Costs of Climate Change Denial Start to Roll In

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's not going to decompose somewhere so dry.
I have seen some of those house hunters shows in California where the back door opens pretty much opens to the woods.
Those homes never had a chance.
Seems to be common.
 
Oilpan4 said:
It's not going to decompose somewhere so dry.
I have seen some of those house hunters shows in California where the back door opens pretty much opens to the woods.
Those homes never had a chance.
Seems to be common.

Washington coast isn't "so dry". When it's not raining, it's drizzling or misting. Except for the week or two that is summer. If you get one this year. The sort of place where moss grows on cars. In between is a wide range of different places. Fuel reduction fires are likely a good idea around LA. Here? No. In between? Varies.

"House hunter" shows don't show average houses. Didn't know that?

Yes, there are homes in hazardous places. On the beach where Sally is headed. And yes, in lands that will burn every decade or so. Even before climate change. In a sense, you pays your money you get your choice. But you should not expect insurance or that the fire department will save your house.

Yes, the climate is changing. Winters are wetter, summers are hotter and drier. Turn of Fox "News" and pay attention to the world around you.
 
I wasn't talking about Washington coast, I believe I was talking about a dry place such as California.

Now that you mentioned it Washington is very interesting compared to California. You can see on satellite imagery where the fire burned up to a plot of land where they were actually practicing forestry and see where the wild fire either stopped or burned along the forest floor leaving the trees untouched.
I can only guess that's these fire immune plots of land are paper, lumber company owned with mature trees.
 
Oilpan4 said:
I wasn't talking about Washington coast, I believe I was talking about a dry place such as California.

California isn't all a dry place. But Fox "News" only shows LA and Berkley, so I'd guess you think the whole state is just like that.

Oilpan4 said:
I can only guess...

Oh, you might do something other than guessing. Have to start by turning off Fox "News".
 
So southern California burns because it's so wet? I'm going to have to call BS on that.
I don't need fox news or any other fake stream crap outlet.
I was there in southern California about every 6 to 9 months from 2002 to 2006 around LA and San Diego it was dry.
The one time it did rain when i was there cars were crashing into each other everywhere because according to my friend who lived there for 40 years "because it never rains and the roads turn into an oil slick".
I think it was mostly because everyone drives at least 15 mph over the speed limit till there's a traffic jam which was daily.
I didn't say the whole state is that dry just the parts that burn.
 
Oilpan4 said:
So southern California burns because it's so wet?
Did you miss that the parts of California that are burning are not all Southern California?

The largest fire is uphill (meaning cooler and wetter) from https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/metro/california/crescent_city

Weak showing for a Sith Troll.
 
Yes I know southern California doesn't fit your propaganda that the wet cool parts of the state are burning. So we shouldn't talk about them.

New mexico has cool wet mountain areas that like to dry out occasionally and they're not on fire.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Yes I know southern California doesn't fit your propaganda that the wet cool parts of the state are burning. So we shouldn't talk about them.

New mexico has cool wet mountain areas that like to dry out occasionally and they're not on fire.

Southern California and Northern California are very different. Pointing out a basic fact isn't "propaganda". I'd guess, but I don't know, that New Mexico's forests are rather different from both.

For Southern California, prescribed fires and stopping most construction of houses in low density settings with zoning laws and/or making insurance not affordable and/or changing building codes to require fireproof construction... And landscaping codes to keep trees away from structures.

The biggest fire in California is in Northern California. So why the focus on Southern California?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Complex_fire

Most of the forests burning are on Federal Land.

Deserts with almost no vegetation never burn. Almost no fuel.

Arid lands with grasses and shrubs burn often.

Dry forests have frequent small fires. Ponderosa pines. Inland CA, from north to central. Fire suppression can lead to larger fires. As can logging, as only the large trees are fire resistant.

Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine forests have periodic large fires. "Many populations of the Rocky Mountain subspecies, P. contorta subsp. latifolia, have serotinous cones. This means that the cones are closed and must be exposed to high temperatures, such as from forest fires, in order to open and release their seeds." In other words, this forest needs to burn for this tree to live. Typically these fires are huge.

Lodgepole pines in California don't have serotinous cones. What does that tell us?

Wet forests rarely burn. Small fires don't happen as the floor is too wet. Fires, if they happen are either tiny and very localized, or huge.
 
The fire map shows the whole state on fire from one end tonthe other.
This is what happens when you think you can live in harmony with nature by putting out all the fires.
 
I prefer fire weather avalanche dot org

A US departmentof the interior says that up to 90% of wild fires are ignited by man.
But climate change is blamed..
 
Oilpan4 said:
I prefer fire weather avalanche dot org

A US departmentof the interior says that up to 90% of wild fires are ignited by man.
But climate change is blamed..
Climate change is credited with an assist, not a goal.

More fires should be ignited by man. Prescribed fires. Climate change or no climate change. Yet this is only a partial answer. Some types of forest are not realistic to reduce fuels with prescribed fires. Like lodgepole pine forests in the Rocky Mountains.
 
I reduce the fuel load on my acres of wooded land by burning in place, dragging brush throwing it on a pile and torching or by burning in my wood stove and coal furnace.
One pile of brush I have been building up for the last several years is about the size of a school bus.
 
The police arrested a Portland man for starting fires, released him, then went out and started 6 more before arresting him again.
That's good news right?
I think it is.
 
Wapo-AMOC-1-505x600.jpg


The Gulf Stream system is slowly shutting down.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/09/new-studies-confirm-weakening-of-the-gulf-stream-circulation-amoc/
 
Look at all the trees they cleared, steel used, concrete and fiber glass used. All the diesel powered diggers, dozers, tractor trailers, cranes.
All products of or powered by oil, coal and natural gas.
Hopefully we can get 40-50 years out of them, not 20.
https://youtu.be/0vE6QkvcV-s
 
Oilpan4 said:
Look at all the trees they cleared, steel used, concrete and fiber glass used. All the diesel powered diggers, dozers, tractor trailers, cranes.
All products of or powered by oil, coal and natural gas.
Hopefully we can get 40-50 years out of them, not 20.
https://youtu.be/0vE6QkvcV-s

So the next question is, how many trees cleared, steel, concrete and other materials used when creating other power generation methods?
Then add to that the energy that goes into mining the fuel for the energy generation. And then the storage of waste materials.
 
The guy down the road a few miles from me has over 300 acres and that was barely enough to put three 1.5Mw turbines.
So if land area is no object then you can do wind.
By comparison there's an old 300 or 400Mw turbine plant in Lubbock that sits on less than 25 acres.
 
Back
Top