclear weapons and have a completely irrational fear of it. Eventually circumstances will dictate its use.

We probably won\'t have to change the amount of energy we use - there\'s much more than enough energy available from solar power alone to cover all we use at the moment, and in Australia it\'s cheaper to collect it than it is to burn fossil carbon. Getting the solar cells , installing them and putting in the infra-structure to cope with intermittent production is taking a while, and Australia\'s coal producers want to slow the process down as much as they can, which includes spending money on lying propaganda aimed at idiots like you.

Try driving across country in an electric car, let alone in an airplane.

The process of producing that propaganda is an industry.

Exactly what the global warming alarmists has produced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

and the product works on it\'s target audience, which does extend up to people rather smarter than you are. John Larkin is another sucker who has fallen for it.

No, it works on suckers like you - skeptics WANT scientific evidence, alarmists say it is SETTLED SCIENCE!!!

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 7:21:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming.

- skeptics WANT scientific evidence, alarmists say it is SETTLED SCIENCE!!!

Skeptics and alarmists, are presumably people? That isn\'t
important to the planet, it isnt hearing anything they say. It is warming.

Educated folk know why. Infants, fence-sitting politicians, and Flyguy perhaps don\'t.

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 7:21:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming.
- skeptics WANT scientific evidence, alarmists say it is SETTLED SCIENCE!!!
Skeptics and alarmists, are presumably people? That isn\'t
important to the planet, it isnt hearing anything they say. It is warming.

Educated folk know why. Infants, fence-sitting politicians, and Flyguy perhaps don\'t.

Typical libtard newspeak - makes no fucking sense whatsoever! If you had CONCLUSIVE evidence to support your weak thesis, PRESENT IT, not this bullshit!

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 11:11:39 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 7:21:34 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming.
- skeptics WANT scientific evidence, alarmists say it is SETTLED SCIENCE!!!
Skeptics and alarmists, are presumably people? That isn\'t
important to the planet, it isnt hearing anything they say. It is warming.

Educated folk know why. Infants, fence-sitting politicians, and Flyguy perhaps don\'t.

Typical libtard newspeak - makes no fucking sense whatsoever! If you had CONCLUSIVE evidence to support your weak thesis, PRESENT IT, not this bullshit!

Evidence that \'educated folk know why\'? That\'s l\'Accord de Paris,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement>

If you refer to another problem, be sure to tell us.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 12:21:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 6:47:49 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 9:15:29 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
Hey SL0W MAN,

You did not present ANY CONCLUSIVE evidence linking CO2 levels with our current global warming. If anything, the evidence points to the OPPOSITE..

During ice ages, the atmospheric CO2 level was 180 ppm, and during interglacials it has been about 270 ppm. This is the biggest single factor that explains why the earth was colder during ice ages - the extensive snow cover over the northern parts of the northern hemisphere also contributed, but not as much.
NOT conclusive.

It clearly isn\'t conclusive enough to persuade congenital idiots like you - but the problem there isn\'t with the evidence but with the idiot in question

LOL! But the hysteria has convinced brain-dead zealots such as yourself!! Listen to you, you present \"maybes\" and \"probables\" as if they are SCIENTIFIC FACT, which THEY ARE NOT!! You are dumb to swallow this shit like a religious zealot and browbeat the rest of us that don\'t fall in line.

You can be a rude about it as you like, but that doesn\'t affect the fact that you don\'t what you are talking about.

You are the brain-dead zealot here.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney