Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
There is no hope for the truth when world leaders like Governor Brown of California (he runs the 19th largest economy in the world) can present such utterly false information in pursuit of a political agenda.
“Since civilization emerged 10,000 years ago, we haven’t had this kind of heat condition, and it’s going to continue getting worse and that’s the way it is.”
Civilization began more than 10,000 years ago and, in my opinion, it hasn’t reached California yet. I consider the 20,000-year-old cave paintings a measure of civilization, certainly superior to most ‘art’ produced in California today. It also reflects an awareness of nature that Brown lacks. Yes, the State may be wealthy, and manifest glamor and glitz, but, in my opinion, from Hollywood on down there are very few signs of civilization.
It was created by people going west, as Horace Greeley advised, looking for the promised land. It got drier and drier as they crossed the Mississippi and passed the 500 mm isohyet. They reached California and were determined to make it the land of milk and honey, even though most of the State has deficit moisture conditions all the time. It has burgeoned by literally plundering the water from the north and east including bringing it over the mountains from the Colorado River. The truth is most of the State is arid or semi-arid.
Brown clearly doesn’t know that the world was 6°C warmer 9000 years ago and was warmer than today for at least 95 % of the last 10,000 years known as the Holocene Optimum. Consider those conditions in California today. The Governor should count his blessing for purporting to be in charge during a cooler phase of global temperature. Being ignorant is one problem, opening your mouth and proving it is another. It is time to put the entire issue of weather, climate, and water in California in perspective.
In every lecture I ever gave at any university level, I always began with one or two items from the news that related to what we were studying in the course. It was part of my campaign to show the students that there was relevance to something in their university time. Of course, the information varied with the news cycle and the course I was teaching. However, there were some issues I used to demonstrate the application of another feature and that is the ability to predict based on information and understanding.
In the introductory climatology class, I always mentioned early in September that we can watch for a sequence of events from California. This will begin with complaints about drought and threatened water supplies. In the Fall, we will have stories about fires decimating the landscape and burning up communities. The next in the sequence is rain and mudslides. Welcome to sunny southern California. I don’t recall a year in which that sequence did not occur. The only differences were the intensity of the events, the hysteria of the media and the degree of political exploitation.
Exploitation of the California events is just another example of the standard ploy of environmentalists to take normal events and present them as abnormal. This works because most people have little knowledge or understanding of what is normal. They certainly don’t know anything about the patterns and mechanisms of climate or how they change over time.
Figure 1 shows the general circulation of the atmosphere that over the course of a year creates the average wind and weather conditions affecting each of the zones identified in Figure 2.
Figure 1
Although not identified in Figure 1 you have distinct latitude pressure zones from the Polar High to the Sub-polar Low, to the Sub-tropical High to the Equatorial Low.
Figure 2
Notice that there are only four zones (1,3, 7, and 9) that remain under the same controlling mechanism year-round. California’s climate is categorized under the Koppen system as a Mediterranean climate (Zone 5). It is unique because it is the only climate that has most, over 70% of its precipitation in the winter months. This means you have more effective precipitation for plant growth because less goes to evaporation. This occurs because in the winter California is under the influence of the Subpolar Low with cool, wet conditions, but in the summer, it is influenced by the Sub-tropical High with high temperatures and virtually no precipitation. It is called a Mediterranean climate because that is the part of the world with the largest area and classification was done in Europe. Figure 3 shows all the regions with similar weather conditions.
Figure 3
Here is the annual seasonal pattern of weather for these regions and most of California. Cool, wet winters create specific vegetations with different names in different parts of the world. It is Chaparral (Figure 4) in California and Maquis (Figure 5) around the Mediterranean. They are both shrub vegetation that survive the hot, dry summers but require fire as part of the regenerative process.
Figure 4 Chaparral in California
Figure 5 Maquis in Corsica
After the hot dry summer, the vegetation is parched and vulnerable to fires. These are triggered by several causes including lightning strikes as thunderstorms start to form and human causes that contrary to reports have declined since Europeans arrived. Figure 6 shows a graph of carbon sediments in the Pacific Ocean. Although this is for Central America, the settlement patterns are similar to those in California.
Figure 6
After many areas are burned off, which, with reduced vegetation cover due to shrinking and wilting, exposes soil to rainfall and downslope erosion. As the Sub-polar low migrates toward the equator, it brings rain to the region and so by late in the year the reports of mudslides are added to the collective woes of the promise land.
In this age of environmental extremism with its powerful underlying anti-humanity theme expressed by comments like those of Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA
“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
This may sound extreme, but various slightly more moderate eversion sexist everywhere. Many people react angrily to cruelty to animals while ignoring what happens to children.
Every change that is normal or natural is caused by humans, and this includes forest fires. The environmentalists such as Governor Brown ignore the moral dilemmas in their positions. For example, the number of forest fires and their extent has reduced dramatically in modern times. This is because while people do set fires, they also report and extinguish them more quickly. In the past humans set fires deliberately for hunting and they had no way of controlling them. They and lightning triggered fires frequently and always burned out of control as soil coring indicates. Then there were the vast grass fires, again natural from lightning, but also set by humans for driving animals for hunting. The Hudson’s Bay Journal has an entry at the end of the 18th century that simply says, “The Indians report the whole of the Prairies are on fire.” Paul Kane recorded such an event in his famous 1845-46, nighttime scene painting “Prairie on fire” (Figure 7).
Figure 7. (Editor; I left the copyright in place.)
The town of Carberry in west central Manitoba, was the first community in the Province to install a municipal water supply. It did so primarily to prevent their homes being burned down every time there was another grass fire.
Perhaps the final arrogance of people like Brown is that they consider California an ‘ideal’ climate for people. I know Inuit coming from Arctic Canada to Churchill on the shores of Hudson Bay for medical services hated the heat and couldn’t wait to get back to the high Arctic.
It is a risky world and no matter where you live there is some form of natural hazard. Your choice is move or understand and prepare for the hazards of the region. Clearly, Brown doesn’t understand the nature of California and since he is on State welfare he will not move. But that is fine because I don’t understand the nature of Brown, other than his manifest ignorance. The good news for him and the bad news for the truth is that the pattern of fires in Greece, another Mediterranean climate are also being misunderstood, mischaracterized, and mishandled by more bad leaders.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is the factual evidence happening on the ground. The world is getting hotter due to AGW and we need more than the IPCC Paris Agreement to combat it. Thankfully events like these huge Californian wild fires are convincing more Americans than ever before that climate change is happening and they, unlike the Trump administration, want to do something about it: https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/08/04/world/climate-change-deadly-summer-wxc-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F
There is no evidence in support of dangerous AGW, or even of AGW, period, on a global scale. Cities and some rural areas are however made warmer by human activity. Others cooler.
Nothing out of the ordinary is happening in any climatic phenomenon, to include especially wild fires.
Clearly, you are young or, if old, can’t remember or never knew about the terrible fires of yore. Same goes for hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flood, you name it. All far worse in the past.
A warmer world is a less stormy world. It also, as IPCC assumes, should be a wetter world, hence less drought and fewer fires.
Which cities are getting cooler?
Cities of course aren’t getting cooler, since air conditioning, pavement, automobiles and a plethora of other human activities all conspire to make extreme urban heat islands.
Where or when did I suggest urban cooling? Au contraire, quite the opposite.
Your statement: “Cities and some rural areas are however made warmer by human activity. Others cooler.”
If you mean only rural areas, which rural areas are getting colder?
Must move quickly to stamp out ANY tidbit that might contradict the narrative, eh, Chris?
I love the smell of proof by assertion unbacked by any facts…
Absolute rubbish. Bushfires happen more frequently because greenies oppose controlled burning to save some unknown minor animal that ends up dying anyway because the huge very hot bushfires kill everything. In the past controlled burns not only prevented large bushfires but saved the native animals because they could run away to safe areas not being burnt at that time. Nothing at all to with AGW and everything to do with stupid green ideas.
Typical propaganda, if it’s warmer this year than any time in the past, CO2 is whut don it.
…and there’s no such thing as natural variation. But if perchance it is colder this year than last, that’s only weather and clearly proof that natural variation has overwhelmed unstoppable AlGore-bull Warming, and you just wait ’til next year when AGW returns you’re really gonna get it!!! Or you just wait ’til next year, the Houston Oilers are gonna win the Super Bowl!!! (Same facts behind each assertion; i.e., none!)
ivankinsman
This is a CNN report. Not a factual report at all.
What are you smoking?
HotScot – at least he puts up supporting links. You, on the other, just assert things without evidence. They are true because Hot Scot says so!
Chris
Did I make a claim that required a link?
No. I pointed out that the link was to MSM, not a scientific site. When my comments require a link I’ll use one, as I have done frequently in the past. You just don’t like them because you’re incapable of assembling a coherent argument on anything.
If you’re going to try and use it for evidence of climate change, you’re going to lose. It proves that nothing has changed. It’s no different than California’s climate back in the 60’s. Go look up the California fires and floods of the 60’s – or 60’s and 70’s. There are probably some from the 50’s, but I was a bit young to remember then, and the news media was still a far cry from what it was in the 60’s when they covered those fires and floods.
I recall Johnny Carson once quipped California has 3 seasons, Fire, Rain, Mud!
I think that can be shortened to fire and rain. Or rain and fire. Or wet and fire…😁
Can we get a graphic comparison between the Carr Fire and the Peshtigo Fire of 1871? Perhaps the graphic could line up the number of lives lost, square miles destroyed, etc…
Nothing like history to choke a warmist windbag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinchaga_fire
The 1871 Wisconsin Peshtigo Fire (overshadowed by the Chicago Fire) was the deadliest, with 1200 to 2500 fatalities, but in terms of area, some more recent fires have been more extensive. Peshtigo burnt 1.2 million acres, but the Great Fire of 1919 (Alberta and Saskatchewan) five million and the 1950 Chinchaga (BC and Alberta) 3.5 million. There were also big Canadian fires in Manitoba (1989) and the NWT (2014), but they consisted of many smaller fires on a mix of forest and grassland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires#Canada_and_the_United_States
QUESTION
Main stream CAGW and AGW both hold as a tenet of their position that daily maximum temperatures will increase as well as daily minimums. When certain data sets showed that only the daily minimums had gone up, then some alarmists changed their position to ; only daily minimums need to increase and thus the diurnal temperature range (DTR) need only to decrease to prove that global warming is real. IS THIS LOGICALLY CONSISTENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere? I can’t think of a physics logic that would make this possible even if global warming were true.
A related complaint I have is that the 2 sigma statistical tests that climate scientists do for significance is bad enough ( they should use 5 sigma as in physics); however it gets even worse. It seems that climate scientists have now defined extreme climate/weather as any data that falls outside 1 sigma (above the 66 %tile or below the 34 %tile). I dont know when this statistical definition started. If that is the case then we must be extremely weary of datasets that combine any period of weather event data that is prior to when the extreme weather got first defined statistically from climate scientists. I predict that this will be the new way to fudge the data. To hold up the CAGW house of cards, climate scientists need to prove to the public that data sets show more extreme weather events. If they are going to compare old extreme weather
data with newer data defined as a 1 sigma significance, then of course there will more extreme weather events compared to the past. I contend that the standard should be 2 sigma( 95% two tailed test), just the same as all their other tests. BUT of course the climate scientists wont change it. We just have to be very careful of extreme weather event data. So far the climate agencies that track this stuff have not fudged the figures, because I have seen NO extreme weather data that shows any increase.
3 sigma is the standard typically used in industry to identify an “out of control” process. See Dennings.
Climate is unlikely to be normally distributed so extreme events are likely more common than one would expect for a normal distribution.
“Climate is unlikely to be normally distributed”
All the more reason to not use 1 sigma. By using 1 sigma they are compounding the number of extreme weather events.
“IS THIS LOGICALLY CONSISTENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere? I can’t think of a physics logic that would make this possible even if global warming were true.”
https://bjerknes.uib.no/en/article/news/understanding-why-nights-are-getting-warmer-faster-days-0
I’m not going to click on your fishing link because even the title has no bearing whatsoever to the question asked. And I recommend to any other reader the same course of action.
Evapotranspiration from water cycle gives 486000 km^3/year. WIKI gives 503000 and Babkin in a Russian study gave 577000 but we will use the lowest figure.
1 km^3 = 10^12 kg
Heat of vapourization of water at 20C = 2,450,000 Joules/kg
Number of seconds in a year = 3.1536 x 10^7
1 watt = 1 Joule /second
Surface area of earth = 5.1x 10^11 m^2
NASA graph gives evapotranspiration = 86.4W/m^2 Check their Earth’s energy budget graph on their website
The task is to convert the latent heat that is represented inside the water molecule from the water cycle upon evaporation to a W/m^2 equivalent of NASA’s figure of 86.4 W/m^2. I want to see if NASA’s figure has any basis in reality.
Solution : Total evapotranspiration = 486000 km^3/year * 10^12kg = 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
Total number of Joules = 2,450,000 Joules/kg * 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
= 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year
Number of Joules/second = 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year divided by 3.1536 x 10^7 sec/year
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Joules /sec
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts
W/m^2 from surface = (3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts) divided by 5.1x 10^11 m^2
= 7.403303788 x10^4 W/m^2
~ 74,033
divide by 4 because the earth is a sphere and is diurnal = ~18,508 W/m^2
which is 214.2 times the NASA figure. Where did I go wrong?
@Alan Tomalty @August 4, 2018 11:56 pm The thing is, I think you’re right. That diagram has irritated me for a long time. I took heat transfer class (made a A, IIRC) and we never once discussed “back radiation”, I believe that is a crock. There was insulation, which retarded the rate of heat transfer. The atmosphere is insulation. But the water cycle not only ameliorates the insulation (water vapor is a heat capacitor, right?), but also negates the insulation (when necessary) by punching holes in it, in the form of thunderstorms. One of Willis Eschenbach’s “emergent phenomena”. So the water evaporates due to solar radiant energy, until the air reaches saturation, and then the air temperature begins to rise and then it wants to ascend. When enough air parts have joined in, it makes a plume up into the atmosphere where it forms a cloud, which may progress to a thunderstorm. All of that moisture condensing releases energy that is now near enough to top of atmosphere that it can radiate to space. Cooling the Earth. See, temperature regulation. I have been contemplating drawing that up into a diagram for several weeks now. You have done a great deal of the research necessary.
To prove my own point, I could set a radiation sensor outside which would dutifully record positive numbers until sunset, whereupon it would register zero. If “back radiation” was a thing, the sensor would record something above zero even after the sun has set. It does not. If it cannot be measured, it does not exist.
You are incorrect. Chill the radiometer sensor to absolute zero and it will show radiation from the sky at night. And the readings will be in line with the numbers published.
Irrelevant. For heat transfer to occur, there must be a difference in temperature, ΔT. By chilling the sensor to absolute zero, you have created a ΔT that doesn’t actually exist. Trying to use that figure in determining heat transfer from the atmosphere to the EARTH (not a black body, as I’m sure you realize), or vice versa, is just plain wrong, and in fact takes place at such a small amount as can be overlooked. Thus, that number has no place in a diagram purportedly showing heat transfer relationships in and out of our Earth. The correct (or at least less wrong) method to calculate heat transfer in this case is of a sphere radiating to a Black Body, with a layer of insulation or even a heat shield between the sphere and the Black Body. In the diagram as shown, the atmosphere creates heat. That’s a no-no.
In your heat transfer course, you should have learned, to slightly oversimplify, that the amount of heat transferred by radiation between a hot and a cold surface is a factor times (Thot^4 – Tcold ^4). “Back Radiation” is just the (-Tcold^4) part of that equation which has to be included if you assume all objects radiate at a factor times T^4, which climate scientists and physicists tend to do, but engineers will normally include the (-Tcold^4) term as a result of professorial harping during thermodynamics classes.
We also learned that IF Tcold is of a perfect black body, then Tcold=0. BUT there is no such thing as a perfect black body, thus the fudge factors. That non-perfect black body is part of the sausage making behind the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant σ. But that has almost nothing to do with whether or not “back radiation” (in this context) even exists.
~18,508 W/m^2 which is 214.2 times the NASA figure. Where did I go wrong?
Maybe they assume almost all that energy doesn’t escape the earth & just gets recycled back? I agree with Red94Viper above that much/most of it will radiate to space once it’s sufficiently high in the atmosphere.
Whether it gets recycled back is not my immediate question. I dont believe in back radiation either, but my post was not about back radiation. I simply dont arrive at the same latent heat content of the water vapour emitted from the surface to the atmosphere that NASA portrays and that everyone else copied from Trenberth. The numbers dont add up. The amount of evapotranspiration energy in the hydrological cycle seems to be 200 times the amount of energy of the evapotranspiration energy in the heat budget cycle.
Based solely on the diagram presented, it appears they are only attempting to illustrate the heat transfer budget over land. If so, they are guilty of deliberately misleading. I fully agree with you, for a number representative of the entire Earth, that evapotranspiration number ain’t right.
So skipping over my part about “back radiation”; the amount of heat transfer due to the water cycle (another way of saying evapotranspiration) should equal the amount of heat from the phase change, so we could take the worldwide amount of rainfall, and additional heat for frozen precipitation, and that heat should equal the amount radiated into space. I think. We need to know precipitation (and convert that to mass), frozen precipitation (and convert that to mass), and do the multiplication and addition. I’m not sure those numbers exist worldwide, I found only a graphic representation of rainfall from 75° N to 75° S, or thereabouts. I did not see how to download the underlying numbers that created the graphic, and I couldn’t tell if everything was counted as rain, or if it really was rain only and all frozen precipitation was just flat ignored. (It may have been over land only. I can’t recall now.) And there is an awful lot of precipitation that occurs at >75°, in both directions.
In short, I haven’t really made a start at it yet. This could be a good cross-check (if I ever attempt to do the calculation I just described), you are using the evaporation and I’m using the precipitation, shouldn’t those two numbers be equal?
Oh come on, if you understand the nature of the average 3 year old having a tantrum, you understand the nature of Jerry Brown. There’s nothing difficult about it at all.
I recall an article here showing that California is in a relatively cool and moist period relative to past millenia.
Fires in California (and other parts of the west) have been a basic part of public policy for upwards of 100 years. Prior to the invention of flight, lightning caused regular small fires throughout the area, which soon burned out the undergrowth in a regular healthy cycle. Without a lot of rain, the dead leaves and branches do not quickly turn into mulch. Without regular fire, the dead undergrowth builds up to unbelievable levels and supports very destructive fires. Keep in mind that mesquite is very high in oil. So Smokey the bear put out forest fires. Somehow all that brush had maintained itself throughout the holocene without human help.
Humans began to meddle by putting out small fires. Soon very big fires became standard. Millions of dollars and thousands of lives have been lost as a result. And as for water…the Colorado river once emptied into the sea near Baja California. No more. No water is left. It has all been diverted.
And just as folk will willingly build homes where hurricanes strike, folk will build homes in areas subject to severe fires. It’s just the way people are, I guess.
Thank you Dr Tim Ball for another thought-provoking contribution, which you regularly and masterfully share with the many readers out here who appreciate your insights and perspectives. In your brief global overview of Mediterranean climates, as depicted in your Figure 2, the southern part of Africa was unfortunately not included. Here too there is a Mediterranean climate with rain in winter that nourishes the highly diverse Cape Floral Kingdom, colloquially know here as the ‘Fynbos’ and usually fills the dams that provide water for the citizens of Cape Town and other cities in the winter rainfall region.
Due to a number of consecutive below-average winter rainfall seasons, Cape Town recently made world headlines as possibly the first major city in the world that would run out of water. The climate activists were quick to turn this into a poster and drama for CAGW, and even the President of South Africa was suckered into saying something silly along the same lines. Some reasonable rain has now made landfall from the Atlantic, and there is less of a crisis in Cape Town now, although some other cities in the southern parts face water shortages.
“Climate change is a reality. We’re facing a real total disaster in Cape Town which is going to affect 4 million people.” Cyril Ramaphosa (President of the Republic of South Africa).
The resonance of what happens in California and the southern part of Africa is striking. The summers are hot, vegetation dry as tinder, and runaway fires frequent. In the Cape we have an operation called ‘Working with Fire’, operating a fleet of Bell Huey helicopters that do valiant work trying to contain the fires using large water buckets. The pilots are real heroes and some have paid the supreme price, the latest due to loss of tail rotor control through a cable failure. We have never dropped fire-fighters from the air as far a I know – that story from 1949 is indeed tragic.
It seems that opportunistic politicians and climate activists are the same the world over. Take any extreme natural conditions that are bound to happen from time to time, and label them as evidence that ‘climate change is real, and its happening right now!’
I enjoyed Tim Ball’s inadvertent, but highly accurate, description of Ingrid Newkirk’s views, as being “various slightly more moderate eversion sexist everywhere. (my bold)”
I have no doubt whatever, without even looking, that Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA, is a feminist with all sorts of sexist male-denigrating views.
Let me now look … yep.
Also here. And when portly feminists get angry with sexist PETA feminists.
That last is particularly funny. It is said that the radical left eats its own. See Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
But one is hard pressed to express this delicately when it’s body-triggered feminists eating PETA feminists.
Neither reporters nor politicians are in the business of “truth*.
primitive humans also believed they could make sacrifice to the heavens and control the weather. Sacrifice your gold to the great god Car-Bon and fair weather will bless you. All the days of your life. Comes with a full “No money back guarantee”.
The argument that nature would be better off if there were no humans around to destroy it is nonsense. Firstly, for billions of years there were no humans and nature just ran its course according to the environment anyway. Dinosaurs did not care about other species, they just ate them.
More importantly, if you think about it, nature without humans is actually totally pointless. The world only has a meaning when considered by thinking beings.
There is no hope for the truth when world leaders like Governor Brown of California (he runs the 19th largest economy in the world) can present such utterly false information in pursuit of a political agenda.
“Since civilization emerged 10,000 years ago, we haven’t had this kind of heat condition, and it’s going to continue getting worse and that’s the way it is.”
Civilization began more than 10,000 years ago and, in my opinion, it hasn’t reached California yet. I consider the 20,000-year-old cave paintings a measure of civilization, certainly superior to most ‘art’ produced in California today. It also reflects an awareness of natur
______________________________________________
Yes.
Saharan rock paintings for planned next game hunting:
https://goo.gl/images/oa32or
That is very punchy article. I hope it gets picked up by journalists who can nail the nuggets, perhaps by lifting them from the context and placing them in a shorter version. Actually that would go straight into any independent magazine that values objective truth, like the Spectator or New Statesmen in the UK, but not Nature or Science, of course.
The only change I would make would be to explain what a “moderate eversion sexist” is.
It took me a while ;-). First thought was I had missed a new letter in the changing alphabet of the ever increasing self-invented groups of the delusional oppressed and proxy offended of the great country of America, “what’s an eversion sexist” I thought……..
Chapparal is going to burn. The plants are full of oils and burn like a torch. In the summer the vegetation goes to zero moisture. How can you stop this from burning? Calif also insists on keeping “natural” areas right in the middle of the city. This is ok is NY or Chicago (we call them parks) but with chapparal this is crazy.
Breaking news from 1889, from Wikipedia:
The Santiago Canyon Fire of 1889 (previously called the Great Fire of 1889) was a massive wildfire in California, which burned large parts of Orange County, Riverside County, and San Diego County during the last week of September, 1889.[3] It was possibly the single largest wildfire in the recorded history of California,[1][2] burning at least 300,000 acres (1,200 km2) of land.[3]
Why didn’t Governor Brown study California history in school?
Preventing small allows biomass material to build up and cause far more intense catastrophic fires.
The Myth of “Catastrophic” Wildfire: A New Ecological Paradigm of Forest Health By Chad Hanson, Ph.D.
http://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/TheMythOfTheCatastrophicWildfireReport.pdf
Wildfire Best Management Practice Effectiveness in Protecting Soil and Water Resources AMBER DAIGNEAULT November 26, 2014
https://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/media/soilsifasufledu/sws-main-site/pdf/technical-papers/Daigneault_Amber_Immediate_Release.pdf
Yep. California has two seasons: wet and fire. I would challenge people to look up the mudslides and fires of the 60’s and 70’s. I guarantee you this was going on then, too.