The Number One Environmental President.

[jakee 1,489]

8 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

https://filmdaily.co/news/california-fire-arson-attacks/

You appear to have misunderstood your own statement. You were going asking about political statements in the fires, and there is nothing in that article to indicate any political motivations.

[turtlespeed 220]

12 hours ago, mistercwood said:

There's a difference between a percentage of all fires, spread over time, being attributable to arson, versus a specific set of fires in one season that grew and combined to make for a national catastrophe.

Not disputing that arson happens or that overall figures are important. It's more a case of, were there arson cases last year? Absolutely! But none of them got out of control. Were any of the massive fires that killed billions of animals and made international headlines traced back to arson? No.

I raise this primarily because the Murdoch media here are heavily conservative and toe the anti-AGW line hard. Arson was an easy scapegoat to deflect attention from examining climate change as a trigger, and pushed extensively as a narrative. I am subsequently extremely wary of arson claims without further evidence.

It's also extremely hard to prove - even if it is true.

[turtlespeed 220]

15 hours ago, murps2000 said:

Okay. So I'm still wondering what is your point? There are dozens of active fires in California right now, including at least 15 that are either close to or well above 100,000 acres in size. 

https://firemap.sdsc.edu/

This is a very comprehensive site for following them. The map has layers much like google, and it gets interesting when you overlay current and historic fires. Trends are noticeable. Of course, nothing is mentioned about causes, so it may not provide information that is of interest to you.

There is controversy over brush clearing, forest management, Global Warming, Climate change, and people have started fires in order to prove their point in the past.

It is also extremely difficult to prove arson in that situation.

It seems reasonable to me that someone with an agenda has made some of this happen intentionally. 

[murps2000 86]

20 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

There is controversy over brush clearing, forest management, Global Warming, Climate change, and people have started fires in order to prove their point in the past.

It is also extremely difficult to prove arson in that situation.

It seems reasonable to me that someone with an agenda has made some of this happen intentionally. 

Okay, so no data or information but just some speculation about how someone could have done what you imagine. Great job steering the discussion away from the ridiculous statements made by the president so we can discuss a hypothetical scenario in your head.

[Phil1111 1,149]

21 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

There is controversy over brush clearing, forest management, Global Warming, Climate change, and people have started fires in order to prove their point in the past.

It is also extremely difficult to prove arson in that situation.

It seems reasonable to me that someone with an agenda has made some of this happen intentionally. 

 

18 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

Okay, so no data or information but just some speculation about how someone could have done what you imagine. Great job steering the discussion away from the ridiculous statements made by the president so we can discuss a hypothetical scenario in your head.

Trump has had four years to change forest management practices on federal land. To get rid of exploding trees and leaves that don't decay but instead act as gasoline. All of which is b.s.

Drought, record temperatures, urbanization of forested areas have all contributed. Australia and now the US. Its not rocket science except to conservatives who use climate science denial to frame their understandings.

[billvon 2,990]

23 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

It seems reasonable to me that someone with an agenda has made some of this happen intentionally. 

So it's all in your head.  You could have said that from the beginning,

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

So it's all in your head.  You could have said that from the beginning,

Hi Bill,

But then he would not have his soap box.  Oh, the horror. 

Jerry Baumchen

[murps2000 86]

9 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

 

Trump has had four years to change forest management practices on federal land. To get rid of exploding trees and leaves that don't decay but instead act as gasoline. All of which is b.s.

Drought, record temperatures, urbanization of forested areas have all contributed. Australia and now the US. Its not rocket science except to conservatives who use climate science denial to frame their understandings.

Forest management is an issue, but it's sort of a red herring in this case, at least in the way that the president is using it to avoid discussing climate change. That it was 120 degrees in LA  and 100 in San Francisco not long ago is more of an indicator that things are getting worse, as predicted by science. I think prescribed burns may be beneficial but I can't imagine how they could safely be conducted. The practice was outlawed in California as I understand it. Even if they could be done safely, much of what burns out here is grassland which you can burn all you want. It will be right back the following year. I think better fire breaks could be constructed and should be maintained. Raking the forest is a joke. It can't be done. There also seems to be some misinformation out there about California laws with regard to brush clearing and dead tree removal. I've seen many a YouTube expert commenter claim that California laws don't allow it. On private property it is not only allowed but encouraged, and in some areas required. The state will even help you do it. They call it defensible space. On public lands that are adjacent to communities in the bay area they use goats to essentially mow the grassland. They are in the Oakland hills every year. Unfortunately there are not enough of them to handle the whole state.

I do think better decisions could be made as far as housing construction. There is a reason classic mission style architecture works out here. It handles the winter rains and brutal summer sun equally well, with the added benefit that it's difficult to get stucco and tile roofs to ignite.

Fires are a part of life out here. There isn't a redwood forest or chaparral that I have hiked through that doesn't show some evidence of past fires. But as you point out, "Drought, record temperatures, urbanization of forested areas have all contributed." Fires are worse now, as predicted by climate science.

[turtlespeed 220]

Predicting that arson has a percentage of blame does not cancel out that Climate Change has responsibility too.

[ScottishJohn 25]

 

Just listened to a few snippets of the leader of the free world having an interview with Mark Levin. Now, it would be easy for me to just label Trump bat shit crazy so I thought I would just do a quick check to see if there is a massive big valve up north (Canada ?) that someone is using to divert water away from California. I have done a quick search on google and DuckDuckgo but have found nothing about a large valve that takes a day to turn.

Does anyone know where it is ?

Or is he just bat shit crazy

[Coreece 190]

50 minutes ago, ScottishJohn said:

 

Just listened to a few snippets of the leader of the free world having an interview with Mark Levin. Now, it would be easy for me to just label Trump bat shit crazy so I thought I would just do a quick check to see if there is a massive big valve up north (Canada ?) that someone is using to divert water away from California. I have done a quick search on google and DuckDuckgo but have found nothing about a large valve that takes a day to turn.

Does anyone know where it is ?

Or is he just bat shit crazy

I think he's talking about the San Francisco Bay's delta/watershed.  Apparently it supplies water for drinking and irrigation while the rest of it is used to sustain wildlife in the area.

According to this article, the water released into the sea has shown no measurable benefit to the ecosystem including the smelt and salmon populations which they hoped for, therefore it's now seen as a waste.

I'm not sure how the flow of this water is controlled, whether by dam or some other type of "valve," or if it's just allowed to flow by naturally.

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I think he's talking about the San Francisco Bay's delta/watershed.  Apparently it supplies water for drinking and irrigation while the rest of it is used to sustain wildlife in the area.

According to this article, the water released into the sea has shown no measurable benefit to the ecosystem including the smelt and salmon populations which they hoped for, therefore it's now seen as a waste.

I'm not sure how the flow of this water is controlled, whether by dam or some other type of "valve," or if it's just allowed to flow by naturally.

It is controlled by running the pumping stations at higher or lower powers.  You can shut them down in ten seconds.

The limit lately is not that there is too much water taken away from wildlife - the limit is that we have been pumping so much water that the pumps are starting to suck seawater from the river mouths backwards into the pumps.  As the water gets more saline it can no longer be used for irrigation.