These fires are not new and have nothing to do with global warming.
That's a bit of wishful thinking. Devastating fires used to be once a generation, give or take. Now they're 2 or 3 a year, simultaneous.
But yeah, PG&E. In a weird sort of flip-flop of your and my usual positions, I tend to blame the hippies, NIMBY landowners, newcomers and 7th-generation Californians: I remember lawsuit after lawsuit stopping PG&E from mowing their rights-of-way.
The paper said today that PG&E are filing for bankruptcy.
Yeah, it's interesting. Is ConEd going to buy it up? Who's going to run it? I assume it's a way for them to not pay out in the lawsuits but keep bringing the juice.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Jan 15, 2019 - 3:12pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
kurtster wrote:
These fires are not new and have nothing to do with global warming.
That's a bit of wishful thinking. Devastating fires used to be once a generation, give or take. Now they're 2 or 3 a year, simultaneous.
But yeah, PG&E. In a weird sort of flip-flop of your and my usual positions, I tend to blame the hippies, NIMBY landowners, newcomers and 7th-generation Californians: I remember lawsuit after lawsuit stopping PG&E from mowing their rights-of-way.
The paper said today that PG&E are filing for bankruptcy.
Posting here is equal to publishing. It is publicly noted with a time stamp.
Twisting words and meanings (by equivocating) isn't gonna work: prove it and get it published (since we're talking science, like climate science and geography, that obviously means in a peer-reviewed scientific outlet, not some internet forum).
So population growth, arson and careless utilities have no major measurable affects towards the increases ?
yeah, right ... me, if I were to draw a correlation to the rate of increases of fires to the rate of population growth, I bet I would beat your science.
1. Straw man: Who made that claim? Right, you did. 2. Prove it, and get it published. (keep in mind correlation vs. causation)
So population growth, arson and careless utilities have no major measurable affects towards the increases ?
yeah, right ... me, if I were to draw a correlation to the rate of increases of fires to the rate of population growth, I bet I would beat your science.
These fires are not new and have nothing to do with global warming.
That's a bit of wishful thinking. Devastating fires used to be once a generation, give or take. Now they're 2 or 3 a year, simultaneous.
But yeah, PG&E. In a weird sort of flip-flop of your and my usual positions, I tend to blame the hippies, NIMBY landowners, newcomers and 7th-generation Californians: I remember lawsuit after lawsuit stopping PG&E from mowing their rights-of-way.
Yeah ... and PG&E is in a weird mess. Once they were clearly habitually negligent and then they were prevented from being proactive and keeping their right of ways tidy.
California is a very arid climate to begin with. SoCal is an irrigated Sonoran Desert. NorCal is humid inland around Sacto, but not so much when you get away from the rivers and Delta. I'd say that the increase in population has more to do with the devastation that global warming. There have been wildfires forever, from lightning to a host of other reasons. But in the 50's through the 60's the population was only around 10 to 15 million. It's now 40 million. Not to mention the increase of arson. More people, more arsonists ... and they are responsible for many, many fires.
There are simply a whole lot more things to burn and be counted. Once uninhabited places are now densely populated. If only trees burned like used to be the case, it would be no big deal.
But anyway, PG&E is a mess and has caused a whole lot of pain and suffering in the state. Everyone loses, there are no winners.
These fires are not new and have nothing to do with global warming.
That's a bit of wishful thinking. Devastating fires used to be once a generation, give or take. Now they're 2 or 3 a year, simultaneous.
But yeah, PG&E. In a weird sort of flip-flop of your and my usual positions, I tend to blame the hippies, NIMBY landowners, newcomers and 7th-generation Californians: I remember lawsuit after lawsuit stopping PG&E from mowing their rights-of-way.
This probably wouldn't be so bad if they would allow the dead trees to be removed from all the forest.
And there was better management of those forest lands.
There's all kinds of dead and diseased trees in our local mountains and everywhere else in California.
Restricted laws and regulations in this State won't allow this to happen in an efficient manner.
All it takes is some idiot with a match or the idiot utility companies here in California for a disaster.
Pacific Gas and Electric has been pretty much the blame for the huge Napa fire last year and for this recent Paradise / Camp fire because of downed power lines.
Southern California Edison was to blame for the huge fire in Los Angeles/ Ventura county fires last year for the same reason.
And our wonderful governor just gave them a pass.
The others were arson related.
Rain is coming in a form of a winter weather pattern starting mid next week.
This is absolutely correct. Once upon a time in California, these things did happen. It was called conservation. Managing land and resources for the betterment and safety of the residents. Logging, removing brush and deadwood, cutting fire breaks and controlled burns to prevent these things from happening.
Most of the laws enacted that prevent these things from happening were created by new arrivals from the east who have no idea how the ecology of California works and worked in the past.
Edit : I remember as a kid when we lived up in the Berkeley Hills in the early 60's, my Dad would do a controlled burn of the grass along side of our house every year. He kept referring to the Wildcat Canyon Fire and how this was a preventive measure against something like that. He was also building four homes on Wildcat Canyon Road at the time. The Wildcat Canyon Fire made the 1991 Berkeley firestorm look like a weenie roast. My Mom lost a sorority sister in the 1991 fire. Her body was never found.
Here's another story on the fire I found while noodling around. It lays blame to a, wait for it ... a PG&E downed power line (as verified in the pdf posted below) ... Our house in the hills which my Dad built was on Cragmont Road, a street mentioned in the story. Fire! From Wildcat Canyon to Zeta Tau AlphaThe story even has footage of the fire.
These fires are not new and have nothing to do with global warming. It is just part of living in California. Just like earthquakes ... That and PG&E's continued negligence coupled with screwy environmentalists making the environment more dangerous and unsafe by refusing to recognize reality. The oft referenced 'Diablo winds' are the same Santana's for us old folks or the Santa Ana's as the PC culture now call them. The same winds that fueled the Paradise Camp fire and the fires down in SoCal.
And more reading from a pdf ... This is just the history of one town in California. Earlier in this thread I mentioned how many times Malibu Canyon has caught fire when a video was posted.
PG&E to file for bankruptcy as wildfire costs hit $30 billion. Its stock plunges 52% . PG&E Corp. said Monday it plans to seek bankruptcy protection because it faces potential liabilities of $30 billion or more from the deadly California wildfires, a move that halved its already battered stock price and prompted its chief executive to quit.
a gmo goat or goat-like critter that preferred dead trees brush?
It's the grass. Keep the grasses down and the stray spark isn't going to be such a problem.
Certainly, selective logging and occasional cleanup of these inhabited forest areas is worthwhile, but off in the actual forest, just allow grazing... cattle, sheep, etc. Goats aren't really the cash crop in and of themselves, so it costs money to have them come out and chew and poop, but a sheep ranch would be more likely to say "hey, free sheep chow!"
But anyway: eat the grass. (Erosion isn't a real consideration as it's the roots that do most of the control. Leave some stubble... perfect.)
Thanks for this insight; I'm not an ecologist or scientist at all but this reflects traditional approaches to fire management in Australia, I think. The NPWS (forest service) certainly runs with a 'scorched earth' policy to burning around Sydney which also cloaks the city in smoke for weeks at a time in May- it probably wouldn't be so bad with a more strategic approach.
There has been some activity in Victoria to engage the aboriginal groups to learn from their traditional burning methods (where that memory hasn't been lost!). When they burned across the street from my house, they left patches unburned. I'm sure they do things differently when they are burning large park areas.
Location: The Valley Of The Sun near Canberra Gender:
Posted:
Nov 19, 2018 - 2:58pm
haresfur wrote:
Not as simple as it seems, though. The under-story plants are ecologically very valuable, so you want to make sure they can recover. That means you should burn smaller patches and burn more often. Better for the animals, too.
Thanks for this insight; I'm not an ecologist or scientist at all but this reflects traditional approaches to fire management in Australia, I think. The NPWS (forest service) certainly runs with a 'scorched earth' policy to burning around Sydney which also cloaks the city in smoke for weeks at a time in May- it probably wouldn't be so bad with a more strategic approach.
This is absolutely correct. Once upon a time in California, these things did happen. It was called conservation. Managing land and resources for the betterment and safety of the residents. Logging, removing brush and deadwood, cutting fire breaks and controlled burns to prevent these things from happening.
Most of the laws enacted that prevent these things from happening were created by new arrivals from the east who have no idea how the ecology of California works and worked in the past.
Edit : I remember as a kid when we lived up in the Berkeley Hills in the early 60's, my Dad would do a controlled burn of the grass along side of our house every year. He kept referring to the Wildcat Canyon Fire and how this was a preventive measure against something like that. He was also building four homes on Wildcat Canyon Road at the time. The Wildcat Canyon Fire made the 1991 Berkeley firestorm look like a weenie roast. My Mom lost a sorority sister in the 1991 fire. Her body was never found.
Here's another story on the fire I found while noodling around. It lays blame to a, wait for it ... a PG&E downed power line (as verified in the pdf posted below) ... Our house in the hills which my Dad built was on Cragmont Road, a street mentioned in the story. Fire! From Wildcat Canyon to Zeta Tau AlphaThe story even has footage of the fire.
These fires are not new and have nothing to do with global warming. It is just part of living in California. Just like earthquakes ... That and PG&E's continued negligence coupled with screwy environmentalists making the environment more dangerous and unsafe by refusing to recognize reality. The oft referenced 'Diablo winds' are the same Santana's for us old folks or the Santa Ana's as the PC culture now call them. The same winds that fueled the Paradise Camp fire and the fires down in SoCal.
And more reading from a pdf ... This is just the history of one town in California. Earlier in this thread I mentioned how many times Malibu Canyon has caught fire when a video was posted.
Once upon a time there was a budget for conservation. Since Brown was elected into a HUGE mess left by Schwarzenegger, its been an uphill battle to get it back under control. Much like the one that Obama inherited from Bush Boy. The CCC https://ccc.ca.gov/ does an excellent job but there are only so many of them to go around. I don't think there is blame on climate control, directly. Let's face it though, it is indirectly to blame because the droughts are much longer and more frequent.
Extensive prescribed burning- called hazard reduction burning here- is carried out every autumn in SE Australia. Large sections of remote national parks and forest reserves are set alight in April and May- relatively calm and cooler months here. The obvious downside is smoke pollution, which can be a problem in Sydney because it's in a basin (similar to Los Angeles). Hazard reductions don't prevent all large bush/wild fires but they are useful in fire mitigation, particularly in residential areas at the urban/bushland interface.
Unfortunately, firebugs (arsonists) are the main cause of uncontrolled fires here. You can bet on a fire starting, in certain areas, whenever a hot and windy day occurs.
Not as simple as it seems, though. The under-story plants are ecologically very valuable, so you want to make sure they can recover. That means you should burn smaller patches and burn more often. Better for the animals, too. You don't want the fire to be too hot and cook the seed-bed, but you need things dry enough to burn. In many areas the tree density is higher than it should be, because people chopped everything down and we ended up with a bunch of young trees.
Then there are the times the burns get away from them, and it really pisses people off when the Fireys torch their houses. With climate change, and the policy to increase prescribed burns after the Black Saturday fires in Victoria, the burn season and the fire season run into each other.
I should go rake up the yellow gum bark across the street from my house.
