California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Yeah I think Biden called trump a climate villain and said the fires are a result of his policies.

Let's see here....they predict a tenth of a degree rise in temperature per decade, but in just a few years Trump has set California on fire all by himself. How is anyone gullible enough to believe the bullshit?!!

Democrats are really reaching right now. That should give you a clear look at their internal polling.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Anybody see that orange sky in San Francisco?

Trump doesn't believe climate change is responsible for the wildfires in the western coastal states.

Since 2017, there has become almost an annual wildfire season in the western USA coastal states.

Not to say wildfires didn't happen before. But since 2017 they have become much worse. ~ 3 million acres just burned in California. Every day for the past month the state has choked on wildfire smoke.

Is it just a coincidence that this is happening? Or can we speculate climate change to be a cause?

Spongy Iris wrote:Since 2017, there has become almost an annual wildfire season in the western USA coastal states.

Spongy Iris wrote: Not to say wildfires didn't happen before. But since 2017 they have become much worse. ~ 3 million acres just burned in California. Every day for the past month the state has choked on wildfire smoke.

Spongy Iris wrote:Is it just a coincidence that this is happening?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Oh these fire are absolutely Trumps fault, as long as we can pin these bad years on Obama. Sound pretty fair?

IBdaMann wrote:
Biden's latest double-gaffe ...

1. harping on the disparaging comments Trump never made about our troops
2. referring to troops KIA as "fallen angels." I'm sure he meant to say "fallen heroes" or "fallen comrades" ... but "fallen angels" means they became bad or went astray in some way.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Anybody see that orange sky in San Francisco?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Trump doesn't believe climate change is responsible for the wildfires in the western coastal states.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Since 2017, there has become almost an annual wildfire season in the western USA coastal states.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Not to say wildfires didn't happen before. But since 2017 they have become much worse. ~ 3 million acres just burned in California. Every day for the past month the state has choked on wildfire smoke.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Is it just a coincidence that this is happening? Or can we speculate climate change to be a cause?

IBdaMann wrote:

This would be a good time for you to bow out gracefully. Southern California has had an annual fire season for well over the last fifty years.

The Democrat control of California is to blame. They intentionally cause the larger fires just out of their petty hatred for humanity. They refuse to allow land management to burn away dry underbrush and other kindling and to build firelanes/inroads to be able to battle blazes should they happen. The result is what you see ... and it has been the topic of discussion for years so it's not like it's any sort of surprise.


Nope. It's fully intentional on the part of the Democrat Party.

.

gfm7175 wrote:
I agree with him. An undefined buzzword cannot be responsible for anything. Define "climate change".

Forest mismanagement/nonmanagement is not "climate change".
Refusal to make firebreaks is not "climate change".
Arson is not "climate change".
Improper management of a campfire is not "climate change".
Lightning strikes are not "climate change".
The oligarchs of the SOTC being dumber than the citizenry of Idiocracy is not "climate change".

Some wildfires start naturally (ie, lightning strikes).
Some wildfires start accidentally (ie, mismanaged campfires)
Some wildfires start purposefully (ie, arson)

Those things can all cause wildfires, and have caused the wildfires occurring in the Western States right now. Piss poor forest management (and refusal to make firebreaks) only exacerbates the issue, as those (non)actions provide more fuel for such wildfires... It seems to me that the Democrats who control those areas WANT said wildfires to occur...

As you can see, this is all easily understood and explained without any need to appeal to any "climate change" religion...

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Oh these fire are absolutely Trumps fault, as long as we can pin these bad years on Obama. Sound pretty fair?

I'm just wondering if the fires of the west coast can be attributed to climate change.

Is the chart you posted for all USA land? I am focusing on the west coastas they are taking the brunt of it lately.

In California, the year 2020 is unprecedented is terms of acres burned in 1 year.
In CA, from 1987 to 2019, the average is around 600,000 acres burned per year. In 2020 we are up to 3,400,000 acres so far. 2017 and 2018 were bad years too, burning 1.5 million and 1.9 million acres, respectively. 1999, 2007, and 2008 were years where more than 1 million acres burned.

On the west coast, its kind of tough to say, oh it's fire season as usual, in 2020.

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
I agree with him. An undefined buzzword cannot be responsible for anything. Define "climate change".

Forest mismanagement/nonmanagement is not "climate change".
Refusal to make firebreaks is not "climate change".
Arson is not "climate change".
Improper management of a campfire is not "climate change".
Lightning strikes are not "climate change".
The oligarchs of the SOTC being dumber than the citizenry of Idiocracy is not "climate change".

Some wildfires start naturally (ie, lightning strikes).
Some wildfires start accidentally (ie, mismanaged campfires)
Some wildfires start purposefully (ie, arson)

Those things can all cause wildfires, and have caused the wildfires occurring in the Western States right now. Piss poor forest management (and refusal to make firebreaks) only exacerbates the issue, as those (non)actions provide more fuel for such wildfires... It seems to me that the Democrats who control those areas WANT said wildfires to occur...

As you can see, this is all easily understood and explained without any need to appeal to any "climate change" religion...

As mentioned above, in California, it felt like a decade of drought, from 2006 to 2016, which lead up to the record breaking California wildfires of 2017, 2018, and 2020. Isn't drought an example of climate change?

I also don't recall many (or any) scorching "Indian summers" in San Francisco in these years. It seems the hot westward bound Santa Ana winds were being blocked by a high pressure ridge in those years. Aren't wind patterns an example of climate change?

Also, from August 16 to August 19, there were 11,000 thousand lightning strikes which hit California. When that lightning and thunderstorm began around 3 a.m. on August 16, in the Bay Area,it was completely unexpected by all weather forecasters, who weren't even expecting rain. Aren't sudden unexpected lightning storms an example of climate change?

If you can't say the buzzword of "climate change" is the biggest cause of these record setting fires, can you at least say the weather is mostly to blame?

As for forest management, as suggested to IBDM, do you think the sheer magnitude of dead trees, as one example, is too much work to expect any forest management service to be able to get under control?

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
I agree with him. An undefined buzzword cannot be responsible for anything. Define "climate change".

Forest mismanagement/nonmanagement is not "climate change".
Refusal to make firebreaks is not "climate change".
Arson is not "climate change".
Improper management of a campfire is not "climate change".
Lightning strikes are not "climate change".
The oligarchs of the SOTC being dumber than the citizenry of Idiocracy is not "climate change".

Some wildfires start naturally (ie, lightning strikes).
Some wildfires start accidentally (ie, mismanaged campfires)
Some wildfires start purposefully (ie, arson)

Those things can all cause wildfires, and have caused the wildfires occurring in the Western States right now. Piss poor forest management (and refusal to make firebreaks) only exacerbates the issue, as those (non)actions provide more fuel for such wildfires... It seems to me that the Democrats who control those areas WANT said wildfires to occur...

As you can see, this is all easily understood and explained without any need to appeal to any "climate change" religion...

As mentioned above, in California, it felt like a decade of drought, from 2006 to 2016, which lead up to the record breaking California wildfires of 2017, 2018, and 2020. Isn't drought an example of climate change?

I also don't recall many (or any) scorching "Indian summers" in San Francisco in these years. It seems the hot westward bound Santa Ana winds were being blocked by a high pressure ridge in those years. Aren't wind patterns an example of climate change?

Also, from August 16 to August 19, there were 11,000 thousand lightning strikes which hit California. When that lightning and thunderstorm began around 3 a.m. on August 16, in the Bay Area,it was completely unexpected by all weather forecasters, who weren't even expecting rain. Aren't sudden unexpected lightning storms an example of climate change?

If you can't say the buzzword of "climate change" is the biggest cause of these record setting fires, can you at least say the weather is mostly to blame?

As for forest management, as suggested to IBDM, do you think the sheer magnitude of dead trees, as one example, is too much work to expect any forest management service to be able to get under control?

Into the Night wrote:

There is the fire season in other States, and then there is fire season in the SOTC.

1) More people are living in fire prone areas.
2) The SOTC ceased managing it's brush and forests. It's just firewood now.
3) There are a lot more arsonists than before...particularly in the SOTC.
4) An unusually strong high pressure formed over Utah (where they usually form this time of year) producing pretty intense offshore winds (Santa Ana winds, Chinook winds, pick your name). Such winds are common this time of year, but this one came together at a bad time. Arsonists and idiots did most of the rest.

Last year it was southern British Columbia...rugged country that burned quite a lot, and the SOTC.
The year before it was the SOTC.

Washington has had big fires in the past. Our largest one was started by arson.
Logging is done in Washington, those areas didn't burn. Brush is controlled in some areas in Washington. Those areas didn't burn.

The SOTC does not manage it's forests or brush. It just becomes firewood.

Climate change? No. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed.

There is no global climate.

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
I agree with him. An undefined buzzword cannot be responsible for anything. Define "climate change".

Forest mismanagement/nonmanagement is not "climate change".
Refusal to make firebreaks is not "climate change".
Arson is not "climate change".
Improper management of a campfire is not "climate change".
Lightning strikes are not "climate change".
The oligarchs of the SOTC being dumber than the citizenry of Idiocracy is not "climate change".

Some wildfires start naturally (ie, lightning strikes).
Some wildfires start accidentally (ie, mismanaged campfires)
Some wildfires start purposefully (ie, arson)

Those things can all cause wildfires, and have caused the wildfires occurring in the Western States right now. Piss poor forest management (and refusal to make firebreaks) only exacerbates the issue, as those (non)actions provide more fuel for such wildfires... It seems to me that the Democrats who control those areas WANT said wildfires to occur...

As you can see, this is all easily understood and explained without any need to appeal to any "climate change" religion...

As mentioned above, in California, it felt like a decade of drought, from 2006 to 2016, which lead up to the record breaking California wildfires of 2017, 2018, and 2020. Isn't drought an example of climate change?

I also don't recall many (or any) scorching "Indian summers" in San Francisco in these years. It seems the hot westward bound Santa Ana winds were being blocked by a high pressure ridge in those years. Aren't wind patterns an example of climate change?

Also, from August 16 to August 19, there were 11,000 thousand lightning strikes which hit California. When that lightning and thunderstorm began around 3 a.m. on August 16, in the Bay Area,it was completely unexpected by all weather forecasters, who weren't even expecting rain. Aren't sudden unexpected lightning storms an example of climate change?

If you can't say the buzzword of "climate change" is the biggest cause of these record setting fires, can you at least say the weather is mostly to blame?

As for forest management, as suggested to IBDM, do you think the sheer magnitude of dead trees, as one example, is too much work to expect any forest management service to be able to get under control?

Spongy Iris wrote:
What is SOTC?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is the fire season in other States, and then there is fire season in the SOTC.

1) More people are living in fire prone areas.
2) The SOTC ceased managing it's brush and forests. It's just firewood now.
3) There are a lot more arsonists than before...particularly in the SOTC.
4) An unusually strong high pressure formed over Utah (where they usually form this time of year) producing pretty intense offshore winds (Santa Ana winds, Chinook winds, pick your name). Such winds are common this time of year, but this one came together at a bad time. Arsonists and idiots did most of the rest.

Last year it was southern British Columbia...rugged country that burned quite a lot, and the SOTC.
The year before it was the SOTC.

Washington has had big fires in the past. Our largest one was started by arson.
Logging is done in Washington, those areas didn't burn. Brush is controlled in some areas in Washington. Those areas didn't burn.

The SOTC does not manage it's forests or brush. It just becomes firewood.

Climate change? No. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed.

There is no global climate.

Lightning, often in steep remote areas, gets the blame for California's record setting fires still not 100% contained after a month of burning.

I don't see industries having an interest in maintaining these remote areas.

The Santa Ana winds do not normally cause intense lightning storms in California. So this is an unusual weather pattern well outside what the normal climate experiences in August. Thus people call it climate change.

gfm7175 wrote:
The ignoring of my red text request renders your bold text questions rather pointless...

Those are all examples of weather, not of "climate change" (whatever that means).

As you saw from my prior response, I specifically noted that there are indeed natural causes of wildfires (using lightning strikes as a specific example). I also noted that there are human causes of wildfires (whether accidental or purposeful).

Some of the wildfires that you are speaking of have been discovered to be intentionally started (falling under the third category of causes that I listed, thus not being naturally caused), yet no matter the cause of the fires, the SOTC's choices to not properly manage their forests along with not having adequate firebreaks/inroads greatly exacerbates the wildfire issues that they see each year.

Such poor choices have absolutely nothing to do with the undefined buzzword "climate change" that you keep parroting...

gfm7175 wrote:

Weather is a series of random events. It does not have "patterns" or "trends".

No climates are changing... A desert climate remains a desert climate, an arctic climate remains an arctic climate, and etc...

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
The ignoring of my red text request renders your bold text questions rather pointless...

Those are all examples of weather, not of "climate change" (whatever that means).

As you saw from my prior response, I specifically noted that there are indeed natural causes of wildfires (using lightning strikes as a specific example). I also noted that there are human causes of wildfires (whether accidental or purposeful).

Some of the wildfires that you are speaking of have been discovered to be intentionally started (falling under the third category of causes that I listed, thus not being naturally caused), yet no matter the cause of the fires, the SOTC's choices to not properly manage their forests along with not having adequate firebreaks/inroads greatly exacerbates the wildfire issues that they see each year.

Such poor choices have absolutely nothing to do with the undefined buzzword "climate change" that you keep parroting...

These following weather patterns

Spongy Iris wrote:
listed seem to fall outside of normal trends

Spongy Iris wrote:
for California.

11,000 lightning strikes from August 16 to 19, 2020
10 years of drought from 2006 to 2016.
3.5 million acres burned in 2020

Spongy Iris wrote:
Thus people say the climate is changing. You seem to be getting pretty hung up on buzzwords.

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Weather is a series of random events. It does not have "patterns" or "trends".

No climates are changing... A desert climate remains a desert climate, an arctic climate remains an arctic climate, and etc...

No, there are causes of weather that is not random. The sun and wind being 2 major causes. The sun is definitely not random. And wind patterns may seem chaotic, but I probably wouldn't call them random.

And of course, don't forget, there are CO2 emissions from all of us!

gfm7175 wrote:

If true, so?

From now on, if you continue to ignore what I type to you in favor of repetitious argumentation and buzzwords, I am going to begin responding to you using ITN's Mantra List...

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

In California, the most populated state on the west coast, you can draw a chart for the following events and measure changes over time.

Acres burned per year.
Rainfall per year.
Lightning strikes in August.

You can see what's average. You can see what's outside average.

When you see events happening outside the average range, you must wonder if they are significant.

Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

We can listen to what Mother Nature is telling us, and consider why it is significant.

James___ wrote:

Am confused here. In Australia, a high pressure system will rotate different than a low pressure system. And near the equator, winds tend to blow to the west while in the middle latitudes to the east.
If I were to listen to Mother Nature, the primary (equatorial) wind pattern is following the Sun. Hopefully this isn't because the tropopause ceiling height is rising while increasing the volume of the atmosphere that is exposed to the Sun.
Am just in an a$$hole mood, sorry

James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Am confused here. In Australia, a high pressure system will rotate different than a low pressure system. And near the equator, winds tend to blow to the west while in the middle latitudes to the east.
If I were to listen to Mother Nature, the primary (equatorial) wind pattern is following the Sun. Hopefully this isn't because the tropopause ceiling height is rising while increasing the volume of the atmosphere that is exposed to the Sun.
Am just in an a$$hole mood, sorry

Spongy Iris wrote:

James___ wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Am confused here. In Australia, a high pressure system will rotate different than a low pressure system. And near the equator, winds tend to blow to the west while in the middle latitudes to the east.
If I were to listen to Mother Nature, the primary (equatorial) wind pattern is following the Sun. Hopefully this isn't because the tropopause ceiling height is rising while increasing the volume of the atmosphere that is exposed to the Sun.
Am just in an a$$hole mood, sorry

Interesting. It seems generally unknown or speculative why the prevailing winds move west in the tropics and east in the rest of the world.

There was an experiment done in Naples Florida along the beach, which is north to south, called the Rectilineator. The experiment concluded the shape of earth in North-South direction at this subtropical longitude is concave.

But during a lunar eclipse it looks like the earth is convex shaped right?

Go figure...

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

In California, the most populated state on the west coast, you can draw a chart for the following events and measure changes over time.

Acres burned per year.
Rainfall per year.
Lightning strikes in August.

You can see what's average. You can see what's outside average.

When you see events happening outside the average range, you must wonder if they are significant.

Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

We can listen to what Mother Nature is telling us, and consider why it is significant.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

In California, the most populated state on the west coast, you can draw a chart for the following events and measure changes over time.

Acres burned per year.
Rainfall per year.
Lightning strikes in August.

You can see what's average. You can see what's outside average.

When you see events happening outside the average range, you must wonder if they are significant.

Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

We can listen to what Mother Nature is telling us, and consider why it is significant.

Doesn't wildfires produce a huge volume of CO2? What's California's carbon-footprint, when they fail to manage their natural resources? Who gets the carbon tax bill, for this planet-killing, carbon blunder?

11,000 lightning strikes? Wimps... Florida gets over 2 million a year, would doubt we get that in a single storm, several times a year. Strange, that we don't see the huge wildfire damage of California.

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

In California, the most populated state on the west coast, you can draw a chart for the following events and measure changes over time.

Acres burned per year.
Rainfall per year.
Lightning strikes in August.

You can see what's average. You can see what's outside average.

When you see events happening outside the average range, you must wonder if they are significant.

Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

We can listen to what Mother Nature is telling us, and consider why it is significant.

Doesn't wildfires produce a huge volume of CO2? What's California's carbon-footprint, when they fail to manage their natural resources? Who gets the carbon tax bill, for this planet-killing, carbon blunder?

11,000 lightning strikes? Wimps... Florida gets over 2 million a year, would doubt we get that in a single storm, several times a year. Strange, that we don't see the huge wildfire damage of California.

Florida gets a lot of rain because of tropical storms and hurricanes. California doesn't get those.

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

In California, the most populated state on the west coast, you can draw a chart for the following events and measure changes over time.

Acres burned per year.
Rainfall per year.
Lightning strikes in August.

You can see what's average. You can see what's outside average.

When you see events happening outside the average range, you must wonder if they are significant.

Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

We can listen to what Mother Nature is telling us, and consider why it is significant.

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

If true, so?

From now on, if you continue to ignore what I type to you in favor of repetitious argumentation and buzzwords, I am going to begin responding to you using ITN's Mantra List...

I have responded by pointing out weather events that qualify as severe, beyond typical weather conditions, within a historical time range, in the place where the severe weather events occured.

Spongy Iris wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[
I'm not talking about causes of weather; I'm talking about weather itself.

To illustrate my point: How about you take a coin and flip it a bunch of times, recording the result of each coin flip. Let me know when there is a "pattern" or a "trend" that one can make use of, such that one is able to predict what the next result will be...

Try recording the weather at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on each September 16th of each year, until such a point that you are able to predict what the weather will be at [the location of your house] at 12:00pm [your time zone] on the following year's September 16th...

I'll be "anxiously" awaiting your predictions...


Since weather is a series of random events, it does not have "patterns" or "trends"... As far as I am concerned, you are speaking gobbledygook...

In California, the most populated state on the west coast, you can draw a chart for the following events and measure changes over time.

Acres burned per year.
Rainfall per year.
Lightning strikes in August.

You can see what's average. You can see what's outside average.

When you see events happening outside the average range, you must wonder if they are significant.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

Spongy Iris wrote:
We can listen to what Mother Nature is telling us, and consider why it is significant.

Climate: proper noun
The heroine of the Global Warming mythology, Climate is the Democratic People's Goddess. Born out of the Scientific Consensus, She oversees the central planning and administration of all weather, ecosystems, and local climates across the globe, as well as all interactions thereof. Climate is responsible for the care and well-being of all life on earth. In other faiths She is called Gaia, Durga, Mother Nature, et. al.

Note: Climate, by her nature, never changes but she is believed to be constantly changing, thus forming the grand mystery of the Global Warming faith. This is a core tenet of Settled Science.

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:]
Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

gfm7175 wrote:Some wildfires start naturally (ie, lightning strikes)

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:Some wildfires start naturally (ie, lightning strikes)

Two beefs with what you wrote.

1) you wrote "i.e." ("in other words") and you meant "e.g." (for example)

2) your examples didn't include dew

.

GasGuzzler wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:]
Winds usually prevail in moving weather eastward around the world; thus, in North America, a heavy population west of the Rocky mountains could be a risk, because their CO2 emissions being blown eastward would hit a wall at the Rocky mountains, and start piling up.

This is GREAT news for gardeners! I'm thinking a north/south wall built on the east end of a garden and wow, the fruits and veggies will be HUGE!