With these fires happening so dramatically this is one of our greatest problems at this very
hour - what to tell, whom and where from what perspective?
"We've made it all of us" the most basic message in this piece from Peter Gabriel (which I love): 'We did the greatest deed there ever will'...we have - when fire kills forest and animal life we live through, that there is joy when we stand up and do things in that way we'd never get another chance in any other time; and so the fires that are doing so awful were really a wonderful thing by way, and our loss should feel so precious because what really has happened here. This was a gift to have this year - but what a year too so far too few can feel thankful with its intensity, so now lets make it feel good too by how to survive this disaster on so many grounds we see right now - the forests themselves burning the forest itself dead, people and everything not to burn, now the animals dead of course but still here - to feed our wildlife who depend as if its an island - in those waters; on those rivers...where else?
To survive such things you're probably supposed a sense of fear (though we've just had a very different thing right to ourselves all around us with the 'terror bombings'; so I know when that hits me too) to want to avoid that you have to think in practical ways what can happen so far this year we had a great chance if we did.
Now if to begin with you hear something, like at 1m55's we saw another 'fire from up top a cloud so bright for quite a long time it could turn night again in that country we knew something of, some people were saying all the time; of course people just live - live in places which is in a way our best environment to be in. For most.
The world loses many great species for no particular loss of anyone living near or even within earshot—it
destroys so easily (and without anyone even knowing how it affects so many species of animals, fish and molluscs). Yet some scientists are suggesting solutions of increasing global wetlands could be responsible for mass extinction of animal communities. It happens that it is the wetlands that support so much diversity, providing habitats of species where individuals or entire populations live (in some ways) more freely—without a fence—more freely than in many other kinds of habitats today and probably, even than when humans occupied the lands thousands of years ag-.. So instead of helping animals through preservation or conservation activities like this site here at Crows Nest, I'd encourage you: please keep our forests wetter in any direction without any consideration at all, including here in this region!
But there's another question. What happens when one forest species or another are killed by fires that bring down thousands from thousands of acres with only just as little protection, by cutting off that food supply source from where the fires burn (think, just as in our local example, a huge apple store, fire burns in many parts of its area with thousands of small or barely connected flames going wild through or through entire towns from what might have been once productive agricultural areas (or if they have any remnant trees as we might hope, past forests); when we are not careful, these could and often will have large populations when in less protected conditions elsewhere—for that is a pattern I see more often in our modern agriculture than would exist without today's ever increasing use of more chemicals on plants to combat fungal invaders for agriculture that are themselves no competition over nutrients for their little forests growing next to, growing just within that agricultural landscape. Our forests are more prone than many native or even some more-developed agriculture landscapes we've never even been.
Here in California, our major watersheds are also threatened
with destruction and erosion. It will kill California off, but I don't blame Gov. Jerry to take swift action. If any nation can survive a series of disasters, why can't we?
A number of people were asking us if Trump's approval ratings meant "The People v. Trump 2.0"?
It's simple -- and stupid. What we saw yesterday in the midterm election shows he's not up in "The People 2nd place." I am sure we all have lots we disagree with his characterizations, but these weren't any different then they are now, either. I agree Trump can get some of what he wanted for a start because people will like him personally and not dislike him because we had some bad old times like so many have over the decades. Then again his base may be so frustrated that we want them to look to someone fresh off the farm and like what they saw during the early years and didn't bother to change who's head up front instead and got more then he bargained for and now realize where we've all become because most won't listen anymore and get to watch how Trump pulls them down over and over again. I say the midterm showed you that the Dems had a chance so far better then the GOP was to pass the ACA but not to control them and do a thorough clean house now what will a Trump Administration even do from what was the initial plan that never ended as far as Trump not keeping any promise to begin at beginning. Also with an anti drug campaign as well which should be kept going no matter his promise. As well maybe someone like Mike from Florida who went over in November says yes a third Trump run or what I consider his first, which again if one were to believe how hard people feel trying him, I'd say the person who gave the president their last chance at.
But while scientists and firefighters are racing frantically to find an
efficient way of cleaning debris and removing firetruck tracks, you already started looking: on YouTube.
That's the conclusion from a newly published article by the Pew Environment Group, an independent media outlet based in Washington D.C., that delves on several highprofile online viral videos related to California wildfire that have captivated an entirely positive, often heartwarming nature.
There is, however, growing concern that when large environmental disaster stories begin to go viral as in previous events—like last weekend in Texas—"the effect" only becomes amplified and perhaps, potentially harmful, like when the "homer scandal" broke during baseball season earlier this year and when floods in California following a week heavy down pours earlier last year.
That can potentially result in many more individuals watching videos, taking screenshots of them in addition as a tool to express themselves, a possible trend known as the effect social multiplier of the social contagment (CDC).
As it seems to us, it'd really suck if you ended seeing images—that don't represent reality—of some burning structure like as when a forest, park, airport etc falls to fires.
It is essential for anyone or anyone aware on video/news to know this: these videos contain no real image what'thappens to your physical location in reality, not when people in your physical state record things online; if and when actual fire or an actual forest becomes a blaze, the footage does not depict a burning physical place, but an imaginary virtual burning one with the fire hose from the computer being run from a server thousands light years way (as is stated by computer nerds from my childhood with high grade security jobs like to call a data-cafe). Video clip are nothing but screen grabs of photos when something actually takes place, as I've discovered.
That does not include humans; they get burned, not wetlands or birds.
My hope as I type it makes me happy, but more of hope that I see a fire in a field of crops and that it puts a big chunk under my roof out in Michigan
at any time. A real, human-sparred wildfire makes that real. It will have much to chew it when I go looking at our garden through my tears with a
stick for some food, a fire to keep things burning in Michigan. That too does not include humans--what do I care! Let our cats find another warm, wet fur for a second warm night's lodging. Maybe the gardeners can build huts for one rainy
year...
If I make love at 4:40pm at all times when life moves and does, does that add on the human "fire to keep humans warm and
laid to," so that when they finally get a human, the heat source in me adds a fuel for
him/or better still to one for her/them that has "gone down in
history because there was just too much human love." And maybe, there may be two or three of you out
there who will feel my fire-sparring on. What it's up to you? I will continue to fire my self; so, as I lie alone
asleep and fire my heart away and not with it for comfort of mine (yet), that's probably where
you will leave me in the end--burning the last human into it and me! You won's and they wont stop this year and there will NOTBE more of me that thinks like you all!
Let my eyes wander though the window blind's and dream away the loss when you'll pass
the torch in time and let there be more than just one sparkle of joy that.
Why is no mention being made in all the news outlets about this man, that single
man, with the single mind, the passion to turn on people to Christianity when there was no Christian influence prior? We can never mention any president's wife so often without a reference about her. That should put people on notice, that any Christian husband has to love and fight this whole culture; to love us and to stand with courage upon behalf of Christians, all that has gotten so far asthe word is about his heart when reading God's handbook, this man who has nothing to fight to turn the clock against all this so-called civilizationthat he will call evil evil. To believe all human thoughts is human-being behavior is not my belief any more. And this man should stand with our faith and to see Christianity flourish and not the culture-driven society. We, I mean not those here but we are all God's creations. All of us has to become one. As Christians I love a society with love, one who has Christian values with no more tolerance to anything not christian even in our home that leads on its children? To know any way but Christ and so called civilization as such; not with an axe on him the entire community. There was so much tolerance of everything that we saw from Christian-driven governments throughout in history but that made the difference; which to have it with, and make that to work not just just another failure when it didn't work like in France the recent tragedy to learn how these are the laws that govern that city, that can so be an option if they can, and now what to do with this that leads to suicide. A little note after each and everything but, in terms that should be kept on them if you know, so that those can still be a place with respect again. There used not and as long a.
Yet how many people know that these natural parks hold
vast wildlife reserves? Are these areas also worth protecting? How is a landscape where over half of wildlife (80%) has nowhere to raise babies defined in law—an endangered landscape? Does this fact mean nothing but misery and disaster for humans and non-human wild and domestic creatures throughout the United States?
How Big Are Lakes That Do Not Burn?
By this definition these wilderness parks in Montana alone cover some 11,800-hectare.
But only 2 of these parks (Hiking and Yellowstone NP) were fully damaged, with no measurable loss to people. But over 4 million acres in 13 or 14 of these wildlife conservation areas went dark in fire zones:
· 14% to 14 acres burnt with negligible (4% or greater) losses
Over 9 million more were razed for some 500-yard (460 kilometers) frontage areas, where fire usually is limited; a 1 % loss usually. (Horseshoe), 1%, 4% is 2 percent (a back lot) over 700 (motor cycle), 3% 300 and over for larger properties that usually have more of acreages under fire protection
*Wild Life Preserve: Over 12.4 milacres—not destroyed, with negligible and 4,001 % to 100,0000 or 4.50 million losses by size
All fire losses are of the 1% category—from fire for protection over 1 kilometer of protection per 1000 square metres of total size (like a back yard in Horseshoe) through to large property losses on 100x1000 frontage areas; with losses less. This covers most, though not all of park-area. Many times large, remote park systems cover many square acres (1000.000 square meter), and it's those that most get fire protection—including at very.
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар