Climate Change: Where every storm is Perfect

13334353638

Posts

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Nobody wants to live across the street from a dump, but well managed landfills with non-industrial household or consumer waste are pretty much fine. Waste goes in, biodegradable shit slowly decays and gasses are captured, but most of the carbon stays sequestered in a big pit.

    Auto / metal recycling is legit, as is tire recycling (mulch / playgrounds and stuff). Most everything else at the consumer level is break-even at best by the time you deal with logistics and levels of demand.

    A major product made from tires is plastic granulate used as ground cover on playgrounds or strewn over astroturf.

    The stuff then gets washed out with the rain and ends up in the waterways. It's full of heavy metals and toxic compounds.

    Female soccer keepers have abnormally high rates of cancer. Female soccer players play on astroturf (males play on grass). Keepers get a lot of cuts and bruises and roll around in the grass/astroturf frequently. Female soccer keepers get the nasty plastic granulates rubbed into open wounds. And then, cancer.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Is this actually a problem? Sure there are issues caused by plastic waste like it being dumped in the ocean and stuff but it doesn't really make a difference to those where the plastic comes from. Does recycling plastic have a smaller carbon footprint than making new plastic?

    I suppose the biggest issue is that the costs of desposing of the plastic waste is not borne by the companies using the plastic in their products. I guess you would need like a sales tax added on, calculated per individual product based on the expected cost of handling the trash it produces.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Nobody wants to live across the street from a dump, but well managed landfills with non-industrial household or consumer waste are pretty much fine. Waste goes in, biodegradable shit slowly decays and gasses are captured, but most of the carbon stays sequestered in a big pit.

    Auto / metal recycling is legit, as is tire recycling (mulch / playgrounds and stuff). Most everything else at the consumer level is break-even at best by the time you deal with logistics and levels of demand.

    A major product made from tires is plastic granulate used as ground cover on playgrounds or strewn over astroturf.

    The stuff then gets washed out with the rain and ends up in the waterways. It's full of heavy metals and toxic compounds.

    Female soccer keepers have abnormally high rates of cancer. Female soccer players play on astroturf (males play on grass). Keepers get a lot of cuts and bruises and roll around in the grass/astroturf frequently. Female soccer keepers get the nasty plastic granulates rubbed into open wounds. And then, cancer.

    Hmmmm I would expect this to be impacting football players then- most fields are turf with those plastic granules on top, including at some major, always-news-making schools and stadiums (OSU/Dallas.....)

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Our insurance company is now recommending storm shutters as desirable additions in addition to the usual battery of things. For deep inland Florida. To give you an idea, we're talking about the metal rollup shutters for windows and doors that were, historically, only really suggested for beachside properties.

    Whats worse, I'm thinking they are right here.

    MayabirdSkeithEinzel
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Hurricane Michael was still a major hurricane when crossing into georgia, about eighty miles inland. That distance would be halfway across the peninsula. So yeah.

    Hevach
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 13
    Busy seasons like this year contribute to the brown ocean effect, when the ground is saturated enough from repeat storms, even relatively weak ones like we see so many of this year (even "minor" storms mean a LOT of rain), cyclones can delay weakening and sometimes even strengthen after landfall.

    Hevach on
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 14
    Follow up on the record breaks: Teddy was named yesterday as forecast, a 21 day record break. Today, Vicky was named ahead of forecasts, a 27 day record break (so another record breaking record break).

    2020 is now almost a full month ahead of the most active hurricane season on record. 21 tropical depressions (up 4 from 17) and V for named storms (up 5 from O).

    Hevach on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Also a tie of the record for most named storms active at once.

    Hevach
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    It really feels like we hit a(hopefully not the) tipping point.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    CelestialBadgerOrcaSmrtnikZilla360
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 14
    2020 is (probably) an anomaly... But it's an anomaly in the same way 2005 was, and 1995 before that, and 1990 before that.

    1990 set a record at 14 (13 was not unprecedented), flowed by several years in single digits averaging 8. 1995 was another active year and set an unprecedented record of 19.

    The level period that followed averaged 12, which which prior to 1990 counted as an active year. Only one year in that period was below 10.

    The next spike was 2005, which went crazy at 28. The following trough averaged 15 storms and lasted 14 years, 13 of which were above the pre-1990 average (the very lowest being equal to that average), and 9 of which were higher than the 1990 RECORD.

    2020 will break 30 easily. If it has legs into December like 2005 and 1995 it could make a damn run on 40. If the pattern holds, 2021 won't be another crazy one, but the next 5-15 years before another runaway season will have another higher average, after several years last trough at 18 and 19 we will now see "normal" years breaking 20, and we may well have seen the last year under 10.


    Remember some years back when climate change deniers made a big deal about the "hockey stick graph"? It was a small snippet of graph from the late 80's to early 00's that showed global warming spike and then drop and stabilize. This is the same pattern - what should be a wave with peaks and troughs is distorted into a stair step, each record year is followed by a flatter period that's higher than the old average but lower than the record. Then the next record is higher than the last, and returns to a still higher normal after.

    Hevach on
    JragghenGnizmoOrcaXandarGnome-InterruptusNobeardGiantGeek2020autono-wally, erotibot300Zilla360
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    edited September 14
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled.

    L Ron Howard on
    CelestialBadgerCommander ZoomSmrtnikNobeardZilla360
  • grumblethorngrumblethorn Registered User regular
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled. But here's the article just in case you don't.
    California, Oregon, and Washington are on fire.

    At least 33 people have died in recent days, and more than 5 million acres have been scorched as out-of-control blazes rage across the American West. The 2020 wildfire season in California is already the most destructive in the state's history — exceeding the record set in 2018, which in turn beat the record set in 2017. Experts agree that rising temperatures from climate change have turned much of the region into dry kindling, ready to spark in an instant.

    "This is a climate damn emergency," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week.

    Disasters like these displace people. Tens of thousands of fire survivors have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 500,000 — half a million — Oregonians have been warned they might soon be ordered to leave. In the meantime, many evacuees are sheltering "in an assortment of RVs, cars, and tents." Many do not know if their homes will still be standing when they try to return, or where they will go if those houses are indeed destroyed. The fires will eventually end, but for many residents of the region, the disaster is just beginning.

    The climate refugee crisis has come to America.

    We're not used to thinking of that crisis as an internal American problem. Publicly, at least, officials and experts have often focused on how poorer countries will deal with the migration of people fleeing drought, floods, devastating storms, and other disasters — both fast- and slow-moving — caused by rising temperatures across the globe. In 2018, a World Bank report estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia would spawn more than 143 million "climate migrants" by 2050.

    "The developed world is still largely sheltered from climate change effects," one expert wrote in 2016. "But the world's poor feel the impacts directly."

    America's Pacific Northwest surely counts as part of the "developed world." So does Miami, which earlier this year was identified as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" thanks to rising seas brought on by the changing climate. Same goes for Iowa, where climate-aided flooding devastated much of the state last year.

    In fact, climate migration was already well underway in the United States before the latest round of fires. The Urban Institute estimates more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes in 2018 for climate-related reasons — some were escaping long-term problems, but others were fleeing short-term disasters that became permanent displacements. Sea level rise could force millions more coastal residents to move in coming years. People won't keep living in places where it is impossible to live. Sooner or later they will choose — or be forced — to leave their homes and find somewhere safer.

    The response from the Trump administration to international refugees has been to hang a "keep out" sign at the nation's borders, all but snuffing out the torch on the Statue of Liberty. But it's impossible to do that to fellow citizens. That doesn't mean climate migration won't create domestic tensions. A U.N. human rights expert last year warned of a coming era of "climate apartheid," where "the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."

    America, already plagued with "Gilded Age" levels of economic inequality, probably won't be immune to that dynamic. Urban Institute's Carlos Martin points out that many communities are unready to host an influx of climate refugees. "Consequently, newcomers are perceived as competitors for jobs and housing — especially where these were already tight," he writes. "Existing financial and health service providers become overwhelmed and often underresourced for the specific needs of the migrants. Particularly when newcomers differ by race and income, they are increasingly and inaccurately blamed for all kinds of problems."

    One obvious answer to these challenges is to finally get serious about mitigating climate change. The Trump administration didn't cause the climate problem, but it seems hellbent on opposing any action to stop it — the president pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, and has rescinded regulations to curtail greenhouse gases emissions. The administration just hired a climate denier for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As is so often the case with this presidency, states, local communities, and individuals are being left to figure out for themselves how to respond to another "damn emergency" that won't go away on its own.

    The evacuees fleeing the American West are giving America a glimpse into its future, but also its past. Hurricane Katrina created its own diaspora of New Orleans residents, thousands of whom fled the city and never returned. Before that, during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans fled drought and Depression to start a new life elsewhere.

    Many of them ended up settling in California.

    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson. I hope people are paying attention to this and not just hand waving it all away as climate change wild fires from lightning.

    In short portland oregon govie site shows arrest of individual responsible for 6 fires.

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261193

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled. But here's the article just in case you don't.
    California, Oregon, and Washington are on fire.

    At least 33 people have died in recent days, and more than 5 million acres have been scorched as out-of-control blazes rage across the American West. The 2020 wildfire season in California is already the most destructive in the state's history — exceeding the record set in 2018, which in turn beat the record set in 2017. Experts agree that rising temperatures from climate change have turned much of the region into dry kindling, ready to spark in an instant.

    "This is a climate damn emergency," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week.

    Disasters like these displace people. Tens of thousands of fire survivors have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 500,000 — half a million — Oregonians have been warned they might soon be ordered to leave. In the meantime, many evacuees are sheltering "in an assortment of RVs, cars, and tents." Many do not know if their homes will still be standing when they try to return, or where they will go if those houses are indeed destroyed. The fires will eventually end, but for many residents of the region, the disaster is just beginning.

    The climate refugee crisis has come to America.

    We're not used to thinking of that crisis as an internal American problem. Publicly, at least, officials and experts have often focused on how poorer countries will deal with the migration of people fleeing drought, floods, devastating storms, and other disasters — both fast- and slow-moving — caused by rising temperatures across the globe. In 2018, a World Bank report estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia would spawn more than 143 million "climate migrants" by 2050.

    "The developed world is still largely sheltered from climate change effects," one expert wrote in 2016. "But the world's poor feel the impacts directly."

    America's Pacific Northwest surely counts as part of the "developed world." So does Miami, which earlier this year was identified as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" thanks to rising seas brought on by the changing climate. Same goes for Iowa, where climate-aided flooding devastated much of the state last year.

    In fact, climate migration was already well underway in the United States before the latest round of fires. The Urban Institute estimates more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes in 2018 for climate-related reasons — some were escaping long-term problems, but others were fleeing short-term disasters that became permanent displacements. Sea level rise could force millions more coastal residents to move in coming years. People won't keep living in places where it is impossible to live. Sooner or later they will choose — or be forced — to leave their homes and find somewhere safer.

    The response from the Trump administration to international refugees has been to hang a "keep out" sign at the nation's borders, all but snuffing out the torch on the Statue of Liberty. But it's impossible to do that to fellow citizens. That doesn't mean climate migration won't create domestic tensions. A U.N. human rights expert last year warned of a coming era of "climate apartheid," where "the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."

    America, already plagued with "Gilded Age" levels of economic inequality, probably won't be immune to that dynamic. Urban Institute's Carlos Martin points out that many communities are unready to host an influx of climate refugees. "Consequently, newcomers are perceived as competitors for jobs and housing — especially where these were already tight," he writes. "Existing financial and health service providers become overwhelmed and often underresourced for the specific needs of the migrants. Particularly when newcomers differ by race and income, they are increasingly and inaccurately blamed for all kinds of problems."

    One obvious answer to these challenges is to finally get serious about mitigating climate change. The Trump administration didn't cause the climate problem, but it seems hellbent on opposing any action to stop it — the president pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, and has rescinded regulations to curtail greenhouse gases emissions. The administration just hired a climate denier for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As is so often the case with this presidency, states, local communities, and individuals are being left to figure out for themselves how to respond to another "damn emergency" that won't go away on its own.

    The evacuees fleeing the American West are giving America a glimpse into its future, but also its past. Hurricane Katrina created its own diaspora of New Orleans residents, thousands of whom fled the city and never returned. Before that, during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans fled drought and Depression to start a new life elsewhere.

    Many of them ended up settling in California.

    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson. I hope people are paying attention to this and not just hand waving it all away as climate change wild fires from lightning.

    In short portland oregon govie site shows arrest of individual responsible for 6 fires.

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261193
    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson.

    If by "these fires" you mean the wildfires in the mountains and south devastating Oregon, citation needed.

    You have linked to a story of someone setting brush fires by 205 that were quickly put out.

    Don't spread rumors.

    Commander ZoomzagdrobHahnsoo1IncenjucarthatassemblyguyFencingsaxEinzelBullheadGnome-InterruptusCaptain InertiaStabbity StyleTicaldfjamemp123SmrtnikShadowfireDacMetzger MeisterLord_AsmodeusVishNubGiantGeek2020autono-wally, erotibot300MayabirdI ZimbraYerMumpainfulPleasanceEncHacksawJebus314Zilla360
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Our insurance company is now recommending storm shutters as desirable additions in addition to the usual battery of things. For deep inland Florida. To give you an idea, we're talking about the metal rollup shutters for windows and doors that were, historically, only really suggested for beachside properties.

    Whats worse, I'm thinking they are right here.

    That seems sensible. Really with any major hurricane a lot of danger to your house is random projectiles going through weak spots such as your windows. So having hardened storm shutters in an area prone to frisky wind events that does not seem unreasonable.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled. But here's the article just in case you don't.
    California, Oregon, and Washington are on fire.

    At least 33 people have died in recent days, and more than 5 million acres have been scorched as out-of-control blazes rage across the American West. The 2020 wildfire season in California is already the most destructive in the state's history — exceeding the record set in 2018, which in turn beat the record set in 2017. Experts agree that rising temperatures from climate change have turned much of the region into dry kindling, ready to spark in an instant.

    "This is a climate damn emergency," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week.

    Disasters like these displace people. Tens of thousands of fire survivors have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 500,000 — half a million — Oregonians have been warned they might soon be ordered to leave. In the meantime, many evacuees are sheltering "in an assortment of RVs, cars, and tents." Many do not know if their homes will still be standing when they try to return, or where they will go if those houses are indeed destroyed. The fires will eventually end, but for many residents of the region, the disaster is just beginning.

    The climate refugee crisis has come to America.

    We're not used to thinking of that crisis as an internal American problem. Publicly, at least, officials and experts have often focused on how poorer countries will deal with the migration of people fleeing drought, floods, devastating storms, and other disasters — both fast- and slow-moving — caused by rising temperatures across the globe. In 2018, a World Bank report estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia would spawn more than 143 million "climate migrants" by 2050.

    "The developed world is still largely sheltered from climate change effects," one expert wrote in 2016. "But the world's poor feel the impacts directly."

    America's Pacific Northwest surely counts as part of the "developed world." So does Miami, which earlier this year was identified as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" thanks to rising seas brought on by the changing climate. Same goes for Iowa, where climate-aided flooding devastated much of the state last year.

    In fact, climate migration was already well underway in the United States before the latest round of fires. The Urban Institute estimates more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes in 2018 for climate-related reasons — some were escaping long-term problems, but others were fleeing short-term disasters that became permanent displacements. Sea level rise could force millions more coastal residents to move in coming years. People won't keep living in places where it is impossible to live. Sooner or later they will choose — or be forced — to leave their homes and find somewhere safer.

    The response from the Trump administration to international refugees has been to hang a "keep out" sign at the nation's borders, all but snuffing out the torch on the Statue of Liberty. But it's impossible to do that to fellow citizens. That doesn't mean climate migration won't create domestic tensions. A U.N. human rights expert last year warned of a coming era of "climate apartheid," where "the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."

    America, already plagued with "Gilded Age" levels of economic inequality, probably won't be immune to that dynamic. Urban Institute's Carlos Martin points out that many communities are unready to host an influx of climate refugees. "Consequently, newcomers are perceived as competitors for jobs and housing — especially where these were already tight," he writes. "Existing financial and health service providers become overwhelmed and often underresourced for the specific needs of the migrants. Particularly when newcomers differ by race and income, they are increasingly and inaccurately blamed for all kinds of problems."

    One obvious answer to these challenges is to finally get serious about mitigating climate change. The Trump administration didn't cause the climate problem, but it seems hellbent on opposing any action to stop it — the president pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, and has rescinded regulations to curtail greenhouse gases emissions. The administration just hired a climate denier for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As is so often the case with this presidency, states, local communities, and individuals are being left to figure out for themselves how to respond to another "damn emergency" that won't go away on its own.

    The evacuees fleeing the American West are giving America a glimpse into its future, but also its past. Hurricane Katrina created its own diaspora of New Orleans residents, thousands of whom fled the city and never returned. Before that, during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans fled drought and Depression to start a new life elsewhere.

    Many of them ended up settling in California.

    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson. I hope people are paying attention to this and not just hand waving it all away as climate change wild fires from lightning.

    In short portland oregon govie site shows arrest of individual responsible for 6 fires.

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261193

    Yeah, a tiny fire along a fucking freeway in town that was immediately extinguished. Not out in the boonies. Most wildfires are caused by campers being dipshits or lightning. Because they start in relatively remote areas because that's what you need- remote areas with slow response and a shitton of dry fuel.

    Besides, even if every single fire was magically the ANTIFA MURDERS you're probably imaging here, climate change still exists and makes any wildfire worse. Fire's a chemical reaction. It doesn't give a fuck what started it.

    zagdrobSo It GoesOrcaBigJoeMIncenjucarLord_AsmodeusYerMumpainfulPleasance
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled. But here's the article just in case you don't.
    California, Oregon, and Washington are on fire.

    At least 33 people have died in recent days, and more than 5 million acres have been scorched as out-of-control blazes rage across the American West. The 2020 wildfire season in California is already the most destructive in the state's history — exceeding the record set in 2018, which in turn beat the record set in 2017. Experts agree that rising temperatures from climate change have turned much of the region into dry kindling, ready to spark in an instant.

    "This is a climate damn emergency," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week.

    Disasters like these displace people. Tens of thousands of fire survivors have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 500,000 — half a million — Oregonians have been warned they might soon be ordered to leave. In the meantime, many evacuees are sheltering "in an assortment of RVs, cars, and tents." Many do not know if their homes will still be standing when they try to return, or where they will go if those houses are indeed destroyed. The fires will eventually end, but for many residents of the region, the disaster is just beginning.

    The climate refugee crisis has come to America.

    We're not used to thinking of that crisis as an internal American problem. Publicly, at least, officials and experts have often focused on how poorer countries will deal with the migration of people fleeing drought, floods, devastating storms, and other disasters — both fast- and slow-moving — caused by rising temperatures across the globe. In 2018, a World Bank report estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia would spawn more than 143 million "climate migrants" by 2050.

    "The developed world is still largely sheltered from climate change effects," one expert wrote in 2016. "But the world's poor feel the impacts directly."

    America's Pacific Northwest surely counts as part of the "developed world." So does Miami, which earlier this year was identified as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" thanks to rising seas brought on by the changing climate. Same goes for Iowa, where climate-aided flooding devastated much of the state last year.

    In fact, climate migration was already well underway in the United States before the latest round of fires. The Urban Institute estimates more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes in 2018 for climate-related reasons — some were escaping long-term problems, but others were fleeing short-term disasters that became permanent displacements. Sea level rise could force millions more coastal residents to move in coming years. People won't keep living in places where it is impossible to live. Sooner or later they will choose — or be forced — to leave their homes and find somewhere safer.

    The response from the Trump administration to international refugees has been to hang a "keep out" sign at the nation's borders, all but snuffing out the torch on the Statue of Liberty. But it's impossible to do that to fellow citizens. That doesn't mean climate migration won't create domestic tensions. A U.N. human rights expert last year warned of a coming era of "climate apartheid," where "the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."

    America, already plagued with "Gilded Age" levels of economic inequality, probably won't be immune to that dynamic. Urban Institute's Carlos Martin points out that many communities are unready to host an influx of climate refugees. "Consequently, newcomers are perceived as competitors for jobs and housing — especially where these were already tight," he writes. "Existing financial and health service providers become overwhelmed and often underresourced for the specific needs of the migrants. Particularly when newcomers differ by race and income, they are increasingly and inaccurately blamed for all kinds of problems."

    One obvious answer to these challenges is to finally get serious about mitigating climate change. The Trump administration didn't cause the climate problem, but it seems hellbent on opposing any action to stop it — the president pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, and has rescinded regulations to curtail greenhouse gases emissions. The administration just hired a climate denier for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As is so often the case with this presidency, states, local communities, and individuals are being left to figure out for themselves how to respond to another "damn emergency" that won't go away on its own.

    The evacuees fleeing the American West are giving America a glimpse into its future, but also its past. Hurricane Katrina created its own diaspora of New Orleans residents, thousands of whom fled the city and never returned. Before that, during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans fled drought and Depression to start a new life elsewhere.

    Many of them ended up settling in California.

    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson. I hope people are paying attention to this and not just hand waving it all away as climate change wild fires from lightning.

    In short portland oregon govie site shows arrest of individual responsible for 6 fires.

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261193

    I don't think anyone is hand waving this away as lightning. There is always arson and other human-related causes of forest fires in addition to natural causes.

    The point isn't the source of the fire - it's that climate change has caused wetter wet seasons and dryer dry seasons that provide more fuel and lead to larger fires that are harder to fight. That's combined with budgets being cut for managing forests through controlled burns and other measures, adding literally even more fuel to the fire.

    And finally, people building more houses in more areas so fires that do break out are more likely to threaten homes and risk lives.

    Climate change is one significant factor making these fires worse, but even without climate change - all else being the same - this would still be a problem.

    OrcaErlkönigL Ron HowardIncenjucarGnome-Interruptus
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled. But here's the article just in case you don't.
    California, Oregon, and Washington are on fire.

    At least 33 people have died in recent days, and more than 5 million acres have been scorched as out-of-control blazes rage across the American West. The 2020 wildfire season in California is already the most destructive in the state's history — exceeding the record set in 2018, which in turn beat the record set in 2017. Experts agree that rising temperatures from climate change have turned much of the region into dry kindling, ready to spark in an instant.

    "This is a climate damn emergency," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week.

    Disasters like these displace people. Tens of thousands of fire survivors have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 500,000 — half a million — Oregonians have been warned they might soon be ordered to leave. In the meantime, many evacuees are sheltering "in an assortment of RVs, cars, and tents." Many do not know if their homes will still be standing when they try to return, or where they will go if those houses are indeed destroyed. The fires will eventually end, but for many residents of the region, the disaster is just beginning.

    The climate refugee crisis has come to America.

    We're not used to thinking of that crisis as an internal American problem. Publicly, at least, officials and experts have often focused on how poorer countries will deal with the migration of people fleeing drought, floods, devastating storms, and other disasters — both fast- and slow-moving — caused by rising temperatures across the globe. In 2018, a World Bank report estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia would spawn more than 143 million "climate migrants" by 2050.

    "The developed world is still largely sheltered from climate change effects," one expert wrote in 2016. "But the world's poor feel the impacts directly."

    America's Pacific Northwest surely counts as part of the "developed world." So does Miami, which earlier this year was identified as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" thanks to rising seas brought on by the changing climate. Same goes for Iowa, where climate-aided flooding devastated much of the state last year.

    In fact, climate migration was already well underway in the United States before the latest round of fires. The Urban Institute estimates more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes in 2018 for climate-related reasons — some were escaping long-term problems, but others were fleeing short-term disasters that became permanent displacements. Sea level rise could force millions more coastal residents to move in coming years. People won't keep living in places where it is impossible to live. Sooner or later they will choose — or be forced — to leave their homes and find somewhere safer.

    The response from the Trump administration to international refugees has been to hang a "keep out" sign at the nation's borders, all but snuffing out the torch on the Statue of Liberty. But it's impossible to do that to fellow citizens. That doesn't mean climate migration won't create domestic tensions. A U.N. human rights expert last year warned of a coming era of "climate apartheid," where "the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."

    America, already plagued with "Gilded Age" levels of economic inequality, probably won't be immune to that dynamic. Urban Institute's Carlos Martin points out that many communities are unready to host an influx of climate refugees. "Consequently, newcomers are perceived as competitors for jobs and housing — especially where these were already tight," he writes. "Existing financial and health service providers become overwhelmed and often underresourced for the specific needs of the migrants. Particularly when newcomers differ by race and income, they are increasingly and inaccurately blamed for all kinds of problems."

    One obvious answer to these challenges is to finally get serious about mitigating climate change. The Trump administration didn't cause the climate problem, but it seems hellbent on opposing any action to stop it — the president pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, and has rescinded regulations to curtail greenhouse gases emissions. The administration just hired a climate denier for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As is so often the case with this presidency, states, local communities, and individuals are being left to figure out for themselves how to respond to another "damn emergency" that won't go away on its own.

    The evacuees fleeing the American West are giving America a glimpse into its future, but also its past. Hurricane Katrina created its own diaspora of New Orleans residents, thousands of whom fled the city and never returned. Before that, during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans fled drought and Depression to start a new life elsewhere.

    Many of them ended up settling in California.

    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson. I hope people are paying attention to this and not just hand waving it all away as climate change wild fires from lightning.

    In short portland oregon govie site shows arrest of individual responsible for 6 fires.

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261193
    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson.

    If by "these fires" you mean the wildfires in the mountains and south devastating Oregon, citation needed.

    You have linked to a story of someone setting brush fires by 205 that were quickly put out.

    Don't spread rumors.

    Relevant:
    https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/portland/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-statement-on-misinformation-related-to-wildfires
    FBI Portland and local law enforcement agencies have been receiving reports that extremists are responsible for setting wildfires in Oregon. With our state and local partners, the FBI has investigated several such reports and found them to be untrue. Conspiracy theories and misinformation take valuable resources away local fire and police agencies working around the clock to bring these fires under control. Please help our entire community by only sharing validated information from official sources.

    IncenjucarSo It GoesBullheadKoopahTroopahemp123DacMetzger MeisterLord_AsmodeusNobeardGiantGeek2020CorvuspainfulPleasanceZilla360
  • ErlkönigErlkönig Registered User regular
    edited September 14
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    https://theweek.com/articles/937357/climate-refugees-are-here-theyre-americans

    We somehow thought that the only climate refugees would be from Central and South America. But it turns out that that was mistaken.
    There are lots of people displaced from Katrina in 2005, which part of the article argues that the people who left New Orleans should be considered climate refugees.
    And now we have hundreds of thousands displaced from the fires in Oregon and California. No home to return to, and probably not much of a desire to rebuild.

    You should give them a visit, it's not paywalled. But here's the article just in case you don't.
    California, Oregon, and Washington are on fire.

    At least 33 people have died in recent days, and more than 5 million acres have been scorched as out-of-control blazes rage across the American West. The 2020 wildfire season in California is already the most destructive in the state's history — exceeding the record set in 2018, which in turn beat the record set in 2017. Experts agree that rising temperatures from climate change have turned much of the region into dry kindling, ready to spark in an instant.

    "This is a climate damn emergency," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week.

    Disasters like these displace people. Tens of thousands of fire survivors have been forced to flee their homes, and more than 500,000 — half a million — Oregonians have been warned they might soon be ordered to leave. In the meantime, many evacuees are sheltering "in an assortment of RVs, cars, and tents." Many do not know if their homes will still be standing when they try to return, or where they will go if those houses are indeed destroyed. The fires will eventually end, but for many residents of the region, the disaster is just beginning.

    The climate refugee crisis has come to America.

    We're not used to thinking of that crisis as an internal American problem. Publicly, at least, officials and experts have often focused on how poorer countries will deal with the migration of people fleeing drought, floods, devastating storms, and other disasters — both fast- and slow-moving — caused by rising temperatures across the globe. In 2018, a World Bank report estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia would spawn more than 143 million "climate migrants" by 2050.

    "The developed world is still largely sheltered from climate change effects," one expert wrote in 2016. "But the world's poor feel the impacts directly."

    America's Pacific Northwest surely counts as part of the "developed world." So does Miami, which earlier this year was identified as "the most vulnerable major coastal city in the world" thanks to rising seas brought on by the changing climate. Same goes for Iowa, where climate-aided flooding devastated much of the state last year.

    In fact, climate migration was already well underway in the United States before the latest round of fires. The Urban Institute estimates more than 1.2 million Americans left their homes in 2018 for climate-related reasons — some were escaping long-term problems, but others were fleeing short-term disasters that became permanent displacements. Sea level rise could force millions more coastal residents to move in coming years. People won't keep living in places where it is impossible to live. Sooner or later they will choose — or be forced — to leave their homes and find somewhere safer.

    The response from the Trump administration to international refugees has been to hang a "keep out" sign at the nation's borders, all but snuffing out the torch on the Statue of Liberty. But it's impossible to do that to fellow citizens. That doesn't mean climate migration won't create domestic tensions. A U.N. human rights expert last year warned of a coming era of "climate apartheid," where "the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer."

    America, already plagued with "Gilded Age" levels of economic inequality, probably won't be immune to that dynamic. Urban Institute's Carlos Martin points out that many communities are unready to host an influx of climate refugees. "Consequently, newcomers are perceived as competitors for jobs and housing — especially where these were already tight," he writes. "Existing financial and health service providers become overwhelmed and often underresourced for the specific needs of the migrants. Particularly when newcomers differ by race and income, they are increasingly and inaccurately blamed for all kinds of problems."

    One obvious answer to these challenges is to finally get serious about mitigating climate change. The Trump administration didn't cause the climate problem, but it seems hellbent on opposing any action to stop it — the president pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, and has rescinded regulations to curtail greenhouse gases emissions. The administration just hired a climate denier for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. As is so often the case with this presidency, states, local communities, and individuals are being left to figure out for themselves how to respond to another "damn emergency" that won't go away on its own.

    The evacuees fleeing the American West are giving America a glimpse into its future, but also its past. Hurricane Katrina created its own diaspora of New Orleans residents, thousands of whom fled the city and never returned. Before that, during the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans fled drought and Depression to start a new life elsewhere.

    Many of them ended up settling in California.

    A good number of these fires are straight up malicious cases of arson. I hope people are paying attention to this and not just hand waving it all away as climate change wild fires from lightning.

    In short portland oregon govie site shows arrest of individual responsible for 6 fires.

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=261193

    Yeah, a tiny fire along a fucking freeway in town that was immediately extinguished. Not out in the boonies. Most wildfires are caused by campers being dipshits or lightning. Because they start in relatively remote areas because that's what you need- remote areas with slow response and a shitton of dry fuel.

    Besides, even if every single fire was magically the ANTIFA MURDERS you're probably imaging here, climate change still exists and makes any wildfire worse. Fire's a chemical reaction. It doesn't give a fuck what started it.

    Any political motivation of the person setting the fires was never brought up. I've also read articles about random folks doing the same thing along I-5 South of Olympiapeople doing the same stuff in Washington (edit-found an article, but it reports only one person who was arrested for starting a brush fire near Renton)...but, in those cases, it was explicitly noted that the arsonist's political leanings were not identified. Sometimes, people are just assholes who want to burn shit. They may be the minority of these fires, but they do exist and there will be impacts (sometimes severe) to others from their assholery.

    Also, as you said, it's not completely divorced from climate change, since the prevailing conditions that are allowing the fires to be as widespread as they are is made worse by...well...everything that's been going on.

    Erlkönig on
    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I strongly suspect in the cases that do get found to be arson, the motivation is likely not going to be political. It's just going to be some asshole(s) that thought it would be a good idea to burn down some unwanted brush for bullshit reasons that likely align more with making money illegally. I'll drop the reminder that Trump pardon some fuckers who started a major wild fire because they felt they were entitled to clear the brush on federal land, so they could use it for their own purposes.

    Also didn't some point out some of this conspiracy stuff is being driven by ignorant assholes, that don't understand that we have a government agency that uses the initials BLM?

    Anyways, it's really a mix of climate change driving these fires, by creating conditions that result in more extreme fires and idiots with more money than sense. I wan to say there are a few spots, where even without climate change, people should be building there, but idiots with money insisted on how their 2nd, 3rd or what have you home past 1st out away from all the unwashed masses. Also does help that they been pretty big on preventing proper management because the smoke will ruin things.

    ErlkönigGnome-Interruptusemp123painfulPleasance
  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    Yes, idiots overheard emergency services mention "BLM" on the radio and assumed it meant Black Lives Matter when it was actually the Bureau of Land Management because the wildfires were on federal land. Which lead those idiots to loudly proclaim on the internet that "antifa" was setting the fires.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    Captain InertiaTicaldfjamLucedesemp123painfulPleasance
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Yeah the arson thing has been thoroughly debunked at this point.

    The severity of the fires on the west coast is absolutely partially due to climate change but I kinda lean towards the much larger cause being a century+ long policy of the suppression of natural fires combined with the ever increasing failure of proper forest management because if we're not going to let the forests go through their natural burn cycles then we better be johnny-on-the-fucking-spot with controlled burns. My understanding is that we haven't been (for a number of reasons) for decades now.

    Orca
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    It's also worth pointing out that most of the fires have taken place on federally managed land. The same federally managed land that Trump has been so eager to defund en mass. A lack of active management of federal land is absolutely a leading cause of these forest fires. In fact only a single digit percentage of forest area in California and Oregon is state-managed.

    One might place the blame for these forest fires directly on Trump's shoulders.

    camo_sig.png
    DoodmannBigJoeMHahnsoo1painfulPleasanceZilla360
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    It's also worth pointing out that most of the fires have taken place on federally managed land. The same federally managed land that Trump has been so eager to defund en mass. A lack of active management of federal land is absolutely a leading cause of these forest fires. In fact only a single digit percentage of forest area in California and Oregon is state-managed.

    One might place the blame for these forest fires directly on Trump's shoulders.

    So it's not California's fault that they weren't "sweeping the forests", it was Trump's?

    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that the land was being claimed as mismanaged with regards lack of fire protocols, was federal, and not state.

    I mean, it should have. Because whenever Trump claims something bad on the opposition, it's at best bullshit, at worst his fault.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Last year, the Oregon legislature was going to vote on climate change bills. The Republicans all walked out so a quorum couldn't be met so the bills would die.

    This last Monday, the house of one of those Republicans was reduced to ashes from one of the wildfires. I hope the insurance companies won't cover it on the grounds that he basically willfully burned down his own house. Fuck him and all his ilk. Playing with fire was just a fucking game with him.

    DoodmannOrcaL Ron HowardNobeardKarozShadowfireMorganVBigJoeMJragghenBullheadGnome-InterruptusSkeithCommander ZoomthatassemblyguyTicaldfjampainfulPleasanceLord_AsmodeusCelestialBadgerDonnictonStabbity StyleMvrckSmrtnikCalicaFencingsaxHacksawZilla360
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    MorganV wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    It's also worth pointing out that most of the fires have taken place on federally managed land. The same federally managed land that Trump has been so eager to defund en mass. A lack of active management of federal land is absolutely a leading cause of these forest fires. In fact only a single digit percentage of forest area in California and Oregon is state-managed.

    One might place the blame for these forest fires directly on Trump's shoulders.

    So it's not California's fault that they weren't "sweeping the forests", it was Trump's?

    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that the land was being claimed as mismanaged with regards lack of fire protocols, was federal, and not state.

    I mean, it should have. Because whenever Trump claims something bad on the opposition, it's at best bullshit, at worst his fault.

    There's plenty of blame to go around. California has made mistakes in this area of policy dating back probably a hundred years. The federal Forest Service has similar problems.

    Trading blame is not especially helpful at the moment.

    VishNub on
    DoodmannNobeardGnome-InterruptusSleepFencingsax
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited September 16
    VishNub wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    It's also worth pointing out that most of the fires have taken place on federally managed land. The same federally managed land that Trump has been so eager to defund en mass. A lack of active management of federal land is absolutely a leading cause of these forest fires. In fact only a single digit percentage of forest area in California and Oregon is state-managed.

    One might place the blame for these forest fires directly on Trump's shoulders.

    So it's not California's fault that they weren't "sweeping the forests", it was Trump's?

    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that the land was being claimed as mismanaged with regards lack of fire protocols, was federal, and not state.

    I mean, it should have. Because whenever Trump claims something bad on the opposition, it's at best bullshit, at worst his fault.

    There's plenty of blame to go around. California has made mistakes in this area of policy dating back probably a hundred years. The federal Forest Service has similar problems.

    Trading blame is not especially helpful at the moment.

    It's basically a collective action problem. The utilitarian "best" thing to do involves everyone being slightly uncomfortable off and on forever, and houses occasionally burning down because fires were deliberately started or the state purposefully did not suppress them to the full of its abilities. But no one wants that, so instead we try our damndest to avoid 5 pain units today in favor of trying to stop 15 next year.

    e: mostly collective action wrt the politics - the worst political stance to take is "yeah, we're going to let things burn," despite that being overall correct. The general problem isn't really collective action, but something similar where there is a trivially obvious choice (just fight all the fires!) that isn't actually the best one in the long run.

    Shivahn on
    VishNubOrcaTicaldfjam
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Shivahn wrote: »
    VishNub wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    It's also worth pointing out that most of the fires have taken place on federally managed land. The same federally managed land that Trump has been so eager to defund en mass. A lack of active management of federal land is absolutely a leading cause of these forest fires. In fact only a single digit percentage of forest area in California and Oregon is state-managed.

    One might place the blame for these forest fires directly on Trump's shoulders.

    So it's not California's fault that they weren't "sweeping the forests", it was Trump's?

    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that the land was being claimed as mismanaged with regards lack of fire protocols, was federal, and not state.

    I mean, it should have. Because whenever Trump claims something bad on the opposition, it's at best bullshit, at worst his fault.

    There's plenty of blame to go around. California has made mistakes in this area of policy dating back probably a hundred years. The federal Forest Service has similar problems.

    Trading blame is not especially helpful at the moment.

    It's basically a collective action problem. The utilitarian "best" thing to do involves everyone being slightly uncomfortable off and on forever, and houses occasionally burning down because fires were deliberately started or the state purposefully did not suppress them to the full of its abilities. But no one wants that, so instead we try our damndest to avoid 5 pain units today in favor of trying to stop 15 next year.

    I think we're starting to see polling reflect a shift in views, but probably not enough to matter. And it's too late anyways.

    VishNub on
    ShivahnDoodmannL Ron HowardHahnsoo1HappylilElf
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    VishNub wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    That_Guy wrote: »
    It's also worth pointing out that most of the fires have taken place on federally managed land. The same federally managed land that Trump has been so eager to defund en mass. A lack of active management of federal land is absolutely a leading cause of these forest fires. In fact only a single digit percentage of forest area in California and Oregon is state-managed.

    One might place the blame for these forest fires directly on Trump's shoulders.

    So it's not California's fault that they weren't "sweeping the forests", it was Trump's?

    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that the land was being claimed as mismanaged with regards lack of fire protocols, was federal, and not state.

    I mean, it should have. Because whenever Trump claims something bad on the opposition, it's at best bullshit, at worst his fault.

    There's plenty of blame to go around. California has made mistakes in this area of policy dating back probably a hundred years. The federal Forest Service has similar problems.

    Trading blame is not especially helpful at the moment.

    Let's be clear here. The federal bureau of land management is responsible for maintaining 47.70% of all land in California. FBLM is responsible for 57% of all forest area in California. The state of California is responsible for just 3% of all their forest area. The rest is privately owned.

    It absolutely is helpful to figure out who should take the blame for mismanagement of land in California. And that blame is placed squarely on a maliciously underfunded FBLM. They are responsible for setting forestry policy for the entire nation. Private land owners rely on the FBLM for risk assessment and management. FBLM is also responsible for levying fines on private landowners for violations. For 4 years now the FBLM has been systematically disassembled and kneecapped by the Trump administration.

    The point I'm trying to make here is

    FUCKING VOTE. VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT A STRONG FEDERAL BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT.

    camo_sig.png
    DoodmannHahnsoo1TicaldfjamL Ron HowardCelestialBadgerDonnictonelectricitylikesmeeMoanderAimSmrtnikFencingsaxZilla360
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    The town of Paradise wasn't built four years ago.

    These problems are a lot older than the Trump administration.

  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    VishNub wrote: »
    The town of Paradise wasn't built four years ago.

    These problems are a lot older than the Trump administration.

    Yes but 4 years is total mismanagement of the federal land surrounding the town was enough to take them from a high risk area to literally being on fire.

    camo_sig.png
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    VishNub wrote: »
    The town of Paradise wasn't built four years ago.

    These problems are a lot older than the Trump administration.

    Yes but 4 years is total mismanagement of the federal land surrounding the town was enough to take them from a high risk area to literally being on fire.

    I'd have to know if there have been significant changes in fire policy during the Trump admin. My guess is that policy deltas between GOP and DEM administrations is about land use but I'm just guessing. Problem with setting fires is insurance issues, NIMBYism, and significant building near wilderness areas. This per Pro Publica which I recall being a pretty fair center left operation. https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
    DoodmannVishNubTicaldfjam
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    That_Guy wrote: »
    VishNub wrote: »
    The town of Paradise wasn't built four years ago.

    These problems are a lot older than the Trump administration.

    Yes but 4 years is total mismanagement of the federal land surrounding the town was enough to take them from a high risk area to literally being on fire.

    I'm not sure what forestry practice operates on a short enough timeline to have that kind of effect.

    Brush growth, yes, but that has as more to do with rainfall than anything else (This is related to Trump policy by way of climate change, of course, but not on the timescales under consideration). As was pointed out above, I'm not aware of a big swing in brush management operations between administrations.

    I agree with your central premise that trump = bad. I just don't think this is a great example of it, because all of the arguments you can apply to him apply equally to previous administrations going back a hundred years.

    VishNub on
    Doodmann
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    VishNub wrote: »
    The town of Paradise wasn't built four years ago.

    These problems are a lot older than the Trump administration.

    Yes but 4 years is total mismanagement of the federal land surrounding the town was enough to take them from a high risk area to literally being on fire.

    California's current fire problems are the result of a half century of mismanagement, I'm am 100% certain the trump admin is actively making it worse but these problems take a while to build and fix.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    VishNubpainfulPleasanceAridholOrca
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    That article is excellent, by the way.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Since the bizarre "LALALA I'm ignoring reality" person recently appointed to the FDA is out with "health issues", the Trump admin needed a new head in the sand flunky

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/09/climate-science-contrarian-installed-in-upper-level-noaa-position/

    Enter this guy. He answers directly to the NOAA director, his title is "Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction"

    And he's both a climate change and COVID denier. The "if the data doesn't match my predictions I'll make new data" style of denier.

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Wilfred was just named, a 29 day record break over Wilma on October 17, 2005.

    A depression in the southern Gulf of Mexico was expected to take that name but will now get Alpha between tonight and Sunday, which will be a 32-34 day record break. Alpha is expected to slowly roll up the cost of Texas, not landing but dumping rain for basically a week.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Lol they used Alpha on a trash subtropical storm off Portugal. The TX depression will be Beta.

    HevachBullhead
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 18
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Lol they used Alpha on a trash subtropical storm off Portugal. The TX depression will be Beta.

    Damn, that one had dropped off the NHC's chart entirely. The one that took Wilfred only had a 40% 5 day forecast last night. Shit happens fast this year, even 2005 gave you time to think about them.

    So, to update the hall of fame rankings, that's a 32 day record break for Alpha, with Beta on track for a 36-38 day record break (still sitting on a 90% 48-hour forecast).

    Still, there's good news. Lot of small storms, only one name likely to be retired so far. Bad news, of course, like 2005 and 1995, this is likely to see a following adjustment to a new average.

    Hevach on
  • VishNubVishNub Registered User regular
    If the remnants of paulette reform does it get a new name or is still paulette?

    66pprwbgafuy.png

  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 18
    It keeps the name... I think. I know if they drop to a depression and restrengthen they keep it. This one went fully post-tropical and I don't remember any specific cases where that's happened. I know with crossover hurricanes, if they drop below tropical storm and redevelop in the Pacific they get a new name, but of they survive crossing they keep their original.

    Edit: googling found the answer, I think, and... It depends. 2005 had three remnants redevelop into cyclones after going post-tropical. One kept the name, one became an unnamed arctic hurricane (they didn't start naming these until 2015) and one became a mid-latitude cyclone, which don't generally get names.

    So it might not keep the name Paulette, but it won't take up another from the tropical storm list.

    Hevach on
Sign In or Register to comment.