NOT a good time to be living in Arizona

[CrusaderFrank]

Yarnell, Arizona, 2013, 19 firefighters killed by wildfire.

Would that be what you're referring to, QM? Seems kind of flammable to me.

Yarnell Arizona is in the middle of a fucking forest. Do you understand the difference between forests and deserts, asshole?

Do you understand that Arizona has both, idiot?

And our High Desert in Oregon has now had several really catastrophic fires. Sagebrush burns hot and fast, and we have had several burns that cover over a hundred square miles. And you are paying more for beef in the stores because of the damage to the rangeland there. The local papers in that very rural area of Oregon have now published maps, front page, of the drought areas in the west.

About 75% of the west is in drought. That means higher prices for wheat, beef, and vegitables. And less of all of them. But that means nothing to our denialists.

This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yarnell, Arizona, 2013, 19 firefighters killed by wildfire.

Would that be what you're referring to, QM? Seems kind of flammable to me.

^ Uses the death of brave men to push their sick, anti-science agenda

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can tell it's a Cult when they can't point to a single lab experiment that shows how a 100PPM increase in CO2 can cause warming or forest fires, drought and floods, so they have to use the death of firefighters to push an agenda.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is like Voodoo, you'd better believe or they cast bad juju spell on you and kill men fighting fires

 

[mamooth]

Yarnell Arizona is in the middle of a fucking forest. Do you understand the difference between forests and deserts, asshole?

Awww, did the Republican suckup who pretends to be independent get caught acting really stupid yet another time? Why yes, that was the case.

The article pointed out there were bad wildfires in Arizona. QM thus immediately decided it had to be liberal propaganda because Arizona was 100% desert and there could be no wildfire in desert. So now, after it gets pointed out there are assloads of wildfires in Arizona, he looks really dumb. But instead of quietly slinking away in disgrace, which would mitigated some of his screw up, he's going full out with the belligerent stupidity routine. Hey, good luck with that.

QM, your problem is the way your knee instantly and mindlessly jerks towards the hatred at anything you perceive as coming from a liberal. Since the liberals are the rational and moral ones, that means your troublesome knee is always jerking you towards stupid and immoral behavior.

Frank, on the other hand, is just a drunken 'tard. That's why nobody pays any attention to him. QM hasn't descended to Frank's level ... yet.

 

[westwall]

Crown fires and ground fires. A lot of differance between the two. Normal high desert sage fires make strips hundreds of yard wide and mile long. Regenerate grass, and provide feeding grounds for the birds of that area. The remaining sagebrush provides cover for nests. The fires that we have seen in the last decade burn hundreds of square miles, and it takes a couple of years for even the grass to get going again.

Over the past two decades we have seen a large increase in the catastrophic fires in the West. That you deny this is in keeping with your propensity to lie in defense of your insane ideology.

That is true, but forest management, well mismanagement to be honest, is the prime cause of devastating wildfires. the Forest Service tried to stamp out all fires and thus huge quantities of fuel have built up and in those areas where conservationists have tried to reduce the fuel load the environmentalists have prevented it.

Here in the Tahoe basin the environmentalists have been instrumental in the powderkeg that has developed here.

 

[PredFan]

LOVE Arizona! Anytime is a good time to live there.

 

[PredFan]

New UA center aims to prepare Tucson, world for climate change

We’re going to have to adapt to more huge wildfires, prolonged heat waves, electricity brownouts, floods and severe droughts and other more extreme events in the future, thanks to climate change, says the director of a new University of Arizona research center that will try to help people do that.

“That’s really how people experience climate change,” says Kathy Jacobs, director of UA’s new Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions. “The idea that climate change impacts happen slowly and incrementally is really the wrong way to look at this.

“People are confident in their ability to take off another layer of clothes or put on the thermostat. What is of greatest concern is extreme events,” said Jacobs, a longtime Tucsonan who recently returned here after working four years as a scientist for the White House in Washington, D.C. “People get caught by surprise all the time, but there’s no need to be surprised. We can actually be prepared.”

Meanwhile, coastal cities have fewer options.

OMG! OMG! The sky is faaaallllllliiiiinnnnnnnggggggg!!!!!

 

[PredFan]

Another year, another doom and gloom forecast from the global warming nutters.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZzzzz............

 

[Abraham3]

I refuse to explain anything to jackasses.

I'm not the PredFan whisperer.

 

[mamooth]

Westwall's tree-thinning mania, a big government giveaway to timber companies (no doubt another reason Westwall likes it) is bad for both people and forests. But he'll still embrace it to the point of someone else's death, just to avoid admitting the dirty liberals were right again.

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/forestrypilot/files/JMP_attachment.pdf
---
Moreover, most “thinning” projects allow removal of many of the larger trees in order to make the projects economically attractive to logging companies, and to generate revenue for the public land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service. Where this is done near homes, it can increase the danger of structures burning. The removal of larger, mature trees in thinning operations tends to increase, not decrease, fire intensity by: a) removing large, fire-resistant trees; b) creating many tons of logging “slash” debris – highly combustible branches and twigs from felled trees; c) reducing the cooling shade of the forest canopy, creating hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor; d) accelerating the growth of combustible brush by reducing the mature trees that create the forest canopy, thereby increasing sun exposure; and e) increasing mid-flame windspeeds (winds created by fire) by removing some of the mature trees and reducing the buffering effect they have on the winds associated with fires (Hanson and Odion 2006, Platt et al. 2006). The scientific evidence clearly indicates that, where it is important to reduce potential fire intensity (e.g., immediately adjacent to homes) this can be very effectively accomplished by thinning some brush and very small trees up to 8 to 10 inches in diameter (Omi and Martinson 2002, Martinson and Omi 2003, Strom and Fule 2007). Removal of mature trees is completely unnecessary.

A July 20, 2008 article by Heath Druzin and Rocky Barker in the Idaho Statesman documents an excellent example of effective home protection. The article describes the Idaho town of Secesh Meadows, which decided to get serious about creating defensible space by reducing brush immediately adjacent to the homes. A high-intensity wildland fire approached the town, but dropped down to a slow-moving low severity fire once it reached the populated area. The fire burned right through the town, right past front porches, and kept moving, but did not burn down a single home. As resources are being spent on counter-productive commercial thinning projects that are hundreds of yards, and sometimes several miles, from the nearest town, homes remain unprotected in rural forested areas. This is entirely preventable.

...

Contrary to popular misconception, areas that have missed the greatest number of natural fire cycles, due to fire suppression, are burning mostly at low-and moderate-intensity and are not burning more intensely than areas that have missed fewer fire cycles (Odion et al. 2004, Odion and Hanson 2006, Odion and Hanson 2008). The notion that forested areas become increasingly likely to have high-intensity effects the longer they remain unburned is simply inaccurate. Instead, as the time period since the last fire increases, forests become more mature, and develop higher forest canopy cover. This reduces the amount of pyrogenic (combustible) shrubs, which need more sunlight, reducing overall high-intensity fire occurrence, based upon several decades of data from the Klamath mountains in California (Odion et al. 2009). It also reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and understory. In such conditions, surface fuels stay moister during the fire season, due to the cooling shade of the forest canopy, and, due to reduced sunlight, forest stands begin to self-thin small trees and lower branches of large trees. This makes it more difficult for flames to spread into the forest canopy during wildland fire.
---

 

[jc456]

Spring Training is over!

 

[Abraham3]

Mamooth's information is absolutely correct. Selectively cutting mature trees is of benefit to the lumber industry but is the absolute worst strategy for producing a healthy, mature, fire resistant arboreal ecosystem.

 

[editec]

If the Yellowstone Caldera erupts (and TODAY there are reasons to be concerned that its about to) GLOBAL WEIRDING concerns are going to take a back seat to the much more immediate problems stemming from that disaster.

Ironically the Yellowstone Cadera eruption might end any fear we have of Global warming and make the much more immediate problem GLOBAL WINTER.

The last three super-eruptions have been in Yellowstone itself. The most recent, 640,000 years ago, was a thousand times the size of the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980, which killed 57 people in Washington. But numbers do not capture the full scope of the mayhem. Scientists calculate that the pillar of ash from the Yellowstone explosion rose some 100,000 feet, leaving a layer of debris across the West all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

Pyroclastic flows—dense, lethal fogs of ash, rocks, and gas, superheated to 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit—rolled across the landscape in towering gray clouds. The clouds filled
entire valleys with hundreds of feet of material so hot and heavy that it welded itself like asphalt across the once verdant landscape. And this wasn't even Yellowstone's most violent moment.

An eruption 2.1 million years ago was more than twice as strong, leaving a hole in the ground the size of Rhode Island.

In between, 1.3 million years ago, was a smaller but still devastating eruption.

Each time, the whole planet would have felt the effects. Gases rising high into the stratosphere would have mixed with water vapor to create a thin haze of
sulfate aerosols that dimmed sunlight, potentially plunging the Earth into years of "volcanic winter." According to some researchers, the DNA of our own
species may pay witness to such a catastrophe around 74,000 years ago, when a supervolcano called Toba erupted in Indonesia. The ensuing volcanic
winter may have contributed to a period of global cooling that reduced the entire human population to a few thousand individuals—a close shave for the
human race.



e.

National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, that would be a double whammy. First, 5 years to a decade of global winter, then very rapid global warming. You see, that would be a pretty good dose of CO2 in itself. But it would also put an end to the aerosols put out by India and China. And everyone else, for that matter. But the GHGs in atmosphere would not go away, and the aerosols from the eruption would be gone in a decade. Then we would have clear skys, with a CO2 load of about 400 ppm.

As for Yellowstone being due, that is true. However, due on a geologic time scale, not that of a man. It is almost certain to erupt in the next 50,000 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The best thing about Yellowstone erupting is that I'd never have to hear another stupid "Manmade Global Warming" warning ever again; small price to pay if you ask me

 

[Toro]

I own property about 100 yards from the beach. I'm hoping we get global warming so that the ocean rises just enough so I'll have beachfront property.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go driving up and down the Interstate for 6 hours to help the process along.

 

[Stephanie]

I own property about 100 yards from the beach. I'm hoping we get global warming so that the ocean rises just enough so I'll have beachfront property.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go driving up and down the Interstate for 6 hours to help the process along.

 

[mamooth]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go driving up and down the Interstate for 6 hours to help the process along.

The 3rd Law of Human Stupidity.

The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity

"A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses."

Hence, the laws of human stupidity define Toro to be a stupid person. Stephanie too, since she endorses it.

The 4rth Law of Human Stupidity explains why one should avoid deniers in all aspects of life.

"Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake."

 

[flacaltenn]

Westwall's tree-thinning mania, a big government giveaway to timber companies (no doubt another reason Westwall likes it) is bad for both people and forests. But he'll still embrace it to the point of someone else's death, just to avoid admitting the dirty liberals were right again.

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/forestrypilot/files/JMP_attachment.pdf
---
Moreover, most “thinning” projects allow removal of many of the larger trees in order to make the projects economically attractive to logging companies, and to generate revenue for the public land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service. Where this is done near homes, it can increase the danger of structures burning. The removal of larger, mature trees in thinning operations tends to increase, not decrease, fire intensity by: a) removing large, fire-resistant trees; b) creating many tons of logging “slash” debris – highly combustible branches and twigs from felled trees; c) reducing the cooling shade of the forest canopy, creating hotter, drier conditions on the forest floor; d) accelerating the growth of combustible brush by reducing the mature trees that create the forest canopy, thereby increasing sun exposure; and e) increasing mid-flame windspeeds (winds created by fire) by removing some of the mature trees and reducing the buffering effect they have on the winds associated with fires (Hanson and Odion 2006, Platt et al. 2006). The scientific evidence clearly indicates that, where it is important to reduce potential fire intensity (e.g., immediately adjacent to homes) this can be very effectively accomplished by thinning some brush and very small trees up to 8 to 10 inches in diameter (Omi and Martinson 2002, Martinson and Omi 2003, Strom and Fule 2007). Removal of mature trees is completely unnecessary.

A July 20, 2008 article by Heath Druzin and Rocky Barker in the Idaho Statesman documents an excellent example of effective home protection. The article describes the Idaho town of Secesh Meadows, which decided to get serious about creating defensible space by reducing brush immediately adjacent to the homes. A high-intensity wildland fire approached the town, but dropped down to a slow-moving low severity fire once it reached the populated area. The fire burned right through the town, right past front porches, and kept moving, but did not burn down a single home. As resources are being spent on counter-productive commercial thinning projects that are hundreds of yards, and sometimes several miles, from the nearest town, homes remain unprotected in rural forested areas. This is entirely preventable.

...

Contrary to popular misconception, areas that have missed the greatest number of natural fire cycles, due to fire suppression, are burning mostly at low-and moderate-intensity and are not burning more intensely than areas that have missed fewer fire cycles (Odion et al. 2004, Odion and Hanson 2006, Odion and Hanson 2008). The notion that forested areas become increasingly likely to have high-intensity effects the longer they remain unburned is simply inaccurate. Instead, as the time period since the last fire increases, forests become more mature, and develop higher forest canopy cover. This reduces the amount of pyrogenic (combustible) shrubs, which need more sunlight, reducing overall high-intensity fire occurrence, based upon several decades of data from the Klamath mountains in California (Odion et al. 2009). It also reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and understory. In such conditions, surface fuels stay moister during the fire season, due to the cooling shade of the forest canopy, and, due to reduced sunlight, forest stands begin to self-thin small trees and lower branches of large trees. This makes it more difficult for flames to spread into the forest canopy during wildland fire.
---

I might agree if that was ONLY Forest Science practice the green weenies didn't like. But it's not lumber harvesting (dead, diseased, with enough virgin timber to make it economical) --- it's also the controlled burns and fire ACCESS roads and fire breaks that they oppose as part of the management plan.. To them --- Forest science is a sham and should be outlawed. Because it advocates for unnatural MANAGEMENT of forest and multi-use policies..