Real World Event Discussions
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 25, 2025 04:27
VIEWED: 1005090
PAGE 67 of 1154
Monday, August 13, 2018 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I know you dislike it Brenda, but good for the rain! It's how you pay for that lovely green environment! Otherwise, your surroundings could look more like this:
https://www.gettyimages.fi/event/record-heat-fuels-holy-fire-in-southe
rn-california-threatening-homes-775208386
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
I know Kiki. I've seen a couple of fire ban signs around where I am. This will help and maybe they will go down. We shall see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 6:42 AM
Looks like the rain clouds have moved off. Suppose to hit 29C tomorrow which is almost 90F.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 7:48 AM
Quote:There's a narrative that says lots of forest litter keeps the soil moist and prevents wildfires. So any fires should be suppressed. There's the opposite narrative that says that many small fires over an extended period of time thins excess saplings and brush and keeps the forest floor clear of deadwood and litter, aka fuel. I'm of the side that seems to be most supported by data, which is that many small fires are more beneficial than lots of deadwood and litter, and trees - at least here in California. Those small fires burn low to the ground, passing through relatively quickly and coolly, which leaves the fire-resistant bark of mature trees unscathed. (Though the same dynamic applies to prairies, where native plants are fire tolerant with deep roots that escape destruction, and some seeds that need to be burned to sprout. Small frequent fires burn out non-native species, remove excess thatch, and recycle nutrients.)
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
not to sidetrack your exchange, but I'm not clear on the sides of the story.
My Public School in WI was a follower of John Muir. Many reports are biased with the Government programs or against. Most against point out the Government oversight of Forestation was destructive. Which side are you on? And what do you call the different sides or philosophies?
Government fire suppression programs over the decades, while well-intentioned, allowed too much burnable 'stuff' to build up, and created forests with many more trees per acre than would naturally occur. Those conditions - along with the drought that has led to an invasion of the western bark-beetle that's killed many, many trees - have created conditions that foster massive, extremely hot fires that burn even mature trees to the ground, and can glassify the dirt.
One interesting fact about forest fires like that is that they can smolder underground in roots for months - not being fully extinguished until the winter rains come.
I don't know if there's a name for each of the philosophies.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 7:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you grow up in CA? And I don't recall your age.
How much contribution to the problem do you feel the diversion of CA water to L.A. was? And also the direct flushing of CA freshwater reservoirs to the ocean?
No, I grew up in the northeast. At this point in time, roughly half my life was back there, and the more recent half here, in SoCal.
Really old! Probably old enough to be your grandmother!
I don't think that has much to do with it. By the time the water hits the rivers, it's already done its job in the forested environment. That said - warming weather means less snow in the snowpack, and melting a month and a half earlier than normal. The snowpack is like the worlds biggest reservoir - holding almost all the winter precipitation in storage, then gradually releasing it over many months. Since we can't do much about the loss of the snowpack, I've wondered if introducing beavers to hold up the water would help.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 8:02 AM
Quote:I have my fingers crossed - no fires for you this year!
Originally posted by Brenda:
I know Kiki. I've seen a couple of fire ban signs around where I am. This will help and maybe they will go down. We shall see.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 9:20 AM
Quote:I have my fingers crossed - no fires for you this year!
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
I know Kiki. I've seen a couple of fire ban signs around where I am. This will help and maybe they will go down. We shall see.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
The signs were in parks around my city. But with the rain not showing up today, the signs will stay up.
There have been fires up the Interior but I haven't heard of anything as bad as a couple of years ago when people were loosing their houses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So Jack - I'm curious.
The idea that many small unsuppressed fires repeated over many decades contribute to the health of an ecosystem goes back over 40 years. I happen to have learned about it years ago under the slightly different guise of prairie fires, but it's the same concept. But the environment/ biology/ medicine is sort of my 'thing' that I've learned about formally and informally since I was a small child. I'd be more surprised if I didn't know about it.
What I'm wondering about is how such a well-known concept eluded you, a civilian of the topic. Should I attribute it to mis-education in the public school system? A big blank in schooling filled in by Smokey the Bear PR? Poor reporting in an ongoing way that just happened to miss the concept over all these years?
I'm really curious where your ideas came from, and where the mis-direction, or blank spots in your information came from.
I'm not convinced at all that you're correct about this.
I also don't appreciate your condescending tone either.
At this juncture, I'm just going to attribute my thoughts on the issue as being derived from not being subjugated to Liberal brainwashing in the American College system.
I might be wrong about the issue, but at least I'm not being a smug cunt about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 12:48 PM
Quote:There's a narrative that says lots of forest litter keeps the soil moist and prevents wildfires. So any fires should be suppressed. There's the opposite narrative that says that many small fires over an extended period of time thins excess saplings and brush and keeps the forest floor clear of deadwood and litter, aka fuel. I'm of the side that seems to be most supported by data, which is that many small fires are more beneficial than lots of deadwood and litter, and trees - at least here in California. Those small fires burn low to the ground, passing through relatively quickly and coolly, which leaves the fire-resistant bark of mature trees unscathed. (Though the same dynamic applies to prairies, where native plants are fire tolerant with deep roots that escape destruction, and some seeds that need to be burned to sprout. Small frequent fires burn out non-native species, remove excess thatch, and recycle nutrients.)
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
not to sidetrack your exchange, but I'm not clear on the sides of the story.
My Public School in WI was a follower of John Muir. Many reports are biased with the Government programs or against. Most against point out the Government oversight of Forestation was destructive. Which side are you on? And what do you call the different sides or philosophies?
Government fire suppression programs over the decades, while well-intentioned, allowed too much burnable 'stuff' to build up, and created forests with many more trees per acre than would naturally occur. Those conditions - along with the drought that has led to an invasion of the western bark-beetle that's killed many, many trees - have created conditions that foster massive, extremely hot fires that burn even mature trees to the ground, and can glassify the dirt.
One interesting fact about forest fires like that is that they can smolder underground in roots for months - not being fully extinguished until the winter rains come.
I don't know if there's a name for each of the philosophies.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
Now I recall that one of the philosophies was Forest Management driven by the paper/timber industry, which was vital to early Wisconsin. I think it may have been called Clearcutting.
I think that some Western regions eventually required a competing practice, due to the long lives or maturities of Methuselah, Sequoia, Redwoods. I don't recall science driving those practices, other than hairbrained theories, coming from know-nothing graduates of College Forest Management. Seasoned woodsmen knew those schemes wouldn't work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Did you grow up in CA? And I don't recall your age.
How much contribution to the problem do you feel the diversion of CA water to L.A. was? And also the direct flushing of CA freshwater reservoirs to the ocean?
No, I grew up in the northeast. At this point in time, roughly half my life was back there, and the more recent half here, in SoCal.
Really old! Probably old enough to be your grandmother!
I don't think that has much to do with it. By the time the water hits the rivers, it's already done its job in the forested environment. That said - warming weather means less snow in the snowpack, and melting a month and a half earlier than normal. The snowpack is like the worlds biggest reservoir - holding almost all the winter precipitation in storage, then gradually releasing it over many months. Since we can't do much about the loss of the snowpack, I've wondered if introducing beavers to hold up the water would help.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
You should watch some shows on beavers, they turn desert areas green. But then the environmentalists would sue.
They even know how to make the beavers dam where they would be helpful, instead of in the way.
I was thinking of the overall drought, water table, instead of the locality of forests. The more surface freshwater, the more snow and rain there is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, August 13, 2018 1:03 PM
Quote:Gee, bad day at work? Your wussy hurts now?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So Jack - I'm curious.
The idea that many small unsuppressed fires repeated over many decades contribute to the health of an ecosystem goes back over 40 years. I happen to have learned about it years ago under the slightly different guise of prairie fires, but it's the same concept. But the environment/ biology/ medicine is sort of my 'thing' that I've learned about formally and informally since I was a small child. I'd be more surprised if I didn't know about it.
What I'm wondering about is how such a well-known concept eluded you, a civilian of the topic. Should I attribute it to mis-education in the public school system? A big blank in schooling filled in by Smokey the Bear PR? Poor reporting in an ongoing way that just happened to miss the concept over all these years?
I'm really curious where your ideas came from, and where the mis-direction, or blank spots in your information came from.
I'm not convinced at all that you're correct about this.
I also don't appreciate your condescending tone either.
At this juncture, I'm just going to attribute my thoughts on the issue as being derived from not being subjugated to Liberal brainwashing in the American College system.
I might be wrong about the issue, but at least I'm not being a smug cunt about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME