myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Wildfires and global warming
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 8379
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've lived in CA for 30 years, it get worse every year. The Tubbs fire, then the Carr Fire, then the Camp fire, and now this year...worse and worse and worser. Its also hotter than its ever been here, and nighttime temps are much higher. It doesnt take a Philadelphia lawyer or an MIT degree to tell which way the wind is blowing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 15697
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Among the many thoughtful accounts that are available to anyone who wants to learn something about California and fires. Or instead one can continue trolling.

https://www.route-fifty.com/management/2020/09/california-may-need-more-fire-fix-its-wildfire-problem/168665/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 15697
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Vishaan Chakrabarti, over 32 million homes have been built at the urban-wildland interface in the West in the last 3 decades. Of course, Republicans who oppose regulation made that easier.

The idea that the universal solution is controlled burning is also simplistic. In chaparral, which covers major parts of the west, an area burned is ready to burn again in a decade. But let's cut the size of government until it can be drowned in the bathtub. A Republican pledge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3826

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
According to Vishaan Chakrabarti, over 32 million homes have been built at the urban-wildland interface in the West in the last 3 decades. Of course, Republicans who oppose regulation made that easier.


Total BS!

Quote:
KATHLEEN RONAYNE, Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A desire to live near nature is embedded in California's ethos, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday as he explained why he doesn't want to block home building near forested areas at high risk for wildfires.

"There's something that is truly Californian about the wilderness and the wild and pioneering spirit," Newsom said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm not advocating for no (building)."

Newsom on Friday released a report outlining the challenges of California's growing wildfire threat that suggested local government "de-emphasize" building in high-risk areas around forests. But he told the AP it was a loose suggestion aimed at starting a debate about how Californians can build smarter and closer to urban centers and economic hubs.

More than 2.7 million Californians live in areas state fire officials say are at a very high hazard for wildfires, according to an AP analysis of census data and state fire maps. Nearly 180 cities and towns are in those very high hazard areas.

The recently retired head of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Ken Pimlott, said last year that government should consider blocking construction in high-risk areas, given the devastating loss of property and lives.

But Newsom said he's never seen a realistic proposal for how to do it.

"I've never seen a deep analysis," he said. "And I think one has to be cautious about that."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-04-15/california-governor-wont-block-building-in-high-fire-areas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 15697
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, the point goes right over Techno’s head. With millions of homes built already in fire-prone areas, and millions of lots created, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to regulate houses in risky areas out of existence. Any serious effort to require risk abatement has to involve the Federal government and FEMA. Not rakes.

Meanwhile, evidence (yeah, I know that the GOP has declared war on science and abortion) shows that fog has diminished by 1/3. https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/09/california-asbestos-forests-no-longer-immune/?utm_source=CalMatters%20Newsletters&utm_campaign=99a0f5cb62-WHATMATTERS_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_faa7be558d-99a0f5cb62-150242853&mc_cid=99a0f5cb62&mc_eid=01229ec239

And for those who can’t or won’t read, here is what has happened to temperatures.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4895

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Mrgybe. Why the push to use inaccurate data? Shouldn't we be looking at trends during the time we DO have accurate data?

Now you are being silly.........and you seem to have forgotten that I referenced the NIFC stats in response to your claim that there is an increased risk of wild fires due to man made climate change; a claim which you support by dismissing nearly a century of data from the NIFC, and instead refer to "trends" over the last 15 years! The Western States have enjoyed extended periods of drought for thousands of years. Some of those droughts lasted for 100 years or more. No conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from 15 years of data. The pre 1983 data may not have the same level of accuracy as more recent data, but to suggest that it is irrelevant, is just silly. Land ownership was of primary importance in those earlier decades, so I'm comfortable that the estimation of fire activity is at least in the ball park and reveals that your assertion of increased fire activity is inaccurate by a wide margin. As I said at the outset, it is not the scale of fires that has increased, it is populations in the vicinity of fires.

I haven't had a chance to look at your other claim that natural gas is 40 times more carbon intensive than wind. I will, and I strongly suspect that that claim will not hold up to scrutiny any more than trends derived from 15 years of data.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 15697
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A perfect example of scouring the internet for poor quality data, cherry-picking the available data, and shilling for big carbon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 1955

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
As I said at the outset, it is not the scale of fires that has increased, it is populations in the vicinity of fires.


Might you have something other than your own opinion to back up that statement old chap? I think there are those who would disagree with you:

Our update on the Westerling et al. [1] analysis finds that the frequency of large forest wildfires has continued to increase, with each decade since the 1970s, showing an increased frequency of large wildfires at a regional scale compared with preceding decades (figure 1, table 1). We find a highly significant trend (p < 0.0001) over 1973–2012, equivalent to over 20 additional large fires per decade on USFS, NPS and BIA lands, or more than 140% of the annual average for the first decade of forest fires (not shown). The area burned in these large fires has also continued to increase (figure 1, table 2), with both a shift in the fire size distribution for fires exceeding 400 ha that was particularly pronounced in the 1980s (figure 2), and the ongoing increase in large wildfire frequency contributing to the overall increase in forest wildfire burned area. The fitted linear trend in forest wildfire burned area was also highly significant (p = 0.002, figure 2), equivalent to 123 000 ha per decade since the 1970s, or increasing on average by nearly 390% of the annual average for the first decade in each subsequent decade.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874415/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 15697
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vientomas--do you expect mrgybe to acknowledge either science or that he was wrong?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3826

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac said:
Quote:
Again, the point goes right over Techno’s head. With millions of homes built already in fire-prone areas, and millions of lots created, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to regulate houses in risky areas out of existence. Any serious effort to require risk abatement has to involve the Federal government and FEMA. Not rakes.

You are a hoot. Your Governor sees no reason to keep folks out of the woods, and you see no reasonable solutions other than the Federal government and FEMA (to do exactly what?) -

So the answer comes down to: AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, either buy a ton of insurance or move out to the woods. Yes, a heartless response, but have you got a better one? Maybe all new homes should be concrete/cinder block with tile or steel roofs, then eventually all the flammable homes will be burned up and then part of the crisis is eliminated.

Too bad the environmentalist wouldn't let nature take its course. Now you pay the price.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 22 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group