patrick.net

Everything is SCIENTIFIC PROOF POSITIVE of Global Warming. No exceptions. It is all proof. WrongThinkers and Anti-scientists need re-education time in the Gulag.

Do the LibbyFuck pols get a royalty check from the Globalists every time they claim that something and everything indicate Global Warming in captive media?

Patrick, have you read up on the age distribution of species like sequoia sempervirens, bristlecone pine, and joshua trees? What does this tell you about the viability of forests during ancient wildfires versus modern ones?

Also, let's see a comprehensive and fully cost estimated plan for how oak-grass-chapparal land (where many of the states fires burn) can and should be "managed" in order to provide viable cost effective fire prevention.

It disgusts me hearing people quip "Rake your lawn!" or other asinine talking points while possessing fuck-all knowledge of actual fuel management strategies.

How's the spotted owl doing with all of this "forest management"?

Some ignorant people, Newsom for example, think that our problem is global warming and not bad forest management practices.

Automan Empire says

It disgusts me hearing people quip "Rake your lawn!" or other asinine talking points while possessing fuck-all knowledge of actual fuel management strategies.

How would you manage forests?

Onvacation says

How would you manage forests?

"no u" is not a response or rebuttal. I therefore dismiss you as a non player on this topic until you bring relevant facts to the table.

Automan Empire says

Onvacation says

How would you manage forests?

"no u" is not a response or rebuttal. I therefore dismiss you as a non player on this topic until you bring relevant facts brought to the table.

Why don't you just accept occams razor which dictates that corrupt and inept leftoid politicians who can't manage to keep cities clean of piles of human feces and blm filth most likely know jack shit about forest management. Yes I do know more than them but moreover I'm not corrupt to the core.

mell says

just accept occams razor which dictates

That's not how Occam's Razor works.
mell says

Yes I do know more than them

Knowledge of wildland management and details of fire mitigation practices relevant to numerous unique ecosystems never seems to matter to most people who opine on this topic, much less enter their discussion.

Areas of Ventura burned to a moonscape 2 years in a row jumping the 101 freeway both times. Right now the bobcat fire is burning out of control through inaccessibly steep and rugged areas that were burned to moonscape 11ish years ago. I expect people to address this in their proposed remedies, and those who offer "rake yer lawn" place a high burden upon themselves to prove afterward that they are not an idiot.

Automan Empire says

mell says

just accept occams razor which dictates

That's not how Occam's Razor works.
mell says

Yes I do know more than them

Knowledge of wildland management and details of fire mitigation practices relevant to numerous unique ecosystems never seems to matter to most people who opine on this topic, much less enter their discussion.

Areas of Ventura burned to a moonscape 2 years in a row jumping the 101 freeway both times. Right now the bobcat fire is burning out of control through inaccessibly steep and rugged areas that were burned to moonscape 11ish years ago. I expect people to address this in their proposed remedies, and those who offer "rake yer lawn" place a high burden upon themselves to prove afterward that they are not an idiot.

You are describing localized examples. Fires are burning in 2 of the largest states, and in rains fairly often in Oregon. Mismanagement and arson are the culprits. In Colorado you have to fire proof your home and the surrounding areas if you move into the woods. and it's still much cheaper than CA. The east coast never has these devastating fires, neither does Europe, despite similar climate. That's enough for Occam's razor. If it were anywhere remotely related to climate change you'd see the fires everywhere on the planet, not just on the left coast.

The answer to Ventura is frequent controlled burns like they did around my place in the valley outside the bay area when I was a kid.

Funny thing is on another one of these threads some folks pointed out this crap never happens in Europe. Well guess what. Our 'golden state' is golden because nearly all of the vegetation is fucking invasive species from Europe and the UK.

Back when the Spaniards sailed into the SF bay area is was at least somewhat green year around. The native grasses had longer roots and weathered the drought season better. No photos but there are some interesting paintings.

Edit: I didn't read mell's post before I made mine. He mentions the Eurotrash too.

mell says

The east coast never has these devastating fires, neither does Europe, despite similar climate.

Way to compare fire behavior in climates with 10 inches of rain in a good year to ones that get 40-80 inches a year. Do you want to bow out gracefully as uninformed on this topic, dig yourself deeper, or start treating the subject matter seriously?

just_adhom_preaching says

the SF bay area is was at least somewhat green year around ...No photos but there are some interesting paintings.

Paintings, solid objective source. I remember touring the Huntington as a kid, there was a painting that the tour explained was rejected by the original patron because the artist was REALLY good at painting clouds but the patron didn't want his daughter's fancy wedding day depicted as cloudy. No word on whether the day actually was cloudy.

just_adhom_preaching says

nearly all of the vegetation is fucking invasive species from Europe and the UK.

Any data to show how invasive species worsen the various fires we've seen? It sounds potentially interesting, but the same grasses and foxtails grow in the foothills as grew in the vacant suburban lot across from my childhood home 50 years ago. This is the stuff that will grow a whole new fuel load the year after a fire, and start spot fires miles downwind making even huge firebreaks useless.

Automan Empire says

Paintings, solid objective source.

No Eurotrash. They were documenting the place and there was TEXT to go along with it. It's "scientifically" DOCUMENTED by leftists who LAMENT the Eurotrash who fucked the environment up when they came here. There are all manner of studies and papers about why N. America didn't send our plants the other way.

Automan Empire says

Any data to show how invasive species worsen the various fires we've seen?

OMFG! Almost ALL the annual vegetation in CA (you know, the shit that builds up the fuel load) is from Europe/UK! Data isn't needed. Just common fucking sense!

Lets take the entire bay area for example which isn't necessarily super dry everywhere all the time. Lots of micro-climates vs. much of our golden state. With respect to original annual species this is it:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Edgewood+Park+%26+Natural+Preserve/@37.473172,-122.2803597,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fa176ac583ea3:0xad8169ab8b2598eb!8m2!3d37.473172!4d-122.278171

Fucking Edgewood Park! The rest is gone! Most of it is gone there but there is (was) some little old man with a herd of neo-hippy women out there late 90s still pulling the 'weeds' from around the native stuff. By now who the hell knows.

All that growth each year builds up a layer of fuel. You either manage it or you don't. Each year you don't, much like idiots with revolving credit, it gets worse. Eventually it blows up. The damage vs. time can be represented with a quite simple equation I'm sure.

just_adhom_preaching says

All that growth each year builds up a layer of fuel. You either manage it or you don't.

Actually, not necessarily. Between wind, herbivores, decomposition in the rain, the hills through the Grapevine area where I own property are surprisingly almost completely barren between spring thaw and all the seeds germinating en masse. In lots of areas a certain amount of grasses do accumulate year over year, but this reaches an equilibrium that makes for more of a natural mulch and humus topper than an ever accumulating fire load.

The important takeaway here: Much of the fire danger around the state burns in fuel that regrows every year.

Automan Empire says

mell says

The east coast never has these devastating fires, neither does Europe, despite similar climate.

Way to compare fire behavior in climates with 10 inches of rain in a good year to ones that get 40-80 inches a year. Do you want to bow out gracefully as uninformed on this topic, dig yourself deeper, or start treating the subject matter seriously?

just_adhom_preaching says

the SF bay area is was at least somewhat green year around ...No photos but there are some interesting paintings.

Paintings, solid objective source. I remember touring the Huntington as a kid, there was a painting that the tour explained was rejected by the original patron because the artist was REALLY good at painting clouds but the patron didn't want his daughter's fancy wedding day depicted as cloudy. No word on whether...

What? Sicily, parts of France and Spain have very similar climate.Greece as well. When. Is the last time you've heard of devastating fires there? Also it doesn't matter much if it rains more often as even Germany can have significant drought periods. But the fires never become raging blazes for a reason, long before the rain starts helping out.

mell says

What? Sicily, parts of France and Spain have very similar climate.Greece as well. When. Is the last time you've heard of devastating fires there?

When is the last time you researched a claim or talking point before passing it along?

https://www.google.com/search?q=italy+forest+fires&tbm=isch
https://www.google.com/search?q=sicily+forest+fires&tbm=isch
https://www.google.com/search?q=France+forest+fires&tbm=isch
https://www.google.com/search?q=Spain+forest+fires&tbm=isch

Here are PICTURES of devastating forest fires in every place you claim experience less or none of compared to California. Now go ahead and tell us "the reason" these raging blazes pictured here never materialize.

Automan Empire says

prove afterward that they are not an idiot.

Idiots can't do that.

You can, however, admit that years of bad forest management is what has caused the horrible wildfires. That and some leftist arsonists that want to burn it all to the ground.

Or you can blame global warming.

Squirrels...

Our leftist enviro-geniuses here out West do the same stupid shit with wildlife management. You can't shoot the deer in the Auburn area and given we're the only predators left of any significance they over populate. Every several years when they do they eat up all of the edible food. Then they start going into peoples yards to eat whatever else they can find which is basically inedible for them. After that they start to get mangy. Next they start to die off and drop all over the place.

Puts up a hell of a stink. People have to go out and buy lye to spread over the areas that the deer died in their yards/property.

A small number survive and the cycle starts all over again.

Onvacation says

years of bad forest management is what has caused the horrible wildfires.

You keep saying "bad forest management" no matter how many times it is pointed out that 100% burn to bare earth does not prevent out of control fires on the exact same land the very next year. I'm convinced you have zero actionable ideas or plans to actually manage wild lands, because all you bring to the discussion are vague talking points that you're unable to explain or defend.

just_adhom_preaching says

Our leftist enviro-geniuses here out West do the same stupid shit with wildlife management.

And you have run out of talking points to throw at the wildland management discussion, so you've pivoted to another partisanized talking point on a different topic to maintain your schema of "other sportsball team bad, our shit doesn't stink."

Mell, can you defend your claim that Europe doesn't experience fires like the western US, or are you ready to admit that wasn't a viable argument?

Patrick, have you looked in to the population age distribution of the long-lived plant species I mentioned and found any insight there?

Automan Empire says

it is pointed out that 100% burn to bare earth does not prevent out of control fires on the exact same land the very next year.

True. But it has also been pointed that the area previously burned either by controlled burn or by wild fire do not see as high flames as they do in the "virgin" areas. (I don't pretent to be an expert in forestry - I heard it on local public radio).

Eric Holder says

area previously burned either by controlled burn or by wild fire do not see as high flames as they do in the "virgin" areas.

The area around Calabasas had "high enough flames" to burn out of control for days and jump the 10 lane interstate 101 two years in a row, so again you're engaging the topic with some levels of abstraction and fantasy regarding fire behavior and control strategies.

Automan Empire says

Eric Holder says

area previously burned either by controlled burn or by wild fire do not see as high flames as they do in the "virgin" areas.

The area around Calabasas had "high enough flames" to burn out of control for days and jump the 10 lane interstate 101 two years in a row, so again you're engaging the topic with some levels of abstraction and fantasy regarding fire behavior and control strategies.

Anecdotal evidence is just that. Controlled burns is a well-established fire management practice. Meaning that it works more often than it doesn't.

Superficial talking points that bear little to no connection to the topic are just that.

Automan Empire says

Superficial talking points that bear little to no connection to the topic are just that.

Read the scientific paper from Berkeley then: https://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Stephens-et-al.-CA-fire-area-FEM-2007.pdf

I won't even provide my summary of it to not taint the experience with "supreficial talking points".

Automan Empire says

The area around Calabasas had "high enough flames" to burn out of control for days and jump the 10 lane interstate 101 two years in a row,

BTW, "jump the interstate" is not a meaningful criteria here. Does or doesn't the flame reach high enough to kill mature trees is a criteria. In the forests where fires are not supressed for decades and/or prescribed burns are practiced mature trees survive just fine.

A friend showed me his burned out family property near Boulder Creek on some cell phone movies. He said there were seeds scattered everywhere in response to the fires when he went up to inspect. The houses on the courts nearby were all lost.

Ceffer says

A friend showed me his burned out family property near Boulder Creek on some cell phone movies. He said there were seeds scattered everywhere in response to the fires when he went up to inspect. The houses on the courts nearby were all lost.

There was a footage of some burned-out neighborhood in Santa Rosa with houses completely gone but mature trees standing intact. My personal takeaway from all this covfefe is that we need to allow small shit to burn and we need to harden our houses so they don't burn along with the small shit.

Eric Holder says

There was a footage of some burned-out neighborhood in Santa Rosa with houses completely gone but mature trees standing intact. My personal takeaway from all this covfefe is that we need to allow small shit to burn

Dingdingding... this is part of what I'm trying to make the talking point repeaters scrutinize. "Manage your forests" doesn't mean "Invest huge amounts of capital every year forever to remove and manage undergrowth to protect old growth tree stands." It means, "give oligarch class nepots a one time license to go in and remove commercially desirable mature trees THAT WOULD SURVIVE FIRES, while doing fuck-all toward immediate and long term fire management."

Large trees are able to survive forest fires. The top growth survives. The brush, which is mostly invasive garbage, burns to the ground. This clearing is very beneficial to the environment. It improves the soil, clears the way for healthy growth, and also attracts species to the forest.

Automan Empire says

You keep saying "bad forest management

Not allowing logging, clearing, or burning of excess fuel. Letting environmentalist dictate. Saving the spotted owl for a wildfire bbq.
What part of bad forest management don't you understand? I can try to help you.

Onvacation says

I can try to help you.

You've brought vague generalities to the discussion, and a snarky dismissive attitude, while ignoring the points and questions I raised in the thread.

Where is the non left wing plan for managing California's wildlands "better?" My entire thesis here is that it's the same as the non left wing plan for healthcare. "Let oligarchs dictate policy. Pursue short term goals and gains that benefit corporate patrons but screw the interests of every other resident of the state. Convince constituents that other sportsball team wants to take away their toys and they'll cheer and actively assist us as we work directly against their personal interests."

Show me some actual research and successful case studies of fire prevention methods. Show basic cost benefit analysis of your proposed solutions, E.G. the fixed annual cost to reach 25, 50, and 90% likelihood of fires not spreading beyond planned containment areas, in ONE SINGLE county.

I'm reminded of the Asimov quote about the greatest threat to democracy being the pervasive belief that it means "My ignorance is 1:1 equal to your knowledge."

Automan Empire says

a snarky dismissive attitude,

Yep.
Automan Empire says

Where is the non left wing plan for managing California's wildlands "better?"

Like I said before, logging, controlled burns, and putting people ahead of protecting "endangered" species "habitat" until it becomes a tinder box.

Newsom's (the left's) plan is to blame global warming and tell us to get used to the new normal.Automan Empire says

left wing plan for managing California's wildlands

Is there a plan?

Automan Empire says

Show me some actual research and successful case studies of fire prevention methods.

https://www.kkl-jnf.org/forestry-and-ecology/fire-prevention/forest-maintenance.aspx

California does not manage its forests well.

Automan Empire says

"My ignorance is 1:1 equal to your knowledge."

Yep.

Don't forget the decade long lawsuits, during which there's an injunction for most of it, preventing things like removing dead trees because of the Green Farting Tree Frog.

NoCoupForYou says

preventing things like removing dead trees because of the Green Farting Tree Frog.

Introducing ridiculous straw man ideas means you don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion.


Onvacation says

(Link) California does not manage its forests well.

I appreciate the effort to bring some solid reference material to the discussion. Israel's forested areas see over 40 inches of rain a year, and their terrain grades more directly from alpine into desert without analagous Mediterranean zones capable of burning the same 50,000 acres out of control 2 years in a row. Additionally, Israel is 1/14 the size of California with a much smaller percentage of land forested. Removing all mast and litter from beneath trees in our arid climate would kill them, just more slowly than fire. Therefore, copying Israel's forestry practices isn't a viable plan for California.

I've suggested starting with a cost/benefit analysis of clearing sufficient fire breaks initially then with maintenance every year after, at varying levels of certainty of preventing runaway fires. I'm betting it won't take too many years to reach and exceed the original cost of property losses in fires, while struggling to reduce fire damages below 50% of current time weighted averages.

The real problem in all of this, and why I argue so passionately about it, is that the real problem is we don't have the political, social, or fiscal WILL to address this problem by investing heavily in major prevention and altered forest maintenance practices. Politicians don't want an annual money pit like this on the books if they can avoid it and externalize the costs onto insurers and property owners. They'll gladly sell access to the trees and other resources in the name of wildfire prevention, but this is a once and done resource extraction that MAKES money for a select few, but does little to no good toward actual forestry and wildland stewardship.

Automan Empire says

just_adhom_preaching says

Our leftist enviro-geniuses here out West do the same stupid shit with wildlife management.

And you have run out of talking points to throw at the wildland management discussion, so you've pivoted to another partisanized talking point on a different topic to maintain your schema of "other sportsball team bad, our shit doesn't stink."

Good lord, all posts aren't about YOU. Look at the god damn title, it was more a reply to that. I have lots more where that comes from as well. I'd moved on because you're boring. Your reply belongs in the TDS thread.

Here, I'll back my shit up with respect to CA sucking with Eurotrash fires and forest management being a solution:

https://rivrlab.msi.ucsb.edu/sites/rivrlab.msi.ucsb.edu/files/publications/frem38.2_38.3_lambert_etal.pdf

Here's why you're boring:

1. Person makes post admonishing enviros, talks up land management as a solution.
2. You just bitch about how you hate hearing about forest/land management.
2a. You don't provide a single solution in the thread above, just bitchin.
2b. Lots of others agree with forest management but you imply they're stOopid.
3. You move on to bitchin about some mean old loggers who don't do the world right.

Do you even HAVE any ideas except do nothing? If you do and it's reasonable I could maybe get behind it. You mention you have land around grapevine. Maybe you're worried burns will get out of control and wipe out you're property? I could empathize with that. Something!?

Meanwhile, myself and others have backed up forest management and there is this thing called the forest service who's job it is to deal with that shit:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/fire

"Wildland fire can be a friend and a foe. In the right place at the right time, wildland fire can create many environmental benefits, such as reducing grass, brush, and trees that can fuel large and severe wildfires and improving wildlife habitat. In the wrong place at the wrong time, wildfires can wreak havoc, threatening lives, homes, communities, and natural and cultural resources.

The Forest Service has been managing wildland fire on National Forests and Grasslands for more than 100 years. But the Forest Service doesn’t – and can’t – do it alone. Instead, the agency works closely with other federal, tribal, state, and local partners.

This is more important than ever because over the last few decades, the wildland fire management environment has profoundly changed. Longer fire seasons; bigger fires and more acres burned on average each year; more

extreme fire behavior; and wildfire suppression operations in the wildland urban interface (WUI) have become the norm.

To address these challenges, the Forest Service and its other federal, tribal, state, and local partners have developed and are implementing a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy that has three key components: Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Safe and Effective Wildfire Response."

This is actually one of those rare cases where I think the government is best to play the role. But they ain't doing it for a variety of commie reasons. It's not the damn logging companies role to fix enviro-problems only to not create them.

I'll say this: Yes! In certain areas we should burn every year how about that? They used to burn rice paddies up in NorCal every year and it left a hellava cloud.

What is your solution?

Also, you sir need to REPENT!

Automan Empire says

NoCoupForYou says

preventing things like removing dead trees because of the Green Farting Tree Frog.

Introducing ridiculous straw man ideas means you don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion.

Oh, I'd say it has at least 89.6% to do with the conversation.

Automan Empire says

I've suggested starting with a cost/benefit analysis of clearing sufficient fire breaks initially then with maintenance every year after, at varying levels of certainty of preventing runaway fires. I'm betting it won't take too many years to reach and exceed the original cost of property losses in fires, while struggling to reduce fire damages below 50% of current time weighted averages.

Ha! Posted while I was writing...

Finally, thank you, I think those are great ideas. Should have said that up front. That's part of forest management and fire management so we all agree! Others may want to do much more though like moi. We sure as shit pay for it here.