Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Climate Change Thread

Idaho stripped climate change lessons from education guidelines last year, but people are pushing back by revising the standards in hopes the state legislature will pay attention:;smtyp=cur


The political fight over global warming has extended to science education in recent years as several states have attempted to weaken or block new teaching standards that included information about climate science. But only in Idaho has the state legislature stripped all mentions of human-caused climate change from statewide science guidelines while leaving the rest of the standards intact.

Now teachers, parents and students are pushing back, hoping to convince the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature to approve revised standards, which science proponents say are watered down but would still represent a victory for climate-change education in the state. The Idaho House education committee could vote as soon as Wednesday on whether to allow the revised language into the state’s curriculum.

“We’re hopeful that we can put a final bow on this,” said Scott Cook, the director of academics at the Idaho State Department of Education, who helps lead a committee of teachers, parents and scientists urging that climate change be included in the standards.

The battle started in early 2016, when Idaho was working to update its decade-old science standards for kindergarten through 12th grade, which outside education groups said were out of date. Lawmakers rejected a new set of standards, which were closely modeled after national guidelines developed by a consortium of states and science organizations and included information on climate change, saying more input from the public was needed.

Last year, the House education committee accepted the new standards, but only after scrubbing five sections related to climate change. The passages about climate change were “surgically removed,” said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, which monitors anti-science legislation.

Now, Mr. Cook’s committee has reworked those passages in an effort to win approval from lawmakers. The revised standards include natural causes of climate change alongside those driven by humans, and, in response to lawmakers’ requests, they emphasize potential solutions to climate change.
The Rio Grande River is already in bad shape, but a border wall will exacerbate that to very bad levels:

Quote:Last month, Congress passed a $1.3 trillion spending package to keep the government funded through September. Tucked in between increases in military spending and funding for highways, lawmakers set aside $641 million to build 33 miles of border wall along the lower reaches of the Rio Grande, the beleaguered river that divides Texas and Mexico. That move could exacerbate flooding in border communities and cause lasting damage to the ecosystem, and it’s landed the Rio Grande on an annual list of the country’s most endangered rivers.

“It’s not the border wall that caused the river to be in such bad shape, but the border wall could be a last nail in the coffin,” said Scott Nicol, co-chair of the Sierra Club’s borderlands team. 
Are you surprised?

Quote:A NASA program that cost $10 million per year to track carbon and methane, key greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, has been cancelled, a US space agency spokesman said Thursday.

The end of the program -- called the Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) -- which tracked sources and sinks for carbon and made high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon -- was first reported by the journal Science.

"Now, President Donald Trump's administration has quietly killed the CMS," the report said, describing the move as the latest in a "broad attack on climate science" mounted by the White House.

The journal said NASA "declined to provide a reason for the cancellation beyond 'budget constraints and higher priorities within the science budget.'"
Time to fess up:

Quote:When the research was published in Nature on May 16, it was like a bomb dropped. A greenhouse gas is billowing into the atmosphere from a source somewhere in East Asia that no one can identify at a rate scientists have never before seen, and it’s ignited a scientific dash to get to the bottom of it.

All countries are supposed to comply with the rules laid out in the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which banned the production of CFCs—chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer and contribute to global warming—with only temporary exception of a few economically developing countries. If everyone fulfills their end of the deal, the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere should gradually wane over the course of several decades. (CFCs can live in the atmosphere for more than half a century.)

CFC levels plummeted through the 1990s, and then stagnated between 2002 and 2005. But in in 2014, mysterious toxic plumes of CFC-11—a type of CFC—began to drift across the Pacific Ocean. Stephen Montzaka, a chemist who studies and monitors CFCs for The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), was shocked.

“I’ve been making measurements of long-lived gases in the atmosphere for nearly three decades,” he said to The Outline in a phone call. “And this is the most surprising and unexpected thing I’ve seen.”

CFCs are monstrous molecules. When the chlorine in CFCs reaches the ozone layer—a part of the atmosphere that absorbs the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, which causes cancer and negative health defects in humans—the chlorine converts life-saving ozone into oxygen. We’ve known this since 1973, when scientist James Lovelock published a landmark study proving that after only using CFCs for a couple decades, a gigantic hole had opened up in the Antarctic atmosphere, allowing deadly radiation to leak in. As greenhouse gases, CFCs are also thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide, and are able to heat in the atmosphere and warm the earth faster than most other airborne molecules on earth.
Now that China isn’t accepting products from other countries for recycling, much of it is going to landfills:
I posted a Sen. Cornyn quote about how much he likes Scott Pruitt's anti-environment policies, and that includes these three proposals that are really going to hurt:

Quote:Two proposals threaten to cripple the EPA’s environmental rule-making process, while the third guts the only major federal policy to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

On Thursday, the EPA issued a formal notice to solicit ideas on how the agency performs regulatory cost-benefit analysis, heeding industry players who complained that the Obama administration exaggerated the benefits of environmental rules and downplayed the costs to companies. The proposal could have wide-ranging effects, creating obstacles for future regulations and compelling the agency to reassess existing rules.

“Many have complained that the previous administration inflated the benefits and underestimated the costs of its regulations through questionable cost-benefit analysis,” Pruitt said in a statement. “This action is the next step toward providing clarity and real-world accuracy with respect to the impact of the agency’s decisions on the economy and the regulated community.”

Over a month ago, Pruitt proposed a rule to dramatically limit the public health research the EPA can use to write regulations. The new rule would bar regulators from citing any research that cannot release raw data, disqualifying most major epidemiological studies that grant subjects anonymity to share personal health information. Scientists have panned the proposal ― based on legislation Republicans in Congress have repeatedly tried and failed to pass ― as “an attack on science.” 

Three weeks earlier, Pruitt ― his tidal wave of scandals only just beginning to crest ― announced plans to reverse an Obama-era rule tightening fuel economy standards on vehicles. The rule would have required vehicles sold in the United States to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, putting them closer in line with automobiles in the rest of the developed world and saving car owners $3,200 to $5,700 in gasoline costs over a vehicle’s lifetime. The regulation would also have prevented vehicles from spewing an addition 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ― equivalent to the entire annual emissions of Canada. Last week, the EPA’s science advisers rebuked the agency for ignoring its own research in concluding that the regulations were too stringent.
(06-02-2018, 10:00 PM)Iron Maiden Wrote: Now that China isn’t accepting products from other countries for recycling, much of it is going to landfills:

Australia's waste disposal is basically screwed over this too. Although it had been going downhill for a while, with a huge backlog of stuff like glass forming man made hills in certain places.
It's one of the most outrageous situations of civic failure I can think of. Or it ought to be. The public was paying these companies to RECYCLE this stuff and basically what that meant was using China as the worlds shit receptacle/bottomless money fountain yet again. A notoriously mercurial place, who have a habit of noticing they are being screwed eventually and policy-lurching to a halt quite suddenly.
It's a colossal civic and business failure. No one should have been given public contracts to provide an important government service using such a precarious business model. People should be utterly furious. I don't think they are though.
Well, this is disconcerting and the EPA is no help in this era:

Quote:The American oil and gas industry is leaking more methane than the government thinks — much more, a new study says. Since methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, that is bad news for climate change.

The new study, published Thursday in the journal Science, puts the rate of methane emissions from domestic oil and gas operations at 2.3 percent of total production per year, which is 60 percent higher than the current estimate from the Environmental Protection Agency. That might seem like a small fraction of the total, but it represents an estimated 13 million metric tons lost each year, or enough natural gas to fuel 10 million homes.

Thanks to a boom in hydraulic fracturing in states like Texas and Pennsylvania, natural gas has quickly replaced coal as the leading fuel used by America’s power plants. It has also helped, to some extent, in the fight against climate change: When burned for electricity, natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide that coal does. The shift from coal to gas has helped lower CO₂ emissions from America’s power plants by 27 percent since 2005.

But methane, the main component of natural gas, can warm the planet more than 80 times as much as the same amount of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period if it escapes into the atmosphere before being burned. A recent study found that natural gas power plants could actually be worse for climate change than coal plants if their leakage rate rose above 4 percent.
Well, shit.  Yesterday, July 5th, temperatures in northern Siberia, along the Arctic Ocean coast, reached 90 degrees fahrenheit.  In winter, the area can get as low as -90 fahrenheit, so positive 90 seems... problematic.
If you're happy, you're not paying attention.

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny: 
Glad that you guys worked that out amongst yourselves.

Yeah, it's really bad this summer. I read a thread that talked about how Ireland is completely unprepared for this level of heat - everything from most houses not having or built for AC to parents not knowing they can't leave their kids in hot cars.
home taping is killing music
The Interior Department has commissioned a $1,700,000 expedited environmental review of the impact of leasing part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling, according to a FOIA document:
The island of Palau is aiming to go 100% solar by the end of 2019, thanks to some help from the private sector:

Quote:Like most islands, Palau, a Pacific island nation that bills itself as a pristine paradise, currently relies on diesel fuel to supply almost all of its electricity. It’s both polluting and expensive; residents pay more than twice as much per kilowatt-hour than an average American, even though someone earning minimum wage there only makes around $5,000 a year.

But Palau is in the middle of a new experiment: Over the next year and a half, the country will shift to 100% renewable energy, at no cost to the government, in what is likely to be the fastest national transition to renewable energy ever to occur. In a new program, the partners behind the work in Palau plan to now help other small island nations do the same thing.

Technology is helping drive Palau’s transition. When the country’s president happened to meet the CEO of Gridmarket–an analytics company that originally spun out of a public-private partnership in New York City after Hurricane Sandy–at a large environmental tech conference called EarthX in 2017, the two realized that they could work together. Gridmarket’s predictive analytics and mapping platform uses AI to analyze a city or region property-by-property, create a strategic plan for renewable energy, and then creates a digital marketplace for solar panel manufacturers and other solution providers to bid on the job.

“We basically go into a place and gobble up all of the data that’s available using our system,” says Nick Davis, CEO of Gridmarket. Using data points such as climate and weather, energy costs, local laws, and the physical characteristics of each site, the company creates profiles for each property. In New York City, these are linked to addresses. In Palau, where conventional street addresses often don’t exist, the profiles can be linked to latitude and longitude. That building-by-building analysis was used to create Palau’s national RFP for clean energy, including battery storage, microgrids at government buildings and schools, and larger 20-30 megawatt systems that can feed into the local grid.

Typically, Davis says, a single 30-megawatt project might take three to four years to come to fruition, after first securing land rights and negotiating power purchase agreements, but using the tech platform shrinks that time. In Palau, where GridMarket started working in the second quarter of 2018, the first solar projects will be installed by the end of the year.
This is the view from the office today around noon.  That's not fog, or clouds.  It's smoke from some of the nearly ~600 wildfires currently burning in British Columbia.  I don't even remember wildfire smoke making its way to my little town before a few years ago.  From what I understand, this season is even worse than last year - which was a record-breaking bad season for wildfires.

I'm no climate expert, but seems to me this might just be connected with the so-called "global warming".

I'm in the Tacoma area in Washington state. Its smokey here also. At least it's not raining ash like last year. Still bad though. I've had a headache all day.
Is this bad?  It sounds bad:

Quote:The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer.

This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere.

One meteorologist described the loss of ice as “scary”. Others said it could force scientists to revise their theories about which part of the Arctic will withstand warming the longest.

The sea off the north coast of Greenland is normally so frozen that it was referred to, until recently, as “the last ice area” because it was assumed that this would be the final northern holdout against the melting effects of a hotter planet.

But abnormal temperature spikes in February and earlier this month have left it vulnerable to winds, which have pushed the ice further away from the coast than at any time since satellite records began in the 1970s.
It's almost like the many, many, many, many, many, many warnings given by scientists over the years actually carry weight.

Laugh with me brothers, as we walk into the fire together.
"I mean don't get me wrong fucking the wolf man is impressive but ugh." - Waaaaaaaalt
That shit keeps me up at night.
Big oil wants the federal government to spend big money protecting it from climate change.

That sound you just heard was my eyes rolling so hard, my head was somehow engulfed into an endless void.

Quote:As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile "spine" of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.

The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world's largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas' 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation's refining capacity.

Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities.

That followed Hurricane Harvey, which roared ashore last Aug. 25 and swamped Houston and parts of the coast, temporarily knocking out a quarter of the area's oil refining capacity and causing average gasoline prices to jump 28 cents a gallon nationwide. Many Republicans argue that the Texas oil projects belong at the top of Washington's spending list.

"Our overall economy, not only in Texas but in the entire country, is so much at risk from a high storm surge," said Matt Sebesta, a Republican who as Brazoria County judge oversees a swath of Gulf Coast.

But the idea of taxpayers around the country paying to protect refineries worth billions, and in a state where top politicians still dispute climate change's validity, doesn't sit well with some.
Today, California voted to make all of its electricity emissions-free by 2045, which is a pretty massive deal:
The Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100, but who cares because profits -
I'd love to read that (and then quietly sob afterwards), but it's behind a paywall.
Copy/Paste from reddit . . .

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly 4 degree Celsius or 7 degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.

The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming,the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

World leaders have pledged to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels, and agreed to try to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the current greenhouse gas cuts pledged under the 2015 Paris climate agreement are not steep enough to meet either goal. Scientists predict a 4 degree Celsius rise by the century’s end if countries take no meaningful actions to curb their carbon output.

Trump has vowed to exit the Paris accord and called climate change a hoax. In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.

If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units. The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis.

Administration estimates acknowledge that the policies would release far more greenhouse gas emissions from America’s energy and transportation sectors than otherwise would have been allowed.

David Pettit, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified against Trump’s freeze of fuel efficiency standards this week in Fresno, Calif., said his organization is prepared to use the administration’s own numbers to challenge their regulatory rollbacks. He noted that the NHTSA document projects that if the world takes no action to curb emissions, current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would rise from 410 parts per million to 789 ppm by 2100.

“I was shocked when I saw it,” Pettit said in a phone interview. “These are their numbers. They aren’t our numbers.”

Conservatives who condemned Obama’s climate initiatives as regulatory overreach have defended the Trump administration’s approach, calling it a more reasonable course.

Obama’s climate policies were costly to industry and yet “mostly symbolic,” because they would have made barely a dent in global carbon dioxide emissions, said Heritage Foundation research fellow Nick Loris, adding: “Frivolous is a good way to describe it.”

NHTSA commissioned ICF International Inc., a consulting firm based in Fairfax, Va., to help prepare the impact statement. An agency spokeswoman said the Environmental Protection Agency “and NHTSA welcome comments on all aspects of the environmental analysis” but declined to provide additional information about the agency’s long-term temperature forecast.

Federal agencies typically do not include century-long climate projections in their environmental impact statements. Instead, they tend to assess a regulation’s impact during the life of the program — the years a coal plant would run, for example, or the amount of time certain vehicles would be on the road.

Using the no-action scenario “is a textbook example of how to lie with statistics,” said MIT Sloan School of Management professor John Sterman. “First, the administration proposes vehicle efficiency policies that would do almost nothing [to fight climate change]. Then [the administration] makes their impact seem even smaller by comparing their proposals to what would happen if the entire world does nothing.”

This week, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned leaders gathered in New York, “If we do not change course in the next two years, we risk runaway climate change. . . . Our future is at stake.”

Federal and independent research — including projections included in last month’s analysis of the revised fuel-efficiency standards — echoes that theme. The environmental impact statement cites “evidence of climate-induced changes,” such as more frequent droughts, floods, severe storms and heat waves, and estimates that seas could rise nearly three feet globally by 2100 if the world does not decrease its carbon output.

Two articles published in the journal Science since late July — both co-authored by federal scientists — predicted that the global landscape could be transformed “without major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” and declared that soaring temperatures worldwide bore humans’ “fingerprint.”

“With this administration, it’s almost as if this science is happening in another galaxy,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program. “That feedback isn’t informing the policy.”

Administration officials say they take federal scientific findings into account when crafting energy policy — along with their interpretation of the law and President Trump’s agenda. The EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, has been among the Trump officials who have noted that U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants have fallen over time.

But the debate comes after a troubling summer of devastating wildfires, record-breaking heat and a catastrophic hurricane — each of which, federal scientists say, signals a warming world.

Some Democratic elected officials, such as Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, said Americans are starting to recognize these events as evidence of climate change. On Feb. 25, Inslee met privately with several Cabinet officials, including then-EPA chief Scott Pruitt, and Western state governors. Inslee accused them of engaging in “morally reprehensible” behavior that threatened his children and grandchildren, according to four meeting participants, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details of the private conversation.

In an interview, Inslee said that the ash from wildfires that covered Washington residents’ car hoods this summer, and the acrid smoke that filled their air, has made more voters of both parties grasp the real-world implications of climate change.

“There is anger in my state about the administration’s failure to protect us,” he said. “When you taste it on your tongue, it’s a reality.”
A UN study says the world has about a decade to get climate change under control, or we're doomed -

On one hand, seeing as how our government is run by old white greedwhores who will die before this happens, nothing will be done, at least on our country's end. On the bright side, I now have a handy link I can forward when people ask me why I don't want kids!
Oh we are SO fucked.
"I mean don't get me wrong fucking the wolf man is impressive but ugh." - Waaaaaaaalt
Don't know if it's the same report, but the NYT ran a story saying we're going to start seeing radical changes as soon as 2040:

We are fucked.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
I've tried all morning to find a silver lining, or to hope that the best of us will find a solution.

I've got nothing.  I'm going to reach retirement age right as the world starts turning into Mad Max.  I won't even make it to ThunderDome Era either.

We're fucked.
I think if you guys are feeling despair over this, you would get a lot out of reading stuff from the Dark Mountain Project by Paul Kingsnorth and others, specifically the Uncivilisation manifesto:

Dark Mountain/Kingsnorth is very much about the project of global grief, predicated on the idea that while the world of the remainder of our lifetimes will be livable and even survivable, it will look and be radically different than what we're used to, and acknowledging that this time period is over requires mourning, and the space to do so. And in acknowledging that, in working through that, we can begin to imagine a new framework for living. As it says in the Manifesto, probably its most famous quote, "The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will find the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of us."

I also recommend a poet that the Black Mountain Project likes a great deal, the California writer Robinson Jeffers, who adopted a similar worldview in the 1930s and 1940s, when the planet was facing a different, but similar, seemingly-apocalyptic crisis.
home taping is killing music
Sigh.  Please do better, Chicago:

Quote:Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration has allowed a private city recycling hauler to divert tons of residential plastics and paper into landfills the company owns, costing taxpayers twice and aggravating Chicago’s worst-in-the-nation recycling rate, a Better Government Association investigation has found.

This creates a distorted scenario under which the plastic, glass and metals of residents on the Northwest and Far South sides — areas where Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. holds the city’s recycling contract — are far more likely than other Chicagoans to see their discarded recycling dispatched to garbage dumps.

Under city rules, one plastic bag or food item improperly placed in a recycling bin could mean the whole bin is labeled “grossly contaminated” and its contents taken to a landfill.

Waste Management is the only recycling hauler that operates a for-profit landfill where a portion of the city’s garbage is dumped.

That means the company — which gets paid city recycling fees whether its crews pick up a bin or tag it — gets paid again on those occasions when the contents of tagged bins are taken by city trash crews to its landfill, the BGA investigation found.

Since 2014, private and municipal waste hauling crews labeled at least 577,886 recycling bins as “grossly contaminated” with improper items, records show.

Of those, 514,239 — almost 90 percent — were tagged by workers for Waste Management, even though the company’s green trucks cover only half the city.
Ok . . . this is really fucking scary.

There's a similar study from last year showing a similar reduction in insects from Germany.

That's it. That's the game, guys.
More appropriate than ever.

A terrifying photo of the Malibu wildfire, which has engulfed a ton so far:

Paramount Ranch has been destroyed, Scott Derrickson's house has burned down, and Guillermo Del Toro tweeted that he's had to evacuate. There's a non-zero chance that his Bleak House and entire collection will get caught in the fire.

LA Times also has a pretty amazing/terrifying set of photos

The Woolsey and Hill fires are probably going to be the most destructive wild fires in terms of dollar amount damage in Southern California in at least 50 years, if not ever.

Quote:If Northern California had received anywhere near the typical amount of autumn precipitation this year (around 4-5 in. of rain near #CampFire point of origin), explosive fire behavior & stunning tragedy in #Paradise would almost certainly not have occurred.

Rainy season has started late this year in California...again. While autumn precipitation isn't usually huge fraction of overall annual average, it's hugely important to ecosystems & in bringing "fire season-ending" moisture. This yr, autumn precip was <20-30% of avg. 

Objective indicators of vegetation dryness and potential fire intensity were at record-high levels for the date this week in vicinity of #CampFire--and would have been very high even for peak summer levels--at a time of year when the rainy season is usually ramping up. 

Strong downslope winds were a key factor in the devastation of #Paradise by the #CampFire. But strong winds in damp forest simply aren't going to drive the same kind of wildfire. The extreme, summer-like dryness of vegetation clearly matters.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)