Sign in to follow this  
random

Trump blames California for its wildfires, not climate change

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, random said:

Looks like those fucking greenies and incompetent foresters are all over the planet!

Are Europe's Historic Fires Caused By Climate Change?

The heat wave toasting Europe dried out its foliage. That made everything much more likely to catch fire.

In Greece, the fires came fast and hard, sweeping through towns so quickly that residents were trapped in clouds of smoke. Some people ran toward the ocean, plunging into the water to save themselves from the flames onshore. Others tried to shelter in buildings or cars. But the fires, which raged through several towns on the outskirts of Athens, have claimed 91 lives, making it the most deadly wildfire season in Europe since 1900.

In Sweden, more than 80 fires across 100 square miles spread through the thick, normally damp northern forests. Finland and Latvia battle their own blazes.

Europe sets on fire each summer, especially around the Mediterranean. On average, about 1500 square miles of the E.U. burn every year. But last year fires burned nearly three times that much, killing 66 people in Portugal and Spain and stretching the firefighting efforts and budgets thin across the continent. “In 2018, we are observing an expansion of the areas that are at risk, with fires occurring in countries where wildfires were not so common in the past,” says Jesús San-Miguel, a researcher at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre.

According to Woofers, (and Trumptards everywhere) the answer is simple. Cut down the green shit. No fuel, no fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

According to Woofers, (and Trumptards everywhere) the answer is simple. Cut down the green shit. No fuel, no fire.

it is utterly staggering to think there are so many shit-for-brains swine who actually consider that workable, pragmatic, or even decent.

literally fkn' barbarians, and to top it off, they think they're the rational ones. ycmtsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

According to Woofers, (and Trumptards everywhere) the answer is simple. Cut down the green shit. No fuel, no fire.

Definitely not.

Green shit doesn't burn, it contains water.

Remove deadfall, cut down diseased dead trees, allow regular prescribed burns for chaparral, stop planting monocropped Frankenforests, update the building codes to allow defensible space and fire resistance, and then -- contrary to what you write again -- let it burn.

I get that Random, Left Shift and 3 to 1 are happy to waltz around in their mom's living room wearing their abject ignorance like a dress. But you're actually intelligent and you're able to discuss things. If you think that politics has anything to do with solving this problem, then pull back, discuss and try again. It's not that complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 3to1 said:

it is utterly staggering to think there are so many shit-for-brains swine who actually consider that workable, pragmatic, or even decent.

literally fkn' barbarians, and to top it off, they think they're the rational ones. ycmtsu

It's amusing that the only way you can actually think yourself intelligent is to argue with a straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 3to1 said:

it is utterly staggering to think there are so many shit-for-brains swine who actually consider that workable, pragmatic, or even decent.

literally fkn' barbarians, and to top it off, they think they're the rational ones. ycmtsu

“...in general... warm air largely tends to create a net reduction in environmental moisture as it does in most locales globally. as far as that goes, that's all the 'science' that's needed.”  -3 to 1

Snort!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chum said:

“...in general... warm air largely tends to create a net reduction in environmental moisture as it does in most locales globally. as far as that goes, that's all the 'science' that's needed.”  -3 to 1

Snort!

Wait, but "that's all the science that's needed"!

Why bother with actual science, when all that is needed is to make up a bunch of nonsense like him?

Oh wait, he didn't call his nonsense science, he called it 'science' like the way Nutrasweet is called 'sugar.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Definitely not.

Green shit doesn't burn, it contains water.

Remove deadfall, cut down diseased dead trees, allow regular prescribed burns for chaparral, stop planting monocropped Frankenforests, update the building codes to allow defensible space and fire resistance, and then -- contrary to what you write again -- let it burn.

I get that Random, Left Shift and 3 to 1 are happy to waltz around in their mom's living room wearing their abject ignorance like a dress. But you're actually intelligent and you're able to discuss things. If you think that politics has anything to do with solving this problem, then pull back, discuss and try again. It's not that complicated.

Imagine if your prescriptions were fought by “environmentalists”

they are not

im curious where the budget for thinning the forest comes from.

oh, that’s right, the redneck army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chum said:

“...in general... warm air largely tends to create a net reduction in environmental moisture as it does in most locales globally. as far as that goes, that's all the 'science' that's needed.”  -3 to 1

Snort!

 

“literally fkn' barbarians, and to top it off, they think they're the rational ones. ycmtsu”  -3 to 1

 

24 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm here for the irony.

Plenty of that here from your fellow elk(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Imagine if your prescriptions were fought by “environmentalists”

they are not

im curious where the budget for thinning the forest comes from.

oh, that’s right, the redneck army.

Once again...

 

 
POLITICS

California timber industry may be a 'piece of the puzzle' to help reduce state's raging wildfires

  • As California looks for answers to reduce wildfire risk, there's more debate about the thinning overly dense forest lands.
  • Gov. Jerry Brown spoke this week during a wildfire press update about the need "to do planned burnings" and "to thin out the forest."
  • Some state legislators believe California's private timber industry, which has seen a decline in timber harvesting since the 1990s, could be part of the solution.
  • The CEO of the state's forestry trade group says the industry is prepared to help thin out forests but also has a few suggestions, including regulatory relief.
Published 8:41 AM ET Fri, 3 Aug 2018  Updated 10:01 AM ET Fri, 3 Aug 2018CNBC.com
     
     
     
     
     
     
Firefighters try to control a back burn as the Carr fire continues to spread towards the towns of Douglas City and Lewiston near Redding, California on July 31, 2018. 
Mark Ralston | AFP | Getty Images
Firefighters try to control a back burn as the Carr fire continues to spread towards the towns of Douglas City and Lewiston near Redding, California on July 31, 2018. 

As California wildfires rage, politicians, timber companies and environmentalists are debating whether to thin overly dense forest lands that fuel the state's deadly infernos.

About one-third of California is covered by forests, most of it owned by the U.S. government. Last year was the most destructive and deadly wildfire season in the state's history. And 2018 through July is one-third higher in acreage burned than a year ago, according to Cal Fire.

Some believe the state's timber industry could be part of the solution by selectively thinning forests of trees. Timber harvesting has fallen sharply in California since the 1990s.

 

Despite opposition from some environmental groups, there's talk of the need to remove more barriers to logging given that wildfires have become bigger, deadlier and faster moving. California's timber laws are considered the most stringent in the nation.

"You've got a lot of fuel, you've got dead and dying trees, and a lot of hot weather — and it's a recipe for disaster," said Assemblyman Jim Wood of Healdsburg in Sonoma County, a member of the Senate and Assembly conference committee on wildfire preparedness and response. He represents a district with forested areas where October's wine country firestorms ripped through neighborhoods and destroyed thousands of homes and claimed 31 lives.

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that California has 129 million dead trees, most in the central and southern Sierras. Insects and drought are to blame for the high numbers.

California requires investor-owned utilities to buy biomass power from dead trees in high-hazard forested zones.

"I don't think we're ever going to completely prevent forest fires, but I think we can mitigate the damage that they cause," said Wood. "It's a strategy and it will take resources. As a state, we haven't committed as much to that, and that's part of the reason we find ourselves where we are."

'Wake-up call for California'

According to the California Forestry Association, tree density in the Sierra Nevada is too high when compared with the region's historical rates, creating an elevated fire hazard. It estimates there was an average of 40 trees per acre in the Sierras roughly 150 years ago but puts that number today at hundreds of trees per acre.

"Fire used to naturally go through the forest, and with 40 trees per acre, the fire will mostly stay on the ground, without creating a catastrophe," said Rich Gordon, president and CEO of the association, which represents the timber industry. "This has been a wake-up call for California. We have to do something different to prevent these catastrophic fires."

As Gordon sees it, large tree growth plus a history of fire suppression and reduced timber activity have created an unnatural setting of continuous fuels. Moreover, he said it's led to too many trees competing for water during droughts.

"The industry is certainly prepared to assist and encourage and support the thinning of our forests," said Gordon. "We can actually have more resilient, fire resistant forests if we thin them a little bit."

Wood agrees that the selective removal of trees to reduce fuels and a more robust timber strategy in the state "can be a piece of the puzzle" to reduce the fire risk.

Wildland-urban interface

At the same time, the Democratic lawmaker is concerned about the fire risk for communities and subdivisions that are developed right up against wildlands or forests. The deadly Carr fire in Shasta County is the sixth-largest fire in California history and last month destroyed more than 1,000 homes — some in or near fire-prone wildlands known for oak trees and flammable chaparral.

An estimated 3.6 million California homes are built in what's called wildland-urban interface, and more than 1 million are considered as "high or very high fire risk."

The federal government is the largest owner of forest lands in California, holding about 57 percent of the roughly 33 million acres. Families, individuals, companies or Native American tribes own about 40 percent of forested land in California, while local, state and land trusts own the remainder.

Most of the timber companies operating in California today are family owned or part of family trusts. Those companies primarily get trees from their own lands by filing a harvest plan with the state for lumber production or through the sale of trees through federal forest programs, including some that allow them to salvage trees after forest fires.

California has no commercial timber operations on state-owned lands.

Scarred hills remain after the Carr Fire west of Redding, California, U.S. July 28, 2018. 
Bob Strong | Reuters
Scarred hills remain after the Carr Fire west of Redding, California, U.S. July 28, 2018. 

On Wednesday, Gov. Jerry Brown held a press conference to discuss wildfires and said there was a need for the state "to do planned burnings" as part of forest management and "to thin out the forest." In May, the governor issued an executive order aimed at protecting communities from wildfire, and it included doubling the land actively managed through vegetation thinning, controlled fires and reforestation.

Push for regulatory relief

Meantime, the state forestry association wants to change rules and regulations to make it easier for private industry to thin forested land. The group also suggests increased logging could benefit rural areas in Northern California where poverty and job losses have been problems.

Gordon, the trade group's CEO, insists the industry isn't pushing for more clear-cutting of forested lands — a practice the Sierra Club opposes. Rather, he said, the industry advocates "selectively removing smaller trees on a landscape so that the bigger trees (which are more resilient to fire and store more carbon) can survive and do better."

Kathryn Phillips, director of the Sierra Club California, said the environmental group is not opposed to what she calls "selective logging and those sort of things. We're opposed to going in and unnecessarily disrupting the environment and doing forest management practices that will lead to worse fires, and some forest practices do."

She said the practice of clear-cutting and planting trees all at the same time creates added risk for the forest because "you don't have diversity. That makes them more susceptible to fires. Older trees tend to burn less and slower. So you want to have a lot of diversity."

Some conservative lawmakers believe environmental groups share blame for the state's current fire risk.

"Extreme environmental groups have for years stated that we shouldn't thin our forests because of the benefits of carbon that is stored," said Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach. "However, the carbon that is currently being released with these out-of-control wildfires is dramatically greater than we would have if our forests were responsibly managed."

Bringing back timber industry

"The private sector is the answer," he said. "We need to bring back our timber industry to clean up our forests for the safety of the entire state. The industry can ensure that our forests are sustainably managed and healthy."

Allen, a former gubernatorial candidate, contends that Democrats share some blame for the fire risk due to policies over the years that have "regulated the timber industry out of California and denied access of Northern Californians to their own natural resources."

Most of the lumber used in California construction today is brought in from Oregon, Washington or other sources. The cost to harvest timber in California can be substantially higher than other Western states due to regulations.

"It's almost cost prohibitive currently for you to go in and remove any timber (in California)," said Gordon. "If we were to go in and do some thinning, we could produce more California product that could then be used by builders in the state."

 

Read again what I posted earlier about who is responsible, then get back with any questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And every time the loggers come in with actual bids, it’s clear cut. It’s the only economical way to log. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

And every time the loggers come in with actual bids, it’s clear cut. It’s the only economical way to log. 

Do you have a source for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's amusing that the only way you can actually think yourself intelligent is to argue with a straw man.

you have a fkn' problem with cultural observations? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chum said:

“...in general... warm air largely tends to create a net reduction in environmental moisture as it does in most locales globally. as far as that goes, that's all the 'science' that's needed.”  -3 to 1

Snort!

such an elementary premise is more than sound and you know it, yet your goofy ass decides to call it nonsense. that smells like reich-winger bullshit to me, princess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

you have a fkn' problem with cultural observations? 

Let me help....

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
  1. 1. 
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2. 2. 
    a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
    "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

such an elementary premise is more than sound and you know it, yet your goofy ass decides to call it nonsense. that smells like reich-winger bullshit to me, princess.

Double down again, it’s actually getting kinda funny.

Argue with JPL. https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/overviewclimate/overviewclimateair/

Oh and all the centuries old white dudes in wigs who’s names elude me now who settled this centuries ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, chum said:

Even Moonbeam disagrees with you guys, think about that.

Disagree with what?

I don't have any issues with proper management, which includes fires, etc.

I don't agree with the timber industry faux "selective harvesting" which is code for "cut down all the economically attractive trees and leave the detritus behind" approach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

And every time the loggers come in with actual bids, it’s clear cut. It’s the only economical way to log. 

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, chum said:

Double down again, it’s actually getting kinda funny.

Argue with JPL. https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/overview/overviewclimate/overviewclimateair/

Oh and all the centuries old white dudes in wigs who’s names elude me now who settled this centuries ago.

 

I'm referring to a typical western US summer which is at the center of this thread which tends to be hot AND dry, you know that, too, so cut the fkg obtuse, pedantic  bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, chum said:

Let me help....

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
  1. 1. 
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2. 2. 
    a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
    "a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

you know what they say about stereotypes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

such an elementary premise is more than sound and you know it, yet your goofy ass decides to call it nonsense. that smells like reich-winger bullshit to me, princess.

“...in general... warm air largely tends to create a net reduction in environmental moisture as it does in most locales globally. as far as that goes, that's all the 'science' that's needed.

 

What is the elementary premise here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s take a little quiz here, rather than resort to your regular homo jokes.

Why is Antarctica the driest place on the planet, is it because of the warm air?

Is California hot and dry in the summer? Yes. Did the current rate of change in temperature globally change fire behavior in California as radically as we have seen in the last 20 years? No way. Is there another explaination? Clearly.

So by your way of reading the tea leaves will the whole state just be a smoldering dirt pile in a few more years? You know, with the rate of temperature rise compared to acreage burned increases year over year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm referring to a typical western US summer which is at the center of this thread which tends to be hot AND dry, you know that, too, so cut the fkg obtuse, pedantic  bullshit. 

Helpful hint, discussed before; Altitude, topography and ground water sources, among others, are the reasons for this, not because it’s hot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chum said:

Read again what I posted earlier about who is responsible, then get back with any questions.

I got a question ... so climate change has killed all the trees, what about this do you not understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chum said:

Helpful hint, discussed before; Altitude, topography and ground water sources, among others, are the reasons for this, not because it’s hot.

I can't argue with that, high heat days frequently contribute to an increase in arid conditions as well, don't cherry pick the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chum said:

Let’s take a little quiz here, rather than resort to your regular homo jokes.

Why is Antarctica the driest place on the planet, is it because of the warm air?

Is California hot and dry in the summer? Yes. Did the current rate of change in temperature globally change fire behavior in California as radically as we have seen in the last 20 years? No way. Is there another explaination? Clearly.

So by your way of reading the tea leaves will the whole state just be a smoldering dirt pile in a few more years? You know, with the rate of temperature rise compared to acreage burned increases year over year?

Chump 1:  "Why is Antarctica the driest place on the planet, is it because of the warm air?"

Let me see...Maybe because it takes a shitload of calories to sublimate ice into vapor?  And the calories aren't there in cold air?  Nah.

Chump 2:  "Helpful hint, discussed before; Altitude, topography and ground water sources, among others, are the reasons for this, not because it’s hot."

So its an arid part of the world, yet there isn't a fire season in winter.  Hmmm.  The altitude, topography and ground water conditions are pretty much the same year round.  What's the difference between summer and winter?  Could it be high temperatures and thermally-induced wind?  Nah.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thermally induced wind? Inland California heats up during the day pulling in cooler air from the ocean as the hot air rises inland. An average day can blow 30 knots in places where the effect is the greatest. Show me the correlation and corresponding year over year wind increases poor favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chum said:

 

Is California hot and dry in the summer? Yes. Did the current rate of change in temperature globally change fire behavior in California as radically as we have seen in the last 20 years?

why would global temperature changes affect California apart from indirectly?

I'd bet California has seen a larger increase in exceedingly hot days than the global average just by being a resident of the west coast and noticing the past chain of 5-10 recent summers, where what used to be considered a heat wave, has pretty much become something approaching a new normal. I'm not just talking about a 2-3 degree increase in daily temps, but of approximately 10 degrees on the hotter days, plenty of 95-100 degree days in the Pacific NW, it's actually been pretty blatant. that kind of shit is going to take a toll and create more vulnerability, innit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask questions I can’t answer 3 to 1,  because they’re nonsensical, sorry.

Your anecdotal observations, while they are encouraging because they at least show interest, are basically worthless in the discussion. For instance, you could be feeling hotter because you’re getting older and lazy and fat. Not that that’s you, but just to point out that you have to look at all the variables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was a simple, straight forward question, and the rest of your statement is misdirecting, patronizing bullshit. unless you live underground, blatantly hotter days are just that, fkg blatant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the average summer temperature in Ca really has gone up 10 degrees? Do you have a source for that? I’m not being patronizing now, I’m asking a simple direct question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made it a point to say it wasn't an average, didn't I, but it is significantly more days than one would estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know what that means, “significantly more days than one would estimate”.

Heres the real scoop from NASA:

 
  •  
NASANASA
 
Earth ObservatoryEarth Observatory
 

California Temperatures on the Rise

×This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science. However, more recent observations and studies may have rendered some content obsolete.
California Temperatures on the Rise

 

  • High-resolution Images
  • Map (1.6 MB JPEG)
  • Graph (110 kB PDF)

Average temperatures in California rose nearly two degrees Fahrenheit during the second half of the 20th century, with urban areas blazing the way to warmer conditions. When scientists at NASA and California State University, Los Angeles, analyzed observations from 331 weather stations between 1950 and 2000, they found that average temperatures rose in 6 out of 7 of the state’s major climatic sub-regions. The scientists concluded that small increases measured in many rural areas may reflect the contribution of global warming due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Larger changes in and around urban areas are mostly due to growing population and the conversion of natural areas to urban ones.

California’s seven climate sub-regions are separated by black lines on the map. Regions where the average surface air temperature climbed less than 2 degrees are colored yellow, while areas where temperatures climbed more than 2 degrees are orange. The only region where temperatures dropped is colored light blue. Urban areas are colored gray. The greatest warming occurred in southern California’s urbanized areas, including Los Angeles and rapidly growing Palm Springs. Urban areas raise average temperatures mostly by preventing an area from cooling off at night. According to one of the study’s authors, NASA climatologist Bill Patzert, “California nights are heating up, giving us a jump start on hotter days.”

For some California cities, temperature records go back to the late 19thcentury. The graph shows a record of temperatures in Los Angeles from 1878 through 2005. Gray bars show annual average temperatures, the black line shows the rolling 10-year average, and the blue line shows the warming trend. Average temperatures climbed from around 62 degrees to 66 degrees.

The drop in temperatures observed at the end of the 20th century resulted from the relocation of the official “downtown” Los Angeles station away from the more built-up part of the city to a more natural setting on the campus of the University of Southern California. The old site has so far remained operational, which gives scientists a chance to account for the impact of the move on long-term trends.

NASA image adapted by Robert Simmon, based on data from Richard Medina, University of Utah (map), and Bill Patzert, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (graph.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey chartlboy gin me up a chart that shows the correlation between average temperature rise year-over-year in California and average Acres burned year-over-year for the last 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chum said:

Thermally induced wind? Inland California heats up during the day pulling in cooler air from the ocean as the hot air rises inland. An average day can blow 30 knots in places where the effect is the greatest. Show me the correlation and corresponding year over year wind increases poor favor.

Nice description of the coastal range effect and the San Francisco wind tunnel.  But it doesn't reach much past the coastal range, oddly enough.  However...This is a sailing website, so surely you know more about wind than that.  You know...katabatic, adiabatic...stuff like that.

Notice that I didn't make any claim about year to year anything.  I was pointing out your selective ignorance of of warm weather phenomena.  Like heat and wind.  

Now...If you wanted to start a fire in your fire place, what two things would you supply to the wood?  Heat and wind?  Nah.  Too easy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that an average increase of a couple of degrees over 140 years has significantly and appreciably affected wind patterns or velocities in the west? Do you have a cite for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chum said:

Hey chartlboy gin me up a chart that shows the correlation between average temperature rise year-over-year in California and average Acres burned year-over-year for the last 20 years.

fuck your charts, not the least the one you just presented here that's 13 years old; it doesn't mean shit today (maybe ever, data collection can be flawed), especially since climate disruption effects probably increase exponentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, can you show me new, revised numbers that show a significant difference? Or is it just “blatant”?

“Probably” because effects have increased exponentially? Oh my God! Really? Is this a gut, tea leaf feeling or do you have a cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah those pesky little facts are aggravating , aren’t they?

So you’re just basing your argument on a feeling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Label me all you want, your arguments are so obviously flawed you should be embarrassed to make them, but keep dancing in that dress because it’s amusing and revealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I’ve said, everything right of the far out there left is not right wing, but your myopic vision would never let you see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: post #348-

says you, but you're a fkg willfully obtuse bs'er, reich-wing style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chum said:

Yeah those pesky little facts are aggravating , aren’t they?

So you’re just basing your argument on a feeling?

Why should anyone be arsed to bother to show you numbers?  

Just live the life you want and observe the goings on around you and that's all that's required.  Either change will be self-evident and you will feel like a dork, or it won't, in which case you can feel smug or lucky.  

Just don't throw too much crap in the ocean or lighted cigarettes out of your car window.  OK?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly we just had our second back to back wettest Aug and Sept on record, some places got 14” of rain over the last 12 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chum said:

As I’ve said, every right of the far out there Left is not right wing, but your myopic vision would never let you see that.

? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Left Shift said:

Why should anyone be arsed to bother to show you numbers?  

Just live the life you want and observe the goings on around you and that's all that's required.  Either change will be self-evident and you will feel like a dork, or it won't, in which case you can feel smug or lucky.  

Just don't throw too much crap in the ocean or lighted cigarettes out of your car window.  OK?

 

Good advice, thanks.

Randoms premise was that global warming was responsible for the huge increase in Ca wildfires. I think we pretty much put that one to bed here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

? ?

When you are so far out in left field, everything looks right to you, even center field. How’s that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chum said:

Good advice, thanks.

Randoms premise was that global warming was responsible for the huge increase in Ca wildfires. I think we pretty much put that one to bed here. 

hey fk wit, many things are responsible for the increase in fire intensities, remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes of course, and it’s been well established here that poor management has played a far larger role than a 1 to 2 degree increase in temperatures over the last 140 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

fuck your charts, not the least the one you just presented here that's 13 years old; it doesn't mean shit today (maybe ever, data collection can be flawed), especially since climate disruption effects probably increase exponentially. 

Soooooo, what do you base your feelings on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chum said:

Yes of course, and it’s been well established here that poor management has played a far larger role than a 1 to 2 degree increase in temperatures over the last 140 years.

the fk it has..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To any reader with a functioning brain. I guess I should have qualified that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

fuck your charts, not the least the one you just presented here that's 13 years old; it doesn't mean shit today (maybe ever, data collection can be flawed), especially since climate disruption effects probably increase exponentially. 

I’m sorry, can you show me another chart I’ve posted? Just one? About anything?

This is fun.

edit: ok I just posted the “drone survival guide” chart. So show me another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chum said:

Yes of course, and it’s been well established here that poor management has played a far larger role than a 1 to 2 degree increase in temperatures over the last 140 years.

Bullshit.

Clear cutting played a far larger role, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chum said:

Good advice, thanks.

Randoms premise was that global warming was responsible for the huge increase in Ca wildfires. I think we pretty much put that one to bed here. 

No, we haven't.  Time will tell on that. but you can just mosey along.  Your job is done here.  

In the interim, taking risks with climate is just about as stupid a thing as one can do, when taking mitigating measures is so reasonable, takes so little effort and is comparatively inexpensive.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Bullshit.

Clear cutting played a far larger role, sure.

Clear cutting played a far larger role in the increased number and intensity of wildfires? Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ such a garden variety political ideologue asshole, even has the passive aggressive act down pat. gfy, princess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

No, we haven't.  Time will tell on that. but you can just mosey along.  Your job is done here.  

In the interim, taking risks with climate is just about as stupid a thing as one can do, when taking mitigating measures is so reasonable, takes so little effort and is comparatively inexpensive.  

 

I don’t advocate taking risks with climate. 

Random posted that a 1 to 2 degree increase in temps over the last 140 years was the root cause of the devastating wildfires we are seeing. That’s bullshit, and that’s clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chum said:

Clear cutting played a far larger role in the increased number and intensity of wildfires? Please explain.

1.  Have you ever seen the amount of debris left after the choker-setters and donkeys have moved on to the next patch?  

2.  Monoculture.

Both of those are part of "poor management".  So you can take credit for that term.  Calm yourself and take a walk around the block.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

^^ such a garden variety political ideologue asshole. gfy, princess.

Such a garden variety, low spark follower. Go educate yourself, jester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chum said:

I don’t advocate taking risks with climate. 

Random posted that a 1 to 2 degree increase in temps over the last 140 years was the root cause of the devastating wildfires we are seeing. That’s bullshit, and it’s that’s clear. 

Time will tell.  Certainly and argument that won't be settled here. 

But 1 to 2 degrees is a shit load of temperature change, actually.  It could cause lots of things.  1 to 2 degrees on Greenland is devastating as my simple mind understands it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chum said:

Such a garden variety, low spark follower. Go educate yourself, jester.

why ya 'lil bltch, so I too can minimize our impact on this planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

1.  Have you ever seen the amount of debris left after the choker-setters and donkeys have moved on to the next patch?  

2.  Monoculture.

Both of those are part of "poor management".  So you can take credit for that term.  Calm yourself and take a walk around the block.  

I’m feeling pretty calm. I agree with you, poor management is poor management. 

It’s raining too hard to go for a walk right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

why ya 'lil bltch, so I too can minimize our impact on this planet?

No, so you won’t appear so stooooopid when you open your pie hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Time will tell.  Certainly and argument that won't be settled here. 

But 1 to 2 degrees is a shit load of temperature change, actually.  It could cause lots of things.  1 to 2 degrees on Greenland is devastating as my simple mind understands it..

My simple mind says 2 degrees avg over 140 years would not cause what we’re seeing here. My simple mind would look elsewhere for more clues, but that’s just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chum said:

No, so you won’t appear so stooooopid when you open your pie hole.

again says the twat, exclusively. is everyone who get's in your face stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chum said:

It’s raining too hard to go for a walk right now.

so then massage your cankles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

again, says the twat, exclusively. is everyone who get's in your face stupid?

No. Not many people get in my face, though. Of those that do, some are obviously uneducated and stoooopid, like yourself. Others are just looking for an online squabble, and don’t really care about the issue one way or the other, while still others are educated but misguided. Then there are those who rightly straighten me out when I’m wrong, but that doesn’t happen often because I learned long ago about keeping my mouth shut and appearing a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

so then massage your cankles.

6 ft 200 lbs of twisted steel and sex appeal here, no cankles lol, but you can imagine that if it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're still a shit apologist reich-wing dick, though, just ask the trees.

btw, I'm taller than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look, I'm all done with insults here, we'll let this shit play out as it may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chum said:

My simple mind says 2 degrees avg over 140 years would not cause what we’re seeing here. My simple mind would look elsewhere for more clues, but that’s just me.

 

5 minutes ago, chum said:

My simple mind says 2 degrees avg over 140 years would not cause what we’re seeing here. My simple mind would look elsewhere for more clues, but that’s just me.

Well, those who calculated the effect of the Chicxulub asteroid have calculated that was the lower range of the temperature change that killed off the dinosaurs.  But what do they know.  

If you think about it, we live in a temperature range that runs roughly from -20°f to +120°f.  or 140°, or more realistically, in a temperate band between 40° and 90°.   Out of a temperature range that goes from -400+ to several thousand on the planets in our solar system.  So we and all our plants and critters are rather delicate creatures. 

A 2° temperature change looked as a percentage of our little goldilock band is perhaps 5% which you might think is a lot or just a speed bump we can ignore.  Your choice.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

look, I'm all done with insults here, we'll let this shit play out as it may.

Ok that works for me. Whenever you want to resume, just let me know. I don’t really like it much, but it seems to be the style here in PA. I’ve just never been one to stand by and take insults and bullshit from people. I don’t initiate it ever, but I don’t let it go either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

 

Well, those who calculated the effect of the Chicxulub asteroid have calculated that was the lower range of the temperature change that killed off the dinosaurs.  But what do they know.  

If you think about it, we live in a temperature range that runs roughly from -20°f to +120°f.  or 140°, or more realistically, in a temperate band between 40° and 90°.   Out of a temperature range that goes from -400+ to several thousand on the planets in our solar system.  So we and all our plants and critters are rather delicate creatures. 

A 2° temperature change looked as a percentage of our little goldilock band is perhaps 5% which you might think is a lot or just a speed bump we can ignore.  Your choice.  

I have to admit I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites