S k a t e L o g     F o r u m
Inline Skating and Quad Roller Skating
Forum Hosts: Jessica Wright | Kathie Fry

FOLLOW US: Our Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Email    


Home - Forum Index - Africa Skating - Asia Skating - Europe Skating - Oceania Skating - Pan America Skating - Roller_Rinks - Friend the SkateLog Forum in Facebook - SkateLog Forum on Facebook

Forum Administrators: Jessica Wright and Kathie Fry | Email Us
Access code for buying and selling subforums: "skates"
How To Get a User Account and Posting Privileges in the SkateLog Forum
Use Google to Search the SkateLog Forum

Go Back   SkateLog Forum > Other Forums > Off-Topic Discussions
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Off-Topic Discussions You can use this forum to talk about any non-skating topic you want.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2018, 07:01 PM   #21
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84luv View Post
https://sierranewsonline.com/governo...ality-funding/

SACRAMENTO – Governor Jerry Brown’s $180 billion May revision to the 2017-2018 budget proposes cutting millions of dollars from funding to fight fires and support local tree mortality projects in California’s forestlands.

The Governor’s updated budget, released on Thursday, May 11, cuts funding for the Office of Emergency Services from $52.7 million to $8.5 million, with only $2 million allocated “for local agencies to remove dead or dying trees.”

“This is less than four percent of the funds allotted in January of this year,” says Assemblyman and Budget Committee Member Jim Patterson of California’s 23rd District in a statement released today.

“Cal Fire would also see a huge cut if the Governor’s budget is approved. Funding for the extended fire season, increased firefighter surge capacity, Conservation Corps fire suppression crews, and aerial assets is set to be slashed by nearly half — from $91 million to $41.7 million.
Let's just fact check that....


Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno recently claimed Gov. Jerry Brown has slashed nearly all the money in the state’s budget to help local governments remove dead and dying trees in California’s forests.

More than 100 million trees have died in the forests due to drought and bark beetle infestations since 2010. The tree mortality crisis led Brown, a Democrat, to declare a state of emergency in October 2015.

"The Governor’s updated budget released on (May 11, 2017) cuts funds for local tree mortality efforts from $52.7 million to just $2 million," Patterson said in a press release on May 22, 2017.

Patterson’s district includes towns in the Sierra National Forest and Kings Canyon National Park east of Fresno where the tree die-off is severe.

If they fall, dead and dying trees can damage public roadways, water and power infrastructure and private homes and businesses. But removing them isn’t cheap: It can cost $1,000 or more for each tree.

In response to the die-off, the state has reimbursed cities and counties for a portion of the cost to clear hazardous trees from public rights-of-way.

Patterson’s statement makes it seem as if that program is being drastically scaled back.

We decided to fact-check the assemblyman’s claim that the governor’s May budget "cuts funds for local tree mortality efforts from $52.7 million to just $2 million."

Our research

Patterson is referring to California Disaster Assistance Act funding. Some of his figures are correct, but perhaps not in context.

Brown’s initial budget released in January indeed shows the governor set aside $52.7 million for this disaster assistance fund. It did not cite a specific amount for tree removal reimbursements.

The governor’s revised May budget shows the overall disaster assistance fund was reduced to $8.5 million. It sets aside just $2 million for local agencies to remove dead or dying trees based on expected demand for that money, according to state officials.

Brown, following record rainfall in California, declared an end to the state’s drought emergency in April. As a result, he scaled back his plans for emergency spending by more than $100 million in his updated budget.

Patterson’s spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the claim.

Looking again at the assemblyman’s statement, it’s simply not accurate to say the $52.7 million set aside in January for disaster funds was all intended to help with the tree die-off.

"A lot of that money was for the effects of drought, drinking water, community water sources. It was not just for tree mortality. Tree mortality is just one kind of disaster that could have requested reimbursements from that fund," said Janet Upton, deputy director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as CalFire.

Upton said the $2 million figure is based on the state’s projections for how much local governments will seek in reimbursements in the coming fiscal year for the removal of dead and dying trees.

Since the tree crisis started, local governments have requested less than $600,000 from the disaster fund for the removal costs, Upton added. She said the state would ensure all eligible requests by local governments are reimbursed even if the requests exceed the $2 million in the budget.

"If there was an unmet demand of $40 million, that would be a different story," Upton said.

Even so, the governor’s decision to reduce disaster funding is still worrisome, said Staci Heaton, who works for the Rural County Representatives of California.

"I think (the $2 million) is going to be a little low," said Heaton, whose organization advocates for many of the mountainous counties affected by the die-off.

Heaton said she expects requests for tree removal reimbursements "will ramp up," adding that rural counties see the reduction "as a fairly big hit to local government aid."

Rural cities and counties aren’t the only ones removing the dying trees. And the disaster fund isn’t the only source of money that helps local governments.

Here’s another example as outlined in the governor’s January budget:

"In December 2016, CalFire awarded $15.8 million in grants for a total of 107 projects across 34 counties to support local efforts to remove dead and dying trees that pose a threat to public health and safety and projects that reduce the threat of wildfires to homes."

In April, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

"The governor’s emergency declaration for the forests has ushered in tens of millions of dollars to address safety issues. So far, roughly 500,000 trees have been removed and miles of fuel breaks have been cut in a joint effort by the Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the California Department of Transportation and private utilities. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. alone removed 236,000 dead or dying trees last year."

Upton noted that nearly half of the $90 million CalFire had been receiving on a temporary basis each year to respond to the drought has now been converted into permanent annual funding.

This allows the agency, she said, to continue its year-round staffing, which will focus in part on removing hazardous trees and easing the tree mortality crisis.

Our ruling

Republican State Assemblyman Jim Patterson recently claimed Gov. Jerry Brown’s May budget "cuts funds for local tree mortality efforts from $52.7 million to just $2 million."

Patterson’s claim gets the $2 million figure correct. But it’s misleading and not accurate to say the entire $52.7 million was set aside to remove dead and dying trees. It’s a disaster assistance fund that also helps pay for water storage and sanitation projects across nine counties in California.

Brown declared an end to the state’s drought emergency in April, a move that led the state to scale back some temporary emergency funding.

Over the past couple years, local governments have requested less than $600,000 for tree removal reimbursements from the disaster assistance fund, though an advocate for rural counties expects requests will ramp up this year.

Patterson taps into a real concern over tree mortality and its cost to local governments. But his statement cites a misleading budget number and ignores critical facts that would give a very different impression.

We rate his claim Mostly False.

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.



UPDATE: We reached out to Patterson's office for this fact check but have yet to hear back directly. Two days after our report published, Patterson responded to it on Twitter. He said: "The cuts are real, large & dangerous. People who live in the midst of this disaster are scared, and the counties they live in are too."

Also, in a separate press release last week, Patterson said a state Assembly budget committee had approved a $20 million increase to CalFire’s budget to fund dead tree removal and prescribed burns. He added that the same committee rejected his request to add $10 million for local tree mortality efforts.

ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2018, 10:34 PM   #22
sk84luv
..., therefore, I skate.
 
sk84luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,277
Default Gov. Brown vetoed 2016 bill aimed at power line, wildfire safety

https://napavalleyregister.com/news/...95f03fced.html
Gov. Brown vetoed 2016 bill aimed at power line, wildfire safety

A year ago, a bipartisan bill aimed at reducing the risk of wildfires from overhead electrical lines went to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

It was vetoed.

The author of the measure — passed unanimously by both houses of the Legislature — now says the governor missed out on a chance to tackle one of his state’s longstanding vulnerabilities: massive wildfires endangering residential communities. But the governor’s office and the California Public Utilities Commission say the bill duplicated efforts already underway among the CPUC, Cal Fire and utilities like PG&E.

Now, as a series of deadly fires rages in wine country, serious questions are once again being asked about the safety of overhead electrical wires in a state prone to drought and fierce winds.

On Wednesday, Cal Fire said that investigators have started looking into whether toppled power wires and exploding transformers Sunday night may have ignited the simultaneous string of blazes.

The acknowledgment followed publication of a review by the Bay Area News Group of Sonoma County firefighters’ radio transmissions in the fires’ infancy that found that there were numerous downed and arcing wires. In the first 90 minutes Sunday night, firefighters were sent to 10 different spots where problems had been reported with the area’s electrical infrastructure. The crews reported seeing sparking lines and transformers.

During that same time period, radio transmissions indicate 28 blazes — both vegetation and structure fires — breaking out, mostly in Sonoma County. Firefighters were sent to eight fallen tree calls, with many reports of blocked roadways.

“Those were witnessed,” Cal Fire spokeswoman Lynne Tolmachoff said Wednesday, regarding the blown transformers and downed wires. “However, you have to go and look to see if it was a cause of the fire or as a result of the fire.”

The state’s fire agency has said it has ruled out lightning, but said the investigation continues for an official cause of the blazes, which as of late Wednesday had killed 23 people and destroyed more than 3,500 structures in Sonoma, Napa and other Northern California counties.

PG&E acknowledges there were troubles with its equipment Sunday night, but says blaming the utility’s electrical system for the fires at this point would be “highly speculative.” It has labeled the conditions in the first hours of the fires a “historic wind event.”

But meterologist Jan Null, owner of Golden Gate Weather Services in Saratoga, said that Sunday night’s winds, while strong, were not “hurricane force” and had been surpassed in previous storms. Atlas Peak had gusts of 32 miles per hour at 9 p.m. on Sunday, Null said. By comparison, the peak had gusts of 66 mph in last February.

SB 1463 had been introduced in last year’s legislative session by Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa. The bill would have required the state to identify the places most at risk for wildfires and would have required the CPUC to beef up plans to prevent fires sparked by power lines — including moving lines underground if necessary.

But Brown said the bill was unnecessary. “Since May of last year, the Commission and CalFire have been doing just that through the existing proceeding on fire-threat maps and fire-safety regulations,” he said in his veto message. “This deliberative process should continue and the issues this bill seeks to address should be raised in that forum.”

But the senator isn’t buying it.

“Up until my bill those guys were doing nothing,” Moorlach said Wednesday. “I think you got some false information.”

He said his bill would’ve sped up what had become a cumbersome process and given local communities more of a voice by clarifying how fire risk is defined.

Had the governor signed his bill into law, he added, “I think it would have changed things. ... I think it would’ve given Cal Fire a whole different set of priorities.”

Brown’s sister Kathleen, he pointed out, served on the board of the energy services holding company, Sempra. Power and utility companies, Moorlach said, “didn’t want to spend the money” making things safer by moving lines underground.

That’s “so outrageous it doesn’t merit a response,” Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor’s office, said of the notion that the governor didn’t sign the bill to somehow help out Sempra. “It’s unfortunate this particular individual is trying to score political points by peddling inaccurate, self-serving claims at a time like this.”

CPUC spokeswoman Terrie Prosper said the years-long CPUC and Cal Fire effort has already reached key goals.

Phase One was completed in 2015 and Phase Two is nearly done as well, which will implement new fire safety regulations in high priority areas of the state.

PG&E has paid millions of dollars in fines and settlements over the years for its failure to properly maintain vegetation clearance around its electrical lines when it led to massive fires.

In April, the state Public Utilities Commission fined PG&E $8.3 million for failing to maintain a power line that sparked the Butte fire in Amador County in September 2015. That fire burned for 22 days, killing two people, destroying 549 homes and charring 70,868 acres.

In the months before this week’s deadly conflagrations, PG&E has been active in Sonoma County.

Just last month, responding to what it called California’s “tree mortality crisis” caused by the five-year drought, PG&E began flying helicopters over Sonoma County to identify dead trees “that could pose a wildfire or other public safety risk,” according to a Sept. 20 news release by the utility.

The utility said in that statement that it patrols and inspects its overhead lines annually. Since the drought and spike in tree deaths, the energy company said it’s now inspecting trees twice a year. Last year, PG&E conducted secondary checks on 68,000 miles of electrical lines. Almost 11,000 of those inspections are done by helicopter, the utility said.

The September helicopter inspections flew directly over Santa Rosa and other heavily impacted fire zones, according to the release.

In March, PG&E launched a program to inspect Sonoma County’s 90,000 wooden power poles. It was expected to last through early next year, according to a March 13 news release. The utility started along Highway 101 in Santa Rosa, in the heart of what would be torched months later.

Staff writers Paul Rogers, Lisa M. Krieger and George Avalos contributed to this report.
__________________
Riedell 336, Roll-Line Mistral, Roll-Line Panthers. Swiss Labyrinth II .
sk84luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2018, 11:09 PM   #23
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 3,047
Default

Great, the Bill, let's read the fine print, let's follow the money, no money was allocated.

An act to add Section 761.2 to the Public Utilities Code, relating to electrical lines.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1463, Moorlach. Electrical lines: mitigation of wildfire risks.
The California Constitution establishes the Public Utilities Commission, authorizes the commission to establish rules for all public utilities, subject to control by the Legislature, and authorizes the Legislature, unlimited by the other provisions of the California Constitution, to confer additional authority and jurisdiction upon the commission that is cognate and germane to the regulation of public utilities. The Public Utilities Act provides the commission with broad authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law establishes standards that are applicable to any person, as defined, to run, place, erect, or maintain wires or cables used to conduct electricity and requires the commission to enforce these standards. Pursuant to its existing authority, the commission has adopted rules for the construction of electrical lines and the trimming of trees near electrical lines.
Except as specified, existing law requires any person that owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line upon any mountainous, forest-covered, brush-covered, or grass-covered land to maintain a clearance in all directions between all vegetation and all conductors that are carrying electric current, as prescribed.
This bill would require the commission, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to prioritize areas in which communities are subject to conditions that increase fire hazards associated with overhead utility facilities when determining areas in which it will require enhanced mitigation measures for wildfire hazards posed by overhead electrical lines and equipment. The bill would require the commission to develop a definition of “enhanced mitigation measures” for these purposes. The bill, as part of any findings supporting a decision to approve the boundaries for those areas, would require the commission to describe how the commission incorporated the concerns of local governments, fire departments, or both in determining those boundaries.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 761.2 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to read:
761.2. (a) In determining areas in which to require enhanced mitigation measures for wildfire hazards posed by overhead electrical lines and equipment, the commission, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, shall prioritize areas in which communities are subject to conditions that increase fire hazards associated with overhead utility facilities generally and at specific locations. Consistent with Section 321.1, the commission shall develop a definition of “enhanced mitigation measures” for purposes of this subdivision in Rulemaking 15-05-006 (Filed May 7, 2015), Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop and Adopt Fire-Threat Maps and Fire-Safety Regulations, or in another appropriate proceeding.
(b) Any findings supporting a decision to approve the boundaries for areas described in subdivision (a) shall describe how the commission incorporated the concerns of local governments, fire departments, or both in determining those boundaries.


And then there's the Governor's reasoning.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1463 without my signature.

This bill requires the Public Utilities Commission to prioritize areas that have increased fire hazard associated with overhead utility facilities.

Since May of last year, the Commission and CalFire have been doing just that through the existing proceeding on fire-threat maps and fire-safety regulations. This deliberative process should continue and the issues this bill seeks to address should be raised in that forum.

Sincerely,



Edmund G. Brown Jr.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 12:09 AM   #24
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84luv View Post
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/...95f03fced.html
Gov. Brown vetoed 2016 bill aimed at power line, wildfire safety

A year ago, a bipartisan bill aimed at reducing the risk of wildfires from overhead electrical lines went to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

It was vetoed.

The author of the measure — passed unanimously by both houses of the Legislature — now says the governor missed out on a chance to tackle one of his state’s longstanding vulnerabilities: massive wildfires endangering residential communities. But the governor’s office and the California Public Utilities Commission say the bill duplicated efforts already underway among the CPUC, Cal Fire and utilities like PG&E.

Now, as a series of deadly fires rages in wine country, serious questions are once again being asked about the safety of overhead electrical wires in a state prone to drought and fierce winds.

On Wednesday, Cal Fire said that investigators have started looking into whether toppled power wires and exploding transformers Sunday night may have ignited the simultaneous string of blazes.

The acknowledgment followed publication of a review by the Bay Area News Group of Sonoma County firefighters’ radio transmissions in the fires’ infancy that found that there were numerous downed and arcing wires. In the first 90 minutes Sunday night, firefighters were sent to 10 different spots where problems had been reported with the area’s electrical infrastructure. The crews reported seeing sparking lines and transformers.

During that same time period, radio transmissions indicate 28 blazes — both vegetation and structure fires — breaking out, mostly in Sonoma County. Firefighters were sent to eight fallen tree calls, with many reports of blocked roadways.

“Those were witnessed,” Cal Fire spokeswoman Lynne Tolmachoff said Wednesday, regarding the blown transformers and downed wires. “However, you have to go and look to see if it was a cause of the fire or as a result of the fire.”

The state’s fire agency has said it has ruled out lightning, but said the investigation continues for an official cause of the blazes, which as of late Wednesday had killed 23 people and destroyed more than 3,500 structures in Sonoma, Napa and other Northern California counties.

PG&E acknowledges there were troubles with its equipment Sunday night, but says blaming the utility’s electrical system for the fires at this point would be “highly speculative.” It has labeled the conditions in the first hours of the fires a “historic wind event.”

But meterologist Jan Null, owner of Golden Gate Weather Services in Saratoga, said that Sunday night’s winds, while strong, were not “hurricane force” and had been surpassed in previous storms. Atlas Peak had gusts of 32 miles per hour at 9 p.m. on Sunday, Null said. By comparison, the peak had gusts of 66 mph in last February.

SB 1463 had been introduced in last year’s legislative session by Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa. The bill would have required the state to identify the places most at risk for wildfires and would have required the CPUC to beef up plans to prevent fires sparked by power lines — including moving lines underground if necessary.

But Brown said the bill was unnecessary. “Since May of last year, the Commission and CalFire have been doing just that through the existing proceeding on fire-threat maps and fire-safety regulations,” he said in his veto message. “This deliberative process should continue and the issues this bill seeks to address should be raised in that forum.”

But the senator isn’t buying it.

“Up until my bill those guys were doing nothing,” Moorlach said Wednesday. “I think you got some false information.”

He said his bill would’ve sped up what had become a cumbersome process and given local communities more of a voice by clarifying how fire risk is defined.

Had the governor signed his bill into law, he added, “I think it would have changed things. ... I think it would’ve given Cal Fire a whole different set of priorities.”

Brown’s sister Kathleen, he pointed out, served on the board of the energy services holding company, Sempra. Power and utility companies, Moorlach said, “didn’t want to spend the money” making things safer by moving lines underground.

That’s “so outrageous it doesn’t merit a response,” Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor’s office, said of the notion that the governor didn’t sign the bill to somehow help out Sempra. “It’s unfortunate this particular individual is trying to score political points by peddling inaccurate, self-serving claims at a time like this.”

CPUC spokeswoman Terrie Prosper said the years-long CPUC and Cal Fire effort has already reached key goals.

Phase One was completed in 2015 and Phase Two is nearly done as well, which will implement new fire safety regulations in high priority areas of the state.

PG&E has paid millions of dollars in fines and settlements over the years for its failure to properly maintain vegetation clearance around its electrical lines when it led to massive fires.

In April, the state Public Utilities Commission fined PG&E $8.3 million for failing to maintain a power line that sparked the Butte fire in Amador County in September 2015. That fire burned for 22 days, killing two people, destroying 549 homes and charring 70,868 acres.

In the months before this week’s deadly conflagrations, PG&E has been active in Sonoma County.

Just last month, responding to what it called California’s “tree mortality crisis” caused by the five-year drought, PG&E began flying helicopters over Sonoma County to identify dead trees “that could pose a wildfire or other public safety risk,” according to a Sept. 20 news release by the utility.

The utility said in that statement that it patrols and inspects its overhead lines annually. Since the drought and spike in tree deaths, the energy company said it’s now inspecting trees twice a year. Last year, PG&E conducted secondary checks on 68,000 miles of electrical lines. Almost 11,000 of those inspections are done by helicopter, the utility said.

The September helicopter inspections flew directly over Santa Rosa and other heavily impacted fire zones, according to the release.

In March, PG&E launched a program to inspect Sonoma County’s 90,000 wooden power poles. It was expected to last through early next year, according to a March 13 news release. The utility started along Highway 101 in Santa Rosa, in the heart of what would be torched months later.

Staff writers Paul Rogers, Lisa M. Krieger and George Avalos contributed to this report.
Russians hacked the grid!
__________________
"Liberal Logic", not possible.... a phrase in conflict with itself....
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 12:31 AM   #25
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 3,047
Default

Science not religion.

Mismanagement isn't to blame for California wildfires, scientists say, bucking Trump

“We’re in extreme climate change right now,” one fire official said. “We’re doing all that we can to prevent incidents and mitigate incidents and save lives.”




Fire scientists to Trump: You’re wrong!

The devastating wildfires that ignited across California last week — killing 31 so far and destroying thousands of homes — had little to do with "gross mismanagement," experts said.

President Trump made that claim on Saturday during a trip to France, saying, without evidence, that "there is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor."

But scientists and fire officials say that climate change — and the dried out trees and shrubs produced by a changing environment — are the real culprits.

Asked about Trump’s claim on Monday, one of the fire officials in charge of battling Southern California’s Woosely Fire, Los Angeles County Fire Chief Daryl Osby, said he found it "unsatisfactory."

"We’re in extreme climate change right now," Obsy said. "We’re doing all that we can to prevent incidents and mitigate incidents and save lives."

University of Utah fire scientist Philip Dennison said that researchers know that mismanagement isn’t to blame because some of the same areas now burning were charred in 2005 and 2008.


High school students appear to give Nazi salute in photo
They aren't "fuel-choked closed-canopy forests," Dennison said.

In those earlier fires, Paradise was threatened but escaped major damage, he said. In the current blazes, the town was virtually destroyed.

The other major fire, in Southern California, burned through shrub land, not forest, Dennison said.

"It's not about forest management," he said. "These aren't forests."

The dean of the University of Michigan's environmental school, Jonathan Overpeck, said Western fires are getting bigger and more severe. He said it "is much less due to bad management and is instead the result of our baking of our forests, woodlands and grasslands with ever-worsening climate change."

Wildfires have become more devastating because of the extreme weather swings from global warming, fire scientists said. The average number of U.S. acres burned by wildfires has doubled over the level from 30 years ago.

As of Monday, more than 13,200 square miles have burned. That's more than a third higher than the 10-year average.

The two fires now burning "aren't that far out of line with the fires we've seen in these areas in recent decades," Dennison said.

"The biggest factor was wind," Dennison said in an email. "With wind speeds as high as they were, there was nothing firefighters could do to stop the advance of the fires."

The wind is so strong that fire breaks — areas where trees and brush have been cleared or intentionally burned to deprive the advancing flames of fuel — won't work. One of the fires jumped over eight lanes of freeway, about 140 feet, Dennison said.

Southern California had fires similar to the Woolsey fire in 1982, when winds were 60 mph, but "the difference between 1982 and today is a much higher population in these areas. Many more people were threatened and had to evacuated," Dennison said.

California also has been in drought for all but a few years of the 21st century and is now experiencing its longest drought, which began on Dec. 27, 2011, and has lasted 358 weeks, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Nearly two-thirds of the state is abnormally dry.

The first nine months of the year have been fourth-warmest on record for California, and this past summer was the second-hottest on record in the state.

Because of that, there are 129 million dead trees, which provide fuel for fires, said wildfire expert Kristen Thornicke of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

And it's more than trees. Dead shrubs around the bottom of trees provide what is called "ladder fuel," offering a path for fire to climb from the ground to the treetops and intensifying the conflagration by a factor of 10 to 100, said Kevin Ryan, a fire consultant and former fire scientist at the U.S. Forest Service.

While many conservatives advocate cutting down more trees to prevent fires, no one makes money by cutting dead shrubs, and that's a problem, he said.

Local and state officials have cleared some Southern California shrub, enough for normal weather and winds. But that's not enough for this type of extreme drought, said Ryan, also a former firefighter.

University of Alberta fire scientist Mike Flanigan earlier this year told The Associated Press that the hotter and drier the weather, the easier it is for fires to start, spread and burn more intensely.

It's simple, he said: "The warmer it is, the more fire we see."
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 03:23 AM   #26
sk84luv
..., therefore, I skate.
 
sk84luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierocious1 View Post
Russians hacked the grid!
Not only that, Putin paid Trump's debts so Trump would agree to destroy the United States of America.

Trump sent up a hot air balloon armed to drop ignition devices over Paradise, California. If you don't believe it, just ask the New Hampshire psycho.

Now that the president has begun the destruction of California, which state is next on the list?
__________________
Riedell 336, Roll-Line Mistral, Roll-Line Panthers. Swiss Labyrinth II .
sk84luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 03:49 AM   #27
Dec8rSk8r
Senior Member
 
Dec8rSk8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ursle View Post
Yes, how many, I simply pointed out that the whole idea was propaganda, started by a Russian idealogist.(yes he grew up in the US, now he's Russian.

Capitoliticalreview.com
Courthousenews.com
Dailycaller.com
Climatechangedispatch.com...UGLY.

I never open links posted, clickbait, multiple windows opening taking over the ipad, etc.

The fires are an issue, again, Federal land may be mismanaged, but professionals are managing it, the fact that they are budget constrained, and that budget is now going to get a 15% further cut is problematic, but.... Trump is just screaming at every thing and person that he encounters, and now that he's going to have oversight he's getting worse, how much worse can it get, lot's, what else can he do to disrupt democracy, scares me to think.

6,500 troops on the SW border, for what? Every one of the caravan Marchers know they need to enter the US legally, and Trump just makes up rules and regulations flouting the Constitution to please his tiny group of followers, and btw, it gets smaller every day.

After he denied the press pass to enter the White House to the CNN reporter, he said that was just the first, there would be many more, if Trump didn't always LIE, the press wouldn't have lies to report, the press doesn't make up Trump's lies, they report them...
You said "nice try", like I was inferring something there. I wasn't. I hope it's propaganda. You should have just said that.

Do you think that the caravan will just peacefully turn themselves around when we tell them they can't come in until they are granted legal citizenship? I am glad the troops will be there to encourage their departure. I am sure it will be a Kodak moment for journalists, so they can point out how inhumane we are to some people we already told that they aren't going to be welcomed here.
Dec8rSk8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 03:57 AM   #28
Dec8rSk8r
Senior Member
 
Dec8rSk8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84luv View Post
Not only that, Putin paid Trump's debts so Trump would agree to destroy the United States of America.

Trump sent up a hot air balloon armed to drop ignition devices over Paradise, California. If you don't believe it, just ask the New Hampshire psycho.

Now that the president has begun the destruction of California, which state is next on the list?


Damnit Donald! Put that Bic away.
Dec8rSk8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 07:26 AM   #29
rufusprime99
Ninja Naked Mole Rat
 
rufusprime99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Antonio Tx
Posts: 6,420
Default

Not related, yet related. Saw the San Antonio news tonight. They were talking about the tunnels under the city. Tunnels? Yep, tunnels. Seems 21 years ago, given the drought or flood nature of Texas, they were gonna DO something about it. So they built tunnels that could catch TWO, count em, two 100 year floods. No, not just the overflow of ONE 100 year flood, but two. This fall happens to be the wettest fall on record here in SA. And because of the foresight of the SA government, we are handling this like a Boss. NO flooding of the city, and a sh*t load of stored water to keep plenty of water in the river walk area for a LONG time without having to tap drinking/irrigation water for that purpose. (Being a tourist destination, the water in the river around the riverwalk is regulated, and kept at a constant level)

This is the stuff CA is NOT doing, and why it is going to hell.
__________________
Don't let people live in your head rent free. ~princessfluffhead~ BontQRL/InvaderDA45: Seba-FRX: Alkali CA9
rufusprime99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 01:16 PM   #30
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusprime99 View Post
Not related, yet related. Saw the San Antonio news tonight. They were talking about the tunnels under the city. Tunnels? Yep, tunnels. Seems 21 years ago, given the drought or flood nature of Texas, they were gonna DO something about it. So they built tunnels that could catch TWO, count em, two 100 year floods. No, not just the overflow of ONE 100 year flood, but two. This fall happens to be the wettest fall on record here in SA. And because of the foresight of the SA government, we are handling this like a Boss. NO flooding of the city, and a sh*t load of stored water to keep plenty of water in the river walk area for a LONG time without having to tap drinking/irrigation water for that purpose. (Being a tourist destination, the water in the river around the riverwalk is regulated, and kept at a constant level)

This is the stuff CA is NOT doing, and why it is going to hell.
Cali is weird, lived there years ago. In the Wilmington area. Thieves everywhere, every day, day or night. Had a battery stolen out of my truck in a Target parking lot one night. Did not like living there. Beaches were something to see..
Mudslides to come later. All the fires and stuff has been going on for thousands of years. People moved into the area and the fires that come kill, If you move into an area that is known historically for fires and is a risky place to live, you get what you pay for. Or you prepare for it the unknown damage to come. Yeah the government could have spent money on clearing areas, at a huge expense, but remember, the area is prone to fires and winds. Too dangerous. Just like hurricanes, fires will set records in due time.
__________________
"Liberal Logic", not possible.... a phrase in conflict with itself....
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 02:22 PM   #31
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dec8rSk8r View Post
You said "nice try", like I was inferring something there. I wasn't. I hope it's propaganda. You should have just said that.

Nice try at spreading the propaganda.

Do you think that the caravan will just peacefully turn themselves around when we tell them they can't come in until they are granted legal citizenship? I am glad the troops will be there to encourage their departure. I am sure it will be a Kodak moment for journalists, so they can point out how inhumane we are to some people we already told that they aren't going to be welcomed here.
Trump has made the caravan out to be Mid Eastern Terrorist's, the far right have taken that ball and run with it, the far right press has encouraged the hate.
Trump now has sent 6,500 Troops to the border to repel the Terrorist's and you took the bait.

Thousands of everyday people picked themselves up and left their homes because of danger from either political violence or gang violence, they bundled togeather for proctection, they waited until the heat of the summer had cooled, they are walking thousands of miles to get away from the disparaging conditions, they are innocent, they are Women and children, they don't break laws, if Trump wasn't breaking laws....the constitution, they would enter the US and apply for asylum, many have stopped and started new lives along the way, all will legally apply for asylum, none will barge the border, there won't be a "battle", stop watching propaganda networks spreading Trumps rhetoric.

Do you need another graph to show you that the amount of humans entering the US is 1/4 what it was twenty years ago?
At the end of Bush2's reign of terror...more immigrants were leaving the US than entering, they could make better lives elsewhere, if Trump continues with his disasterous policy's, Tariffs he denys, no policy, no diplomatic force, no environmental policy, just lies and attacks against journalists and hatred of everyone that disagrees with his every word and action, the depression Bush2 almost created will be peanuts compared to what Trump will cause, and yes, immigrants will leave at a faster rate then they enter.

Before Trump's hatred took over the presidency, the US was a humanitarian country, now it's a death camp, it illegally seperates families, it illegally bars entry to seek asylum, all this will end soon, the 18' election was just a sign of what the people of the US want to see, rural red areas moved 8 points toward blue, everywhere, meaning the most red areas with the least edgucation moved 8 points toward actual Democratic values, this outrageous unconstitutional activity Trump is undertaking isn't going unnoticed.

Again, the US ofters sanctuary to desperate people, Trump is denying santuary, illegally, this caravan is perfectly legal to ask for santuary, and they band together for safety.

The majority of Americans don't want to be Nationalists..White Nationalists..the majority of Americans want to be Americans.

The small percentage of people that want to be Nationalists, and hate everyone who isn't aren't going to take over America, they will soon scuttle back down the rat holes they crept out of when Trump with the help of Russia stole power.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 02:48 PM   #32
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84luv View Post
Not only that, Putin paid Trump's debts so Trump would agree to destroy the United States of America.

You are actually accurate, or to be precise, for once you are stating a fact.

Trump sent up a hot air balloon armed to drop ignition devices over Paradise, California. If you don't believe it, just ask the New Hampshire psycho.

Now that the president has begun the destruction of California, which state is next on the list?
But then, back to your trolling ways, if you can prove any of the facts I post to be inaccurate, please by all means correct me, or keep trolling and posting fiction

BTW, trump is ripping the country apart, he's sewing discontent, he's made enemies out of all the US trade partners, and he's making friends with all of the US enemies, and his base is to obtuse to notice, they think it's funny.
Thank god for our Democratic process of voting, the American people will take power away from the madman and restore democracy in the near future.

The White Nationalist's and the Religious Right, (actually, the real Religious Right has already withdrawn fomm Trump, just the "whacko" Religious Right still support Trump,) so... the White Nationalist's will soon be melting back into the muck they slimed out of.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 03:10 PM   #33
rufusprime99
Ninja Naked Mole Rat
 
rufusprime99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Antonio Tx
Posts: 6,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierocious1 View Post
Cali is weird, lived there years ago. In the Wilmington area. Thieves everywhere, every day, day or night. Had a battery stolen out of my truck in a Target parking lot one night. Did not like living there. Beaches were something to see..
Mudslides to come later. All the fires and stuff has been going on for thousands of years. People moved into the area and the fires that come kill, If you move into an area that is known historically for fires and is a risky place to live, you get what you pay for. Or you prepare for it the unknown damage to come. Yeah the government could have spent money on clearing areas, at a huge expense, but remember, the area is prone to fires and winds. Too dangerous. Just like hurricanes, fires will set records in due time.
A really good case in point that very obviously illustrates the point is the big San Diego fire of about 10 or 15 years ago. Lotta great, nice houses littered about the countryside. Mega expensive. Well, all hell breaks loose, the burn begins, and part way through they report that the WHOLE area, a very large geographical area, literally had no provision for fire protection. The units responding were from municipalities other than the ones that were burning. You hear criticism of Green policies which amount to, don't touch nothing ever. Yeah, fire breaks are touching things.
__________________
Don't let people live in your head rent free. ~princessfluffhead~ BontQRL/InvaderDA45: Seba-FRX: Alkali CA9
rufusprime99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 05:30 PM   #34
sk84luv
..., therefore, I skate.
 
sk84luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,277
Default “Fuels have been accumulating for decades now, without any intervention”

By Lisa M. Krieger | lkrieger@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: September 9, 2018 at 6:30 am | UPDATED: September 10, 2018 at 11:00 am

The Mercury News

Megafires: Controlled burns could reduce destructive, out of control blazes
State considers strategies to reduce “megafires”

PINECREST – The answer to the problem of California’s catastrophic megafires can be found in the ashes of this forest, where clusters of fragrant sugar pines stand strong, elegant and healthy.

Bark is charred. Logs are charcoal. But a strategy of selective logging, followed by a mannerly “prescribed burn,” has created a forest as clean and safe as a cathedral.

“Fire will always be part of California.The question is, are we going to burn on our terms?” said ecologist Eric Knapp, on a hike through his research project in this natural laboratory at Stanislaus Tuolumne Experimental Forest, a 1,700-acre U.S. Forest Service area in the central Sierra Nevada.
Related Articles

What you need to know about traveling I-5 through the Delta Fire

The alternative, say scientists, is a continued sequence of fires that start during the most extreme weather conditions, ignite dense fuel, then spread ferociously out of control.

As the Delta Fire races through a swath of Shasta-Trinity National Forest and private timberland – forcing the weekend closure of a nearly 50-mile stretch of Interstate 5 north of Redding, California’s link to Oregon — policymakers will look to such research to guide the state’s proposed new commitment of $1 billion to reduce the risk of megawildfires across the state.

The legislation, if signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, commits $165 million a year for five years to thin forests and $35 million a year for five years to fund prescribed burning projects.

The majority of the forests now burning in the fast-moving Delta Fire haven’t seen fire since the early 1900s, when records were first kept, according to Knapp.

A similar fate could await other woodlands. We’re far behind in forest management, according to John Laird, California’s secretary for Natural Resources. About 500,000 acres of forest each year need to be treated in California; last year, we treated only half that.

A walk through almost any woods in California reveals the immensity of the problem. Many forests of the Sierra Nevada are two to three times denser than they were historically, when small and frequent fires were routine, say scientists.

Crowded trees struggled to compete for water, especially during the two severe and sustained droughts of 1987-1992 and 2012-2017. Stress weakened their natural defenses. Populations of predatory bark beetles surged. Forest floors are carpeted with debris.

About 129 million trees now stand ready to ignite.

“It’s a mess of a forest,” said Knapp of the U.S. Forest Service, as he hiked through thick branches of sugar pine, dubbed “the king of the conifers” by naturalist John Muir, on an unthinned and unburned parcel of the experimental plots. The research forest was established in 1943 to study how different management techniques affect a landscape.
U.S. Forest Service research ecologist Eric Knapp looks at dead tree branches that would be considered ladder fuel in an un-thinned and un-burned starting condition section of the Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest in Pinecrest, California.. (LiPo Ching/Bay Area News Group)

Meanwhile, over the past century we’ve been snuffing out every spark.

This absolutist attitude to wildfires initially made sense. America was stunned by “The Great Fire of 1910” in Idaho and Montana, which killed 87 people and burned three million acres, including several entire towns. In its aftermath, the U.S. Forest Service promoted a “10 a.m.” policy, with the goal of suppressing all fires by 10 a.m. of the day following their report.

“Fuels have been accumulating for decades now, without any intervention,” said Jim Branham of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.

About 98 percent of all wildfires are suppressed before they reach 300 acres in size.

What happens to the other two percent of fires? They escape containment and explode into “megafires” in fuel-loaded forests, under often extreme weather conditions, such as heat and high winds.

The consequences of “megafires” are far more catastrophic than historic burns. Firefighters perish. Entire stands of trees are incinerated. Heat sterilizes the forest floor. And nearby communities are put at risk.

“The problem has come back to bite us in the butt,” said plant ecologist Malcolm North of UC Davis, who studies the role of fire in the Teakettle Experimental Forest, near Fresno.

This year’s sequence of “megafires” has been so severe that Cal Fire says it’s running out of money and needs another $234 million to get through the season. The state will likely dip into budget reserves for the eighth time in 10 years to cover the cost of suppression.

Our fecund forests grow more flammable every day. The state’s Climate Change Assessment report, released last month, predicts that the acreage consumed by wildfires in an average year will soar 77 percent by the end of the century. That’s about a half-million acres of additional wildfires each year — the equivalent of two Carr Fires.

Knapp’s experimental plots use two different approaches to logging, conducted in 2011. In some, trees were removed uniformly. They stand like a regimen of soldiers, well-spaced and similar in age. In others, they were removed in groups, leaving clusters of trees ranging in age and size to remain.

But logging alone isn’t enough, because it’s not thorough enough, say scientists. “We can’t thin our way out of this problem,” said North.
Crews ignite a prescribed burn in California’s Stanislaus-Tuolumne Experimental Forest, in the central Sierra. (Photo courtesy of Eric Knapp, U.S. Forest Service)

Following logging, prescribed burns were set to Knapp’s plots in 2013. Because forests are logged, with trees removed, the fire is less intense and easier to control, he said.

Burning is a carefully choreographed dance, involving teams of 50 or 60 people, as well as fire engines and hoses. The day starts at dawn, with a meteorologist watching weather, wind and humidity. Each site has a secured perimeter, cleared of debris.

Wielding a “drip torch,” which drops a gas-diesel mix, crews ignite spots or stripes of the forest. Because flames want to run uphill, they do the reverse, called “back burning,” starting high and then dropping down a ridge. The fire ends at each strip of black char. Any rogue flames are quickly doused with water.

It’s slow and tedious work. The size of each burn is limited by how much can be done in one day; the average fire averages only 90 to 100 acres in size. Afterwards, crews stay to monitor and mop up.

In the months and years that follow logging and fires, Knapp’s team tracks the forest changes, studying plant growth and wildlife.

The “clustered” approach to thinning sugar pines seems the best, slowing future fires. “It breaks up the stand, creating fuel discontinuity into the future,” he said.

Striding through a meadow of ceanothus and manzanita shrubs, he pointed out the diversity in the new vegetation, creating food for wildlife and room for species like oak, white fir and cedar.

A 185-foot tall sugar pine, its canopy green and glorious, reached for the sky. Below it, tiny pine seedlings poked through the duff. Bumblebees hovered around thistle blossoms. A garter snake slithered into a hole.

To be sure, prescribed burns are controversial. In 2000, a burn escaped control and destroyed 200 buildings, leaving people homeless. And they create smoke, causing breathing problems. Logging is also controversial. The Sierra Club California urges the state to instead tighten building codes, better enforce rules requiring defensible space and limit development in high-risk areas.

“But we really only have two options,” said North.
__________________
Riedell 336, Roll-Line Mistral, Roll-Line Panthers. Swiss Labyrinth II .
sk84luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 07:23 PM   #35
Mcostello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Lancaster,Ohio
Posts: 150
Default

Right wing press? First time I've heard that one!
Mcostello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2018, 10:46 PM   #36
Nostalgic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 743
Default

Southern California's fires are usually arson and are driven by oilbrush. Oilbrush burns hot and fast and grows quickly. Canyons here are filled with the stuff and with people using every drop of water in the environment everything is dry as hell. Santa Ana winds are from the NE and spread the fires quickly.
Nostalgic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2018, 12:39 AM   #37
sk84luv
..., therefore, I skate.
 
sk84luv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nostalgic View Post
Southern California's fires are usually arson and are driven by oilbrush. Oilbrush burns hot and fast and grows quickly. Canyons here are filled with the stuff and with people using every drop of water in the environment everything is dry as hell. Santa Ana winds are from the NE and spread the fires quickly.
Everything you said is true. And it has been going on as such for as long as I remember as a resident beginning in 1950.

It only became a problem when people began building in extremely fire prone areas. The risk one takes going in.
__________________
Riedell 336, Roll-Line Mistral, Roll-Line Panthers. Swiss Labyrinth II .
sk84luv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2018, 01:16 AM   #38
bjvircks
Major Trouble
 
bjvircks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84luv View Post
.... It only became a problem when people began building in extremely fire prone areas. The risk one takes going in.
true... and then they put cedar shake roofs on their houses... really flammable roofs!!

edit: sparks and embers fall on non-flammable roofs are much less likely to cause whole house to burn.
__________________
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
bjvircks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2018, 12:51 PM   #39
ursle
Street Skater
 
ursle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 3,047
Default

Thank god the strong NE wind has switched to the west and the Humidity is out of the single numbers and low teens, yesterday was the last day of deadly dry windy conditions, for now.

Now I'm reading about a landowner in Pulgi with a 45 acre tract that PG&E was trying to contact to get permission to enter her (Betsy Ann Cowley) land to trim trees, they didn't make contact, it's strange that the utility company can't enter land that power lines cross for maintaince, including fire safety.
ursle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2018, 11:04 PM   #40
bjvircks
Major Trouble
 
bjvircks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,855
Default

Just watched TERRIFYING video of a woman driving out of a fire zone. I cannot imagine what it would feel like. In 'Monday morning quarterback' mode... I wonder why woman did not stop in the tunnel she went thru. She would have been safe from fire and had enough oxygen to survive.

Naturally, her focus was tightly focused on "get out of fire zone" and so she did not realize she would be safe if she stayed in the tunnel.
__________________
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
bjvircks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.