Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
62 fires in Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and California. One already covering nearly 700 square miles. And the high pressure just seems stuck. More heat for another 5 days, at least, and some dry lightning storms predicted for the South Cascades.
Just as predicted by climate scientists over two decades ago.
Here's a somewhat more recent but very accurate prediction of what is happening now from nine years ago.
Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Droughts and Fires
Union of Concerned Scientists
Nov 10, 2003
(excerpt)
Warmer global temperatures are expected to cause an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, with increased evaporation over both land and water. The higher evaporation rates will lead to greater drying of soils and vegetation, especially during the warm season. Climate models also project changes in the distribution and timing of rainfall. The combination of a decrease in summer rainfall and increased evaporation will lead to more severe and longer-lasting droughts in some areas. Increasing drought frequency has the potential to affect land-based natural and managed ecosystems, coastal systems, and both freshwater quality and quantity. Increasing drought frequency also has the potential to increase the likelihood of wildfires.
And here's something especially for the denier cult retards who like to smear an eminent and much honored climate scientist, Dr.James Hansen, and claim that climate science predictions from the 1980's were false. LOL. The only 'false-ness' in those predictions is that they were largely underestimating how fast climate change would happen and how bad things would get by now.
Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact'
NASA researcher's study 'reframes the question,' UVic professor says
The Associated Press
Posted: Aug 4, 2012
(excerpt)
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 35 C or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with the temperature reaching at least 35 C.
You don't think it is partly due to the Forest Services active policies of extinguishing fires immediately rather than allow Forests to exist naturally, and burn off dead vegetation through acts of God such as lightning strikes? No... It's gotta be Man made Global Warming... Sure thing.
Just as predicted by climate scientists over two decades ago.
Here's a somewhat more recent but very accurate prediction of what is happening now from nine years ago.
Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Droughts and Fires
Union of Concerned Scientists
Nov 10, 2003
(excerpt)
Warmer global temperatures are expected to cause an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, with increased evaporation over both land and water. The higher evaporation rates will lead to greater drying of soils and vegetation, especially during the warm season. Climate models also project changes in the distribution and timing of rainfall. The combination of a decrease in summer rainfall and increased evaporation will lead to more severe and longer-lasting droughts in some areas. Increasing drought frequency has the potential to affect land-based natural and managed ecosystems, coastal systems, and both freshwater quality and quantity. Increasing drought frequency also has the potential to increase the likelihood of wildfires.
And here's something especially for the denier cult retards who like to smear an eminent and much honored climate scientist, Dr.James Hansen, and claim that climate science predictions from the 1980's were false. LOL. The only 'false-ness' in those predictions is that they were largely underestimating how fast climate change would happen and how bad things would get by now.
Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact'
NASA researcher's study 'reframes the question,' UVic professor says
The Associated Press
Posted: Aug 4, 2012
(excerpt)
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 35 C or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with the temperature reaching at least 35 C.
You don't think it is partly due to the Forest Services active policies of extinguishing fires immediately rather than allow Forests to exist naturally, and burn off dead vegetation through acts of God such as lightning strikes? No... It's gotta be Man made Global Warming... Sure thing.
When the percentage of moisture in the trees and brush gets as low as it has in New Mexico and Colorado, among other places, whether there is more or less underbrush is irrelevent. Once a fire starts, it will crown, and if there is a wind, there is no stopping it until the weather changes, or it burns itself out of fuel.
Walleyes, once again you flap-yap with nothing at all to back up your assertations. The people in charge of fighting the fires have stated that the fires that they are fighting are now bigger, with much greater intensity, than they have seen before. Not just in the US, either. In Europe, Australia, Russia, and Asian nations.
Wildfire risk: insurers feeling the heat? - Environment - Lloyd's
Smith says that underwriters who continue to rely on traditional risk assessment and pricing methods based on past experience - unaware of such climate-driven developments - could under-price the risk.
The basic insurance business model is [that] you diversify by writing different, uncorrelated risks, which allows you to take the occasional big loss," says Smith. "But it appears climate change is creating a correlation between large risks, for example causing more frequent and intense storms and wildfires. That could have big implications on insurers capital.
At least eight Russian firefighters died during a wildfire in southern Siberia earlier in 2012. They were part of a team of firefighting parachutists flown in to tackle a massive blaze in the Russian republic of Tuva, which borders Mongolia.
At the same time, authorities in Greece were battling wildfires in several locations near the capital Athens. The biggest fire was reported to be near the town of Keratea, 50 km (30 miles) south of Athens.
In addition, earlier this year, multiple forest fires ravaged large areas of central and southern Chile.
According to Smith, heightened wildfire risk is an important aspect of climate change that insurers and insurance buyers in exposed areas need to adapt to: It is worrying that the areas at increased risk are often areas of population growth and economic development.
It's hard to respond or explain anything if you are too retarded to post the link to your supposed "study". Of course, what we all tend to assume, knowing you, is that you just made that up and there is no such "study".Whaaaaa? As Jon Stewart would say. How then, do you explain the recent study that showed fires today were pretty much the same as those of old? Now I disagree with the conclusions they came to that said fire abatement policies were unneccessary, but their research shows that the wildfires of today are no different from those of old.Walleyes, once again you flap-yap with nothing at all to back up your assertations. The people in charge of fighting the fires have stated that the fires that they are fighting are now bigger, with much greater intensity, than they have seen before. Not just in the US, either. In Europe, Australia, Russia, and Asian nations.
Wildfire risk: insurers feeling the heat? - Environment - Lloyd's
Smith says that underwriters who continue to rely on traditional risk assessment and pricing methods based on past experience - unaware of such climate-driven developments - could under-price the risk.
The basic insurance business model is [that] you diversify by writing different, uncorrelated risks, which allows you to take the occasional big loss," says Smith. "But it appears climate change is creating a correlation between large risks, for example causing more frequent and intense storms and wildfires. That could have big implications on insurers capital.
At least eight Russian firefighters died during a wildfire in southern Siberia earlier in 2012. They were part of a team of firefighting parachutists flown in to tackle a massive blaze in the Russian republic of Tuva, which borders Mongolia.
At the same time, authorities in Greece were battling wildfires in several locations near the capital Athens. The biggest fire was reported to be near the town of Keratea, 50 km (30 miles) south of Athens.
In addition, earlier this year, multiple forest fires ravaged large areas of central and southern Chile.
According to Smith, heightened wildfire risk is an important aspect of climate change that insurers and insurance buyers in exposed areas need to adapt to: It is worrying that the areas at increased risk are often areas of population growth and economic development.
But once again, you rely on faith and not science for your beliefs.
It's hard to respond or explain anything if you are too retarded to post the link to your supposed "study". Of course, what we all tend to assume, knowing you, is that you just made that up and there is no such "study".Whaaaaa? As Jon Stewart would say. How then, do you explain the recent study that showed fires today were pretty much the same as those of old? Now I disagree with the conclusions they came to that said fire abatement policies were unneccessary, but their research shows that the wildfires of today are no different from those of old.Walleyes, once again you flap-yap with nothing at all to back up your assertations. The people in charge of fighting the fires have stated that the fires that they are fighting are now bigger, with much greater intensity, than they have seen before. Not just in the US, either. In Europe, Australia, Russia, and Asian nations.
Wildfire risk: insurers feeling the heat? - Environment - Lloyd's
Smith says that underwriters who continue to rely on traditional risk assessment and pricing methods based on past experience - unaware of such climate-driven developments - could under-price the risk.
The basic insurance business model is [that] you diversify by writing different, uncorrelated risks, which allows you to take the occasional big loss," says Smith. "But it appears climate change is creating a correlation between large risks, for example causing more frequent and intense storms and wildfires. That could have big implications on insurers capital.
At least eight Russian firefighters died during a wildfire in southern Siberia earlier in 2012. They were part of a team of firefighting parachutists flown in to tackle a massive blaze in the Russian republic of Tuva, which borders Mongolia.
At the same time, authorities in Greece were battling wildfires in several locations near the capital Athens. The biggest fire was reported to be near the town of Keratea, 50 km (30 miles) south of Athens.
In addition, earlier this year, multiple forest fires ravaged large areas of central and southern Chile.
According to Smith, heightened wildfire risk is an important aspect of climate change that insurers and insurance buyers in exposed areas need to adapt to: It is worrying that the areas at increased risk are often areas of population growth and economic development.
But once again, you rely on faith and not science for your beliefs.
CO2 causes forest fires.
I had no idea.
CO2 causes forest fires.
I had no idea.
That first line is really retarded, as usual for you.
That second line is about the only accurate thing you've ever said. I don't think any ideas ever penetrate your little pea-brain.
CO2 is not a proximate cause of forest fires, nitwit. CO2 is a direct cause of global warming. Global warming changes the climate patterns. As the climate scientists predicted long ago, the American southwest and some other parts of the country are being driven into a deeper drought cycle. Less moisture and higher temperatures are making the probability of serious forest fires higher than they used to be. The Forest Service has studied the history of forest fires in this country and they found that there are both more and bigger fires now. There are maybe other reinforcing causes out there that contribute to this increase but the warming and drought are the major triggers for the increased incidence of very large fires.
Well, you know.....globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption is the proximal cause for every ill that affects the world. Hard to believe, I know, but the AGW cult has deemed it so.
CO2 causes forest fires.
I had no idea.
That first line is really retarded, as usual for you.
That second line is about the only accurate thing you've ever said. I don't think any ideas ever penetrate your little pea-brain.
CO2 is not a proximate cause of forest fires, nitwit. CO2 is a direct cause of global warming. Global warming changes the climate patterns. As the climate scientists predicted long ago, the American southwest and some other parts of the country are being driven into a deeper drought cycle. Less moisture and higher temperatures are making the probability of serious forest fires higher than they used to be. The Forest Service has studied the history of forest fires in this country and they found that there are both more and bigger fires now. There are maybe other reinforcing causes out there that contribute to this increase but the warming and drought are the major triggers for the increased incidence of very large fires.
If forest fires were allowed to return to a state of normalcy, the bark beetle wouldn't be a problem. Their colonies would be wiped out in the fires instead of being allowed to spread.
You'd have to burn almost every tree, nitwit. You want to save the forests from the bark beetle by burning down all of the forests? You are obviously extremely retarded.Burning them out would end the colonies.
Total bullshyt, retard. The EPA doesn't "protect" the bark beetle, they encourage removal of infected trees and the use of insecticides. You are very confused and misinformed.We just went through that a couple of years ago in Crestline! The bark beetle was protected by the EPA, the EPA refused to allow the infested trees to be removed, not even on private property.
You'd have to burn almost every tree, nitwit. You want to save the forests from the bark beetle by burning down all of the forests? You are obviously extremely retarded.Burning them out would end the colonies.
Total bullshyt, retard. The EPA doesn't "protect" the bark beetle, they encourage removal of infected trees and the use of insecticides. You are very confused and misinformed.We just went through that a couple of years ago in Crestline! The bark beetle was protected by the EPA, the EPA refused to allow the infested trees to be removed, not even on private property.
EPA - Verbenone
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRSR5L5e28g"]Mountain Pine Beetle: A Climate Change Catastrophe[/ame]
