California is experiencing the effects of global warming, period.

[Harper_is_Bush]

I realize there is a fire season there, and I realize it's typically a dry and windy time.

What's happening, however, is exactly in line with IPCC predictions.

Mid-latitude and semi-arid low latitudes are predicted to experience INCREASING drought.
That is to say: "drought-affected areas will increase in extent" and drought will increase in "frequency".
And intensity.

Southern California has been experiencing "extreme" drought conditions for months. It is a record drought, that has lasted 18 months.

Welcome to the new normal.

The IPCC Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability":
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf

Also note that many scientists (ex. James Hansen), upon examining recent events regarding ice melt and C02 increases, are now loudly pointing out that the IPCC reports are far to conservative. Things are accelerating at a much faster rate than the IPCC was able to agree on.

Extreme heat waves, drought, flooding. These things are happening on a daily basis around the globe. Much of it isn't even getting coverage in North American media. The time for always qualifying each event by saying "We can't attribute any one event to global warming" is over. It's time to face facts here.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. The drought is part of it.

But part of it is also due to the enormous fuel buildup that has been allowed to occur in a lot of areas.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Obviously if there's no fuel, there's no fire. And if the fuel is bone dry...

...the fire will be more intense and harder to manage.

This is the effect of climate change.

Prior to the 18 month drought, there was a very wet spell. Also an expectation from climate change: when it rains it rains more. That resulted in a LOT of growth, which has now been drying out for 18 months.

Go ask a firefighter how big a part of it the drought is.

[Botany]

2. Much of the land is chaparral and it "made to burn."

It has a "pyric life cycle."

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. So if it's wet, it still burns with the same frequency and intensity?

Be clear please, are you dismissing the effects of drought for the last 18 months, some of which have been classified as "extreme" drought?

Are you saying that this burn and the intensity of it would be the same with or without a drought?

[Botany]

14. Very complex

The intensity of the fire is related to many factors one of which is "fuel load" and if you had a
"wet season" that produced more vegetative growth and then when it dried out you would have more
fuel for the burn ..... also if "natural fires" have been suppressed then the fuel would build up too.

Although drought / global warming also can contribute to the size of fires to because the trees
and undergrowth are dryer so low intensity fires can become real "boomers."

Please remember that my knowledge of fires has more to do w/ prairie fires and controlled burns
in the east and midwest so I am sure am missing many factors having to do with the California fires
such as the Santa Anna winds and fire behavior in canyons and mountains.

[Harper_is_Bush]

31. Very wet events, followed by long periods of drought. That's global warming

and that's what creates the conditions for more frequent and more intense wildfires.

Agree?

[Botany]

41. Yes and no

Southern / Coastal California has always been a "Mediterranean / Desert" environment
and pryic ecology has evolved along with those environments. One could assume that
global warming has had an impact on those systems but the impacts could be really varied.

i.e. if the Chaparral is replaced with more desert plants i.e. Cactus & other desert plants
you might have less fuel for fires .... if man changes the environment with development
and brings in more fuel and suppresses all fires so the "fuel load" builds up than fires
could be bigger.

Typical So. Cal ecology, rainfall, snowfall, snow pack, and natural fire cycles will change
with Global Climate Change but nobody can say exactly how.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. Thank you.

A little ecological reality here. California Redwood seed, for example, need fires to germinate them. It's just the ecosystem here. When people build houses within that system, they are risking being the victim of that ecosystem. And NO I'M NOT SAYING THEY DESERVE IT! It's mother nature's reality.

[Botany]

44. chaparral is made to burn

The wood of the plant is very weak, dry, and filled with flammable oils sometimes of the
year. A fire would come through and clear off the above ground part of the plant and it
(the chaparral) would come back from the roots.

The problem(s) here have to do with land use, plant types, accumilation of fuel load,
and no doubt that global warming is a factor but exactly @ what level I can't say.

On the micro level controlled burns, the use of native plants, fire breaks, home
design, and comon sense can help "the fire problem."

On the macro level gobal warming must be addressed on many levels.

[mike_c]

3. while we ARE experiencing effects of climate change...

...these fires are more a combination of the normal fire season and decades of fire exclusion in the chaparral and forest.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. Right. The dryness of the land has little to do with it.

:sarcasm:

[mike_c]

12. have you ever been to socal while the Santa Annas are blowing...?

It's like standing in the mouth of a blast furnace, and that's when fires are NOT burning.

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. I'm not sure what your point is. Please consider:

You have three things happening:

1. extreme drought
2. higher than average temperatures (10 degrees higher at the moment)
3. the Santa Annas are blowing stronger than normal.

I realize fire is a natural occurance in socal, but if you're going to pretend that these fires won't be more frequent and more intense under the effects of global warming, I question your intellectual honesty.

[mike_c]

15. whoa. cool your jets....

I never said any such thing. What I said was that fire is a NORMAL occurrence in sourthern California, and that the severity of these particular fires is more likely due to the unlucky confluence of normal variation in precipitation patterns, wind, etc.-- which does include extreme drought in socal-- and dense fuels accumulation resulting from fire exclusion policies.

Yes indeed, socal fires might become more intense and frequent as climate changes, but we are still well within natural variation here. There is no need to identify climate change as a driving factor in these fires-- there are lots of more proximal causes that we can actually do something about.

[wtmusic]

20. "Well within natural variation" is the key point

If you run around screaming "global warming" everytime there's a brush fire in fall in SoCal, the deniers will ask "Global warming?" when it frosts or occasionally snows here (and it will).

IMO the objective should be to steer discussion of the topic away from short-term phenomena.

[DangerDave921]

23. Exactly!

For every unseasonably warm day in winter, some people will scream "Climate Change!" But then on a really cold day in winter, someone will still scream "Climate Change!" Climate change cannot be proven on short-term fluctuations in weather. That's anecdotal evidence at best. We're talking about a much longer, slower process because the Earth always seems to be in some kind of flux with respect to weather patterns.

[Usrename]

29. It's a shame.

It’s a shame that the scientific evidence (which should be the more compelling evidence) is overlooked, or not understood exactly, and instead, the anecdotal evidence (which should be the less compelling evidence) is pushed forward as being more important somehow.

[DangerDave921]

54. I hear ya!

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that whenever you try to use it, someone on the other side will point out (rightfully so) that there were forest fires, and hurricanes, and floods, and droughts, etc. well before any possible man-made climate change. You know, the johnstown flood and all that. And how do we explain that? I admit I'm at a loss sometimes. Seems we either have to rely on anecdotal evidence (which gets debunked) or we have to rely on computer models based on hypothetical assumptions, which then get challenged for being imprecise and subject to variables based on the assumptions we plug in.

[Harper_is_Bush]

30. That's ridiculous. We're talking about patterns here. And the term "screaming" is offensive here.

Am I "screaming"? I suppose I'm an "alarmist", that it?

I have a simple way for you to answer the deniers when they point at frost or occasional snow: you tell them that's a weather event, not a climate pattern.

The increased drought and higher temperatures that socal is suffering from is part of a climate pattern.

Look at the South-East.
Look at Austrailia.
Look at Europe.
And that's just drought and high temps, in the last year. Look beyond the last year.

The climate is changing, and the current situation in socal fits a wider pattern. Not saying (saying, not "screaming") so because you're scared that the deniers will eventually find a cold day to point at is ridiculous.

[wtmusic]

48. Sorry, didn't mean to offend

:thumbsup:

[Usrename]

24. The fire season in 10 of the last 15 years has lasted much longer.

The fire season in socal is about 78 days longer now, each year, than it ever has been, going back at least 1000 years. This effect is predicted as result of global warming.

I doubt any of this would change if we just "let it burn" like you want to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2109579&mesg_id=2109717

"Let it burn." Like that's some sort of wisdom.

[mike_c]

32. not necessarily true in socal....

Take a look at: http://www.vcreporter.com/article.php?id=3785&IssueNum=89

In an e-mail interview, Westerling said he expected temperatures in California to continue to rise, but stressed that “the effect of warmer temperatures on the timing of spring and on the severity of summer fire seasons is marginal in places like the chaparral-covered slopes of coastal Southern California, where temperatures are already relatively high in spring and summer, and the summer dry season is very long, compared to high elevation forests in the northern Rockies.”

Westerling also conducted a forward-looking study for the newly formed California Climate Change Center, published in February of this year, in which he used two general circulation models of the atmosphere — which some scientists call “math worlds” — to look at the potential for fire in California in the future.

Both models predicted warmer temperatures to come in our state, and both pointed to an increased risk of fire in foothill communities in the Sierra Nevada. But the Parallel Climate Model developed at the University of Washington forecast wetter conditions in Southern California, when compared to the climatology of our region from 1961 to l990, while the other model, developed at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, forecast drier conditions throughout California.

(snip)

Minnich believes that more important is the American policy of suppressing all wildfires, which leads to far more devastating fires than otherwise would be the case. He points out that in Baja California today and in Southern California in the past, wildfires in chaparral in “normal weather” in July and August burned freely but slowly, often for weeks at a time. Today, because fire departments suppress wildland fires as quickly as possible, he argues, “We end up selecting for fires which cannot be controlled. This virtually guarantees that your major fires will come in the worst weather situations, during the Santa Anas, with extreme heat and 50-mph winds.”

(snip)

Since wind has always driven the most dangerous fires in Southern California, instead of looking to climate change to explain the dramatic leap in fire damage in Southern California in recent decades, Jon Keeley, an ecological researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey, looked at how these fires start. He found that over 95 percent of fire-starts in Southern California are human in origin, typically from arson, carelessness, or power line arcing, and the increase in large fires in our area tracks closely with the increase in population.

more@link

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. How can you make the claim that more drought and temperatures are a "natural" variation?

You can't.

And no, socal fires "might" not become more intense and frequent as climate changes, they WILL become more intense and frequent.

[mike_c]

34. good lord, that is one of the most nonsensical statements I've seen today....

I don't know where to begin. Do you understand the terms "mean" and "variance?" There is only the slightest real evidence that long term mean air temperatures in socal have increased significantly, and none to suggest that current weather patterns are outside the historical natural variation. Here's something from the article I linked above:

"...the history of our region offers plenty of examples to prove Didion’s point. Although the Cedar Fire in San Diego three years ago is the single largest on state record, newspaper accounts from 1889 detailed a drought-fueled fire in what is today Orange County that was probably three times as large, and Native American legends from several tribes in the San Diego area recall a mass migration hundreds of years ago driven by what may have been an even bigger fire."

No one is suggesting that mean temperatures won't increase, or aren't increasing, but there is really very little evidence to suggest the SD county fires this season have anything to do with that.

[Harper_is_Bush]

40. Do you understand the term "more"? How about the term "pattern"?

An increase in the frequency and length of drought and higher temperatures is not within the "mean" or "variance".

Don't talk to me about this particular day being within a temperature "variance", or the record drought for that matter. I'm talking about patterns of increasing drought.

By definition, if a pattern is trending upwards, then things are not remaining normal.

So to put it simply, you are absolutely incorrect when you claim that "current weather patterns" are not outside "historical natural variation". With all due respect, you can't have been paying attention to global warming news very closely.

[mike_c]

42. "...you can't have been paying attention to global warming...."

Dude, paying attention to climate change is part of what I do for a LIVING. Look, I appreciate that you're getting the message about climate change, but I assure you there is no compelling evidence that suggests the fires burning in socal right now have anything much to do with global warming. On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence implicating the unlucky confluence of normal variation in drought, temperature, and the Santa Anas, along with poor forest management and human population expansion.

[Harper_is_Bush]

43. Do you agree that the peer-reviewed science of the IPCC forecasts

more periods of drought that last longer, as well as higher temperatures?

Yes or No?

If yes, then you essentially agree with what I'm saying.

Patterns of drought inceasing in frequency and severity are already outside the "natural variation" in the world.

Agree? Yes or No?

Patters of temperature being higher and more frequently higher are already outside the "natural variation" in the world.

Agree? Yes or No?

So, while we can sit back forever and claim that no one single event (ex. the record drought and above average temps socal is experiencing) is outside "natural variation", it begs the question: at what point can we EVER point to climate change as a factor in anything?

[mike_c]

46. do I agree...?

"...IPCC forecasts more periods of drought that last longer, as well as higher temperatures?"

Of course-- and I agree with the forecasts themselves, which deal primarily with PLANETARY scale models, not local models.


"Patterns of drought inceasing in frequency and severity are already outside the "natural variation" in the world."

Perhaps in some limited cases, but generally, not at all. I'm not aware of any evidence for this, notwithstanding desertification in places like North Africa, for example, which are really another issue anyway. Perhaps you could link some evidence supporting this contention? Not someone's opinions, mind you-- not even Al Gore's-- but data. I suspect that it will begin accumulating soon, but it's still WAY too early to make that call, IMO. Temperature is another matter, of course-- mean summer temps in the Arctic are clearly higher than recent historical norms. Drought is much harder to demonstrate, primarily because precip has such high natural variation.


"Patters of temperature being higher and more frequently higher are already outside the "natural variation" in the world."

Yes, without doubt, although there is little evidence for major ecological impacts of temperature increase in the temperate zones yet. Arctic and boreal regions are another matter, however.


"...at what point can we EVER point to climate change as a factor in anything?"

An excellent question, the answer to which we are still trying to grapple with. This is essentially a statistical matter IMO. How long does it take for the mean condition (temp, precip, wind, destruction, etc) to diverge from its prior trajectory? When do global conditions become indistinguishable from the predictions of general circulation models predicting significant climate change? That depends-- mostly on the degree of natural variation that obscures the signal. That's one reason that LOCAL events are so much harder to attribute to single causes than global changes-- local variation is usually HUGE.

[Usrename]

58. It's a non-linear system.

The trouble that you are having with grasping the science is inherent in the system itself. It is a material aspect of the science (mathematics) of climate and climate change.

For a simple example, imagine a water-wheel turning a mill. The water going into the thing is constant. The frictional load is linear, depending on the speed of the wheel. Now, create some same-sized holes in all of the buckets to allow just a portion of the water to escape as the thing turns.

It might seem that if you let this thing turn long enough, it would eventually settle into a constant speed of rotation, and also it might seem that mathematically you could have enough information to try and determine precisely what this ultimate speed would be. Each of the functions involved is linear and can be accurately defined.

What the thing actually does, though, if you were to really build such a device, is that it continually hunts for a steady speed but it never achieves it. You will have created a non-linear machine, and its speed will vary around two different steady-stated points, but it will never settle in. Never. These are known as Lorenz attractors.

By concentrating only on the statistical aspects of observed climate change, without also considering the implications of the non-linearity in the system, you can only obtain a mathematically incomplete understanding of nature.

[mike_c]

59. with respect...

...I'm a professional ecologist, with a strong background in theoretical ecology (Dick Wiegert was my Ph.D. co-advisor back in the day). I understand non-linear systems.

[Usrename]

61. You are one of the few that do.

I wish you would phrase your objections more carefully. The fires that are raging as we speak are statistically significant in the context of global warming.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. Perhaps he can make that claim because he's an ecologist.

He's a highly trained working scientist. Are you?

[Le Taz Hot]

39. California has a long history of droughts.

THOUSDANDS of years worth. Really, dude, drought IS part of our condition here.

[Xithras]

57. Indeed. Some centuries long. California was settled in a wet period.

There is a shoreline 300 feet down in Donner and Tahoe lakes which shows that those lakes suffered massive evaporation in a century long drought about 500 years ago. There are DOZENS of lower shorelines in those lakes demonstrating that this drought cycle has repeated itself in cycles since the end of the last ice age. These so-called "mega-droughts" seem to happen every few hundred years or so. The last one ended in the 16th century.

I do believe in Global Warming, but I happen to believe that the drought in the southwest in unrelated to it. What we are seeing is the "perfect storm" of weather disasters...cyclical drought, global warming, and a population explosion all happening at the same time.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Sixty Minutes covered the fire fighters this past Sunday .

These people have been fighting fires for fifteen to thirty years and one of them said nobody on the firebreak doubts the effects global warming climate change is having on this crisis.

[Cha]

21. That's good! Global Climate knowledge

is getting out(unfortunately) whether our coroporatemedia wants it to or not.

[AngryAmish]

49. Talking about climate change is impossible in the media these days

Name ne person in the media or entertainment field that dares mention climate change without being fired? None. The subject is verboten.

These days it takes a very brave person in NY media circles or Hollywood to speak the truth about Bush.

[Swede]

4. Fire season has almost doubled in amount of time per year.

That means it is not a change in weather,but a change in climate.

[ChicagoRonin]

7. How much is due to sprawl and overdevelopment?

I'm wondering, since both factors stretch out emergency infrastructure (fire departments, ambulance services, etc.), deplete natural resources such as water (from the ground, lakes, rivers, etc.), and frequently result in the removal of natural protection provided by trees and other vegetation.

[aquart]

9. Let me know where you think the humans should go.

[mike_c]

16. first step: stop making so many new humans....

eom

[Cha]

22. Logical answer..

OT..richard pearle is evil.

[mike_c]

25. yep-- that is one of my all time favorite quotes....

The hubris is shocking.

[ChicagoRonin]

18. I don't quite understand your question

As I was asking a question myself. In any case, from what I've read (and it could be wrong, for all I know), a long of the recent real estate development has been done without a lot of thought put into the ability of local environments and infrastructure to absorb the growth. And no, I'm not talking about liberal, tree-hugging, protect the environment stuff, I'm talking about basic logistical issues: water, power, streets, sanitation, etc. Plus, as far as "where the humans should go", I believe that that many of them could live in already developed urban and suburban areas if it weren't for the fact that property values and rents are overinflated and jacked up. Large stretches of California are subject to drought and arid conditions even without global warming and are not ideal for humans to live in, as it takes a huge expenditure of money and resources to make them livable, to say nothing of protecting them from forces like the fires we are witnessing.

[LSK]

28. sprawl is not unique to California

Ever been out to Dupage county lately?

[Ellen Forradalom]

50. Not simply sprawl, but overall development patterns

Siting, density, materials, landscaping, demands on resources, and population.

I am wondering if the lesser fire activity across the border in Mexico is due to different weather conditions (the Santa Anas don't reach that far south?) or differences in development patterns.

[mike_c]

62. I don't have data, but my gut feeling is...

...that much of the difference has to do with different fire management. In the U.S. we suppress fires much more vigorously than mexicans do, so fuels accumulate to a greater extent. Wildfires in northern Mexico tend to smolder for long periods at relatively low intensity. Similar fires on the U.S. side of the border rage.

[Ellen Forradalom]

64. interesting

[malakai2]

65. 100 years of fire suppression will do that

Also important to consider is the settlement pattern in the wildland-urban interface. Consolidating new development to minimize the surface-area ratio within a flammable natural landscape would be a very wise idea for people living in western and southern pine forests, chaparral, and any habitats being invaded by annual grasses, especially cheatgrass. A larger WUI substantially increases the cost of, and public demand for, suppression. And as far as chaparral and sagebrush landscapes go, the introduction of those annual grasses, especially cheatgrass, is reducing the fire return interval from 50-80 years in chaparral or 75-125 years in sagebrush to 2-3 years in what becomes annual grassland.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. Besides drought, the Santa Ana winds are stronger than normal and the temperatures are 10 degrees

above normal.

[Kajsa]

17. While wildfires in the fall are familiar to us, here in SoCal,

this is Apocalyptic.
I've lived in SoCal off and on for over 55 years,
and never seen anything on this scale.

We are surrounded by fires, and everyone is affected.

My brother is awaiting word to see if he has a home to return to.
He was evacuated from both his home and work in Rancho Bernardo, yesterday.

Right now, there are 17 fires in SoCal.

The temperature is expected to hit 90 and above, today.

[Bluebear]

19. you GORE FANATIC!!!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3634643

check it out :rofl:

[LSK]

27. THANK YOU, THIS SHOULD BE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

[Timmy5835]

33. You can also blame........

....the Forest Service. This land was meant to burn. Thanks to the aggressive moves of the Forest Service to put out ALL forest fires, you now have hundred year under growth just ready to explode. That's what's happening now.

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. I guess if you don't want to talk about the effects of global warming you can focus on that...

..I didn't say that the supression of fires wasn't a factor.

However, the fact that there has been a record 18 month drought (with several months being classified as "extreme"), and the temperatures are 10 degrees higher than normal, and the winds are blowing harder than normal (high temp = higher winds), I would venture to say that this fits the drought and temperature patterns of climate change we've seen manifesting more and more in recent years. Wouldn't you?

[leftchick]

37. those fighting the fires agree

Watch the 60 minutes report on Mega Fires due to global warming. The firefighters interviewed say there is a direct connection and these fires are unprecedented.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

[tjwash]

45. In 50 plus years of living in San Diego, I have never seen it as bad as the last 7 years here.

We had brush fires in the 60s, 70's, 80's, and 90's but none have EVER approached the intensity as they have the past 7 years.

Starting in 2000, even our run of the mill brush fires that we get normally here were remarkably higher in intensity. Seriously now; Despite what the clueless idiots that post ignorant garbage about "letting it burn", and "you know that you live in a fire zone you deserve to lose your houses" say - we know we live in brush fire territory, and we know it burns every year. Communities were actually designed with this in mind here. They have massive fire breaks, and fire retardant plants around housing communities out here. Brush fires are just a normal September-October here in SOCAL, and before the last 7 years or so, were no big deal.

However- the intensity of the burns, the feeder winds, and height if the flames, etc. has NEVER been like this. I thought that 4 years ago, after the Cedar fire rampaged through here, that I had actually witnessed a once in a lifetime fire event back then. This one now is worse. More houses have been destroyed, and more people have been displaced and evacuated. The local RW talk hacks out here (Hedgecock, etc.) basically hung up on anyone who dared to even hint that global warming may have anything to do with it.

So... I guess this is a long winded way of saying yeah- you're right. I have been talking about the global warming connection to everyone here for years now.

[krabigirl]

47. Hmmm. I'm not sure. Lived here all my life, and you are right that this is the worse case.

But this is common for this time of year, with the wind conditions.

On edit: The fire close to me was caused by arson, so I wouldn't be claiming that it had anything to do with climate change. The chaparral around her is designed to burn.

Yes, there's climate change for sure, but I don't think these fires are caused by it.

[Booster]

51. I think we're experiencing the effects of arsonists.

[lonestarnot]

52. Them too.

[XemaSab]

53. You've got to take a broader perspective though

There have been droughts in California that have lasted 100 years before.

Blaming everything on climate change? I dunno that you can do that...

[Harper_is_Bush]

55. Who is "blaming everything on climate change"?

This is a record drought.

The temperatures are 10 degrees above normal (which is also feeding the strength of the winds).

Both of these things are in line with the climate change forecasts, and both of these things are on the rise accross the globe in the areas that they're forecasted to increase due to climate change.

Nothing I'm saying is in doubt.

[Gormy Cuss]

56. What do you know?

As if a trained biologist like you knows anything about science.
:eyes:

[gulfcoastliberal]

63. Huge wildfires (and droughts) this year all over really makes me think we're witnessing the

effects of enormous abrupt climate shift. Huge fires are taking out much of the remaining intact, remote areas of the Amazon - reducing/eliminating/reversing its function as a carbon sink - plus we're losing the oceanic carbon sink. The giant deadly wildfires in Greece this summer were unprecedented. Huge peat bogs in Indonesia have been burning out of control for a long time. Drought has crippled the SE U.S. as well. In Florida, lake Okeechobee dried out & the lake bed caught fire. So did Georgia's Okefenokee Swamp. Atlanta is 3 months away from literally running out of water. Droughts in North Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee are also extreme, and Virginia and Maryland are rapidly catching up. The Australian city of Adelaide is drawing up emergency last ditch plans to bring in water tankers and bottled water to supply the population because the Murray river system, their water supply, has collapsed. Smaller outback towns have already been abandoned due the water supplies drying up. The AU federal gov't is paying farmers $150,000 to leave their now useless land behind and start over.
Meanwhile the Arctic & Greenland ice sheet melted so much this summer that scientists are still in a state of shock. The permafrost is rapidly melting in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. This is rapidly altering the geography of the arctic landscape but even worse are the thermokarst melt lakes popping up across the former permafrost, most releasing huge amounts of methane directly into the atmosphere.
I think these fires are so intense and record breaking because of global warming. Not that GW started them but that the extent and severity of wildfires this year all around the world are the predicted symptoms of the rapidly changing/heating climate now looking like a reality. Just a personal hypothesis. I sure hope I'm wrong.

[Zhade]

60. I've started considering carrying a vial of cyanide on my person.

Just for when things get unbearable.

And I'm only half-joking.

:\

[Beerboy]

66. I replied in a thread yesterday, 'the chickens are coming home to roost';

That went over like a lead balloon. With a couple fuck-offs to boot.

[AntiFascist]

67. K&R

Even our water company is warning us that we are approaching a period of "permanent drought for the Southwestern US". This can only be due to one thing.

[piesRsquare]

68. California is also experiencing the effects of ARSON, period! n/t

[AntiFascist]

69. 100 mph winds can knock down power lines, you know n/t