Tweeted Trump, as the big fires burned. Insensitive? Why did he choose to provoke during the fire?
Of course, the criticism was entirely predictable and harsh. Here's "President Trump's tweet on California wildfires angers firefighters, celebrities" (CNN). Excerpt:
The president of the California Professional Firefighters said the message is an attack on some of the people fighting the devastating fires. "The President's message attacking California and threatening to withhold aid to the victims of the cataclysmic fires is ill-informed, ill-timed and demeaning to those who are suffering as well as the men and women on the front lines," Brian K. Rice said....Trump came back some hours later with 3 tweets. The first 2 take a more compassionate tone, and the third one gets back to his original point:
"This is an absolutely heartless response," singer Katy Perry tweeted. "There aren't even politics involved. Just good American families losing their homes as you tweet, evacuating into shelters."
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio also weighed in, blaming the fires on climate change. "The reason these wildfires have worsened is because of climate change and a historic drought," he tweeted. "Helping victims and fire relief efforts in our state should not be a partisan issue."
1. "More than 4,000 are fighting the Camp and Woolsey Fires in California that have burned over 170,000 acres. Our hearts are with those fighting the fires, the 52,000 who have evacuated, and the families of the 11 who have died. The destruction is catastrophic. God Bless them all."
2. "These California fires are expanding very, very quickly (in some cases 80-100 acres a minute). If people don’t evacuate quickly, they risk being overtaken by the fire. Please listen to evacuation orders from State and local officials!"
3. "With proper Forest Management, we can stop the devastation constantly going on in California. Get Smart!"
Posts
135 comments:
Also stop using forests for oily rag disposal.
Scott Adams says on forest management and insensitive, the important thing is whether it's true.
Trump is right.
How about during times of high risk, like during the Santa Ana winds, you fly a bunch of drones with thermal imaging and smoke sniffing sensors over your forests? California can afford a high speed rail system from nowhere to nowhere but it can’t afford to fly a couple dozen drones to look for fires early?
The president of the California Professional Firefighters said the message is an attack on some of the people fighting the devastating fires.
Wut? Criticizing forest management practices is an attack on some of the people fighting the fires? I suppose some of the people fighting the fires are forest service personnel. However, criticizing a practice is not the same as attacking someone. As for the substance, I've read articles stating that forest management practices can and do contribute to the ferocity of the fires. That fire suppression efforts allows underbrush and dead plant material to accumulate, causing fires to be much more severe when they do break out. Thus the phrase "controlled burn" and Smokey saying, "Only you can prevent wild fires.
As I recall, they jail you for clearing out brush around your home.
The resident trolls will be along any minute now to explain why Trump is wrong and Governor Moonbeam’s policies have been right, notwithstanding the devastation and loss of life.
I would also like to point out that Los Angeles is located in a desert and the only reason that people can live there is by diverting water from another location, which has devastating effects to the area that is being deprived of water. If you really care about the environment you shouldn't be living in L.A.
Enough with the global warming already, Leo; quit trying to politicize a tragedy.
This has been an issue for a while, and not just in California. Creating fire breaks to protect against such a problem removes a lot of trees, and has to be actively managed to keep the 'scar' through the forest that way. It's not pretty, but practical and essential.
There's often lot of talk from people about others living in disaster zones (specifically, 'idiots who live on the east coast in the path of hurricanes). It's all about preparation: a lot of people who live in such zones accept the risk. Both government and individuals bear the responsibility.
However, Trump does have poor timing - just like the libs who call for gun control after a shooting.
Somehow it's ok for Democrats to launch into polemics about gun control after a mass shooting, even before the dead are buried, but the President isn't allowed to discuss something as relatively apolitical as forest management after a wildfire?
singer Katy Perry AND Actor Leonardo DiCaprio also weighed in
Well, now we've heard from The Experts!
As James K said, didn't we hear from these Experts on gun control last week?
Trump burned his message in their amygdala or is it hyppcampotamus
3...2...1.....How long before they scrub the internet...https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/wildfires/
Insensitive? Why did he choose to provoke during the fire?
I am going to disagree with both Althouse and shiloh. The timing is dead on. I assume that neither shiloh nor Althous are aware that in the past there’s been this kabuki theater where (1) they wait until the fires are out, (2) committees are formed “to investigate,” (3) earnest self-proclaimed invite themselves in to testify that it’s the fault of global warming, meanwhile (4) the California forest managemrnt people stonewall requests for information, so that (5) eventually it all goes away and nothing changes.
Trump is shining a flashlight into into a dirty kitchen and the rats and cockroaches fon’t Like it one bit.
Yesterday we commemorated bad management of political affairs culmination in bad negotiated settlement with more bad management.
I agree with Big Mike @ 7:50 am.
Who is leaving the kitchen all dirty?
And turned out the lights?
"I am going to disagree with both Althouse and shiloh. The timing is dead on."
Where did I say the timing was bad?! Your reading is what's bad. Don't jump to see what you're afraid you see or what you want to jump to attack. You will make a lot of mistakes that way.
I wish Twitter was nothing more than a bad dream from which I could wake. Remove Twitter and we're a semi-sane people again. At this point, I'd take 'semi'.
Tweeted Trump, as the big fires burned. Insensitive? Why did he choose to provoke during the fire?
Of course, the criticism was entirely predictable and harsh. -- Althouse
Just because you didn't use the word "timing" your words indicated to me "to provoke during", says "timing".
The areas of California that are burning are what ecologists at least used to call "fire climax communities", regions where burning periodically renews the landscape, and sets off a cycle of regrowth. It's ugly after they burn, but not particularly harmful. A few years after a burn the chapparel actually looks better.
Fire in Ecosystem Distribution and Structure: Western Forests and Scrublands
The problems occur when people try to build on them. First, the temptation is to prevent the fires nearby, making the fuel accumulation problems worse, and raising the consequences of the resulting fires. Management of these areas is inherently problematical. Preventing fires in the short term means that the fires that eventually result are bigger and more damaging.
”Somehow it's ok for Democrats to launch into polemics about gun control after a mass shooting, even before the dead are buried, but the President isn't allowed to discuss something as relatively apolitical as forest management after a wildfire?”
Trump made it political by threatening to withhold federal funding. If he wants to make threats, the worst time to pick is while the fires are still burning, while homes and businesses are still burning down, while people are still dying, some burning to death in their cars as they tried to flee. It’s not surprising, given that he is a bully and sociopath without an iota of feeling for any other human beings. .
GIs do not start wars; politicians do.
"Less government, more personal responsibility, and with God's help a better world"
Robert Cook said...
Trump made it political by threatening to withhold federal funding. If he wants to make threats, the worst time to pick is while the fires are still burning,
When should Trump bring up the bad forest management in California? When there are no fires? I would think that most of the people who: have to flee, or lose their homes, or die in these fires, want something done, but it's the politicians from California who are the problem.
"the worst time to pick is while the fires are still burning,"
and yet, as pointed out previously, waiting for the "best time" has meant that nothing gets done.
“ but the President isn't allowed to discuss something as relatively apolitical as forest management after a wildfire?”
1. Yes, I would like my President to be a bit more Presidential.
2. Tweeting is NOT discussing.
What Fritz at 8:12 said.
It natural for the forest in the L.A. basin to catch fire periodically. In fact, its necessary. What's not natural or necessary is building homes in that forest while actively working to prevent taking steps to mitigate the risk and severity of those fires.
The president of the California Professional Firefighters thought "if there weren't any fires I'd be out of work!"
Singer Katy Perry sung, "The ants are my friends."
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio also weighed in, "they're blowing in the wind."
99% Invisible is a really interesting podcast devoted to highlighting how design we don't overtly notice very much affects our lives.
A few months they had an episode entitle Designed to Burn.
Trump is right.
And he is particularly right in wanting to cut off federal funding, because that is helping to perpetuate fire suppression, instead of accommodation.
Robert Cook: so we should let a crisis go to waste?
There are lots of people who build their dream home up in the woods here in MT too. I wanted to do that. Nature all around. But I never got it together. Im out on the flats. But now I think now I'd worry so much during fire season...
I ask these people, don't you worry? and they go stone cold on me. It's a lovely life if you don't think about it.
They're all in denial. And demand top notch emergency services from us.
If he wants to make threats, the worst time to pick is while the fires are still burning, while homes and businesses are still burning down
So remind me when you've criticized all the Democrats screaming about gun control in the wake of mass shootings, while the bodies are still warm. And don't say it's different because Trump is President--Obama did this too.
"Just because you didn't use the word "timing" your words indicated to me "to provoke during", says "timing"."
So... you're inferring that I meant that because he knew it would be provocative because of the timing, it was bad timing. Don't make leaps like that with me.
If you design your house right, it can survive a fire. There was an article a while ago in the la times, when I subscribed, about such a house.
Shake (wood) roofs are a thing of the past in Ca.
Every year in the la suburb I need to clear the slope of weeds per the fire dept.
Your timing, Althouse. Not Trump's.
Excellent comment about how global warming is always the excuse for fires.
I’m amazed at how Trump got the discussion going on bad forest management practices.
This was the best time for trump to comment, any other time would be ignored.
He has incredibly thick skin.
Trump is right--- in that forest management has been lacking or even prevented by many of California's eco sensitive and very stupid laws. Laws all made by people who probably have never been in a forest, or think that the wilderness is Disneyland populated with cute little deer and Spotted Owls which must be more important than people.
I can go into more detail (please don't you all say), since I live in this area of California and we see wildfires practically EVERY YEAR in our area.
Trump is wrong---- in that once a wildlands fire reaches a place like Paradise, it is absolutely impossible to stop because of the density of trees, many houses often with propane tanks that explode, roads that go nowhere, underbrush that hasn't been cleared in decades. No forest management in the world could save Paradise. You shouldn't build your home in a dense dark forest, no matter how pretty you think it is.
I'm very sad about this, as I lived in Paradise for years. My daughter was born in the now burnt Feather River Hospital. I still have friends there that I have no news about. The once pretty town is destroyed. People have died and lives are ruined.
Getting all pissy about something Trump says or doesn't say is extremely petty ....IMHO.
I’m amazed at how Trump got the discussion going on bad forest management practices.
THAT is his super power!! When Trump Tweets...people listen!! (And complain and cry and scream and yell....and then they realize he was right!!)
I forgot the quotes on "I’m amazed at how Trump got the discussion going on bad forest management practices." post prior!!
I fully agree with Trump. About 10 years ago, I was in LA for business. On the news, there was a story of a median just prior to a freeway merge that had overgrown with dry grass. It was news because drivers were complaining that they couldn't see traffic for the merge. The median had also been designated a fire hazard by the fire department. But some official in LA responsible for the environment was allowing the median to be cut because "the grass collects road debris and prevents it from getting into our rivers and streams and harming fish".
Ever since I watched that news story; I realized California is lost. They are allowing this to happen by voting for politicians that care more about immigrants from Honduras or fish in the sea than the people paying taxes. If they won't prioritize themselves, then I won't prioritize them either.
As for Trump, yep it is provocation. I find it mild compared to the blatant provocation happening in Arizona and Florida.
I've lived in the SF Bay Area for 25+ years. CA has had wildfires in every single one of those years.
But it's only the last couple years that we've had these wildly destructive fires that are so big the smoke affects us down here in the Bay.
Could be a coincidence but Trump (and anyone reasonable) is right to wonder why this is happening now.
The fires in Sonoma County last year were similarly explosive...and I don't think there has been an explanation either as to their cause or their rapid spread.
There was some talk that the Sonoma fires were traced back to some PG&E equipment that had become overgrown (sounds like bad forest management!) but I don't remember ever hearing a definitive answer on that.
Anyway, Orange Man Bad and all that, but there is a lot of deliberate incuriosity about an issue that affects everybody.
@Althouse (8:05), you wrote "Why did he choose to provoke during the fire?"
You emphasized the word "during" in your own post. Does not the emphasizing the word "during" suggest that you are more concerned by when Trump chose to tweet, as opposed to what he had to say?
Does not the emphasizing the word "during" suggest that you are more concerned by when Trump chose to tweet, as opposed to what he had to say?
What does that have to do with bad or good? I think provocation here is a good thing and Trump's timing was good. Althouse even put a question mark after "Insensitive", which suggests she literally questions if Trump's tweets are insensitive. I think there is a bit of it insensitive, the part which is provocative, but otherwise it is tough love. Hey Californians, fix your own damn state and quit messing with others.
You tell the truth (as Trump did) and morons explode. I live in the brushline in Los Angeles--my hillside is cleared the requisite distance. Yet fires happen in these brush covered hills and the fire helicopters and water bombers fly over my house to get to the fires. The last big fire that came up my canyon occurred in 1963; my house (and the homes around it) was built in the late 60's and as I planted the hillside, I could and did dig up fireburned roots.
He is making excellent points, at the most effective time to make them if you want to actually change the policies. The question is whether or not the California lawmakers will ignore them simply because it was Trump who made the statements.
I read a piece in a scientific journal a few years back (sorry, didn't keep the link) which — if all you read was the abstract and title — purported to show that fire as a result of “climate change” was a particular threat to the otherwise-thriving coastal redwood forests (redwoods are the tallest-growing trees in the world) of northwestern California. However, once one delved into the text of the article, it became clear that the real threat to the redwoods was a consequence of the buildup of excess fuel on the forest floor over the past century — the result, as (both Trump and) the piece said, of long-term bad forest management — basically the bite-back of the “Smokey the Bear” campaign.
Climate change is a convenient excuse to trot out when nature seemingly runs amok. But forest fires, while horrifying, are nature's way of cleansing diseased forests and starting afresh. In fact, some pine cones will only open to shed their seeds during a forest fire.
Took a motorcycle trip to Colorado, Montana and South Dakota a few years ago. Lots of dead and dying trees from bark beetle infestations. One of the states left the dead trees standing. The other two cut and disposed of them. Guess which state faced a massive wild fire the next year.
Burning/clearing under story has been a proven technique for decades. Only when Eco-correctness holds sway do you get the kind of policies followed by California.
@Leland, nice of you to defend Althouse, but she's capable of defending herself. I assert that the timing is not bad and not questionable. Does that mean it is "good"? I think it means that the timing is correct.
As Ron W. pointed out above, draining the water table in the mountains to keep the lawns of the beautiful people green is not ideal for the health of the mountains. Not only are our drier forests easier to ignite, but less healthy trees are more prone to Bark Beatles and other pestilence that kill whole stands.
For over a hundred years the national forest policy was to put all fires out immediately. This caused unnaturally large fuel loads to collect on the forest floor. Then the policy was reversed on dime and fires were all of a sudden allowed to take a "natural course" and burn..the obvious problem with this is that an unnaturally large fuel load does not produce a natural fire.
nice of you to defend Althouse
I'm not defending her; I'm trying to figure out why you are unable to read her comment correctly. Usually, you do better. I agree, she can defend herself, so quit deflecting with erroneous comments about what I'm doing.
BTW, for others think Trump is being mean; recall Obama didn't even want to help Texas when Texas had wildfires. Here's Politifact, which I often find questionable including how they write this story, on that topic.
Someone once said that climate change is the Letfy's God. When bad things happen to devout Christians, they call it God's will. When bad things happen to Lefties they claim it's climate change.
Of course, according the the WaPo Cnn nYt, etc. Trump is WRONG -like always.
But of course he's actually right.
California is too busy building the train to nowhere and handing out billions in graft or subsidizing Transgenders in SF then in fighting fires.
My suspicion is that many of these fires are being set to clear the land for MJ - but I have no proof of it.
Just like I suspected that Hollwyood's constant normalization of Pot smoking in film/TV in the 80s and 90s had to do with a lot of Hollywood execs being involved in the MJ business.
The redwood forest was a mess when we went there in 1993. Huge fallen trees just lying there. Plus all the undergrowth. Hubby said they need to clean it up! I was from socal and knew nothing about forest management. I thought it was "natural." But Nature would have burned it by now.
Did they ever clean it up?
@Leland, I believe that I did read Althouse's original post correctly. I will not be bullied out of my interpretation by you or her or anyone else. The timing is dead on the mark. I will stand by that, for the reasons outlined by me in my comment of 7:50.
Trump is right.
Those environazis don’t clear out the brush so it all piles up.
How stupid is that?
Those fires are like hurricanes. They have a season and don’t prepare.
Has Brown asked for federal help?
1. Yes, I would like my President to be a bit more Presidential.
2. Tweeting is NOT discussing.
It’s a way to get the conversation started.
BTW, for others think Trump is being mean; recall Obama didn't even want to help Texas when Texas had wildfires. Here's Politifact, which I often find questionable including how they write this story, on that topic.
11/11/18, 9:53 AM
Or Tennessee with the flood.
Temperature is a key factor affecting fire behavior. For each of the past 30 years the average temp on the planet has exceeded the average of the last century. Even assuming that 97% of climate scientists are wrong and human behavior is not a cause of the warming earth, that doesn't mean we should not try to do what we can to slow or reduce the trend, including using less fossil fuels and using more clean forms of energy such as solar and nuclear.
@steve uhr, if you were intelligent, you'd perhaps realize that a difference of a fraction of a degree Fahrenheit is negligible next to the presence of fuel in getting a fire to burn.
The aftermath of a Hurricane Sandy didn’t go smoothly either for some areas which voted republican.
Total global warming over the past 100 years or so is about 0.8 degrees. According to the ipcc
There are lots of problems with the historical data that exists and even more with how little of it there is but let's assume the number is correct.
So how much warming has there been in CA?
I call bullshit on blaming global warming. Even if you believe the 0.8 degrees.
PDTis right and NOW is the right time to be bringing it up.
John Henry
So, what's the temperature supposed to be today? As opposed to 100 years ago.
Why did he choose to provoke during the fire?
Because the public and the media have the attention span of a gnat. If the fire burns through the end of the month, as I've heard predicted, and he waits for a reasonable time after that (whatever a reasonable amount of time is), people will have fire fatigue and won't want to think about whether or no the forest management is doing what it need to. Also if he waits to comment, it will either be "too soon" after the fire or there will be another crises and he will be criticize for tweeting about something that's ended instead of focusing on what's happening.
Tl;dr - There is no "good" time, he'll be criticized regardless. They want him to be banal.
California has warmed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. Do you have the expertise to conclude that has had no impact on the prevalence and intensity of forest fires? Your doctorate is in what field Big Mike? I'm intelligent enough to realize that those with a Ph.D. In climate science or a related field prob know more than I do about climate issues.
"that doesn't mean we should not try to do what we can to slow or reduce the trend [of increasing temperature]"
Which is easier – changing the temperature of the earth, or better forest management?
What did the znative Americans do?
Leave it to pile up or clear out the kindling?
Or building a wall and allowing fewer people into Cali to save resources?
Who knew a fire could be intersectional?
Lololol
Which of the following can the State of California most quickly and effectively change – the temperature of the earth, or its own fire management practices?
That 0.8 increase, if it occurred, is nothing compared to the 20-30 degree swings that take place on each of the 365 days of the year in California.
Then, if you really want to get into it Steve, how do you calculate the daily average temp for a single station?
Middle of daily hi-lo?
Hourly readings and average them?
Average of noon and midnite temps?
Integrate continuously?
Other method?
You'll get very different numbers depending on which you us.
THEN how do you combine all these temps collected by different means into anything meaningful?
And that assumes that the thermometers are calibrated and properly read (they often have not been)
The historical temperature data is bullshit. Calculating a 0.01 year to year difference is bullshittier.
John Henry
It is mismanagement- federal and state (and, increasingly often, the judiciary system)- Trump is absolutely correct. I grew up in an area just as heavily forested, but with far more deciduous trees and their leaves, and where Fall fires in mountains and valleys were fairly routine (every 3-4 years)- there just wasn't the kinds of fire suppression that takes place in national and state forests, so the fuel was never enough to produce the kinds of explosive fires that have now become routine in California.
I now live about 60 miles west and about 90 miles south of the same mountain chain that I grew up in, but that part directly to the East is The Great Smoky Mountains, under the management of the Federal Government. There we see the exact same management you see in California- extreme fire suppression practiced over decades and little if any thinning or controlled burns. This eventually led, in November of 2016, to just exactly the same kinds of fires you see in California today- explosive and deadly. The only thing that kept it from being far worse was a fortunate rain storm that put most of it out just as it got massively out of control.
I think basically the state of California and the Federal Government have lost all the expertise and will to manage these environments properly. Nature is taking care of it for them by just burning it all down to the dirt. I thought, maybe, we had learned something from the 1988 Yellowstone fires, but here we are 30 years later seemingly having learned nothing at all.
That 0.8 increase, if it occurred, is nothing compared to the 20-30 degree swings that take place on each of the 365 days of the year in California.
Try living in Chicago with weather swings.
Steve,
Where did you get the 1.5 degrees for California?
Do you actually have a number or are you just using theipcc global average and assuming California is right on average?
John Henry
California is not special.
And calculating projections is now bullshit because via watts up:
...For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.
There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.
Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-exiting and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future....
They hid the decline AND had to lower their estimates by 1.5 degrees a few years ago AND couldn’t explain it. MICHAEL MANN coukdnt explain it. Lolololol
There are multiple sides to this issue.
Juan Browne has posted several videos on YouTube on the subject.
From 3 months ago: "California Wildfires 2018 - California's Unsustainable Legacy":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajPpP3vbD5c&t=656s
Browne is part of the forest fire fighting community in California and I suspect that like him the vast majority of forest firefighters in the region believe that controlled burns or focused logging to clear out excessive vegetation, or something similar, would be highly desirable.
He lives in the area of the Camp Fire, and he has been posting a video every day about the Camp Fire, and the one he posted on Nov. 8th is especially good since it shows something that is kind of astonishing about the whole situation. Not just that everything was extremely dry but that the fire spread through what looked like miles of waist-high brush.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43U0UWmiiL4
His update today is also relevant since he shows more footage of what the vegetation looked two days before the fire.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC1OCwlA2xU
Climate change is part of the story since the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has dramatically increased the speed at which plants grow. And this is particularly true for drier regions like California. Now there are good sides and bad sides to this increased plant growth. For one thing it is no doubt part of the explanation for the dramatically increased agricultural productivity that most of the world has experienced over the last 50 years (although of course there are other factors playing a role). But for vegetation in California I wouldn't be surprised if roughly 30% of the increased plant mass is a consequence of the increased carbon dioxide levels.
That still doesn't change the fact that majority of the increased plant mass is due to our suppression of natural forest fires which would have cleared out much of this vegetation before modern man.
Funny, I would have thought saying that we need better forest management would be seen as an attempt to save firefighters' lives, not as an attack on them, but I guess that's just me.
Do you have the expertise to conclude that has had no impact on the prevalence and intensity of forest fires?
Straw men are so easy to knock down. Having no impact is a very different thing from having a preponderant impact. Zero is such a small number!
I grew up in Eastern Kentucky- Appalachia. My friends and I, particularly my first cousin Doug, used to climb up to the mountain tops all the time, or I would go squirrel hunting with my father. There was no underbrush to climb through- we could literally take any path we wanted as the ground between the trees was relatively free of brush and detritus. That buildup never occurred because the mountain sides would have slow moving forest fires every few years, and no one put them out because they just weren't that dangerous, even in the driest Falls and Winters. I never really appreciated this fact until I was hiking the Smoky's one Summer about 20 years ago- you can't easily get off trail anywhere because the underbrush and detritus is just amazingly dense and intimidating- it is hard to find any path away from the trail that doesn't take hard labor to navigate- just tinder for a massive and deadly fire at some point.
California has warmed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895
Really? All of California?
Which parts of California? Malibu. Mt Shasta. Fresno. Coastal Areas: North where the Redwoods grow in the constant fog? South where the sun shines and it is endless summer? Low Desert areas at the Mexico border? High Desert near the Nevada,Oregon, Idaho border?
You talk like California is one homogeneous place.
What monitoring practices did they use in 1895?
I know that in the area where I live it was still the wild west in 1895. No one was concerned with monitoring the temperatures. They didn't even have reliable roads to get OUT of the high desert to the warmer Sacramento valley below. Going to town for supplies was a 4 day trip.
I look at the Weather Underground station on the net daily. https://www.wunderground.com
It is a really cool site that gathers information based on individually owned weather stations that report in your area. Even within our little valley, the temperatures that are reported are widely different depending on the location, sun effects, fog, nearness to water etc.
It was 29 degrees at OUR house at 8am and 19 degrees at one of the fire hall reporting station across the valley. Up on the bench higher than the valley floor it was 36 degrees. Make of this information what you will.
I make it that the numbers reported to affirm Global Warming are a crock of shit.
Which is easier – changing the temperature of the earth, or better forest management?
Paco, the answer would seem the proverbial 'no-brainer' but many Progs would choose the former. Really, they would. Not as being 'easier' but for 'saving the planet' and for other idiotic reasons.
@steve, I'm a mathematician. You have expertise in mathematical modeling? I have several under my belt. You would, apparently, be surprised that I am hardly the only mathematician who is appalled by the current state of our climate models. In a handful of words THEY HAVE NOT BEEN VALIDATED.
Or, you can watch Richard Feynman explain the essence of science.
Predictions have been made based on the models. Those predictions did not come to pass. The theory is broken and needs to be fixed.
Firefighters unions are committed Democrats. That is to say, facts are unimportant. Trump’s message isn’t about firefighters. It’s about preventing future fires.
Would that be compassionate?
Blogger steve uhr said...
California has warmed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. Do you have the expertise to conclude that has had no impact on the prevalence and intensity of forest fires? Your doctorate is in what field Big Mike? I'm intelligent enough to realize that those with a Ph.D. In climate science or a related field prob know more than I do about climate issues.
Sure. However, climate scientists are not expert in forest ecology, which is what we are discussing. Also, climate science has been very successful in hogging up research grants away from many other important branches of earth science. They do this by suggesting a warming environment will cause numerous disasters. So these people that many on the left worship have a huge conflict of interest.
FF Unions support democrats because they give them higher wages, better insurance and generous retirement packages. FFs are mostly republicans.
BM: the theory is not broken, it's just that our ability to simulate the biosphere is at a very crude stage. Scale and model resolution are the primary problems. What is broken is the academic fixation on funding disaster porn. There are lots of people doing very good work, but the rock stars who suck up all the oxygen are political animals.
DBQ asserts: I make it that the numbers reported to affirm Global Warming are a crock of shit.
Speaking of 'crock of shit', did you see this? Bill Gates with jar of feces
@Howard, good thing I am sitting down. I read your first sentence or two and interpreted them to mean “the theory is not broken because it’s not accurate,” but I peg you as somewhat left of center and you have written the first comment that I have read by anyone left of center to any degree that makes sense. Hat’s off to you.
The issue with blaming climate change is...time. Assuming we can mitigate climate change by reducing carbon emissions (a big and unproven if),
1) It will take time (years? decades?) to get carbon emissions down
2) It will take more time (years? decades? centuries?) for the reduced emissions to impact warming.
Meanwhile, the wildfires will burn, and climate change or not, good management is critical. Trump is right.
Forest management, encroaching human habitats (i.e. Choice), and individual negligence (i.e. Choice), not Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, are first-order forcings of risk to human life, animal life, and real property.
That's pretty much it, Bob.
What monitoring practices did they use in 1895?
They dug up dirt and looked at patterns in the soil, such as previous forest fires before recorded history... oh wait.
Wait more CO2 causes GW.
Trees give off CO2.
But I have to sacrifice.
Why don’t we just go with fewer trees?
Actually seeing red trees absorb co2
Until they die.
Then, as they rot or burn, they give it all back.
John Henry
California is just an inappropriate place for millions of people to live. The coast is subsiding into the ocean. The coastline is geologically unstable and then people go and build homes all over geologically unstable ground, that is situated in dry climate with lots of brush and little tress that normally burn from time to time.
It's the equivalent of building in a flood zone knowing a flood will occur one day where your house or building is.
Lyle: were you born stupid or have you worked hard to achieve it?
“Wait more CO2 causes GW.
Trees give off CO2.
But I have to sacrifice.
Why don’t we just go with fewer trees?”
Actually, animals give off CO2, and plants use it to create carbohydrates and O2, both of which animals need to survive. Also, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, probably not surprisingly, except maybe to some “environmentalists” tends to increase plant growth.
“Until they die.
Then, as they rot or burn, they give it all back.”
Think of it like this: rotting returns it slowly, while burning it returns it very quickly.
By all means, let's focus on the method and tone of Trump's comments and not the message.
A message that's 100-percent accurate, btw.
I agree with Big Mike @ 7:50 am.
Having lived in Southern California since the mid '70s these kind of plans, regulations by Sacramento by both Republicans and Democrats are the primary cause of wildfires today. No difference with the water issue. Sacramento and environmentalists have banned the construction of water reservoirs in Southern California for well over 20 years. We lose billions of gallons of water to the ocean every rainy season. But "hey" maybe I'll get to ride the "bullet train" to Fresno?
“ I'm intelligent enough to realize that those with a Ph.D. In climate science or a related field prob know more than I do about climate issues.”
Well, it depends on where their PhDs are. A number of the big names from the ClimateGate scandal are paleoclimitologists, or some such. Their expertise is in counting tree rings and the like. As was obvious when Mann’s “hockey stick” was exposed for being a statistical artifact, they aren’t statisticians, and many probably didn’t have more than a single statistics class. My guess is that they probably didn’t even start to understand the statistical absurdity that they were basing their prognostications upon.
I get into this discussion on occasion with my kid, whose recent PhD could be characterized as climate science related. Their university (CU Boulder) could be considered on of the strongest in this area, esp with NOAA, NCAR, NIST, and NREL in town. They remind me that they have taken an atmospheric chemistry class, and I haven’t. BFD. The question is not the first order CO2 greenhouse effects, but the amount of feedback that results from it. Whether it is positive or negative, and the amount and no one really knows the answer to that. My point though is that much of the climate change research is being done by extreme specialists, who, because of their narrow specialization, cannot even Hope to see the forest through the trees. When my kid brings up the atmospheric chemistry, I retort that they haven’t taken into account ocean currents, the albedo effects of different cloud types, or the statistical absurdity of determining world temperature from a daily average over the year of averaging the daily highs and lows, of several thousand data collection points around the surface of the planet, most of which are concentrated in more urban areas in esp N America and Europe.
Temperature is a key factor affecting fire behavior.
What is the perfect temperature of the Earth, Steve?
When did it happen?
Fritz at 8:12am I agree.
But in California they prevent fires from free burning because so many people have build in forested areas. The lack of fires in Arrowhead, as an example, caused by 'bark beetles', cost millions of trees to be infected resulting in the loss of billions of board feet of usable lumber. Fires kill such infestations, especially after droughts, which are common in Southern California.
Blogger Lyle said...
California is just an inappropriate place for millions of people to live.
I echo Howard's response @ 12:46pm.
But will ask Lyle, "where on this planet is it an appropriate place....to live...?" LOL!
Many of the fires are in or near federally managed forests that prohibit motorized vehicles, roads,and the removal of brush and dead trees.
Its a perfect recipe for wild fires of the current type. All this was originally caused by radical enviromentalists who wanted pristine forests.
I’v e hiked in many wilderness areas, and most are full of dead trees and overwhelmd with combustable brush.
I agree with "Hombre" @ 11:17am.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-state-firefighters-union-endorses-gavin-1516398297-htmlstory.html
State employees are the principal cause of the budgetary nightmare besetting California. Unfunded pensions will bankrupt the State.
Forests need a continual cycle of regrowth. Old trees are nice- but need to come down to make way for new ones. They do eventually die.
There are two ways to get the death of the old and regrowth of the new. The natural way- fires to burn off the old growth. If you keep suppressing the smaller fires, you'll continue to add deadwood- aka fuel- to the forest. And eventually, you'll get a fire that can't be controlled.
The second way, just as ecologically sound, is to log the forests. Cut the old growth down in sections. Turn the trees into lumber, use it for human endeavors. Create jobs, jobs for burly men. Petite women and wimpy men don't cut down and move forests. But that's unnatural, though ecologically sound. Can't have unnatural now, can we? Plus, jobs for burly men? Their time is done, in the past. The world doesn't need them anymore.
Ever hear of NY State's Adirondack Park? Covers NY's State Constitution declares it be kept "forever wild". When that constitution was adopted, it was thought that the mixed hardwood forest present in the area was the natural state of affairs, that it had always been that way, and if left alone, would always be that way. Mixed hardwoods in the area are not natural. They existed because the early settlers did a massive cut down of the pine forest that had previously existed, a pine forest that choked out all competing hardwood growth. In the early days of "forever wild" park management, some logging was allowed. Like with all institutions, rabid liberals took over. "Forever wild" is now defined as "No forest management". If a tree falls across a long existing path- it cannot be cleared or removed. It must stay where it fell. Deadwood can't be pulled out. I read a few years back that vast areas of the forest, left "forever wild", are turning from mixed hardwoods to a monoculture of Ash. What does a monoculture of Ash bring? Easy spread of the Emerald Ash Borer. The intent of the "Forever wild" provision was to keep the Adirondack Park a mixed hardwood forest, which was, after all, the natural state of the forest. Except, of course, it wasn't. NY doesn't suffer huge wildfires like CA does. NY is much wetter than CA. Given a real longterm drought, conditions in NY are ripe for an absolutely huge fire on a CA scale.
The choice is- manage forests, or put up with massive uncontollable fires. The fires are not unforeseen consequences of small fire suppression and lack of forest management. They are completely foreseeable, and it was predicted that would happen. And they're happening.
"California is just an inappropriate place for millions of people to live. The coast is subsiding into the ocean. The coastline is geologically unstable and then people go and build homes all over geologically unstable ground, that is situated in dry climate with lots of brush and little tress that normally burn from time to time."
California's population should form a mass caravan to Arizona.
Howard,
No, my geology professor in college loved making fun of Californians and where the built their homes and buildings.
I am glad that Trump is on this. And probably one of the loudest voices in his Administration is that of Sec of Interior Ryan Zinke. I was talking to a guy at the local shooting range in MT a year or so, who had been our Republican state Senator, at the time when Zinke had also been a stare Senator. They still talk quite a bit. I asked whether Zinke was talking to the Sec of Agriculture (where the USFS is located) about fires, and he indicated that he was doing so quite a bit. Zinke, a Republican from MT, understands the fire problem very well. He grew up around Glacier Nat Park, which includes and is surrounded by large pine, spruce, etc forests, which the last several years have faced continuous fire threats. Last summer was esp bad - on the west side, the tourist season was essentially destroyed by an August of air quality in the 200-400 range.
The problem, of course, is almost entirely human caused. They have been actively suppressing fires for a century now, with the resulting buildup of fuel - that burn hot enough to set the crowns of the several hundred foot Ponderosa Pine, firs, etc on fire. In a decent wind, embers can fly for miles, making controlling these fires increasingly difficult. These trees evolved to survive fires every decade of so, but have far less defense against the crown fires that we are now experiencing throughout much of the west. And, then, a couple decades ago, the USFS essentially shut down logging in these forests. Town used to have 3 lumber mills in town. Now there is one. And the sort of logging that used to be allowed aided in fire suppression, since they areas cut work as fire breaks. Not anymore. Plus, of course, the reality that building houses in the woods ultimarely results in significant resources being diverted from strategic fire fighting to building protection.
I stopped by the USFS ranger station in the next town west of us last year, and spent a half an hour or so talking with the informatio person at the front desk. Their normal operational budgets are getting slashed. We lost our USFS office in town this last year, and hours open to the public at other USFS offices are getting cut. Road and other infrastructure work is being postponed indefinitely, and as a result, facilities are deteriorating. Outhouse toilets aren’t getting emptied as often, etc. All because more and more of their budget is getting diverted to fighting fires. And, of course, they used to get some of their money from extractive industries (esp timber sales). Much less with the massive cut in those activities.
An appropriate place for millions to live? China, India, and Europe. The Native American population in California was never large for good reason.
“But in California they prevent fires from free burning because so many people have build in forested areas. The lack of fires in Arrowhead, as an example, caused by 'bark beetles', cost millions of trees to be infected resulting in the loss of billions of board feet of usable lumber. Fires kill such infestations, especially after droughts, which are common in Southern California.”
The problem here is that a lot of these evergreens, and esp pines, are evolved to survive forest fires coming through every decade or two. They have thick bark, and cones that open after fires. But that requires that they be healthy. Sick, and esp dead, trees are a fire hazard. They dry out, and that means that they are much more susceptible to fires coming through.
“California's population should form a mass caravan to Arizona.”
Except that they share the same water supply (along with S NV) - the Colorado River. Which means no more water. At least in the PHX area, wild fires are minimized, due to too much heat for much beyond desert and irrigated crops (have a cotton field right by the new house, and had an orange grove right by a previous house there).
California's population should form a mass caravan to Arizona.
Mexico. It’s only fair.
Blogger Ron Winkleheimer said...
The president of the California Professional Firefighters said the message is an attack on some of the people fighting the devastating fires.
Wut? Criticizing forest management practices is an attack on some of the people fighting the fires? I suppose some of the people fighting the fires are forest service personnel. However, criticizing a practice is not the same as attacking someone. As for the substance, I've read articles stating that forest management practices can and do contribute to the ferocity of the fires. That fire suppression efforts allows underbrush and dead plant material to accumulate, causing fires to be much more severe when they do break out. Thus the phrase "controlled burn" and Smokey saying, "Only you can prevent wild fires.
And if it is true that better forest management is needed, failure to manage forests properly is putting these heroes’ lives in unnecessary danger.
Evidence of human occupation of California dates from at least 19,000 years ago.[14] Prior to European contact, California Indians had 500 distinct sub-tribes or groups, each consisting of 50 to 500 individual members.[3] The size of California tribes today are small compared to tribes in other regions of the United States. Prior to contact with Europeans, the California region contained the highest Native American population density north of what is now Mexico.[3] Because of the temperate climate and easy access to food sources, approximately one-third of all Native Americans in the United States were living in the area of California.[15]
California is just an inappropriate place for millions of people to live. The coast is subsiding into the ocean. The coastline is geologically unstable and then people go and build homes all over geologically unstable ground…
This guy is full of misinformation. It's true that a lot of people (in places like Daly City) build too close to the San Andreas (and other) faults. However, contrary to popular, ignorant, myth, the California coast is not “subsiding into the ocean.” Indeed, California is much wider geologically than it was millions of years ago, as numerous “terranes” (continental fragments transported across the Pacific by plate tectonics) docked with what would be the state.
Prior to contact with Europeans, the California region contained the highest Native American population density north of what is now Mexico.
Not only that, California's sizable prehistoric population was maintained only by hunting and gathering (which normally is incapable of supporting large populations) — not agriculture. It was only the richness of California's environment that made it possible here — because the only agriculture native tribes in California knew was how to grow tobacco.
Blogger Howard said...
“FF Unions support democrats because they give them higher wages, better insurance and generous retirement packages. FFs are mostly republicans.”
I believe you are mistaken about firefighters mostly being Republicans.
Speaking of global warming, here's Jordan Peterson's take on it.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/08/jordan-peterson-global-warming-hype/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter
Bob from Alhambra
No sane person could read Trump's first tweet as in any way critical of the firefighters or area residents. But that doesn't matter any more. Trump needs to rein it in because even when he's right, he's wrong, and last Tuesday the GOP lost several House seats and maybe a couple of squeakers in the Senate, because he just can't stop provoking people.
I know it's a fine line to energize your base without energizing even more of the opposition, but I do not think he has found the right balance.
Folks, the population of Native American California was nowhere near as populated as China, India, or Europe. The environment there had something to do with it.
And homes on hills in coastal California are routinely undermined by the ground collapsing or moving underneath them. And homes there routinely go up in flames because they are built in places that routinely burn because it is natural for the vegetation to burn there.
As noted before (but it obviously didn't take), the reason why the American Indian population of California was much less dense than “China, India or Europe” is because those other areas historically were supported by agriculture. Indians in California were hunter-gatherers. This makes an enormous technical difference in what the land can support, even given the richness of California.
Beyond that, California does contain a great earthquake zone (ergo, the ground collapsing in places, etc.). That doesn't mean that California's coast is subsiding into the sea — it isn't. Indeed, California is mostly mountainous, and thus — except for the Central Valley — almost everywhere rises far above mere sea level. A global rise in sea level from “climate change” thus will affect California minimally.
“ A global rise in sea level from “climate change” thus will affect California minimally.”
Never really understood the problem with a little global warming. Sure, a little (very little) land might be lost to the sea, but we would more than make up for it with the increase in arable, farmable land, caused by the northern movement of the freeze line, and the quantity being grown per acre would probably increase too (both CO2 and temperature, and indirectly moisture, increases work to increase yields). Sure, we might lose NOLA, but parts are apparently already under sea level. Maybe a bit of NYC and Miami. Going out of our way for NYC is hard to defend. Up until the election, I might have tried with Miami, but Miami-Dade is one of the places where the Dems are so blatantly and unscrupulously trying to steal a Senate seat. For the most part, the economic life of buildings that might be lost through such an increase in sea levels (if indeed caused by AGW, which itself is problematic) is much slower than any realistic estimate in how fast the oceans might rise (just rebuild on higher ground every 50 or 100 years).
"last Tuesday the GOP lost several House seats and maybe a couple of squeakers in the Senate, because he just can't stop provoking people."
Dunno. This seemed like a typical mid-term election. What's the evidence that races were lost, because of Trump? And conversely, how many were won, because of Trump?
The midterms were not a referendum on Trump. Maybe on the GOP, who never has [at least up to now] been supportive of Trump and his agenda. Trump would not have won had he not garnered [heh!] quite a few Independent and Democrat votes. The GOPe wants to privatize Social Security and end Medicare and that's NOT a popular position with very many people. Trump knows that and promised in his campaign that both programs would be safe under his administration.
I’m surprised the Ca Indian population was that much, compared to the rest of the nation. I believe it was mostly hunter gatherer. Central Valley was very rich for fishing and swamps, until drained great agriculture. In so Ca Indians did a lot of fishing and ground acorns (oak trees) for protein.
Last Indian war was fought in Ca - modoc war. Indians made fools of the us Army.
Indians would burn areas to reduce brush build up.
The problem is the current fires are too hot, because too much fuel due to lack of fires, which destroys species that need fire to reproduce.
Final point. One would think that environmentalists would take all necessary steps to prevent forest fires because (1) fires pump huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while killing trees that absorb carbon dioxide. Consequently forest fires contribute to global climate change.
Post a Comment