Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

‘Fire Tornado’ with Winds in Excess of 143 MPH Hit Redding During Carr Fire, Experts Say

posted by martyb on Sunday August 05 2018, @07:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the definitely-does-NOT-look-like-Kansas-any-more dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

KTLA-TV reports:

As authorities sifted the rubble from the fire that burned more than 1,000 residences in Shasta County, they were startled by what they encountered. A soaring transmission tower was tipped over. Tiles were torn off the roofs of homes. Massive trees were uprooted.

Vehicles were moved. In one spot, a fence post was bent around a tree, with the bark on one side sheared off.

[...] This was not typical wildfire damage. Rather, it was strong evidence of a giant, powerful spinning vortex that accompanied the Carr fire on July 26. The tornado-like condition, lasting an hour and a half and fueled by extreme heat and intensely dry brush as California heats up to record levels, was captured in dramatic videos that have come to symbolize the destructive power of what is now California's sixth-most destructive fire.

Wikipedia has an article on fire whirls.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
‘Fire Tornado’ with Winds in Excess of 143 MPH Hit Redding During Carr Fire, Experts Say | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 25 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @07:53PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @07:53PM (#717585)

    Super-heated vortices of death are all well and good, but where is our tornado of aristarchus submissions? Has he been extinguished? Was he at Portland?
    (California: At least there were no sharks.)

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   -1  

  • (Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:29PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:29PM (#717595)

    Exactly! How else will we know what those evil incels are up to next? Our work is not done until all homosexual men incels die of AIDS like the faggots they are! Then we will be able to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2020!

    I rely on Aristarchus to keep me informed about why men who do not have sex with womyn are LITERAL HITLER.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:35PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:35PM (#717598)

      See? This is why we cannot have white supremacy! This and Firenados. And Flaming Sharknados. Luckily, khallow is proving that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real over in his journal. Good times, good times.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by khallow on Sunday August 05 2018, @09:42PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 05 2018, @09:42PM (#717630) Journal

        Luckily, khallow is proving that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real over in his journal.

        Indeed, bring your eyes to here [soylentnews.org] and prepare to be horrified! The only thing melting is the comment threads!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @04:55AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @04:55AM (#717746)
          Or you could click here [soylentnews.org], into the submission queue.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 06 2018, @06:28AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 06 2018, @06:28AM (#717759) Journal
            Sorry, that paper is crap. For example, the very first line:

            In any dynamical system, feedback responds to the entire absolute input signal , not merely to perturbations.

            Which is commonly false. After all, a lot of systems don't have absolute inputs. And I don't buy that the basic radiative model of climatology is one of those models heavily dependent on absolute temperature.

            Moving on, we have this gem:

            Even using climatology’s variant equation, the system gain factor for 2011 is 1.02/0.68 = 1.5, giving 1.04 x 1.5 = 1.55 K equilibrium sensitivity.+ Yet models had/ baselessly predicted up to 4.7 K.

            That ignores that the predictions are for addition of long term feedbacks while the 1.55 K is for near term. While I happen to think the two are very close together, it remains a big error to equate the two. Another big problem is that none of the equations described has an explicit dependence on CO2 concentration. They haven't actually shown any sort of incompatibility between their equations and the more hysterical feedback predictions.

            Finally, I get that it's Monckton, but tone isn't professional for a scientific article. There's a place for mockery and such, but you need to deliver big. This paper doesn't do that.