Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

I'm sorry that all that smoke in your area seems to be infecting your brain,

Where I am located is not affected by the smoke from the wildfires. You are wrong yet again.

since you seem to think that you know more than the scientists who do these studies. Why is that?

Studies like the one you linked to are rather fanciful. The link to dementia is so tenuous it can be easily dismissed. These types of studies are meaningless and plentiful. These are like the studies where red wine is good for you/red wine is bad for you. But because you are so invested in the climate apocalypse religion you cannot view them objectively.

Perhaps you might consider getting away for awhile to a place where the air is cleaner.

That would be nice, I would certainly consider moving away from the city when I retire but not just for clean air.

I sure would if I lived in a place that had a lot of wildfires.

Well us Californians are used to wildfires, they are a natural and necessary phenomenon. What would be even better is if our incompetent politicians were proactive in preventing wildfires. After all we are constantly being lectured about how much worse all of this is going to get but they have no plans to upgrade our water delivery infrastructure, bury power lines or fund our fire departments appropriately. In fact the Mayor of Los Angeles, Marxist Karen Bass cut the budget to Los Angeles fire department, appointed two lesbians to run it and took off to Africa on a tax funded trip when we were on heightened alert about the risk of wildfires.

That smoke is obviously not good for you. It's quite obvious from many of your posts, that it's keeping you from understanding basic science.

As I said earlier, my location is not affected by smoke from the wildfires. It is you that does not understand basic science because you are gripped by a rapture like cult.

Oh, and it's not what sparks the fires that is concerning. it's the intensity of the fires and how difficult it is to control them. Get it?

On the contrary, what sparks the fires is extremely concerning. But because you are blinded by religion you think the climate change gods are in control of wildfires. Do you not understand that wildfires in California have always happened? Do you understand that wildfires in California are not new? Do you not understand that wildfires can be controlled (to some extent) by a properly funded fire department and by sensible forest management? Clearly not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sorry that all that smoke in your area seems to be infecting your brain,

Where I am located is not affected by the smoke from the wildfires. You are wrong yet again.

since you seem to think that you know more than the scientists who do these studies. Why is that?

Studies like the one you linked to are rather fanciful. The link to dementia is so tenuous it can be easily dismissed. These types of studies are meaningless and plentiful. These are like the studies where red wine is good for you/red wine is bad for you. But because you are so invested in the climate apocalypse religion you cannot view them objectively.

Perhaps you might consider getting away for awhile to a place where the air is cleaner.

That would be nice, I would certainly consider moving away from the city when I retire but not just for clean air.

I sure would if I lived in a place that had a lot of wildfires.

Well us Californians are used to wildfires, they are a natural and necessary phenomenon. What would be even better is if our incompetent politicians were proactive in preventing wildfires. After all we are constantly being lectured about how much worse all of this is going to get but they have no plans to upgrade our water deliver infrastructure, bury power lines or fund our fire departments appropriately. In fact the Mayor of Los Angeles, Marxist Karen Bass cut the budget to Los Angeles fire department, appointed two lesbians to run it and took off to Africa on a tax funded trip to Africa when we were on heightened alert about the risk of wildfires.

Let's review that.

• Upgrade out water deliver infrastructure.
  • How much more do you want to spend to add massive pumps that won't be used 99.99% of the time?
• Bury power lines.
  • Certainly there is no engineering issue with burying power lines. It can be done. Burying all of them? Hundreds of billions. Decades to finish. And maybe they need to do that, but it'll cost hundreds of billions and take decades. You make it sound like the boys could get together and fix things up over a weekend.
  • And that addresses only ONE cause of the wildfires, with others including lightning, dumb humans, criminal humans, coyotes trying to catch roadrunners.
• Fund the fire department better
  • That'd be good. Done fuck all to stop that fire, but it is good to invest into the Fire Department.

So TSwizzle wants action, half a trillion in infrastructure upgrades action!

That smoke is obviously not good for you. It's quite obvious from many of your posts, that it's keeping you from understanding basic science.

As I said earlier, my location is not affected by smoke from the wildfires. It is you that does not understand basic science because you are gripped by a rapture like cult.

You say that as if almost all of your retorts against the models, science, and predictions from the last 40 years is something more than "Nuh uh!"

The Oil Industry hired climate scientists in the late 70s. Their findings and predictions of temperature increase over the last 40 years are in line with what we have experienced over the last 40 years. Why should we discount their predictions, which were made decades ago and have been found to be accurate up to this point?

 

[TSwizzle]

And yet here we are, spending trillions of dollars on the "green new deal" that has done nothing, absolutely nothing at all to curb wildfires in California and never ever will.

It's baffling why people think that climate change only started happening in the last 100 years so.


It really is a rapture like cult.

 

[Elixir]

And yet here we are, spending trillions of dollars on the "green new deal" that has done nothing, absolutely nothing at all to curb wildfires in California and never ever will.

It's baffling why people think that climate change only started happening in the 100 years so.


It really is a rapture like cult.

Such fantastic, ignorant idiocy.
No federal “Green New Deal” legislation has ever passed. The resolution introduced by AOC and Markey remains non-binding and symbolic.
So you’re wasting precious breath howling at the moon, Swiz.
I do believe you are the enraptured one, devoted as you are to a paranoid fantasy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And yet here we are, spending trillions of dollars on the "green new deal" that has done nothing, absolutely nothing at all to curb wildfires in California and never ever will.

It's baffling why people think that climate change only started happening in the last 100 years so.


It really is a rapture like cult.

You avoided the question. Why should we discount the Oil industry paid scientists who predicted the general temp increase we've seen over the last forty years. Climate science isn't emergent science. These predictions were made decades ago to impressive levels of observed accuracy.

 

[robnisch]

So, densely build million $ homes in a place that burns every year naturally, what could go wrong?

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, densely build million $ homes in a place that burns every year naturally, what could go wrong?

Maybe they thought the earthquake would get them first.

 

[Swammerdami]

insufferable prick ... why has he done nothing to prevent mitigation of these devastating fires?

Am I the only one that sometimes COUNTS the number of negative words in a sentence? Here, for example, we see

done nothing to prevent . . . mitigation of these devastatingfires​

that there are FOUR negatives cascaded in a modifying chain of nouns and verbs. FOUR is an EVEN number -- this is a case where "two wrongs (or four wrongs) DO make a right" -- so the "insufferable prick" has apparently done something right.

... Or is Mr. Swiz going to echo his fellow traveler's complaint that English is not his native language?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Smoke from the recent Los Angeles wildfires poses a host of well-known human health risks, particularly to the heart and lungs systems. And as climate change fuels longer wildfire seasons, concerns over smoke exposure and the health threats of fires are growing. But the effects of air pollution on the brain are only beginning to be widely recognized.

*yawn* Climate change has not "fueled longer wildfire seasons". The latest wildfires in Los Angeles/Altadena and most other locations in SoCal are fueled by humans, mainly power lines that spark and ignite the vegetation below. In any event, since insufferable prick governor Newsom is a firm believer that climate change is a huge factor in the cause of these wildfires why has he done nothing to prevent mitigation of these devastating fires?

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "fuel"?

Humans provided the ignition source. The climate provided the exceedingly dry vegetation that burned like crazy when there was an ignition source. Yes, preventing ignition is good but note that there have been multiple ignitions--clearly preventing all of them is not feasible.

And what should he do? There isn't really anything he can do. The real answers are making the fire code much tougher and putting severe restrictions on building in the high risk places (the very places people want to build because of the view.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well us Californians are used to wildfires, they are a natural and necessary phenomenon. What would be even better is if our incompetent politicians were proactive in preventing wildfires. After all we are constantly being lectured about how much worse all of this is going to get but they have no plans to upgrade our water delivery infrastructure, bury power lines or fund our fire departments appropriately. In fact the Mayor of Los Angeles, Marxist Karen Bass cut the budget to Los Angeles fire department, appointed two lesbians to run it and took off to Africa on a tax funded trip when we were on heightened alert about the risk of wildfires.

What are they supposed to do to prevent them?? The fuel exists, sooner or later it will burn.

Water delivery? Just a case of finger pointing, it's not like more water would have been enough to stop the fire. And you certainly don't think the Republicans will spend money on infrastructure, do you? Just look at Texas!

Bury power lines? Do you realize how incredibly difficult and expensive that is? Residential lines, sure, but the big ones are another matter. Those wires are uninsulated. Look at the anchors used to connect them to the towers--that's what it takes to keep the current from arcing to the tower. You need a huge tunnel (I've never looked up numbers but I suspect a subway tunnel is not enough) just to isolate the wires and they push a lot of current through them--they run hot. Put them underground and dealing with that heat becomes a huge issue.

Fund our fire departments? Like a Republican would??? Once again, the fires were simply too big to effectively fight.

And you're still trying to blame the officials. Like there was something they could have done.

Oh, and it's not what sparks the fires that is concerning. it's the intensity of the fires and how difficult it is to control them. Get it?

On the contrary, what sparks the fires is extremely concerning. But because you are blinded by religion you think the climate change gods are in control of wildfires. Do you not understand that wildfires in California have always happened? Do you understand that wildfires in California are not new? Do you not understand that wildfires can be controlled (to some extent) by a properly funded fire department and by sensible forest management? Clearly not.

The reason we don't care that much about the sources of ignition is that they aren't going to make much difference. The fuel's there, sooner or later it will burn. And the climate has made the situation much, much worse. The climate is no longer really suitable for the forests, they are dying and burning off. Locally I have paid more attention to the forces at work: There's a bug that likes our trees. A tree can't survive attack in sufficient numbers. Normally the numbers are kept in check by winter's chill killing off the bugs. A tree at too low an elevation isn't protected and in time will die. But a small change in the average temperature makes a big change at the margin, whether the trees are saved by the cold or not. The pines are retreating up the mountain. But a fire that starts in the low elevations where the trees are dying tends to climb up.

I do not know of any controlled burns locally, but some areas burn out the dead stuff when the weather permits. And the Republicans hate this because sometimes lumber companies lose trees this way--never mind that letting the situation sit is a bigger threat.

Republicans are all about blame, but they are against spending a penny to avoid the problem. It's just a weapon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say that as if almost all of your retorts against the models, science, and predictions from the last 40 years is something more than "Nuh uh!"

The Oil Industry hired climate scientists in the late 70s. Their findings and predictions of temperature increase over the last 40 years are in line with what we have experienced over the last 40 years. Why should we discount their predictions, which were made decades ago and have been found to be accurate up to this point?

Exactly. There has been little dispute about the basic science and where the predictions have gone wrong has been in not considering the cooling caused by pollution. We cleaned up the smokestacks and things got warmer. We cleaned up the ship fuel and since it was by international compact the effect was sudden--and produced a very clear temperature spike.

The climate deniers sound an awful lot like the tobacco executives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet here we are, spending trillions of dollars on the "green new deal" that has done nothing, absolutely nothing at all to curb wildfires in California and never ever will.

It's baffling why people think that climate change only started happening in the last 100 years so.


It really is a rapture like cult.

The "Green New Deal" is a political position, not reality. Nothing has passed.

And most climate change is very slow. Humans have been having a huge effect compared to the natural processes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, densely build million $ homes in a place that burns every year naturally, what could go wrong?

Maybe they thought the earthquake would get them first.

The developers don't care--they get their money and leave. (Look what's happening in parts of Arizona. Houses are being built in areas without water. The state passed laws about disclosing the situation, but exempted very small projects--so the developers are making tiny projects so they don't have disclose the fact that there's no water.) Or, locally, there was a movement towards making the developers pay the infrastructure costs they were creating. It probably would have raised the cost of a house by 20% and the developers were screaming bloody murder. It got defeated--but that doesn't make the costs go away. It just means we all incur them on bond issues rather than tying them to the new houses. A huge subsidy for the new houses.

 

[bilby]

Bury power lines? Do you realize how incredibly difficult and expensive that is? Residential lines, sure, but the big ones are another matter. Those wires are uninsulated. Look at the anchors used to connect them to the towers--that's what it takes to keep the current from arcing to the tower. You need a huge tunnel (I've never looked up numbers but I suspect a subway tunnel is not enough) just to isolate the wires and they push a lot of current through them--they run hot. Put them underground and dealing with that heat becomes a huge issue.

The tunnel can be surprisingly small, with active cooling.

The cable is fairly thick though. And you need at least three, and more typically six, strands of it.

It looks like this:

 

[DBT]

Damn, we may need another Nikola Tesla.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bury power lines? Do you realize how incredibly difficult and expensive that is? Residential lines, sure, but the big ones are another matter. Those wires are uninsulated. Look at the anchors used to connect them to the towers--that's what it takes to keep the current from arcing to the tower. You need a huge tunnel (I've never looked up numbers but I suspect a subway tunnel is not enough) just to isolate the wires and they push a lot of current through them--they run hot. Put them underground and dealing with that heat becomes a huge issue.

The tunnel can be surprisingly small, with active cooling.

The cable is fairly thick though. And you need at least three, and more typically six, strands of it.

It looks like this:
View attachment 49277

If your cable looks like that it's not the big lines, just intermediate ones. The intermediates are expensive to bury but it can be done.

 

[TSwizzle]

Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist activist James Hansen

The pace of global heating has been significantly underestimated, according to renowned climate scientist Prof James Hansen, who said the international 2C target is “dead”. A new analysis by Hansen and colleagues concludes that both the impact of recent cuts in sun-blocking shipping pollution, which has raised temperatures, and the sensitivity of the climate to increasing fossil fuels emissions are greater than thought. The group’s results are at the high end of estimates from mainstream climate science but cannot be ruled out, independent experts said. If correct, they mean even worse extreme weather will come sooner and there is a greater risk of passing global tipping points, such as the collapse of the critical Atlantic ocean currents.

Teh Gruaniad

The solution is easy, more tax.

 

[WAB]

Is "Teh Gruaniad" still supposed to be funny?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Is "Teh Gruaniad" still supposed to be funny?

I think it's funny, because it probably means that TSwizzle may have to do extra work to override his autocorrect.

And to be fair, this is coming from the comedic genius who presents us with classics such as "Let's go Brandon" and "Sure, Jan".

 

[bilby]

Is "Teh Gruaniad" still supposed to be funny?

It's a running joke in Private Eye, the satirical magazine. It's not really supposed to be funny, as such. Running jokes aren't funny so much as they are tribal membership indicators.

The paper's nickname The Grauniad (sometimes abbreviated as "Graun") originated with the satirical magazine Private Eye. This anagram played on The Guardian's early reputation for frequent typographical errors, including misspelling its own name as The Gaurdian.

Of course, Private Eye lampoons every (other) English newspaper; to be consistent with the originators of the joke, TSwizzle would also need to refer to his favourite source of outrage as the Daily Fail, which he notably fails to do, thereby identifying with a different (and much less pleasant) ingroup, who have an affinity for tiki torches, armbands, and Elon Musk salutes.