Floods and fires, USA

[Crick]

But you haven't answered the question. Allow me to rephrase it.

Do you agree that precipitation levels affect the incidence of wildfires?

 

[SSDD]

Never going to get it are you?...when the fire is so prevalent in an area that the plants adapt to it to the point that they require it to propagate...the amount of rainfall that area receives is naturally very small...now if you are complaining that an area that is historically so dry that fire became an important part of the natural ecology is not getting enough rainfall...then you are exactly the idiot I have always thought you were....

 

[Crick]

You the coward I always suspected.

Obviously, low precipitation levels increase the incidence of wildfires. A 200 year drought, as California is currently experiencing, is a significant climate event.

There you go.

Can you explain what you were afraid would happen if you had actually answered the question?

 

[SSDD]

You the coward I always suspected.

Obviously, low precipitation levels increase the incidence of wildfires. A 200 year drought, as California is currently experiencing, is a significant climate event.

There you go.

Can you explain what you were afraid would happen if you had actually answered the question?

Where are you getting the idea that the precipitation levels are low for that area you idiot...if precipitation levels were higher, then the plants would not have adapted to fire as they have....maybe you need to look up the definition of "low" as it applies to regions...the precipitation levels there are well within the boundaries of natural variation and therefore are not "low"...they are normal...now if south Florida were getting the same amount of precipitation, then the amount of precipitation would be "low" in south Florida.

You got your answer...and it doesn't mesh with your idiot conclusions which completely ignore what is normal for the area....

 

[Crick]

Where are you getting the idea that the precipitation levels are low for that area you idiot.

From the weather services declaration that the area is in a 200 year drought.

Do you speak English?

 

[SSDD]

Where are you getting the idea that the precipitation levels are low for that area you idiot.

From the weather services declaration that the area is in a 200 year drought.

Do you speak English?

But there is no drought...the native plant and animal species are doing just fine...when they die off, then you have a drought. The native plants didn't evolve and adapt to use fire as part of their means of propagation in 200 years...

 

[Crick]

I repeat, do you speak English?


United States Drought Monitor > Home > State Drought Monitor

Almost half the state is in an "extreme" or "exceptional drought". No portion of the state is better than "abnormally dry"

 

[SSDD]

I repeat, do you speak English?

Sure...and I think critically...and don't just accept lies that are told to me...drought is defined as a period of abnormally low rainfall...an abnormally low amount of rainfall would have an adverse effect on the native flora and fauna...they would be dying off...such is the nature of drought. The native flora and fauna in that area, however, are not dying off...therefore, the amount of rainfall the area is receiving is within its normal boundaries. Calling a non drought a drought based on an artificial scale does not make it a drought...the local flora and fauna call bullshit on any scale claiming drought in that area...and you lack the critical thinking skills to look past the pretty colors to the actual landscape in question....and to question the authority that reigns over you in any way.

The only flora and fauna that are suffering there are non native species that haven't adapted to the NORMAL amount of rainfall that area has...and the claim of drought is one based in politics...not nature.

 

[Crick]

I'm absolutely certain the folks at US Drought Monitor have a better understanding of what constitutes a drought than do you. I suspect they also have more data on precipitation and how it is affecting the plant life of the state than do you. So, all in all, particularly since you've presented your usual NO DATA, I'm going to take THEIR word for it over yours. If you think that makes me an idiot... well... your intellect and judgement have already been demonstrated here, haven't they.

 

[skookerasbil]

I love these threads.........

Alarmists forget they have been throwing bombs every month for 2 1/2 decades on everything from floods, hurricanes, fires.........

They are always trying to grab the moment like any good fraudster but everyone and his brother have seen these fires and floods over and over in different places and at different times. To the masses, its just filed under shit happens weather events. Only the alarmists get alarmed.

Over the last 40 years on here on Long Island, we've had several horrific weather events that have clobbered the seashore resulting in billions of $$ in damage. With all of them came the scaremongering from the AGW k00ks. Guess what? They went out and just rebuilt the shit on the shores bigger and better!!. Still ZERO windmills off the beautiful shores of Long Island s0ns!!

Heres what the k00ks don't get...........

95 million American adults are not working in this stinky economy. Think they give a rats ass about global arming?

The rest that are have real problems. A huge proportion of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck........trying to make it work. Think global warming is on top of their list of concerns? Are they more concerned about an illegal alien doing a drive-by in their neighborhood or that the seas might rise 10 mm in the next 25 years?Are they more concerned about the fact that they haven't gotten a raise in 10 years or about a city 2,000 miles from them that experiences a once in a 100 years flood of rain for 10 days?

You see folks.......progressives, never have had the ability to think on the margin, thus the nutty public policy idea's that never work. Results don't matter to them......only the intentions. Most people DONT think that way. Costs also don't matter to progressives. Real costs...........not imagined costs based upon what people view as theories ( global warming theory ). They are always going to prioritize their concerns based upon what is right in front of them..........based upon money ( mostly ) and what they perceive as real threats to them ( ie: crime ). And lets face it.......every time a rain storm or fire happens, it is only the alarmist that has his head exploding. Californians see big-ass fires every couple of years like what we are seeing now. Only the AGW k00k thinks that the California citizen is looking at 10 million acres vs 2 million acres. Its called........conditioning. Its the way most learning happens s0ns, like it or not.

Bottom line.........normal weather events happening at what is perceived as normal frequency and magnitude moves...............NOBODY!!! ( EXCEPT THE K00KS ). That's just the way it is.

So on floods, fires, hurricanes.....................meh............nobody is caring.

What could change the dynamic? Multiple anomalies only s0ns..........Day after Tomorrow shit. 3 or 4 Sandy type storms in one year................something like that. 75 degree temperatures in Alaska in mid-January for a month.

Unfortunately, for the AGW contingent, they are not very good at all at understanding that their perceptions are markedly different from a huge majority of people. Polls I have posted clearly display this ( global warming being 21 out of 22 in list of public concerns......every one shows the same exact thing ).

Weve been seeing these same exact type threads for 20 years.........and nothing ever changes.

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities_1.jpg.html'][/URL]


Not for nothing..........but anybody who thinks this poll is going to flip based upon shit they have seen 1,000 times before is...........a mental case.

 

[Crick]

Where are you getting the idea that the precipitation levels are low for that area you idiot.

From the weather services declaration that the area is in a 200 year drought.

Do you speak English?

But there is no drought...the native plant and animal species are doing just fine...when they die off, then you have a drought. The native plants didn't evolve and adapt to use fire as part of their means of propagation in 200 years...

California has thousands of species of native plants. How many of them require fire to propagate? Two? Three?

And what do they require after fire has popped their seeds? Why, rain! Who'd a thunk it?

An examination of the various ways in which different plants use fires to aid their propogation (pyriscence) will quickly show you that it is always used competitively. Fire most frequently aids plants by killing off the competition. Good for the pyrescent, not so good for its competition.

You're working from a flawed idea that certain ecologies are more desirable than others. That ranking is based solely on human aesthetics and resource requirements. All life tries to survive. Sometimes the redwood wins, sometimes the undergrowth wins. From an objective point of view, there is no preference for one over the other.