NOT a good time to be living in Arizona

[westwall]

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.
---

You idiots are all alike aren't you. You complain about a small company making a few bucks on timber management and blissfully toss billions to a corrupt company like Goldman Sachs. You must be a major stockholder in that scurrilous company as much as you support those pricks.

The reality though is that when the forest isn't thinned, it gets choked with fuel, then when the fire does come it DESTROYS everything, there is nothing left. If the fuel is cleaned out, then you get a nice fire that burns through the ground cover but leaves the crowns of the trees intact.

If you weren't such a political whore you would KNOW that.

 

[westwall]

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.

We're not talking about mature tree cutting moron, we're talking about removing fallen, and sick tree's. Something you idiots fight tooth and nail against.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yeah, good luck with that. Based on the fact that it takes years for the ash and particulates for a small eruption to filter out it will take decades to centuries for the crap to filter out in a Caldera eruption. Your "theory" has no empirical evidence to support it. Just more of those worthless computer models.

 

[westwall]

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."

"The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity"- See any post made by the admiral.

 

[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.

Yeah, good luck with that. Based on the fact that it takes years for the ash and particulates for a small eruption to filter out it will take decades to centuries for the crap to filter out in a Caldera eruption. Your "theory" has no empirical evidence to support it. Just more of those worthless computer models.

You are so full of shit, Walleyes. You have just repeated another lie. Even the Tambora sulphates and ash were out of the atmosphere in a few short years.

How Volcanoes Work - volcano climate effects

PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.

Two years for Pinotubo. Maybe five years for Tambora. Possibly a decade for Yellowstone. Those are the facts, not computer models.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

Yeah, good luck with that. Based on the fact that it takes years for the ash and particulates for a small eruption to filter out it will take decades to centuries for the crap to filter out in a Caldera eruption. Your "theory" has no empirical evidence to support it. Just more of those worthless computer models.

The effects of fairly large volcanic eruptions can be seen in a number of climate parameter records and the directly measured presence of aerosols, sulfates and what-not have been monitored for eruptions for probably the last 50 years. There is a great deal of empirical evidence that the system will respond as he suggests it will respond.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yeah, good luck with that. Based on the fact that it takes years for the ash and particulates for a small eruption to filter out it will take decades to centuries for the crap to filter out in a Caldera eruption. Your "theory" has no empirical evidence to support it. Just more of those worthless computer models.

The effects of fairly large volcanic eruptions can be seen in a number of climate parameter records and the directly measured presence of aerosols, sulfates and what-not have been monitored for eruptions for probably the last 50 years. There is a great deal of empirical evidence that the system will respond as he suggests it will respond.

No there isn't. There is no empirical data to support his assertion in the slightest. What we DO have is the experience from Krakatoa which was a large explosion, but nothing on the order of a caldera eruption, and it took 5 years before the global temps returned back UP to their former levels. And that wasn't even the worst one of that century, Tambora was even bigger and once again it took five to six years .

But once again, far, far smaller than a caldera eruption. 11 cubic miles of material as opposed to 600+ cubic miles of material.

There is simply no comparison.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yeah, good luck with that. Based on the fact that it takes years for the ash and particulates for a small eruption to filter out it will take decades to centuries for the crap to filter out in a Caldera eruption. Your "theory" has no empirical evidence to support it. Just more of those worthless computer models.

You are so full of shit, Walleyes. You have just repeated another lie. Even the Tambora sulphates and ash were out of the atmosphere in a few short years.

How Volcanoes Work - volcano climate effects

PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.

Two years for Pinotubo. Maybe five years for Tambora. Possibly a decade for Yellowstone. Those are the facts, not computer models.

Bullpoo (you fling it so well!) it was five years after Krakatoa and around 6 years after Tambora before the temperatures rose back up to pre-eruption levels.

You're simply full of crap.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Phd Geologist, link some articles demonstrating that I am not correct.