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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @07:53PM (6 children)
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.)
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 05 2018, @08:29PM (5 children)
Exactly! How else will we know what those evil incels are up to next? Our work is not done until all
homosexual menincels 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)
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)
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)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 06 2018, @06:28AM (1 child)
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:
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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 06 2018, @06:29AM