There are more large-tree forests in East Texas because there is more rain. But, there is a lot of dried vegetation in the west that could very easily burn and cause lots of problems. I just camped out in Palo Duro Canyon 2 years ago and they had fire bans because it was so dry and they were worried about the risk of fires. First time I had ever gone camping under a fire ban and it was in W. Texas.
I don't doubt you at all but the fact remains that West Texas certainly has plenty of kindling, they don't have the density of a forest to create a problem that would spread like it does in Northern California. Look, I agree with the overall sentiment but James' tweet suggests that the parts of Texas with the trees (He stated that Texas has more forest than CA, which is a fact) are the parts that would be on fire if climate change were real. That part of Texas is very wet and the part of CA with the fires is very dry. Again, I think man made climate change is bullshit but I don't think this is the argument that proves that.
Yes and no, it depends on we’re you are, but let me put it this way. Forests need water to grow, that includes Californian forests. Most fires in southern California are huge brush fires.
I'm going to do my own investigating but I know Texas' forest are in the east part of the state, not surprisingly. I'm pretty sure most of the southeastern states and for sure Alaska have close to the same amount of forest as California, if not more (Alaska). With the key being it's almost all wetter forested areas, probably to the tune of 2-3x the annual precipitation. Which just means this is the kind of knowledge that would make you leary to post a factually incorrect or, at best, "gray area" message (talking about the twitter post).
Also: If you love the forests, then the absolute best thing for them is carbon dioxide. The earth has actually gotten greener in recent history thanks to it. CO2 is to plants and trees what food is to us. Also, that's no thanks to the western USA. Everywhere east of the Rockies in the US has contributed to this, with the west being on a flat curve over the same time period.
No, Average precipitation for each state is about the same at 22 and 29in. They are comparable in rainfall, though there are minor geographical squabblings comparisons that can be made.
A big factor is Eucalyptus trees, which heavily dot California while only starting in on Texas. Eucalyptus tree sap is highly flammable and the bark will randomly shoot off because of it, setting things in several meters on fire.
10% humidity and 25% humidity isn't the difference between endless fires and not 1 fire.... the difference is population AND climate terrorists. If you look it up, most fires start around 3-4AM.... SO TELL ME if the sun and hot weather is what starts these fires, how are they starting in the middle of the night. They don't.
It's more about rainfall than humidity. The rainfall in Eastern TX (Where the referenced forests are) is 3x higher than in CA where the forests are. Again, I'm not saying that CC isn't bullshit, I'm saying this comparison isn't great.
Isn't CA far drier than Texas? I mean, I agree with the sentiment but it doesn't seem like an accurate comparison.
West Texas is very dry.
All Texas forests are in the Eastern part of the state. I didn't know about how dry West Texas is but it doesn't really sway my general statement.
There are more large-tree forests in East Texas because there is more rain. But, there is a lot of dried vegetation in the west that could very easily burn and cause lots of problems. I just camped out in Palo Duro Canyon 2 years ago and they had fire bans because it was so dry and they were worried about the risk of fires. First time I had ever gone camping under a fire ban and it was in W. Texas.
I don't doubt you at all but the fact remains that West Texas certainly has plenty of kindling, they don't have the density of a forest to create a problem that would spread like it does in Northern California. Look, I agree with the overall sentiment but James' tweet suggests that the parts of Texas with the trees (He stated that Texas has more forest than CA, which is a fact) are the parts that would be on fire if climate change were real. That part of Texas is very wet and the part of CA with the fires is very dry. Again, I think man made climate change is bullshit but I don't think this is the argument that proves that.
west texas has no trees, but they have grass fires sometimes.
Yes and no, it depends on we’re you are, but let me put it this way. Forests need water to grow, that includes Californian forests. Most fires in southern California are huge brush fires.
I'm going to do my own investigating but I know Texas' forest are in the east part of the state, not surprisingly. I'm pretty sure most of the southeastern states and for sure Alaska have close to the same amount of forest as California, if not more (Alaska). With the key being it's almost all wetter forested areas, probably to the tune of 2-3x the annual precipitation. Which just means this is the kind of knowledge that would make you leary to post a factually incorrect or, at best, "gray area" message (talking about the twitter post).
Also: If you love the forests, then the absolute best thing for them is carbon dioxide. The earth has actually gotten greener in recent history thanks to it. CO2 is to plants and trees what food is to us. Also, that's no thanks to the western USA. Everywhere east of the Rockies in the US has contributed to this, with the west being on a flat curve over the same time period.
No, Average precipitation for each state is about the same at 22 and 29in. They are comparable in rainfall, though there are minor geographical squabblings comparisons that can be made.
A big factor is Eucalyptus trees, which heavily dot California while only starting in on Texas. Eucalyptus tree sap is highly flammable and the bark will randomly shoot off because of it, setting things in several meters on fire.
I'm not comparing the states, I'm comparing the parts of the state with the trees that actually have the potential to catch on fire.
10% humidity and 25% humidity isn't the difference between endless fires and not 1 fire.... the difference is population AND climate terrorists. If you look it up, most fires start around 3-4AM.... SO TELL ME if the sun and hot weather is what starts these fires, how are they starting in the middle of the night. They don't.
It's more about rainfall than humidity. The rainfall in Eastern TX (Where the referenced forests are) is 3x higher than in CA where the forests are. Again, I'm not saying that CC isn't bullshit, I'm saying this comparison isn't great.