Wildfires

Mark7

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I just did a search on Google for "dew weapons California" - without quotes. I was a bit surprised to find a lot of hits in the top 10 that support the claim that DEW or direct energy weapons are not such a far-flung explanation for the California Fires.

Google does a good job of suppressing viable "conspiracy theories" but seems to be propagating this one. So the powers-that-be are sending shafts of energy/light down from the heavens to burn houses in Cali? Why? Are they advertising the fact that they want to do us in? The DEW meme is rampant on FB, epidemic in fact. Seems like this meme is being 'stoked'.

I don't by it. This is cover for something else perhaps. :evil::whistle::evil:
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Wildfires Continue To Devastate California Communities | Sierra News Online
CALIFORNIA – The deadliest fire in the state’s history continues its path of destruction through Butte County in northern California as the death toll rises to 48 in the Camp Fire.

Meanwhile, firefighters continue their battle against the Hill and Woolsey Fires on the southern end of the state.

There are currently more than 9,300 firefighters assigned to these three incidents, covering 1,179 fire engines, 121 dozers, 161 hand crews, 123 water tenders, 45 helicopters and numerous firefighting air tankers from across the state, along with numerous out-of-state resources.

These wind-driven fires have burned more than 237,151 acres and destroyed thousands of structures.

Currently, two strike teams of Type 3 engines from the Madera-Mariposa-Merced Unit are fighting fires off the unit, along with one team of Type 1 engines plus ground crews and dozers.

Extremely dry conditions and dangerous fire weather will continue to challenge crews into the weekend.

In the Northern Region, other than occasional breezy conditions, winds are forcast to be lighter through the rest of this week. However, conditions will remain very dry with above normal temperatures, so elevated fire weather conditions will persist through the week. Widespread poor air quality due to smoke will likely continue.

In the Southern Region, strong Santa Ana winds will continue today with sustained winds at 20-35 mph with gusts 45-55 mph expected. Higher gusts are possible in the mountains and other prone locations.

Relative humidity will remain low with extremely dry conditions ranging from 3-10 percent, with poor overnight recoveries. Critical fire weather conditions will persist today. After winds decrease later this afternoon, elevated fire weather will linger throughout the week.

With these current extreme fire conditions throughout the state, Cal Fire warns everyone, “Don’t wait to evacuate! You should already be PREPARED and GO! early. If you see fire approaching, don’t wait to be told to leave.”

To learn more on preparing to evacuate, click here.

Click on the links below for detailed information on each of these fires.

Current fire information:

Camp Fire, Butte County (more info…)
Paradise, Pulga, Concow and Magalia
  • 135,000 acres, 35% contained
  • Evacuations and road closures remain in effect
  • There are currently 5,615 personnel assigned to the incident including 630 engines, 99 crews, 23 helicopters, 105 dozers and 74 water tenders.
  • Estimated 6,867 structures destroyed. Most destructive and deadliest fire in California recorded history
  • Cal Fire Incident Management Team 4 (Derum) assigned
  • For a map of the Camp Fire evacuation zone, click here.
Hill Fire, Ventura County (more info…)
Santa Rosa Valley
  • 4,531 acres, 94% contained, expected containment date is Nov. 15
  • Cal Fire Incident Management Team 5 (Parkes) assigned. IMT#5 managing both Hill and Woolsey fires
  • Two structures have been damaged and two destroyed
Woolsey Fire, Ventura County (more info…)
South of Simi Valley
  • 97,620 acres, 47% contained
  • Evacuations and road closures remain in effect
  • Cal Fire Incident Management Team 5 (Parkes) assigned. IMT#5 managing both Hill and Woolsey fires
  • Click here for the evacuation map of the Woolsey Fire
  • 483 structures have been destroyed, 86 damaged, 57,000 are currently threatened
  • There are currently 3,685 personnel assigned to the incident including 544 engines, 62 crews, 22 helicopters, 16 dozers and 46 water tenders
  • There have been 3 firefighter injuries and 2 civilian fatalities
#CampFire: 911 dispatch audio from firefighters in Paradise on Nov. 8
Published on Nov 13, 2018
Audio from 911 dispatchers illustrates how firefighters and public safety officials remained calm and steadfast as they worked to rescue trapped civilians in Paradise, Calif. when the #campfire broke out on Nov. 8
#CampFire: Retired Brentwood fire captain escorted caravan to safety in Paradise
Published on Nov 13, 2018
Retired East Contra Costa Fire Captain John T. Foster and wife Patty had recently moved to Paradise after living in Brentwood for 35 years where he worked for the ECCFPD. The Camp Fire on Nov. 8, 2018, destroyed their home, which was not yet insured, in Paradise.

 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
What is clearly shown by that Magalia video is something that it is REALLY hard to get people to accept: in forest fires, trees generally don't burn to the ground, houses and cars do! Why? Because the water content of the average tree is much higher than that of the average house or car.
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
16/11/2018 - Number of missing people in California wildfires doubles to over 630
[URL="https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/16/number-of-missing-people-in-california-wildfires-doubles-to-over-630#spotim-widget"]Number of missing people in California wildfires doubles to over 630[/URL]

[URL='https://www.euronews.com/2018/11/16/number-of-missing-people-in-california-wildfires-doubles-to-over-630#spotim-widget']The number of people declared missing in one of California’s catastrophic wildfires has more than doubled to 631, as the struggle continues to contain one of the biggest blazes the US state has ever known.


The Camp Fire, which broke out a week ago in the drought-affected Sierra Foothills 280 kilometres north of San Francisco, has left at least 63 people dead. Another three people died in a fire in Southern California.

The revised official list of people unaccounted for, issued by the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, leapt from 297 – a figure given earlier on Thursday – to 631.

Sheriff Kory Honea said nearly 300 people initially reported as missing had been found alive, and the list would keep fluctuating as people were found safe or identified among the dead. At an evening news briefing he said the remains of seven more victims had been located since Wednesday.

The sheriff has asked relatives of the missing to submit DNA samples to help identify the dead. He said some of those unaccounted for many never be found.

Paradise devastated
The high number of dead and missing is attributed to the speed with which the flames, driven by high winds and facilitated by parched scrubland and trees, raced through the town of Paradise.


Most of the town – nearly 12,000 homes and buildings – has been destroyed, and an army of firefighters, many from other states, joined the struggle to contain and suppress the flames.

Those who survived the fires but lost homes have been moving in with friends or relatives, or staying in emergency shelters. Dozens of people have pitched tents or slept in cars outside a Walmart store in Paradise.

In Southern California, where there have been several smaller fires, the Wolsey Fire has been linked to at least three deaths and hundreds of destroyed buildings in the hills around Malibu, west of Los Angeles.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) said on Thursday that a greater perimeter of both the state’s major fires had been contained.

Across the state, more than 9,000 firefighters are involved in the fight to contain the fires.

Trump visit
The White House has said Donald Trump will visit California on Saturday to meet people affected by the disaster.
Last weekend the US President
blamed “gross mismanagement” of the forests for the fires, and threatened to withhold federal payments.

Trump’s comments, which came shortly after he Trump issued an emergency declaration to allow US government funds to be used to tackle three blazes, prompted an angry response from firefighters.

Some experts have called into question forest management methods. But scientists largely attribute the disastrous wildfire seasons California has experienced over the past couple of years, to prolonged drought symptomatic of climate change.

Published on Nov 15, 2018 (1:18 min.)


Number of people missing in California wildfires spikes to more than 600
Published on Nov 16, 2018 (2:11 min.)

[/URL]
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
17.11.2018 - More than 1000 reported Missing, 71 Dead in Northern California Wildfire
More Than 1000 Reported Missing, 71 Dead in Northern California Wildfire

Remains of eight more victims have been found in Northern California wildfire, bringing the death toll in this disaster to 71, local authorities reported.

The number of people reported missing in Northern California wildfire has soared to more than 1,000, Butte county Sheriff Kory Honea said. The sheriff noted, however, that this was "raw data" saying that names might appear twice or three times in the list of unaccounted for individuals, while confirming every name in the list will require additional time.

Sheriff Kory Honea also said that the US authorities have recovered the remains of eight more people killed in the deadly wildfires. Previous figures put the death toll at 63.

An additional eight human remain were recovered… today. That brings the total number of human remains located and collected at this point to 71," Honea said at a press conference broadcast on the Butte county Fire Department's Facebook page.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Protecting California from devastating wildfires was the Legislature’s biggest focus in this year’s session. Recognizing the urgency, lawmakers formed a special wildfire committee, heard from numerous experts, and, after several emotional debates, passed a $1 billion new law they said would “prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect Californians.”

Less than two months later, the deadliest and most destructive fire in state history swept through the mountain town of Paradise, killing at least 48 people and destroying 7,600 homes. So, why didn’t the new law make a difference?

The short answer, according to Gov. Jerry Brown, is that “some things only God can do.”

“We are doing everything we can,” he said to reporters outside his office on Tuesday.

“We will respond as much as we can and as creatively as we can. But this is… what I call the new abnormal. The winds are faster, the temperatures are hotter, the soil and vegetation is drier. This is unprecedented, and it’s tragedy.”

The longer answer is that the complex negotiations that produced the new law left a glaring gap for 2018 fire damage. Many provisions of Senate Bill 901 have not yet taken effect, and even when they do, will impact the state gradually.

A key aspect will likely take years, if not decades, to complete: Thinning forests and removing dead and dying trees that have turned huge swaths of California into kindling. The law calls for spending $200 million a year over five years on clearing trees and brush to make forests less fire-prone—but the money doesn’t start flowing until 2019.

It also requires utility companies to come up with fire prevention plans—but those don’t begin until next year, either. And it creates a five-member Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery within the governor’s office to decide whether utilities can pass costs onto customers and suggest broader changes to liability laws. No commissioners have been named yet, and its first report isn’t due until July 1.

Even the most controversial and hard-fought part of the law—which makes it easier for utility companies to absorb the cost of fire damages by borrowing money and charging customers to pay it back over many years, a provision critics deemed a bailout—does not apply right now. It covers fires that burned in 2017, and those that start in 2019, but not any blazing this year.

“We have been overwhelmed by the risk of fire, and despite all the time and effort we put in, we are still unprepared,” clean-energy lobbyist V. John White told CALmatters. “It feels like it’s a bigger problem than we even imagined, and that’s all we spent most of the year working on.”

In addition to the main fire-prevention legislation, Brown signed more than two dozen bills in September that were inspired by 2017’s deadly wildfires, including measures meant to improve emergency alerts and insurance coverage.

But the shortcomings of the main prevention bill reflect how fraught it was to pass the legislation in an election year, with lawmakers facing pressure from utility companies and their labor unions—which are significant campaign donors—to loosen fire liability laws, and from fire victims and insurance companies to leave the liability law in place.

Lobbying on the issue was intense, with utilities spending twice as much as they normally do. They enjoyed support from some environmentalists who see the companies as critical players in California’s fight against climate change.

If the state is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by law, it needs the utilities to help build components such as charging stations for electric cars and battery storage for solar power. Utilities argued that the liability law was hurting their credit ratings, which makes it more expensive to build clean-energy projects.

In the end, lawmakers did not change the liability law (known as inverse condemnation) that holds a utility responsible for damages from any fire traced to its equipment, even if it was not negligent. Instead, utilities got the controversial provision allowing them to spread out the massive cost of their liability for the 2017 wildfires.

By the time that tradeoff was agreed on, though, with the clock ticking down in the final days of the session and legislators bristling at accusations they were bailing out PG&E, there was little appetite for complicating the fragile consensus by factoring in the 2018 fire season, according to several Capitol sources.

With existing laws still in place to handle liability for any 2018 wildfires, state lawmakers played the odds that utility companies could get through the rest of the year without facing bankruptcy from another catastrophe.

Now the devastation of the last week—and reports that a PG&E power line near Paradise had problems in the minutes before the Camp Fire began—make it likely that the debate will return to the Capitol next year. Shares of PG&E, which already had been sliding, plunged 46 percent Wednesday before ending down 25 percent for the day. PG&E is the state’s largest utility.

Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, said Tuesday that SB 901 is a “good first step” but that he would not opine about what other policies are needed until more facts are known about the latest fires in northern and southern California.

Though the source of the Camp Fire remains under investigation, PG&E said in its Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it would face potential liabilities far beyond its insurance coverage if its equipment is determined to be the cause. In a call with investors last week, PG&E’s CEO said the company will keep trying to change the liability law. “While we're pleased with the progress made, we will continue our focus on reforming inverse condemnation, including as part of the (governor’s) commission's work as it comes together during the upcoming legislative session,” Geisha Williams said.

A spokesman for state Sen. Bill Dodd, who carried the wildfire bill, said the Napa Democrat has no interest in taking on legislation to change liability. And he insisted the prevention aspects of the new law will eventually work. While utilities won’t have mitigation plans until February, the companies say they are insulating wires, adding fuses, deploying high def cameras, installing weather stations, and will proactively shut off power under extreme fire conditions.

“This may not be any consolation to somebody today, but going forward… utilities are going to have to put forth plans to keep their lines free of trees and for preventing new wildfires from starting,” said Paul Payne. “They’re going to have to have specific procedures in place that will prevent disasters.”

But Sen. Jerry Hill, a San Mateo Democrat who voted against Dodd’s bill, said the prevention plans aren’t enough. “My concern is that it allows the utilities to develop the plans themselves, and they haven’t been able to prevent the fires so far,” he said.

Hill, a longtime critic of PG&E, said he is considering legislation to in some way break up the company or shift it to government control. The idea is preliminary, and not at all fleshed out. But it’s another indication that lawmakers aren’t done tackling wildfire prevention. The biggest legislative issue of 2018 is set to make an encore next year.

CALmatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.


Tents, homeless residents fill potentially unsustainable fire victim encampment in Butte Co.
Updated: Nov 16 2018 06:18PM PST Video / 05:31
CHICO, Calif. (KTVU) -
The massive new homeless problem brought about by the Paradise Camp Fire problem already overwhelms what local and state agencies can handle.

On Friday, hundreds of people descended on the multi-agency relief center in the old Sears Building at Chico Mall. This is where people can apply for all kinds of local, state and federal benefits and programs. It is often a long, slow process.

But the real story is just across the street at the instant village next to and inside Walmart's parking lot, where KTVU met disabled veteran Les Herrick and his girlfriend.

"I've been kind of sleeping in my car for the last two days. We need to set up a tent. We need to stretch out. We're gonna stretch out and relax," said Herrick as he prepared to establish a location.

Besides this overwhelming worry, Herrick says he's been fighting with the Veterans Administration to recover $22,000 withheld from him due to a clerical error.

"Now we have this fire and I could really use that check today," said Herrick.

In a word, the camp grounds, though a well-intended, citizen supported effort, is in reality, a mess that mixes the long term homeless with the new homeless.

"It causes tension between those two groups because you have people who don't have a home any more feeling like these people who are homeless and just coming to take what is theirs," said Lorenzo Morrotti, a San Francisco State Student Journalist documenting the problem.

The ultimate question here: How long can this village be sustained? And that is a question that has no answer.

"These people need out of here immediately. This is a humanitarian crisis," said volunteer Good Samaritan Alexandra Kriz. Wayne Williamson not only lost his rental home, his employer's business also burned down, leaving him jobless and stuck here for now.

"I think it's not gonna last long here. It's not sustainable. The rains are coming. With all these low spots, it's gonna fill up with water. I see a lot of trash. Last night there's fights in the parking lot and I just don't think it is gonna be sustainable," said Williamson.

Pet groomer Alexandra Kriz had her staff shampooed evacuee’s dogs yesterday for free, but had to come back today with baby masks to help humans.

"I couldn't sleep last night and there was a little boy named Eric that I came to find out this morning that was looking at me. He's a year and a half old. He was in a car with no mask," said Kriz.

Additionally, there's the very real worry about eviction. "I heard one rumor on social media that this camp was going to be closed because homeless people had brought in guns and knives," said housing activist Patrick Newman of Chico Friends on the Street.

"There's rumors about them getting kicked out Sunday," said student journalist Morrotti.

"I'm not leaving. Where am I gonna go? I have no home to go to. Where am I gonna go?" asked Herrick.
Published on Nov 16, 2018 / 6:25
Drone footage provides a look at the Camp Fire's aftermath in Butte County. Video credit: Anne Onate/KTVU
 
Last edited:

Cleo

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
The earthquake forecaster, Dutchsinse discusses the California wildfires below a few minutes in after the 38:42 minute mark below:

 

angelburst29

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
December 18, 2018 - Fire engulfs 600 stilt homes in Brazil city Manaus; thousands flee
Fire engulfs 600 stilt homes in Brazil city Manaus; thousands flee | Reuters
Residents are seen after a fire at Educandos neighbourhood, on a branch of the Rio Negro, a tributary to the Amazon river, in the city of Manaus, Brazil December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Bruno Kelly

SAO PAULO - A fire raced through a neighborhood in the Brazilian jungle city of Manaus early on Tuesday, engulfing at least 600 wooden houses built on stilts due to seasonal floods and sending thousands fleeing from their homes.

No deaths were reported from the blaze, which authorities said may have been triggered by a pressure cooker. Four people were injured, and more than 2,000 people were forced to flee, Amadeu Soares, head of the Amazonas state security ministry, told reporters at the scene.

Soares said preliminary information from residents pointed to a kitchen incident involving an exploding pressure cooker as the possible cause, though a full investigation was under way.

Television images showed desperate scenes of residents trying to flee through tight, labyrinthine alleyways. Firefighters spent several hours trying to control the blaze, but struggled to prevent houses from going up in flames.

Such fires are common in poorer neighborhoods and slums in Brazil, where scant government planning during decades of rapid urbanization resulted in informal settlements sprouting up, housing millions who sought jobs in urban centers.
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It's a measure of how severe the tree die-off in California has been in recent years that when the state announced Monday it lost another 18 million trees in 2018, a top forestry official pronounced the result "encouraging."

12/02/2019 - California lost 18 million trees in 2018, adding fuel to future wildfires

California lost 18 million trees in 2018, adding fuel to future wildfires

That's because California lost far more trees in the three prior years, including a jaw-dropping 62 million dead trees in 2016, due to a combination of drought and bark beetle infestation.

With rain and snow in the state increasing over the last two winters, experts proclaimed an end to the seven-year drought. But the state still faces a heightened fire danger after more than 147 million trees were lost over the last nine years.

 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
With rain and snow in the state increasing over the last two winters, experts proclaimed an end to the seven-year drought. But the state still faces a heightened fire danger after more than 147 million trees were lost over the last nine years.
It's all a complex cycle for sure; growth, drought, disease, fire and regrowth - and there seems to be a narrowness in how people see cycles, like nothing should change quickly - their Darwinist view from a thousand feet. In saying this, it is a scary thing for people to be in drought conditions with fire on the horizon as the last couple of years has shown, yet it is a cycle people are in and there is not a great deal one can do if living there.

Related to fire, here up North of California the CBC was out to help convince people about the sequestering of Carbon of our mighty forests (they way it was presented) was stated as a false position - blaming it on facebook for whatever reason.

"Canada's forests actually emit more carbon than they absorb — despite what you've heard on Facebook"

My first though was, okay, so you say. Perhaps the author has spent time in forests and has figured it out, yet his words are telling as his talking points seemed from others:

"Our managed forest land hasn't been a net carbon sink since 2001"

Lol, according to what real bases I've no idea, yet he tells us:

You might have heard that Canada's forests are an immense carbon sink, sucking up all sorts of CO2 — more than we produce — so we don't have to worry about our greenhouse gas emissions.
This claim has been circulated on social media and repeated by pundits and politicians.
This would be convenient for our country, if it were real. Hitting our emissions-reduction targets would be a breeze. But, like most things that sound too good to be true, this one is false.
That's because trees don't just absorb carbon when they grow, they emit it when they die and decompose, or burn. {{yes, it's a cycle}}
When you add up both the absorption and emission, Canada's forests haven't been a net carbon sink since 2001. Due largely to forest fires and insect infestations, the trees have actually added to our country's greenhouse gas emissions for each of the past 15 years on record.
I could never figure out what abacus they used to do the additions and subtractions from, must be magical that they can figure all that out. However, he promises to reveal the math:

Not surprisingly, then, Canada has historically excluded its forests when accounting for its total greenhouse emissions to the rest of the world. We had that option, under international agreements, and it was in our interest to leave the trees out of the total tabulation, since they would have boosted our overall emissions.
But, just in the past couple of years, we have taken a different approach. We are now making the case to the United Nations that things like forest fires and pine beetle infestations shouldn't count against us, and that only human-related changes to our forests should be included when doing the calculations that matter to our emission-reduction targets.
By that accounting method, Canada's forestry activities would indeed count as a net carbon sink each year. But even then, they wouldn't cancel out our emissions from other sources. Not even close.

To understand why, we have to do a wee bit of math. {{drum roll}}

'More of a source than a sink'

First, the baseline. Our annual emissions.
Canada emits roughly 700 megatonnes of CO2 each year.
This does not include any impacts from forests or other parts of our landscape, such as wetlands and farmland. Canada has historically excluded land-use-related emissions and absorptions in its official accounting, and with good reason, if the goal is to reduce emissions on paper.

That's because our trees, in particular, have actually hurt our bottom line.
For the past 15 years, they've been "more of a source than a sink," said Dominique Blain, a director in the science and technology branch of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Canada's managed forests were a net contributor of roughly 78 megatonnes of emissions in 2016, the most recent year on record.



Canada's 'managed forest' includes all forests under direct human influence, covering about 226 million hectares in total, or 65% of Canada’s total forest area. (Natural Resources Canada)

This includes all areas that are managed for harvesting, subject to fire or insect management, or protected as part of a park or other designation. It covers some 226 million hectares and accounts for 65 per cent of Canada's total forest area.
In 2015, largely due to raging wildfires, these forests kicked a whopping 237 more megatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorbed.
But when you exclude natural disturbances like fires and insect infestations and look only at the areas directly impacted by human forestry activity, the picture changes.
It's these areas where forests act as a net carbon sink, year after year.
{...}
The bottom line is that our trees — along with our other, plentiful sources of biomass — could be part of the solution in meeting our international agreements on climate change, but that's more a question of accounting than of actual emissions.
{...}"
I'll leave the rest of his argument with the caveat that he would do well to leave all this megatonnes of C02 alone and focus on building a pipeline or something. The issue here, OSIT, is that although he writes for a relatively semi-conservative paper in a relatively conservative town, he is lost defending a carbon bar that was set - one side wants it set higher, and the other side defends a different accounting system to set it lower (or divide its definitions) when the whole thing is an illusory bar to begin with.

From the map he cited (let us take BC to the far left), yes, technically in 'some' of the green it is managed land if it is accessible - even if by extension of ministry ownership and licensees who buy license permits, yet it is not so simple. A great deal of that green (especially to the North and in mountainous regions, is not even roaded for access, or, even accessible to manage in the first place even though it is still under forest license tenure - it is inoperable. Often, this managed land is only managed in the after effects born out of natural environmental damage whereby harvesting happens in some places to salvage bug and fire damaged trees in their life cycle on land if not difficult to reach. In the North north of the map, it is unmanaged because 1. there are little to no roads nor communities and 2. there are no facility to even process logs if it was logged and it could get there. So, it burns, gets eaten up by insect-critters, falls down, decomposes and new life cycle springs forth - it's pretty cool in all of its symbiotic details.

Now the author is not arguing against managed land per se, it is actually useful to his math, it is just that he appears to be trying to justify neutrality issues with hocus pocus C02 sequestering for those caught up in the game. It's a game played by powerfully environmental and corporate lobbies with government insiders of a pure STS nature (some with a rabid ideological natures that seem to just hate people), that is all it is. It is also a game to distract and milk peoples pockets while dividing them from more important issues, and it is of course lucrative for those playing it - even the environmentalists seeking funding from Soros et al. to help them do battle. For them the Paris Accord is their holy grail, and that is settled they say.

Another thing perhaps worth mentioning here is the many older senior biologists who were drummed out of their positions earlier than should be (sometimes with a vengeance) in favor of new biologists who had an AGW indoctrinated leaning who became those who would help set policies in many disciples. I guess this is akin to a secondary ponorogenic effect.

Born out from these new policy makers - and I'm sure it is happening in many part of the world, is that in the name of AGW (not climate change which is ongoing) they have created new modeling tools for forests. Having been walked through these models, they are projecting their stewardship by eliminating species or modifying which types and where species are planted. What does this future forest of their's look like? Take that map of BC and consider that their model predicts drought (which is a steady factor) and saying for hundreds of years, possibly thousands, this species grew here and we are now saying we need to grow something different or, not grow anything there. The modeling pushes the numbers down which effects the inventory of the future and all that that means (driving consumer prices up with a more multinational corporate approach which can and does weed out small communities). With the model, they can even steer sequestering of carbon policy (which ups the tonne price) to whatever ends they are looking for.

All this is a big subject yet the direction of it is a crooked mile from reality.

Lastly, as this relates to fire directly, this past season in the heat of summer with fires smoking up the valleys, there was a gentleman in town who wrote a letter to the editor bemoaning (this is in BC) the Forest Service for not doing enough to fight fires - and he went through this whole mathematical gymnastics of sequestering carbon on a balance scale against fire - statistics flowed like an avalanche. In the end, fires bad - must put them out. He went further, denouncing forest fire fighters for not doing enough in BC, to forest managers for not controlling the bugs (MPB et al.); he wanted everything to be taken care of, darn it. By the end of his letter he had done a good job at raising his blood pressure while rallying the AGW environmental troops with a new mission. If there were (and there are in droves) believers to what he was saying, there is no-doubt he could convince them of buying low tide water front property on the Bay of Fundy.

Scratching my head, I thought about the size of BC - 944,735 km2 (364,764 sq mi); it's really big, and it is mostly un-roaded and very difficult even for a water bomber aircraft to reach (not that that always can do much good), let alone the North West Territories which he also threw under the bus with the rest of Canada. Thinking to myself, has this fellow ever worked on the end of a fire hose in a fire, let alone one that would reach the far elevations of a mountain or to the tundra in the North? What logistics could he possibly be missing with his understanding of the nature of this vast geographical wildfire attacking of his? It was truly amazing. Does he understand that mother nature does her thing and there is no telling her to back down, let alone forcing the issue with her, although there are attempts to steer her? Does he not get that some places are so remote that there is nothing you can do even if one wanted to? Does he understand the thermodynamics and speed of a wildfire in full rage? I don't think any of that matters at all, what matters is his 'understanding' of carbon and the ability to be forceful with his faithful followers to reduce it and blame man. Confirmation bias does the rest.












 

angelburst29

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Firefighters battled a series of wildfires in Britain on Wednesday, including a large moorland blaze outside the northern English city of Manchester, as the country experienced its warmest winter weather on record.

February 27, 2019 - Wildfires rage across Britain after hottest Winter day on record

Wildfires rage across Britain after hottest winter day on record
A fire is seen burning on Saddleworth Moor near the town of Diggle, Britain, February 27, 2019. REUTERS/Jon Super

A fire started on Tuesday evening on Saddleworth Moor, an expanse of hills that is popular with hikers. It has since spread to an area about one-and-a-half square kilometers.

The fire comes after Britain recorded its warmest winter day with a temperature of 21.2 Celsius in Kew Gardens in London.

Slideshow (6 Images)
Wildfires rage across Britain after hottest winter day on record
 
Top Bottom