Some quick housekeeping

Some of our users log in via twitter.  This causes them to show invalid email addresses in WordPress, usually some form of *example.com

This is causing these users’ comments to get automatically black holed.

I suggest these users use a WordPress log in with a valid email address.

And if you feel like using this post as an open thread, go ahead.

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “Some quick housekeeping

  1. As the U.S. Forest Service fights dozens of wildfires across several states, it isn’t using one of the biggest weapons available: a converted Boeing 747 that can drop 19,000 gallons of flame retardant in a single run, covering a path 200 feet wide and up to 2 miles long.

    And it won’t say why.

    An Associated Press report out of Boise, Idaho, says Jim Wheeler of Global SuperTanker Services has filed a protest after the Forest Service set a 5,000-gallon limit for firefighting aircraft without offering an explanation. The Forest Service told the AP it can’t comment on use of the 747s because of Wheeler’s protest.

    http://www.bendbulletin.com/exports/newsletters/main/5455417-151/editorial-forest-service-needs-to-explain-tanker-decision

    • Must be in an effort to allow for much larger burns and more costly destruction of structures in an effort to prove that the AGW mantra of BIGGER FIRES due to climate change is really happening.

    • The US Forest Service, which manages 80% of US forests, knows that bark beetles kill trees and than dead trees burn fast.

      What my question is is, “Could this be another catastrophe resulting from the environmentalist war on fire retardants?”

      It all began with banning PCBs, continued with CFCs, developed further with GHGs (includes transformer oils) and now possibly extends to forest management and apartment building/furniture products.

      • You forgot to mention controlled (no clear cut) logging.
        The environmentalist war isn’t just against fire retardants.
        It’s against anything Man does. Those who want to control Man are the ones pulling the strings.

        I agree, a couple of 747s with refueling capabilities, as Air Force One has, would be a great and effective tool against the large forest fire that sometimes breakout. (The refueling capability would reduce the number of them to have on standby.)

      • Gunga Din, nothing personal, but I think you need to rethink your refueling requirement. I don’t know for sure, but I would think an empty 747 with no load and full fuel tanks could fly an extreme distance in a short time. They could then land and load up on water and retardant close to the fire site, like they usually do. I think Air Force One needs the capability in case of Nuclear War, when they might have to stay aloft for extended periods of time for safety and to conduct command and control, like Looking Glass did during the cold war period. A moving target is hard to hit.

      • Gunga Din July 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm “You forgot to mention controlled (no clear cut) logging.
        The environmentalist war isn’t just against fire retardants.”

        I second that. (Sorry about the capital letters.) It may be that the biggest swamp is the Forest Service.

        STUDY LOOKS AT TREE HARVESTING AS A MEANS TO STEM BEETLE SPREAD.

        FEDERAL FOREST POLICIES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES HAVE DRASTICALLY RESTRICTED THE HARVESTING OF TIMBER.

        LETTER: NATIONAL MONUMENTS PROVE BAD FOR FOREST HEALTH – AMERICAN …
        http://WWW.AMERICANLANDSCOUNCIL.ORG/LETTER_NATIONAL_MONUMENTS_PROVE_BAD_FOR_ FOREST_HEALTH

        AUG 2, 2016 … BECAUSE OF THE DROUGHT AND THE BARK BEETLE, OUR FORESTS HAVE BECOME TINDER BOXES READY TO EXPLODE. RESEARCH INTO NATIONAL MONUMENTS

        OUR FEDERAL LANDLORD HAS DONE COLORADO NO FAVORS

        NOV 7, 2014 … THE DANGEROUSLY DEGRADED STATE OF THESE “PROTECTED” LANDS COULDN’T BE MORE OBVIOUS. BROWNED OR BLACKENED FORESTS; UNCHECKED BEETLE BLIGHT

        FED POLICIES, GREEN ACTIVISM CAUSING CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES …
        http://WWW.AMERICANLANDSCOUNCIL.ORG/FED_POLICIES_GREEN_ACTIVISM_CAUSING_ CATASTROPHIC_WILDFIRES

        JUN 12, 2016 … THE BANNING OF INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES HAS ALLOWED DISEASE AND BARK BEETLES TO KILL ONCE-HEALTHY TREES, MAKING THEM MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO …

      • Zeke: “Could this be another catastrophe resulting from the environmentalist war on fire retardants?”

        The short answer is “No.” If anything over use of retardant is adding to the problem, but it has been building since the 19th century. Native Americans understood fire and used it extensively to clear pasture for livestock, to enhance grass growth for the next season and occasionally as a war weapon. And they seldom interfered with the thousands of natural lightning caused fires every year. As a result the forests were considerably thinner then. Photographs taken by early explorers reveal MUCH less dense forest growth in the mid 19th century than now. The reason is the European idea that all fire was bad and destroying valuable timber and thus the advent of extreme over suppression of fires starting in the late 19th century. This led to large, extreme fires that seldom happened previously and began as early as the 1910 “Big Blowup” and continued to get worse all through the 20th century and is epidemic now. Forest managers and FMOs (Fire Management Officers) all understand this but are trapped in a bureaucratic catch 22. If they suppress every start they know that they are adding to the problem, but they inherited a mess of overgrown, dense and unhealthy forest to begin with and if they intentionally fail to suppress a new start and it blows up into a major incident, they are responsible and that could be a career ending move. So they launch everything on every smoke sighting and hope they retire before the unstoppable “Big One” happens from the excessive fuel build-up. When I was flying Air Tankers it was not uncommon to launch after a lightning storm and drop 1/4 of a load (450 gallons in the old B-17 I flew) on 4 different single tree fires, then be sent back to reload and go out to 4 more. In 9 out of 10 times those little fires would have done nothing but clean out some old trees and undergrowth and gone out, but no manager was willing to risk that 10th time when it became a 100,000 acre disaster.

      • “Photographs taken by early explorers reveal MUCH less dense forest growth in the mid 19th century than now. The reason is the European idea that all fire was bad and destroying valuable timber and thus the advent of extreme over suppression of fires starting in the late 19th century.”

        Wouldn’t this suggest that thinning forests by timber harvesting would be a prudent course of action along with fire suppression to achieve the same result?

      • Kurt: “Wouldn’t this suggest that thinning forests by timber harvesting would be a prudent course of action along with fire suppression to achieve the same result?”

        It helps and is being done but is not a solution. The effect on the forest is quite different. A natural fire in the forest will consume the understory with a low intensity, low heat fire, cleaning up dead grass, brush, pine needle litter, fallen trees and thinning out seedlings and very seldom crowning out so there is little to no damage to mature trees. Timber harvesting takes out only mature trees leaving the understory mostly untouched, allowing for massive fuel buildup and the potential for big, hot fires. Fires hot enough to crown out and destroy even sparse and scattered mature trees. Control burns are a bigger help but much of the Western forests are in such bad shape now that they are beyond the possibility of a successful control burn. There is so much fuel that any control burn would almost certainly blow up into an out of control disaster and no manager would take the chance of ending his career by trying it.

    • Can only be they don’t want to add to the Co2 already being let loose from the fire , the genius of the green left at work here .
      In OZ they now prefer to let large fires that are burning in remote areas to burn themselves out , which is the proper way of doing things and something that our indigenous inhabitants understood and mastered for 50,000 plus years .

    • The US wildfire air tanker industry has been a corrupt political mess for decades. I flew air tankers from 1984 to 2002 and was constantly amazed and amused by the circus in that industry. Most of the decisions regarding the air tanker fleet don’t originate with the Forest Service anyway. The first and last decisions usually come out of the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, ID. with input from all the agencies concerned, the USFS, BLM, NPS and BIA. All that aside, I can imagine several reasons why the big jets were dropped. Expense being the first. Very few fires and targets require 19,000 gallons of retardant and keeping an expensive aircraft like a 747 on contract for an entire season for the 1 or 2 fires a year that may require it would be poor utilization of the budget. In my entire career in that business I only recall 5 or perhaps 6 fires I was on that could have effectively utilized a 19,000 gallon tanker. As long ago as 1994 I recall reading a paper by some USFS science advisors that looked at the fire suppression budget and calculated that the agency would save money by letting all fires burn and reimbursing private property owners who were impacted by fires. That would also result, eventually, in healthier forests and avoid most of the huge and highly destructive fires and the insect plagues caused by over-suppression of natures housecleaning tool of fire.

      Another reason could well be tactical. I spoke a few years ago with a 747 pilot who also had a lot of air tanker experience early in his career and he thought the 747 would make a very poor tanker. The value of a tanker drop is not how much, but where it lands and how well it supports the ground troops and incident commander in their job of controlling the fire. it could well be that the ground people were not all that impressed with the 747.

      And finally, it would be interesting to hear what Boeing has to say about using a 747 as an air tanker. The feds got a pretty black eye over the fiasco of the C-130 years ago, which wound up killing several crews. One crew made national news when their port wing fell off during a drop with a news camera rolling nearby. It could well be that Boeing has second thoughts about the structural integrity of the 747 in that environment of max zero fuel loading, high G pull ups and low altitude turbulence.

      • Bill, I agree with almost everything you have stated except for this part – “…letting all fires burn and reimbursing private property owners who were impacted by fires. That would also result, eventually, in healthier forests and avoid most of the huge and highly destructive fires and the insect plagues caused by over-suppression of natures housecleaning tool of fire.”

        The result is a “forest” barren of trees consisting mostly of highly flammable brush and very little feed for wildlife. I think we should return to forest managenment techniques the Indians used, and that idea does not include abolishing logging. I am open to intelligent suggestions on how that may be achieved.

        Today, in so-called healthy forests where I reside, there is so much flammable undergrowth that a huge destructive fire is just waiting to happen.

      • Chad: “I am open to intelligent suggestions on how that may be achieved.”

        There may not be an intelligent solution at this point. When I said “eventually” I was thinking in terms of a century or so. I’m all for aggressive timber harvesting, including clear cuts when needed and useful and definitely control burning wherever that is still possible. But the bottom line is that nature will eventually solve the problem her way by burning out the trash, slowly like she intended or violently as we’ve forced her to do recently. Ironically enough, IMO the best thing we’ve done to help her is adding extra CO2 to the air to help her regenerate.

    • “He who controls the language controls the masses.” Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals

      On this page “Wildfire” vs “Forest Fire” wins 4 to 1.

      When did Wildfire replace Forest Fire?

      • RE: “When did Wildfire replace Forest Fire?”

        It didn’t. A forest fire obviously refers to a fire in a forest. Wildfire, or better, wildland fire, is a more generic term that applies to grassland fires, sage and scrub fires as well as forest fires. Since it’s not uncommon for grass or sage fires to burn into timber and start a “forest fire” and vice versa and because the USFS and the other fed agencies also manage millions of acres of grass and sage as well as timber, the more generic and descriptive term is most commonly used in the industry. The only person I ever heard using the term “Forest Fire” routinely in that industry was Smokey the bear.

    • uhm…billable hours – the more time the fire burns, the more fire fighters stay ’employed’. Merely conjecture but the motto “follow the money…” always, always, always applies in today’s society

      • Exactly right, Rick. A standing joke in the wildland fire industry is that the government has modified the classic fire triangle of Heat->Fuel->Oxygen into a new design of a fire square of Heat->Fuel->Oxygen->Available Budget. Both the kids on the fire line and the hordes of contractors that support them with everything from sack lunches to 747 air tankers all know that more fires means more money. The forest managers know that they will not get into too much trouble if they exceed their fire budget, but if they let a fire get away and burn up part of a town, they have a big problem. This fire, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeo%E2%80%93Chediski_Fire is instructive. Started by a young man hoping to get called in for work on a crew. He did, but decades of overly aggressive fire suppression had left the area so overgrown that the fire burned nearly 1/2 million acres and part of a town and forced the evacuation of several more towns before it was stopped.

  2. “I suggest these users use a WordPress log in with a valid email address.”

    If your WordPress account ties to a blog with a forbidden word in the title, it seems the comments always go to moderation. This probably doesn’t matter to most people, but one of my blog names has a term that is moderated out here and I cannot use WordPress. I had to use an email that was not tied to WordPress, and just my first name, in order to avoid the mess.

    • I found a similar problem with WordPress arising from a very brief experiment I tried, using WordPress as a content management system on one of my web sites. I very quickly reverted to my CMS preference—Drupal. I, too, found I had to use an email address not associated with WordPress in any way, even though I cancelled (or so I thought) my WordPress accounts. It appears that it doesn’t delete the information but retains it and merely “marks” it as cancelled. So, if I use my usual email address, WordPress on this site requests that I login—and of course rejects it because the account has been cancelled. Joseph Heller would love this! I don’t log in, I use the alternative scheme to fill in my details. My browser tends to remember the details so I don’t have to fill them in every time, but I have to use the alternate email address!

      I now know why, too, that I don’t have Twitter or Facebook accounts!

    • Using word filters to moderate is both lazy and stupid. The words soon get known and alternative character sets are used anyway. At the very least if you are going to use a word filter it should have a transparent and accessible list to save us the time and trouble.

      • CTM did not write that word filters are used to automatically moderate. He wrote that email addresses that are invalid were used to automatically moderate.

  3. This runaway globull warming has to stop I’m freezing my butt off here in Victoriastan.

    • Stove going full pelt here in Victoriastan. Hard frost this morning which sent all my just-coming-out daffodils and snowdrops drooping. Sunny now though, unlike yesterday with fog until lunchtime. Where dat global warming?

    • Canberrastan is pretty bad too. Negative temperatures most mornings. When will winter ever end and global warming start up again?

  4. Any estimates on how long humanity will be using fossil fuels for there energy desires? I’m thinking less than a hundred years. Waiting patiently for the mini-cold fusion reactor that you put a pill in once a year for all your household energy needs. That might get rid of the power grid but then, the protestors will complain about the effect it has on spider egg thickness. ;-)

  5. More and simpler examples please MG

    From: Watts Up With That? To: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Friday, 21 July 2017, 21:59 Subject: [New post] Some quick housekeeping #yiv2295782250 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2295782250 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2295782250 a.yiv2295782250primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2295782250 a.yiv2295782250primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2295782250 a.yiv2295782250primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2295782250 a.yiv2295782250primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv2295782250 WordPress.com | charles the moderator posted: “Some of our users log in via twitter.  This causes them to show invalid email addresses in WordPress, usually some form of *example.comThis is causing these users’ comments to get automatically black holed.I suggest these users use a WordPress log” | |

  6. JAMES HANSEN

    Used to be a name we heard a lot in relation to global warming. He seems to have been disappeared. I read his Wikipedia entry and there wasn’t a single mention of the Paris climate accord, which he called a fraud. That was the last I heard about him. Anybody know what is going on?

    My impression is that he takes what he says seriously. He advocates nuclear power, unlike most of the Greens these days. My guess would be that he has been sidelined as he is no longer useful to the movement.

    (Way off topic) MOD

    Reply:It’s an open thread~bigger mod~ctm

    • > “additional propaganda”

      At 1:05 to 1:15 into the video, the narrator on the documentary says, and I quote…

      Earth… 65 million years ago… a warmer place than it is today

      I wonder how long it’ll be before Mann and Karl adjust that one away.

  7. Someone objects that there was an accident with a Boeing 747 and now it cannot be used to fight fires. Fair enough.

    But I have found three more examples of planes and helicopters used by states to fight fires which were grounded or discontinued by the US Forest Service. It claimed the equipment used did not meet standards, or there was a delay for other reasons.
    ex 1
    http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/dnrc_helicopters_barred_from_fighting_fires_on_federal_land
    ex 2
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/14/as-wildfires-rage-modern-tanker-planes-sought.html
    ex 3
    “Federal failure to field an adequate air tanker fleet forced Colorado to fund its own.”
    http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/our_federal_landlord_has_done_colorado_no_favors

    The federal policies in state forests which have used extreme environmentalist “nature only” tactics are failing right before your eyes. For 40 years these forests have been badly mismanaged resulting in the disaster you see today. The access roads are closed, the timber is not being thinned, the overburden of fuel is piling up, beetles have decimated millions of acres, and the firefighting techniques are being severely limited. While some argue that all is well and this is how the Native Americans “managed forests,” that is a continuation of the exact policies that have led to this point. For example::

    • “California’s drought and a bark beetle epidemic have caused the largest die-off of Sierra Nevada forests in modern history, raising fears that trees could come crashing down on people or fuel deadly wildfires that could wipe out mountain communities.

      Aerial images show vast forests that have turned a rust-color. The epidemic has killed an estimated 40 million trees since 2010 in the central and southern Sierra, and it’s spreading north.”

      “…Gov. Jerry Brown — considered a global leader in the fight against climate change — … called for sending the trees to biomass plants and converting them into energy.”

      So let’s make like Indians and send American forests to burn in converted coal plants in Europe, to meet European Union directives to burn wood, not coal.

      Estonian forests are also in similar danger of being taken out of the hands of national control and local mills and given to Chinese companies that use the wood for fuel which the EU is mandating.

Comments are closed.