Do you think that refutes anything in the post you quoted? (Hint: It doesn’t)
I don’t believe that a one degree temperature change causes the drought, I believe the changing weather pattern brought about by climate change causes the drought.
Anything that starts with ‘Our charmingly incompetent California Governor, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’ is hardly a neutral site.
Encyclopedia of American Loons - Willis Eschenbach
Hey, this guy has a BA in psychology and a California Massage Certificate from Aames School of Massage!
Is Aames the place where they teach you techniques for rolfing the data?
So, are these people lying?
?
Just because a similar statement was twittered by your arch-enemy, does NOT mean you should throw all rational thought out the window and assume he is wrong.
I just had a look at the Street View in those areas. It’s quite interesting. Eg around this area various areas have imagery from 2008 (before the fire), 2010 (not long after) and 2014 (a few years after). Not all sections of road have all three years, but looking at the 2014 pics you wouldn’t think there had ever been a fire there - until you compare to 2008!
Except for the fire chief, there is definitely some truth shading there. Unsaid is that ‘forest management’ and ‘natural resources’ means ‘logging’. Which has been overdone in NorCal, and the people living there remember.
How they start leads directly to how can they be prevented, so I’d say it’s pretty important.
thanks for sending me to a climate change denier website. So retro that they call Jerry Brown “Governor Moonbeam” (an epithet from the 1970’s) and call him “charmingly incompetent”, although he is almost certainly the most competent governor California has ever had or is likely to ever have again.
No.
The point I am trying to make is that they CANNOT be prevented. The logging industry and those in their pocket want you to believe it is caused by a lack of logging, but that was never the case at any time.
Controlled burns would have helped the issue at an earlier point, but now things are far too grave.
Americans think everything we have done to the planet can be fixed with more technology or even more applied knowledge. Well, California is not one of those things.
The SacBee has compiled some, uh, theories, pertaining to the subject of this thread:
[ul][li]A number of theories emerged following last year’s fires claiming that the burn patterns seen in some photos could only be explained by targeted lasers, which must have been operated by terrorist groups, the U.S. government, aliens or some other agitated party. These lasers, supposedly, were shot at California from either planes or spaceships, perhaps unmanned drones, for reasons that were not entirely clear.[/li][li]Some have claimed that California’s recent wildfires were planned efforts by clandestine groups, such as the Illuminati or the New World Order, either as a show of force or in an effort to distract the mainstream media. A few websites claim the lasers from the above conspiracy theory are an Illuminati product.[/li][li]Extrapolating from reports that the 2017 wildfires destroyed expansive marijuana farms, some alternative news websites claimed (with little evidence) that drug cartels from Mexico or South America may have played a role in sparking some of the blazes.[/ul][/li]I saw something somewhere that suggested it was a calculated plan to clear and grab land for the high-speed rail (based on a map of hazard warnings).
The whole world is a conspiracy.
Uh. High speed rail is running south of the fires. Nowhere near them.
As I understand it, the CT was not based on an actual fire map but on a map of where one should be careful due to high fire danger. And even that map failed to support the CT. It turned up on Snopes, where it did not even get a chance to burn up.
Overdone? There are 33 million acres of forestland in California alone. At a growth rate of a a mere 150 board feet per acre per year, you would have to clear cut 385,000 acres per year just to keep up with what is growing.
Is that a desired result? No. Does it ignore a lot of ecological issues and limitations? Yes. But it shows the scale of the issue.
If you wanted to do some advanced silvicultural restoration. You could reserve legacy trees while removing 50% of the basal area based on diameter class and create a pseudo old growth stand. You would have to do that on 700,000 acres per year just to keep up with what’s growing.
Other benefits: You would also make money. You would create blue collar jobs. You would help rural economies. You would lower the risk of catastrophic wild fires.
Modern firefighting equipment and techniques can only do so much, its kinda like saying you can just build a wall to stop a hurricane or tornado. A major forest fire can create enough updraft that it starts pulling in air from all directions toward itself, which makes it burn hotter creating a kind of organic blast furnace that accelerates the fire. The only decisive way to kill a forest fire is rain, even a brief rain shower can dump hundreds of millions a gallons of water on a large area suppressing spot fires and firebrands before they get going as well as directly slowing progress of the flame front.
1 inch of rain is roughly 27,000 gallons per acre. That impedes a lot of fire.
Note that forest fires, even after a lot of rain, can hang around.
E.g., the Eagle Creek Fire in the Columbia River Gorge started in Sept. 2017 and still had some smoldering spots in May 2018. And this is in an area that gets a decent amount rain over the winter.
Rain helps, the more the better (up to mudslide inducing, etc.) but it’s not necessarily a complete fire suppressor.
Rain is in the forecast in Northern California for this week. Let’s hope so. Even though we have some workers coming to do work on our trees on the day it’s supposed to start raining.
Of course, the massive updraft creates a sort of high-pressure area that tends to hold the rain clouds at bay. Rain may be able to encircle a fire, but it is less effective at actually dousing it out.