Remember me
▼ Content

California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?



Page 1 of 3123>
California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?15-09-2020 22:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2745)
Haven't look for a link to an article yet, but saw something on the news, that I thought was funny. California governor was calling Trump a 'denier', and climate change was to blame for the wildfires. It's Trump's fault for not getting involved, and doing more.

Trump has actually done quite a bit, to reverse the Obama climate change damage done to this country. Pulled us out of the Paris agreement, where Obama basically promised to pickup the tab, for countries that didn't feel like chipping in, to finance the cause. Trump eases up on a bunch of testicle crushing EPA regulations. Increased US oil production. Think he's still fighting to get Kentucky coal-miners back to work.
15-09-2020 23:03
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1885)
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.
15-09-2020 23:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
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.


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.

So, back in the real world, Trump just signed the first two of five Arab countries that are eager to jump on this "Recognize Israel's Right to Exist" deal for the overall "Peace in the Middle East" thing brokered by Trump.

Today, UAE and Bahrain. Projected for after the election, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and I don't remember the fifth. The Palestinians are invited but they are doing their "walk out of the talks" thing and are in danger of being forgotten entirely.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2020 04:48
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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?
16-09-2020 06:23
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1885)
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?


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


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Attached image:

16-09-2020 06:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
Spongy Iris wrote:Since 2017, there has become almost an annual wildfire season in the western USA coastal states.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2020 08:55
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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.
16-09-2020 10:40
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2745)
Sometime in the late 70s went environmentalist, to the extreme. Instead of spending money clearing deadfall and underbrush (wildfire fuel), they want to preserve it, as was habitat for precious woodland critters. Permanent fire breaks and access roads to frequent wildfire problem areas, were ugly scars, on a picture-perfect landscape, view-able from the backyard of many cliff-side mansions. Prescribed burns made the already poor air quality, almost deadly, not to mention, were poorly planned, and often resulted in wildfires. Mostly, the state spent it's entire budget every year on frivolous things, rather than preventive measures. I tend to believe the California has been cash-strapped for decades. Prevention costs a ton of money every year. Of course, when the spend the money, they had less wildfire, which means to a politician, the problem is solved, and they can spend the money on other, more vote friendly, free stuff. Besides, nature can clean up the deadfall and underbrush, the federal government will give them hundreds of millions of dollars every year, in disaster relief money. To be spent, pretty much anyway the please...
16-09-2020 16:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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.

... don't forget about the gaffe when he called the administration a "Harris/Biden administration", and just prior to that, Kamala made one as well, calling it a "Harris administration"...
16-09-2020 16:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Anybody see that orange sky in San Francisco?

Nope. I'm too far away from it here in Wisconsin, but I have an uncle in Nevada who is dealing with all the thick smoke and etc from it...

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

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

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

Wildfires have occurred annually since well before 2017...

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.

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".

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

An undefined buzzword ("climate change") cannot be the cause of anything.

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...
Edited on 16-09-2020 16:59
16-09-2020 17:35
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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.

.


As mentioned above to Gas Guzzler, 2018 and 2020 were much worse than average.

PG&E has claimed responsibility for some of the 2018 fires.

If I recall, 2006 to 2016 was a decade of drought in California. This is a climate change matter that lead to lots of dead trees.

I read about 129 million dead trees that were a fire risk in 2018.

"California put together a Tree Mortality Task Force that has awarded millions of dollars in grants to study the problem and to deploy tactics like thinning forests across public and private land. With limited personnel, equipment, and funding, the task force identified several areas as high priorities for management, including Fresno, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, and Calaveras counties. These regions face the highest risks to people and property from falling or burning trees.

But that means the vast majority of the dead trees in California will stay in place and continue to pose fire risks. "There is no way to remove 129 million trees," Williams said.

"State fire officials are well aware that these trees pose an immense fire hazard, but controlling them is not as simple as cutting them all down. For starters, the sheer number of these trees poses an immense logistical challenge. Nearly 1.3 million trees have been removed so far, but many are in remote areas where it's difficult to bring tree harvesting equipment.

It's also expensive to try to process so many trees. Lumber companies can sell some of the wood to recoup their expenses, but many of the trees are too decayed or structurally unsound to sell. There are jurisdictional hurdles as well, since the forests span federal, state, and private land."
16-09-2020 17:59
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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?
16-09-2020 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 16-09-2020 19:14
16-09-2020 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
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?


Any forest management service can get it under control, if they are allowed to by the SOTC.
Weyerhauser is particularly good at it. They are farmers. They don't want to lose their crop.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-09-2020 19:17
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2745)
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?


There were massive wildfires, before humans thought to attempt fighting them. Was anyway to really measure the acreage. Green wood and foliage don't burn well. Many of the trees are scorched, but should survive.

Deadfall trees an underbrush have uses, if you let/encourage people to harvest it. Mostly, just make the problem areas more accessible, or drag the crap closer to access roads. Mt. National Forest use to do that with the deadfall trees, and sell permits for firewood. Permit was cheap too, think $15/day. make as many trips as you want. Truck, trailer, long as you could drive a crappy dirt road, with a load. They gave directions to where you could cut some wood. Some of my worst childhood memories... They also made/sold mulch, and 'sawdust'. Basically front-end loader fed a huge hopper, to a machine that basically shredded anything.

The thing is that California needs to deal with as much of it as they can, not just study it for years, while rots, or burns. Forestry is all year long. I doesn't have to be perfect, like landscaping your yard, just remove the big stuff, and accumulation. Get creative on what to do with the stuff. There is always burning piles of crap, throw a bonfire party, hire a local band. Maybe make it a 'charity' event... The shredded crap can get spread out. Rots kind of quick, retains moisture, so it don't burn real easy either.

They have plenty of cheap labor available. Instead of just turning convicts loose, because they need to free up some cell space, open up so labor camps, let them work a little for early release. Plenty of homeless, that would work for a food (see the hand written signs all the time). Could offer a pint of Night Train, or Thunderbird, you know, the good, 'fortified' brands, not that weak ass, over-price restaurant crap. So they might actually do some work.

Why give free sanctuary to illegal immigrants? They work cheap, lot of landscapers, farms, and contractors save a ton of money hiring them. A dollar goes a lot farther in their home country. Feed them, pay them, but not too generous though, or they'll save up, so their family and friends can sneak over the border. Just enough, so they can send some feed money home. Offer like a Green Card lottery every month, the best workers get their name put in twice, as incentive. Don't actually have to do it, but it sounds good. Democrats do stuff like that anyway, so nobody would think any different.
16-09-2020 20:15
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
What is SOTC?
16-09-2020 21:08
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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.
16-09-2020 21:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
The ignoring of my red text request renders your bold text questions rather pointless...

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?

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...
16-09-2020 21:43
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
Spongy Iris wrote:
What is SOTC?

It is an initialism that ITN came up with... Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California.

The reasoning behind the initialism is that he (and I, likewise) do not recognize California as part of the Union of States due to their unwillingness to adhere to their own State Constitution, let alone the U.S. Constitution... I have personally expressed this sentiment in the past by spelling the State's name as Kaliphornia (or referring to it a Commiefornia), but ITN's clever SOTC initialism is what I now use most often, as it is the quickest to type out.
16-09-2020 21:48
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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.

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

Climate does not change... A desert climate remains a desert climate, an arctic climate remains an arctic climate, and etc...
Edited on 16-09-2020 22:13
16-09-2020 21:52
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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 listed seem to fall outside of normal trends 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

Thus people say the climate is changing. You seem to be getting pretty hung up on buzzwords.
16-09-2020 22:02
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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!
16-09-2020 22:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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

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

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

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

If true, so?

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

You cannot base argumentation on meaningless buzzwords. That renders such argumentation to be void. Words must be clearly and logically defined in order to hold meaning.

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...
16-09-2020 22:29
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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!

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...
16-09-2020 23:07
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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.
16-09-2020 23:37
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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.
17-09-2020 00:24
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
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.



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
17-09-2020 00:37
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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


Yes the winds are pretty confusing. In North America west to east usually prevails.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-90.39,3.87,185
17-09-2020 02:02
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
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 latitude is concave.

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

Go figure...
Edited on 17-09-2020 02:20
17-09-2020 02:07
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
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...



It would have to do with the ceiling height rising more at the equator. It chases the Sun. With the experiment that you mentioned, the Foucault pendulum and it's swing might show a distortion in the curvature of the Earth.

Edited on 17-09-2020 02:34
17-09-2020 02:44
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2745)
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.
17-09-2020 03:17
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
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.
17-09-2020 03:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2745)
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.


During the rainy season... We also have a dry season, droughts. There is also an accumulation of underbrush, and deadfall trees. We don't really get a hard freeze either. We do prescribed burns every year. Maybe we got it easier, no mountains to trap smoke. Still get wildfires, but seldom measured in the tens of thousands of acres.
17-09-2020 03:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(749)
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.


You raise interesting points that I would like to share my veiws on.CO2 does not stack up it dissolves in the atmosphere very well.I am taking readings and it is consistant where I am.Wind is created when hot air rizes and draws cold air in and is totaly unpredictable.I have to go more later


duncan61
17-09-2020 16:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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.

... so?

I'm failing to grasp what the big deal is... You are claiming that weather you perceive as "severe" and "beyond typical" is due to something called "climate change". WTF is "climate change"?? How does an unquantifiable thing such as climate "change"?
17-09-2020 17:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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.

They aren't, as the "average" that you are using to base this off of is likewise insignificant.

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.

Oh no!! That CO2 has nowhere to go once it runs into the Rocky Mountains!! IT'S TRAPPED! TRAPPED I TELL YA!!!

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

Is THIS the Mother Nature that you are referencing by any chance?

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.


Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual
Edited on 17-09-2020 17:21
17-09-2020 17:50
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1885)
[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!
17-09-2020 18:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
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

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-09-2020 18:45
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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

.


1) Indeed... e.g. is what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

2) My apologies. Feel free to add dew into the "start naturally" category.
17-09-2020 18:48
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1368)
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!

Indeed... Maybe I'll try that with my garden next year and see how it goes...
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
California, Global Climate Leader?130-10-2019 19:46
California Historic Power Outage!1926-10-2019 17:58
New California Laws113-10-2019 21:01
California's Carbon-Tax?117-05-2019 10:16
California restaurants can now add a 1% surcharge to help fight climate change228-04-2019 18:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact