• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Wildfires- a climate bellwether?

Jack Hays said:
Anecdotes are fine when posted without broader claims. That was not the case here.
Click to expand...
You have posted plenty of anecdotes that included broader claims.
 
Jack Hays said:
If I did that was a mistake, but I doubt you're correct.
Click to expand...
Oh please... :rolleyes:

Every single time I have ever accused you of doing something like this it is because I can remember specific instances of you doing it.

Your problem is that you don't really read, much less understand, the vast majority of what you post around here.
 
Buzz said:
Oh please... :rolleyes:

Every single time I have ever accused you of doing something like this it is because I can remember specific instances of you doing it.

Your problem is that you don't really read, much less understand, the vast majority of what you post around here.
Click to expand...
As I said, I doubt you're correct.
 
Jack Hays said:
As I said, I doubt you're correct.
Click to expand...

Damn, Jack... you have done this kind of thing literally hundreds of times? Are you really that oblivious to what you post?
 
Buzz said:
Damn, Jack... you have done this kind of thing literally hundreds of times? Are you really that oblivious to what you post?
Click to expand...
I'll say again, if I used anecdote as the basis for a broader claim then that was a mistake, but I doubt you are correct.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'll say again, if I used anecdote as the basis for a broader claim then that was a mistake, but I doubt you are correct.
Click to expand...

Look! Three polar bears are eating garbage where they never are eating garbage! They’re thriving!


Look! It’s cooling if you look at last years temperatures!

Look! There’s an entire paradigm shift that’s happening in science based on this fifteen year old obscure article!

Or look! HCQ is a great treatment for COVID according to these denier blogs that reference anecdotal data!

[emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Look! Three polar bears are eating garbage where they never are eating garbage! They’re thriving!


Look! It’s cooling if you look at last years temperatures!

Look! There’s an entire paradigm shift that’s happening in science based on this fifteen year old obscure article!

Or look! HCQ is a great treatment for COVID according to these denier blogs that reference anecdotal data!

[emoji849]
Click to expand...
As dishonest (and uninformed) as we've become accustomed to.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Climate change is clearly a factor. But the people of California are a bigger factor. The forest burning down is a part of nature especially in areas like California. It is a part of the eco system. We can either harvest those trees as a sustainable natural resource or watch them burn to the ground. If we chose to let them burn to the ground I suggest not building your home in the middle of them.
Click to expand...
The most fire prone areas of California have no harvestable timber. These areas are called "chaparral," named by the Spanish of course. It means "brushland," and it describes much of the coast range and the lower elevations of the Sierra. That area burned off every decade or so for thousands of years. When people started building homes there, they tried to suppress the natural wildfires, which resulted in a buildup of dry brush and really hot wildfires.

The chaparral is really pretty in early spring, very green and lots of wildflowers. In summer and fall, not so much. It becomes hot, dry, and brown, and very fire prone. It's a great place to visit at certain times, but I wouldn't want to live there.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The most fire prone areas of California have no harvestable timber. These areas are called "chaparral," named by the Spanish of course. It means "brushland," and it describes much of the coast range and the lower elevations of the Sierra. That area burned off every decade or so for thousands of years. When people started building homes there, they tried to suppress the natural wildfires, which resulted in a buildup of dry brush and really hot wildfires.

The chaparral is really pretty in early spring, very green and lots of wildflowers. In summer and fall, not so much. It becomes hot, dry, and brown, and very fire prone. It's a great place to visit at certain times, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Click to expand...
So all the pictures on the news of pine forest burning is all propaganda. Plus all the fires that are not along the coast are also not real. Face reality. Millions of acres of a harvestable resources are burning to the ground out of stupidity. Harvest the trees creating a several mile wide fire break between the brush land that will burn every so many years and let them burn. If that fire break is along natural streams and kept thinned out with trees left that are less fire prone these fires and forest can be responsibly managed. If people are going to build in these fire prone brush lands then part of living there will be the required maintaining of the fire breaks and harvesting of the natural resources. The loss of life and the endangering of our firefighters year after year out utter stupidity needs to stop.
 
Threegoofs said:
All the things I listed?

You’re right.
Click to expand...
Well, no. You obviously didn't understand the discussion you jumped into (or you did and you chose to pretend you didn't) and you then rolled out a list of factual errors.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
So all the pictures on the news of pine forest burning is all propaganda. Plus all the fires that are not along the coast are also not real. Face reality. Millions of acres of a harvestable resources are burning to the ground out of stupidity. Harvest the trees creating a several mile wide fire break between the brush land that will burn every so many years and let them burn. If that fire break is along natural streams and kept thinned out with trees left that are less fire prone these fires and forest can be responsibly managed. If people are going to build in these fire prone brush lands then part of living there will be the required maintaining of the fire breaks and harvesting of the natural resources. The loss of life and the endangering of our firefighters year after year out utter stupidity needs to stop.
Click to expand...
Of course pine forests are being impacted by fires. I didn't say that they weren't.

Logging has resumed in the national forests. Logging, done correctly, will help control fires. I said that earlier as well.

But, simplistic solutions to what is a complex problem aren't going to help. What really needs to be done is to let the pros who know how to responsibly harvest timber and to keep fires at bay call the shots. You also can't solve years of mismanagement of forest lands in a year. It will take time.

and not every part of the fire area is the same.
 
MetOffice, IPCC Climate Scientist Prof. Richard Betts Misunderstood Science Behind Drying Forests
By P Gosselin on 29. September 2020

Share this...
Just recently Anthony Watts posted an article on wildfires penned by Paul Homewood. Lately alarmists have been blaming the active forest fire season on global warming. They warn that warmer temperatures will lead to more wildfires.
Is it so?
First it’s important to note that warmer temperatures don’t necessarily lead to more drought and wild fires. For example in 2018 I reported here how the Sahara desert has shrunk by a whopping 700,000 sq km over the recent decades, even though this is a region with very warm temperatures.
Also we know that the earth’s surface has often been drier during cooler times.
Moreover, aspiring meteorologist Chris Martz here explains that long-term forest fires have not been getting worse in the USA, and “are nowhere near as bad as they used to be”.
u.s.-wildland-fire-counts-by-year.png

u.s.-wildland-fire-burn-acreage-by-year.png

U.S. wildland fire counts by year since 1926 (Figure 5a – left) and U.S. wildland fire burn acreage over that same time period (Figure 5b – right).
Climate scientist doesn’t understand why forests dry . . . .
 
Jack Hays said:

NOAA Confirm Heatwaves Are Declining In California
I have often published official graphs of individual stations, which show that heatwaves in California were more intense in the past. These run contra to NOAA’s official temperature record shown above.
Continue reading →
Click to expand...
Is it the temperature or the lack of rain that is the problem? That is the problem with climate comparisons. With so many variables it is very unlikely you can truly compare data. Plus we still don't know all the things that factor into climate. You will never get a right answer when you are missing too many critical numbers.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Is it the temperature or the lack of rain that is the problem? That is the problem with climate comparisons. With so many variables it is very unlikely you can truly compare data. Plus we still don't know all the things that factor into climate. You will never get a right answer when you are missing too many critical numbers.
Click to expand...
Temperature is not unprecedented, and rainfall has not been lacking.
 
I was wondering about the rise in co2 that started the melting of the ice sheets 20,000 years ago. The transformation of the Sahara region from green to desert could have been part of the cause. That is a big loss of vegetation that would no longer be removing a lot of co2 from the atmosphere. That with the warming of the sun and thousands of other minor changes that add up to a major change. I think the answers are still yet to be found.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]They Know How to Prevent Megafires. Why Won’t Anybody Listen?[/h]
The sitation in California is just like the one in Australia
Tim Ingalsbee has been fighting fires or trying to prevent them since 1980. He founded Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology.
[h=3]They know how to prevent megafires[/h]Elizabeth Weil, ProRepublica
So what’s it like? “It’s just … well … it’s horrible. Horrible to see this happening when the science is so clear and has been clear for years. I suffer from Cassandra syndrome,” Ingalsbee said. “Every year I warn people: Disaster’s coming. We got to change. And no one listens. And then it happens.”
The pattern is a form of insanity: We keep doing overzealous fire suppression across California landscapes where the fire poses little risk to people and structures. As a result, wildland fuels keep building up.
This week we’ve seen both the second- and third-largest fires in California history. “The fire community, the progressives, are almost in a state of panic,” Ingalsbee said. There’s only one solution, the one we know yet still avoid. “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”
[h=4]Modern Californians are burning 0.1% of what indigenous California’s used to do:[/h]Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres. The state passed a few new laws in 2018 designed to facilitate more intentional burning. But few are optimistic this, alone, will lead to significant change. We live with a deathly backlog. In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire.
..is there is any meaningful scientific dissent about controlled burns? \
“None that I know of.”
The incentives are all wrong. There is a risk in doing cool burns, but no immediate risk in foregoing them. And among other things, fires are big business. Cal Fire may spend $1 billion this year. Full time Firefighters earn $148,000 a year.
A lot of the money though, goes on late afternoon planes dumping fire retardant to save a few wild trees:
Keep reading →
Click to expand...
When you don't thin forests, when people build homes IN the forests, and when they put fires out with planes and helicopters, that allows brush to grow unabated.

Then idiots say it is due to global warming.
 
Paradoxical said:
When you don't thin forests, when people build homes IN the forests, and when they put fires out with planes and helicopters, that allows brush to grow unabated.

Then idiots say it is due to global warming.
Click to expand...
Don't forget careless smokers.
 
Fires Of 1910
Posted on October 12, 2020 by tonyheller
This week in 1910, forest fires in the upper Midwest and Canada killed more than 1,000 people. The temperature at Forestburg, South Dakota on October 11, 1910 was 100 degrees. That year was one of only three years with temperatures over 100 degrees in the Midwest this late in the year. The other two years were 1920 and 1947.
On October 7 a forest fire raged out of control across Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota, leveling everything in its path.
Click to expand...
Baudette fire of 1910 – Wikipedia

23 Oct 1910, 6 – Monterey Daily Cypress and Monterey American at Newspapers.com
A few weeks earlier was the largest forest fire in US history, along the Idaho/Montana border.

The 1910 Fires – Forest History Society
March of 1910 was the warmest on record in the US and the snow melted very early, which led to the massive fires later in the year. . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom