Ship of Fools: California Fires

Thread: California Fires Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020327

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

As is being reported fires in North California may be the worst in that state's history. Thousands of homes have been burned to the ground.

While I live in Washington State. These fires are very close to home for me. Members of my extended family live in the fire zone. So far, they seem to be okay. My son's significant other also has an apartment near there. My son is in Missouri for a year. His partner has a church in California. Just this evening my neighbor asked me to pray for her daughter because the daughter lives in the fire zone as well.

While California had a wet winter, they have had a long hot summer. Just last week NBC News was saying the grapes in the Napa Vineyards were turning to raisins on the vine because it has been so hot and dry. This week those same areas are being hit by fires.

No one knows what the death toll will eventually be, but people tell of waking up and realizing they had to flee in minutes. Videos are out there showing people racing down streets with the inferno on both sides. There are reports of several elderly people not being able to make it out. One couple survived by staying in their neighbor's swimming pool while the fire burned all the houses around them.

The fires out West have been burning hotter and longer over the past 20 years It is not going to get any better soon.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yeah, I'm in SF, south and across the bay. We're getting smoke and lots of news.

I'm not sure how wet the weather was in the general area. But yeah, a very hot summer. We need a real-life rainmaker.

SF Gate, related to the SF Chronicle, has lots of coverage. NOTE: some of the pictures show massive devastation.

I'm watching the local NBC news. Sen. Kamala Harris, who says "there were some glitches in the federal response". E.g., financial aid not given quickly enough. And she's worried by T's plan to cut FEMA's budget by...$600 million (?) dollars.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A lot of winter rain means good spring growth; then a hot dry summer dries all of that growth and gets it ready to burn. Hence this catastrophe.

I wonder how Trump will react to this? Any better that he did to Puerto Rico?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

He probably thinks California is a country in Africa.

There's a lot in that SFGate link about the destruction of wineries - presumably this will adversely affect the economy (let alone people's lives, the environment etc.).

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I wonder how Trump will react to this? Any better that he did to Puerto Rico?

He'll throw bottles of Trump wine to the crowd, most likely.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

My friends are out of the danger zone, thank God, but there are some awful pictures and lots missing. I bloody hate bushfires.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I have a friend who lives in Santa Rosa. He has no electricity, and so we get only very intermittent word. So far he has not had to evacuate, but their bags are packed. He has promised that he and his family won't perish, but his house may not survive.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Initially, reports were that the fires were set by an arsonist. Now they are saying most of the fires were probably set by downed power lines. When the Diablo winds start roaring through the valley, nasty things happen.

I saw a political cartoon today showing a family escaping the flames and Trump (off-screen) throwing rolls of paper towers, saying "Thoughts and Prayers."

Thing of it is, many of the vineyard owners in the Napa Valley are strng Republicans. It will be interesting to see how the Trump administration deals with this disaster.

Disaster in Houston. Disasters in the Carribean, (including British and American islands). Disaster in Florida (has anyone heard anything about the Keys?). Disasters in California. Does anyone see a pattern here?

I certainly do not want to overlook the Mexican Earthquake, but that is another issue.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Disaster in Houston. Disasters in the Carribean, (including British and American islands). Disaster in Florida (has anyone heard anything about the Keys?). Disasters in California. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Ho-mo-sexuals. Gawd is punishing the world for the sins of the Gayz.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so, but don't forget the Girlz, Librulz, and Tranz (to name but a few more peeps that the little god of the self-righteouz hates).

IJ

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I wonder how Trump will react to this? Any better that he did to Puerto Rico?

Too many Democrats there for it to be of any interest to trump. Like Puerto Rico, it must be their own fault - no more help for them.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...Disaster in Houston. Disasters in the Carribean, (including British and American islands). Disaster in Florida (has anyone heard anything about the Keys?). Disasters in California. Does anyone see a pattern here?

I certainly do not want to overlook the Mexican Earthquake, but that is another issue.

And that's keeping it all in this hemisphere.

I fear the Cheeto-in-Chief will figure it's California's own fault for electing Pelosi. I hope he knows that it's a part of the United States.

In the meantime, keep an eye peeled for a quartet of odd-looking equestrians.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Miss Amanda--

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I wonder how Trump will react to this? Any better that he did to Puerto Rico?
He'll throw bottles of Trump wine to the crowd, most likely.

Is there such a thing as Trump wine? He doesn't drink, because he lost a brother to alcoholism.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Is there such a thing as Trump wine?

Read it and weep.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Eric has one.

edit: beaten to the punch!

[ 14. October 2017, 06:22: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Aftermath

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Votive]

I wonder if postie was delivering 'warmest thoughts and prayers' from The Deranged Dotard*?

(*with due acknowledgements to Kim Wrong-Trim)

IJ

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...Disaster in Houston. Disasters in the Carribean, (including British and American islands). Disaster in Florida (has anyone heard anything about the Keys?). Disasters in California. Does anyone see a pattern here?

I certainly do not want to overlook the Mexican Earthquake, but that is another issue.
And that's keeping it all in this hemisphere.

I fear the Cheeto-in-Chief will figure it's California's own fault for electing Pelosi. I hope he knows that it's a part of the United States.

Yeah, we might be part of the US, and we might be bankrolling all those red states (pardon me for mentioning such an inconvenient truth), but as Sarah P reminded us, we're not "real Americans" so I'm guessing we're on our own to deal with this devastation. I will be frankly amazed if we get so much as a sympathetic nod from POTUS.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Aftermath

Could've done with the music, sad enough to see the devastation. And the advert at the end? [Paranoid]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It really did resemble the aftermath of a nuclear attack (the clear roads were quite surreal).

Is this what America is looking forward to, courtesy of the Infantile Tyrants?

IJ

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Could've done without the music, sad enough to see the devastation. And the advert at the end?

Was it selling fire insurance?
Used to get that in farming areas. Someone has a large barn fire then a week later insurance bods would be knocking on neighbouring doors while the smell of smoke still lingered.

Simply devastating to lose your home and all it’s contents like that. As these fires seem to be getting ever more frequent a total rethink on surrounding vegetation, property protection etc. must soon be inevitable.

Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :

It's just so incredibly sad to think of the loss of life and the realization that a lot of people are going to have to rebuild their lives. It makes me reflect on what of my current life I would hate to be parted from.

Are there any of the crew affected?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Simply devastating to lose your home and all it’s contents like that. As these fires seem to be getting ever more frequent a total rethink on surrounding vegetation, property protection etc. must soon be inevitable.

Most likely already done. We have very strict zoning here in Calif. re roofing materials, for example, and most municipalities are very diligent about monitoring overgrowth, etc. In my city the fire dept patrols regularly in the months before fire season (which is now) and issue citations if you haven't cut back everything near your home, if you fail to address it they will do so at your expense.

Pretty much everyone has fire insurance-- can't get a mortgage w/o it-- and we are paying massive premiums for it. Our insurers also require a number of measures such as brush abatement, sprinkler systems, etc.

But when you're facing these sorts of brushfires with a Santa Ana behind them, no amount of brush abatement/ tile roofs/ sprinkler systems is going to be effective. The fires have already jumped several fire lines-- when it gets to that point there's very little you can do other than pray for rain.

fyi: they're not really more frequent-- fires are part of the natural lifecycle of the foothills, mountains, canyons and forests native to California. But we are building closer & closer to the foothills and forests, both because we're running out of space anywhere else, and also simply because it's a truly beautiful place to live, when not aflame. (Actually, even then-- as horrible as it sounds to say, the sunsets in fire season are incredible-- if it's not your house that's burning). I've lived in the foothills all my life, as my moniker denotes.

[ 14. October 2017, 18:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If you don't mind going to the Washington Post, here's a link to the account of a couple who survived by standing in their swimming pool. I'm particularly struck by the stubbornness of the cat, who refused to join them.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I spent about 9 years living in Oakland. It was interesting to note that the natural disasters (in this case, fires and mudslides) tend to happen in areas where the more wealthy live, which is opposite other places - like New Orleans, as a famous example.

My friends out there are mostly in places where they're not in danger of fire, but the air quality is brutal, I hear. I remember that, at least as an asthmatic - fires could be several counties away and the air was still really difficult to breathe. I have a friend from here in Detroit who's now living with her kids in Petaluma, and today's her birthday, and I hear she's spending it wearing a mask. But that still beats losing everything.

What can be done differently, I wonder? Are there places humans just shouldn't live?

I also don't know much about vineyards. Are they planted in places with a natural fire cycle, or did the fires just spread to them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

What can be done differently, I wonder? Are there places humans just shouldn't live?

Yes, of course. But the problem is about how many people should live there, how the residences and roads should be designed, how the area should be maintained and protected, etc. Rarely are all these factors considered much less all implemented and enforced.

quote:

I also don't know much about vineyards. Are they planted in places with a natural fire cycle, or did the fires just spread to them?

Most of the California wines grow in areas where there is little moisture during the production cycle.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...I'm particularly struck by the stubbornness of the cat, who refused to join them.

My understanding is that cats have a heartbreaking tendency to run back into burning buildings. And this one seems to have been panicking over the whole thing. It's not that surprising, but it's one more big piece of grief atop the enormous pile that couple is dealing with.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: they're not really more frequent-- fires are part of the natural lifecycle of the foothills, mountains, canyons and forests native to California. But we are building closer & closer to the foothills and forests, both because we're running out of space anywhere else, and also simply because it's a truly beautiful place to live, when not aflame.

But we're not running out of space! I am sitting here in my second-floor apartment, looking out the window, and seeing almost no buildings taller than the one I live in. And southern California is full of neighborhoods like mine, two-story neighborhoods that can and should be more dense. Look at Los Angeles -- a small clump of tall buildings downtown surrounded by one- and two-story buildings. The problem is so many people wanting to live in the country's second-largest metroplex without actually living in a city. It's not realistic. I think we should build up and leave ourselves some open space.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...I'm particularly struck by the stubbornness of the cat, who refused to join them.
My understanding is that cats have a heartbreaking tendency to run back into burning buildings. And this one seems to have been panicking over the whole thing. It's not that surprising, but it's one more big piece of grief atop the enormous pile that couple is dealing with.

One feline did apparently perish, but the other the family found under a juniper bush. She utterly refused to go into the pool with them however, and her fate is unknown.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hopefully.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we should build up and leave ourselves some open space.

So, you build up and there is a massive earthquake.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we should build up and leave ourselves some open space.
So, you build up and there is a massive earthquake.

It is possible, but pricey, to make tall buildings that can ride out major earthquakes. The important thing is planning for foreseeable dangers, as Fukushima demonstrated. The disaster there had nothing to do with height.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we should build up and leave ourselves some open space.
So, you build up and there is a massive earthquake.
It is possible, but pricey, to make tall buildings that can ride out major earthquakes. The important thing is planning for foreseeable dangers, as Fukushima demonstrated. The disaster there had nothing to do with height.

The epicentre was miles out to sea, an earthquake's strength diminishes fairly quickly as the distance increases. Los Angeles and San Francisco have faults that run though their cities. And whilst they are not ancient cities, they have many existing buildings not built to current codes. But let us pretend that every building in those cities suffers not a crack. The utilities will fail, streets will be flooded with water mixed with raw sewage, downed power lines will be in that mix and the fires they cause, trees will be blocking the roads, etc. Tell me how density is not an issue, then?

[ 14. October 2017, 23:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

I do live in the area. Many fires are in the process of being contained, but new ones are occurring (or growing). It is very much ongoing.
I had a fun thing happen to me; a reporter from the NY Times asked me for directions. We chatted & I learned her name & that she just wrote on an interesting angle: the evacuees to the coast, many camping. (Miriam Jordan is the reporter; it's a short, nice article).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think we should build up and leave ourselves some open space.
So, you build up and there is a massive earthquake.
It is possible, but pricey, to make tall buildings that can ride out major earthquakes. The important thing is planning for foreseeable dangers, as Fukushima demonstrated. The disaster there had nothing to do with height.
The epicentre was miles out to sea, an earthquake's strength diminishes fairly quickly as the distance increases. Los Angeles and San Francisco have faults that run though their cities. And whilst they are not ancient cities, they have many existing buildings not built to current codes. But let us pretend that every building in those cities suffers not a crack. The utilities will fail, streets will be flooded with water mixed with raw sewage, downed power lines will be in that mix and the fires they cause, trees will be blocking the roads, etc. Tell me how density is not an issue, then?

There are no power lines in downtown cores; they're all underground. What kind of earthquake are we talking about? SF and LA have survived many earthquakes in our lifetimes. Complaining about the readiness of existing buildings when we're talking about building new buildings is completely beside the point.

And building up need not result in density. We're talking here about replacing lots of single-family dwellings with highrises. The highrises needn't all be clustered in dense urban cores. They could be strung out along rivers, for example (set safely back of course) or around lakes, or just dotting the landscape.

PS WTF does the epicenter of the Fukushima quake have to do with what I said?

[ 14. October 2017, 23:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There are no power lines in downtown cores; they're all underground.

They will still break and they will still cause fires.

quote:

What kind of earthquake are we talking about? SF and LA have survived many earthquakes in our lifetimes. Complaining about the readiness of existing buildings when we're talking about building new buildings is completely beside the point.

Only in a fantasy scenario would every existing building be replaced. Current practice is to require new buildings be built to new codes. Old ones might be retrofitted, but this is seldom equal.

quote:

And building up need not result in density. We're talking here about replacing lots of single-family dwellings with highrises. The highrises needn't all be clustered in dense urban cores. They could be strung out along rivers, for example (set safely back of course) or around lakes, or just dotting the landscape.

Four words: California Real Estate Prices.

quote:

PS WTF does the epicenter of the Fukushima quake have to do with what I said?

Distance =Reduction in intensity. What survived Fukushima is not what would survive an earthquake epicentre that was closer.
It is something like at 7 miles the impact is half, at 15 one quarter at 30 one eighth and so on.

In 2008, the USGS modeled a 7.8 magnitude quake in Southern California. The damage was estimated to be ~ $200 billion with approximately 1,800 dead.
"The Big One" that is feared in SoCal is expected to be between 7 and 9. Each major point is One Hundred times greater than the one before it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Only in a fantasy scenario would every existing building be replaced. Current practice is to require new buildings be built to new codes. Old ones might be retrofitted, but this is seldom equal.

That's not what was under discussion. The question was whether NEW high rises should be built, not whether OLD high rises could survive an earthquake. For the purposes of this conversation, old skyscrapers are irrelevant.

quote:
Four words: California Real Estate Prices.

You're saying real estate in central LA is cheaper than real estate in the burbs? I must say this seems counterintuitive.

quote:

quote:
PS WTF does the epicenter of the Fukushima quake have to do with what I said?
Distance =Reduction in intensity. What survived Fukushima is not what would survive an earthquake epicentre that was closer.
It is something like at 7 miles the impact is half, at 15 one quarter at 30 one eighth and so on.

But that's not what I was talking about at all. I was saying that tall buildings weren't the only thing that needs to be worried about whilst earthquakeproofing.

[ 15. October 2017, 00:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For the purposes of this conversation, old skyscrapers are irrelevant.

Actually, the comment was that LA should build up and leave open spaces. My comment address this.

quote:
ou're saying real estate in central LA is cheaper than real estate in the burbs? I must say this seems counterintuitive.

I am going to guess which neighbourhood one is speaking of changes the equation. But space is always expensive in urban cores. There will be areas that are undesirable, but prices rise when those are "renewed".

quote:

But that's not what I was talking about at all. I was saying that tall buildings weren't the only thing that needs to be worried about whilst earthquakeproofing.

That is not what I understood, my bad.

My basic point remains: One of the major problems, if not the major problem, is too many people. More people means more logistical issues.

[ 15. October 2017, 01:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Sadly until a huge number of people from California decide to move to Iowa, the overpopulation problem will continue to be a problem.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sadly until a huge number of people from California decide to move to Iowa, the overpopulation problem will continue to be a problem.

There are too damn many people almost everywhere.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There are many emptying villages in flyover country. The small towns of Kansas for instance are hemorrhaging people (see What is Wrong with Kansas). But people have to live where the jobs are.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: they're not really more frequent-- fires are part of the natural lifecycle of the foothills, mountains, canyons and forests native to California. But we are building closer & closer to the foothills and forests, both because we're running out of space anywhere else, and also simply because it's a truly beautiful place to live, when not aflame.
But we're not running out of space! I am sitting here in my second-floor apartment, looking out the window, and seeing almost no buildings taller than the one I live in. And southern California is full of neighborhoods like mine, two-story neighborhoods that can and should be more dense. Look at Los Angeles -- a small clump of tall buildings downtown surrounded by one- and two-story buildings. The problem is so many people wanting to live in the country's second-largest metroplex without actually living in a city. It's not realistic. I think we should build up and leave ourselves some open space.

Well yes, that's true. And in many cases there are even municipal codes that prevent you from building more than two stories-- so as not to block your neighbor's view of... those fire-prone foothills and mountains (so says Cliffdweller, living in her house with gorgeous views of said foothills and mountains. But hey, mine at least is 5 levels-- even if they are all snaking up a sheer cliff that probably shouldn't be built on...)

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

And I don't blame you in the least, cliffdweller! It's absolutely gorgeous in the foothills.

The earthquake thing ... look, there are already over 17 million people just in Los Angeles County. We've built a metropolis in earthquake country, and it's way too late to do anything about that. As mousethief has pointed out, taller buildings can be built to withstand earthquakes. Considering the dearth of housing affordable even for the middle class, there's no reason not to build more densely.

The crazy thing to me is building in semi-rural areas and expecting city services and fast emergency responses. I grew up in such an area, and people who lived in the back of beyond did not expect anyone to rescue them when things went south.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have heard from my distant cousins in the fire area. They are safe and secure at this time.

One problem with some of the area that is being burned, I believe is the abundance of Eucalyptus trees in that area. Eucalyptus is not a native plant. It has taken over much of the coastal hills north of the Bay area. Its oil is highly flammable. When they go up, they burn very hot and eventually explode, sending flame and sparks in all directions.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Could the eucalyptus trees now destroyed perhaps be replaced in time with native trees, whatever they may be?

That might be a (possibly long-term) way of improving the environment.

Meanwhile, has The Deranged Dotard tweeted (or done) anything useful about this horrendous occurrence?

IJ

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...I'm particularly struck by the stubbornness of the cat, who refused to join them.
My understanding is that cats have a heartbreaking tendency to run back into burning buildings. And this one seems to have been panicking over the whole thing. It's not that surprising, but it's one more big piece of grief atop the enormous pile that couple is dealing with.

This problem was dealt with once upon a time in New York https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/35697

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re eucalyptus in the Bay Area:

Some years ago, Angel Island State Park (in the bay) was working on replacing their many eucalyptus trees with native trees. I loved the smell and didn't want them to do it. But a ranger told me that they have a very shallow root system, and can fall over in a storm. I don't remember if fire was a consideration.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

Eucalyptus were initially planted in California as a source for telephone poles. However they do take over the neighborhood (a lot of plants won't grow under them). The most common types are susceptible to frost, and as they dry develop twists that make them difficult to cut, even with a chain saw.

But even the native oak trees could support a crown fire, particularly when enough brush builds up under them. That's where frequent small fires that stay on the ground help to reduce the chance of fast-moving crown fires.

Eucalyptus also come back from root, so may be one of the first trees to recover (if the underground roots survived the heat.) By contrast, one of the major issues in oak forests in California is the lack of seedlings and mature trees take a long time to develop.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Plus Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, which is a horror. (Something contagious to oaks.) More dead wood to burn.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have heard from my distant cousins in the fire area. They are safe and secure at this time.

One problem with some of the area that is being burned, I believe is the abundance of Eucalyptus trees in that area. Eucalyptus is not a native plant. It has taken over much of the coastal hills north of the Bay area. Its oil is highly flammable. When they go up, they burn very hot and eventually explode, sending flame and sparks in all directions.

Good news about your cousins.

The oil problem with eucalypts is that not only does it burn well when the tree catches fire, the oils vapourise in the heat before the fire itself reaches the tree. The vapour then burns taking the fire forward.

Eucalypts do regenerate well after fires.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thanks for the info re eucalypts.

They're not that common in the UK, though I think there's one adjacent to a local health centre.

Beautiful trees, but perhaps not in too great profusion...

IJ

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

And probably not a major factor here. In general, the wildfires in No Cal are behaving exactly like wildfires we have seen all over California, both w/ and w/o eucalyptus trees, since time began. The driving factor is really the Santa Anas and the type of brush that IS indigenous to California-- so simply replanting native plants would not solve the problem, since fire IS part of the natural lifecycle of those plants. Rather, we need to be more thoughtful in California about how to live WITH fire. We've done a pretty good job of thinking that thru in terms of building codes, but not so much in thinking about where we build, drought/water management, and about how to manage the many, many brush/wilderness areas bordering on residential communities. We are just beginning to acknowledge that some fire is beneficial in that process, because allowing (or even setting) "controlled burns" feels scary (for good reason) to those of us living near those controlled burn areas.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
both w/ and w/o eucalyptus trees, since time began.

Eucalyptus trees, if they are particularly fallible, won't help though. They are, as I understand it, generally planted near structures and farmland to provide a windbreak. Their being near people is a problem. Just not the main one.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

BF--

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Meanwhile, has The Deranged Dotard tweeted (or done) anything useful about this horrendous occurrence?

I don't recall hearing of anything.

But there could be big problems, because we don't necessarily go along with what the Feds want. We recently became a "sanctuary state", which means our law enforcement folks don't cooperate much about turning illegal immigrants over to the Feds. (Mostly, I think, if the immigrant is being released from local/state custody, they won't hold the person for the Feds simply for the illegal immigration.) Some cities, like SF, had already declared themselves sanctuaries. IIRC, the folks in DC (Washington) have said it will cost us the loss of various gov't grants.

Plus pot is illegal at the federal level, but legal here. Obama tried to cut people some slack; but the current administration ain't inclined that way. So Feds sometimes raid a facility or farm that is legal under state law.

I wouldn't be surprised if T ties aid to getting rid of the state sanctuary law. And encourages more raids.
[Help]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, he seems hell-bent on getting rid of every civilised aspect of recent US progress, so yes, watch this space...

[Disappointed]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

This hauntingly beautiful video of singing Samoan firefighters showed up in my video feed. I'm unclear of it's providence-- in some contexts it's suggested they are, in fact, at the Santa Rosa fire, and the surrounding forest vegetation certainly looks like that could be the case (and we do have firefighters who came in from Hawaii, which has a large Samoan population). Either way I found it beautiful.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Meanwhile, here in So. Cal., I awoke this morning to the spectacular sunrise that was my first clue that our own hills are now ablaze. As I mentioned before, our wildfires can be incredibly beautiful... if you're not running for your life (which I am not at this point).

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The Samoan Firefighters:

[Overused]

From the anonymous writer of the YouTube text re the video:

quote:
These firefighters come down the mountain singing praises to our Lord, and it's such a beautiful sight to see. No matter what they face or how much they go through, it's the Lord that keeps pure joy and smiles on their faces.

I love watching moments like these where the love for the Lord shines through. We need more people like this in this world!

Amen!

Meanwhile, [Votive]

for SoCal....

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Even those who do not subscribe to that particular religious POV can still see the beauty in their practice.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Just now watching local news. A couple of new, "small fires" in the North Bay (where the others have been). From the map shown, looks like most of the previous fires are about 75% contained.

Also a fire south, near Santa Cruz.

Possibility of rain, in a few days.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My friend in Santa Rosa evacuated from his house. Prudently, he didn't announce on social media that he was not at home. And, a great blessing, when the police let the family back into the neighborhood again his house is still standing.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Suppose to rain tomorrow in the north bay which is good news.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Meanwhile, Trump has no plans to visit the California fire zones, though it has not been ruled out.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I'm resurrecting this thread because now it's southern California's turn. This week we've had the Skirball fire (within the city of Los Angeles, in the Sepulveda pass, near the Getty Center, mostly contained), the Lilac fire (San Diego County, partly contained), the Creek fire (Sylmar - LA County, mostly contained), the Rye fire (Santa Clarita - LA County, mostly contained), the Liberty fire (Riverside County, contained), and the Thomas fire, still raging out of control in Ventura and now Santa Barbara Counties -- more than 200,000 acres burned, which for reference is more than 300 square miles (roughly 800 square kilometers). The reasons only one person has died in the Thomas fire are that it ignited in the early evening, so people were still awake and alert, and also because the reports of the loss of life in northern California in October made people get the hell out when they were told to go. But the devastation is enormous. Hundreds of homes have been lost, scores of thoroughbred horses have been killed, not to mention the other horses and ponies kept by people who live in the city/country interface. And all the pets they couldn't save. And the wildlife.

This isn't just weather anymore. As this Rolling Stone article points out, "The Thomas fire is the first wintertime megafire in California history."

quote:
In its first several hours, the Thomas fire grew at a rate of one football field per second, expanding 30-fold, and engulfing entire neighborhoods in the dead of night. Hurricane force winds have produced harrowing conditions for firefighters. Faced with such impossible conditions, in some cases, all they could do is move people to safety, and stand and watch.

...

There's a whole series of links between climate change and this week's fires. Ten years ago, scientists warned of possible lengthening of the Santa Ana fire season, and the data bear that out. Fire season is more than a month longer now, and 13 of the state's top 20 fires in history have happened since 2000. This year's "rainy" season has also been suspiciously absent so far, with Los Angeles rainfall 94 percent below normal since October. Right now, the atmosphere over the West Coast is the driest in recorded history. There's no rain in the forecast for at least the next two weeks – the current fires could last until Christmas.

Climate change isn't coming up in the not too distant future. It's already here.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

You're right - climate change is here. And it is terrifying.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Again the pictures are horrendous. These fires are in the middle of suburban areas I think (not sure). It kind of reminds me of Sydney's North Shore, the way bush and 'burb interlace.

My locality will hit mega-danger time very soon, usually the season lasts till the end of March. It's been wet here, which is a blessing and a curse.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

We drove from L.A. to Santa Barbara this week to visit our daughter's family. Driving through the burn area was poignant-- everything scorched on both sides of the freeway, all the way down to the ocean, smoke so thick you could only see a few feet ahead of you, hot spots still smoldering and flaring up around us. In Santa Barbara everyone is wearing face masks, they were giving them away free at Costco and other stores-- but impossible to find a parking space. Very concerned for my infant granddaughter with special needs-- they don't make particulate masks small enough for her.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Where is the smoke going? There must a plume heading somewhere.

On the climate change thing, we're 8°C above normal for the last month. It's not hard frozen like it's supposed to be.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Where is the smoke going? There must a plume heading somewhere.

On the climate change thing, we're 8°C above normal for the last month. It's not hard frozen like it's supposed to be.

From 3 days ago

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

To give a scale, a straight line across the coast represented in the image is nearly the length of England, north to south.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

ok, so only a short distance. Good to know.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Daughter, SIL, and infant granddaughter evacuated last night and are safely esconsed in their our spare bedroom. They took photos of the raw fire surrounding them on their drive down the coast-- spectacular, beautiful, and horrifying

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Do I take it that the area covered by the fire(s) is pretty well equivalent to that of this country, i.e. Ukland?

[Eek!]

(O, BTW, has The Tangerine Tweetmeister - thanks, Rossweisse - visited yet, to charm the stricken, and to allay their fears?)

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Do I take it that the area covered by the fire(s) is pretty well equivalent to that of this country, i.e. Ukland?

No. If you look at the image I linked, you will see that the actual source of the smoke is much smaller. The largest fire, to the north in that image, has burned an area equivalent to just over half of London.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Ah yes, I see now.

Still horrendous, nonetheless.

[Votive]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Thomas Fire still going. Winds are expected to increase this week. Map of the Fire

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0