Wildfire(s) Out West

1…1314161819…42

Comments

  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,471
    Brian I remember forests doing "controlled burns" years ago to get up the vegetation on the ground gone.  Not sure if that is still a thing?

    I also hear people that want to thin out the trees more so they aren't so close together.  That doesn't work when you have 30mph winds.  The tree could be 100 yards away with that wind and still go up.

    To protect the houses or give them a chance I would cut down some trees for a fire break.

    Other than the super soaker planes I don't see a whole bunch that would prevent this?  It's always dry there and the winds always pick up so there are going to be big fires.

    When I lived in socal the mountains would sometimes catch fire and the sage and tumbleweeds would all burn up and it was pretty massive.  I can't imagine what it's like with all these trees going up?
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    Firefighters throw cold water on Trump's wildfire theories

    https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/firefighters-scientists-dispute-trump-tweets-about-wildfires-forest-management-california-woolsey-camp/116811/?fbclid=IwAR3Hbs3CT4UbweiQyGbrcoByp0jnUFOu2ubDL2et1R5j1YsvdkCjj11fCXM
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,471
    Meltdown99 said:
    Firefighters throw cold water on Trump's wildfire theories

    https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/firefighters-scientists-dispute-trump-tweets-about-wildfires-forest-management-california-woolsey-camp/116811/?fbclid=IwAR3Hbs3CT4UbweiQyGbrcoByp0jnUFOu2ubDL2et1R5j1YsvdkCjj11fCXM
    The pics of the cars that burned up with nothing really around them is scary as hell to me.  That means that there was some serious heat that lit them up...
  • Bentleyspop
    Bentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,452

  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,315
    Isn’t the main issue with the destruction of the fires due to firefighters being so effective in controlling past fires?   Kind of a Catch-22.  
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,486
    edited November 2018
    The sets to HBO's West world has burned down.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    edited November 2018
    There are a lot of firefighters from TX (and other states too i’m sure) heading that way.  Hopefully the firefighters in Cali will get some much needed relief and the weather starts to cooperate soon.  It’s bittersweet that we have been getting plentiful moisture here in TX lately while you guys in Cali are dealing with such devastation.  Stay safe Brianlux and anyone else around here that are being directly effected by these fires, my heart goes out to you all! 
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,664
    tempo_n_groove said:
    Brian I remember forests doing "controlled burns" years ago to get up the vegetation on the ground gone.  Not sure if that is still a thing?

    I also hear people that want to thin out the trees more so they aren't so close together.  That doesn't work when you have 30mph winds.  The tree could be 100 yards away with that wind and still go up.

    To protect the houses or give them a chance I would cut down some trees for a fire break.

    Other than the super soaker planes I don't see a whole bunch that would prevent this?  It's always dry there and the winds always pick up so there are going to be big fires.

    When I lived in socal the mountains would sometimes catch fire and the sage and tumbleweeds would all burn up and it was pretty massive.  I can't imagine what it's like with all these trees going up?
    Control burns still happen on a regular basis.  The problem is that here in the west, fire suppression was very active and efficient for about 100 years allowing huge amounts of fuel that would normally be burned off by smaller fire lite by lightning or intentionally set by Native Americans.

    Yes, thinning trees may help but a large fire in a strong wind can send embers a long way into other dry vegetation.  The best way to prevent these large fires is to intentionally burn off lower growing vegetation which results in what is know as "reducing the fire ladder".  This can be done with control burning or, again, allowing Mother Nature to do the work naturally.  The problem is, we have built communities in places that should burn.  We have created our own nightmare in the west.
    Bentleyspop said:

    Hero!  There have been many heroes in these fire situations. 

    A number of years ago, we had a little taste of what it might be like driving through a fire.  We were up in El Dorado National Forest seeking out potential camp sites on a forest service road where dry camping is allowed.  We came upon a very large control burn alongside the road.  We had gone a good ways and were only about 1/2 mile from the main paved road and a forest service crewman said no problem, he would lead us through the burn area on the forest service dirt road.  As we followed him into the burn area, the heat became very intense through the window glass and at one point we were driving nearly blind through thick smoke.  For about 100 yards I could not see the road at all.    All I could see was smoke and the faint glow of the forest service truck's tail lights (thank goodness he had thought to turn on his lights!).  If his lights hadn't been on, I could have driven off the road into the fire.  We got through OK but the F.S. guy looked very nervous.  I don't think he realized how big the control burn was.  We never ratted the guy out but he would probably have lost his job if we had.  I doubt he ever did that again!
    Jason P said:
    Isn’t the main issue with the destruction of the fires due to firefighters being so effective in controlling past fires?   Kind of a Catch-22.  
    Exactly!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    unsung said:




    I am on the UC Davis campus just a few minutes ago and witnessed a passenger in this vehicle toss out a still smoking cigarette butt.

    If you can't get Californians to care about wildfires...
    I know this is an old post, but... this is SUPER illegal. If anyone ever sees someone doing this in drought conditions/in fire ban areas, take down the license and report it to the cops. They won't be able to press charges unless you managed to film it happening, but they can still do a report and maybe issue a warning, and at least if the same person keeps getting reported, they can act.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    Meltdown99 said:
    I was just on another forum and guy from the bay area said its smokey there as well?  Does that seem right?
    Even BC sometimes gets smoke from California.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,840
    tbergs said:
    cincybearcat said:
    I never said what he said was right.  In fact I said the opposite.  

    But I also see people, like yourself, say "all we should be doing no is helping the people"...seems like the same argument used against talking about gun control after an incident.  There are a multitude of reasons/causes etc.  But I'd also like to know what people are doing to try and avoid this in the future.  What can be done, what do they need, or maybe where should we stop building communities.
    You make a good point, but as a counter argument, no one can actively have a conversation about how to prevent said emergency from occurring again when it is still actively happening. It would be akin to having a gun control conversation while the active shooter was still active. Let's get people to safety and reign in the devastation before deciding where we should and shouldn't build new homes.
    Hey - missed this earlier.  It's a good argument.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    brianlux said:
    josevolution said:
    https://apple.news/AVJp7AbCCRwadnixE1lmG7w
    What do you do when a community suffers devastation like these fires ? You threaten them that’s what PRP does best threaten people...
    I'm absolutely at a loss for words. 
    Pretty much, yeah. What else can you say? What's worse than a vile piece of human garbage? How can you even discuss the implications behind a POTUS saying such a thing? It's so hard because it would be like the neverending discussion.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited November 2018
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,840
    edited November 2018
    PJ_Soul said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    Ummm, yeah there kinda was.  Where do they get their water from?

    You can't seriously be arguing that california can hold the number of people it does safely?  I mean, this issue seems to be pretty obvious.
    Post edited by cincybearcat on
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,694
    edited November 2018
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    Ummm, yeah there kinda was.  Where do they get their water from?
    That somewhat seems irrelevant. Just because a community depends on more distant reservoirs it doesn't mean they live in a place rendered uninhabitable due to wildfires. My point was that their communities never used to burn to the ground and there weren't constant devastating wildfires raging through the entire state basically all the time. Now there is. And that is because of their 7 year drought, and counting. Don't get me wrong - I think vast regions of California are indeed uninhabitable now, and I think anyone buying there at the point has got to be crazy. I think everyone should get the fuck out of there at this point, because I think the tipping point has been passed. California is basically done for. My point was simply that the extent of this problem did not precede the building of those communities.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,840
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    Ummm, yeah there kinda was.  Where do they get their water from?
    That somewhat seems irrelevant. Just because a community depends on more distant reservoirs it doesn't mean they live in a place rendered uninhabitable due to wildfires. My point was that their communities never used to burn to the ground and there weren't constant devastating wildfires raging through the entire state basically all the time. Now there is. And that is because of their 7 year drought, and counting. Don't get me wrong - I think vast regions of California are indeed uninhabitable now, and I think anyone buying there at the point has got to be crazy. I think everyone should get the fuck out of there at this point, because I think the tipping point has been passed. California is basically done for. My point was simply that the extent of this problem did not precede the building of those communities.
    Yeah but mudslides, smog, water shortages...oh and that fault line all say it's a bad place to settle. But you know...the temperatures are awesome and there's mountains and ocean so we do it anyhow!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,471
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    Ummm, yeah there kinda was.  Where do they get their water from?
    That somewhat seems irrelevant. Just because a community depends on more distant reservoirs it doesn't mean they live in a place rendered uninhabitable due to wildfires. My point was that their communities never used to burn to the ground and there weren't constant devastating wildfires raging through the entire state basically all the time. Now there is. And that is because of their 7 year drought, and counting. Don't get me wrong - I think vast regions of California are indeed uninhabitable now, and I think anyone buying there at the point has got to be crazy. I think everyone should get the fuck out of there at this point, because I think the tipping point has been passed. California is basically done for. My point was simply that the extent of this problem did not precede the building of those communities.
    Yeah but mudslides, smog, water shortages...oh and that fault line all say it's a bad place to settle. But you know...the temperatures are awesome and there's mountains and ocean so we do it anyhow!
    Vancouver fires, Washington fires and Montana fires.

    All of those places don't suffer the same fate as Cali except the lack of rainfall.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    curmudgeoness said:
    Just as a point of reference, where I am right now the humidity is 9% (nine, that's not a typo) and wind is 15mph with stronger gusts; 76 degrees. I feel like a discarded snakeskin left lying in the sun. It is hotter, drier, and windier inland. Last time, it was much warmer here -- the air outdoors felt exactly like it does when I open the oven -- and I was really worried. The concern is that conditions will continue to grow hotter and drier, with less and less precipitation.
    I'm in West Hollywood (about 35 miles from the So. Cal. fires), and now we've got that 9% humidity and 74 degrees.  The smoke has drifted over our way (or could be typical smog - who knows?) and the blue skies here paint a picture prettier than the reality over the ridge of mountains.

    Kind of tough to get my head around what these communities are experiencing.  It's overwhelming to think about and see these images and learn of people's stories...let alone live through them.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,840
    tempo_n_groove said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    Ummm, yeah there kinda was.  Where do they get their water from?
    That somewhat seems irrelevant. Just because a community depends on more distant reservoirs it doesn't mean they live in a place rendered uninhabitable due to wildfires. My point was that their communities never used to burn to the ground and there weren't constant devastating wildfires raging through the entire state basically all the time. Now there is. And that is because of their 7 year drought, and counting. Don't get me wrong - I think vast regions of California are indeed uninhabitable now, and I think anyone buying there at the point has got to be crazy. I think everyone should get the fuck out of there at this point, because I think the tipping point has been passed. California is basically done for. My point was simply that the extent of this problem did not precede the building of those communities.
    Yeah but mudslides, smog, water shortages...oh and that fault line all say it's a bad place to settle. But you know...the temperatures are awesome and there's mountains and ocean so we do it anyhow!
    Vancouver fires, Washington fires and Montana fires.

    All of those places don't suffer the same fate as Cali except the lack of rainfall.
    Wasn't talking about just fires though...neither was the original comment unless you think New Orleans has a huge problem with fires. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,471
    cincybearcat said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    cincybearcat said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    Maybe these aren't the best areas to build communities in?  New Orleans is a great example. 
    So like basically all of California isn't the best place to build communities in? They are in a 7 year drought, and counting. There was nothing wrong with these communities when they were built.
    Ummm, yeah there kinda was.  Where do they get their water from?
    That somewhat seems irrelevant. Just because a community depends on more distant reservoirs it doesn't mean they live in a place rendered uninhabitable due to wildfires. My point was that their communities never used to burn to the ground and there weren't constant devastating wildfires raging through the entire state basically all the time. Now there is. And that is because of their 7 year drought, and counting. Don't get me wrong - I think vast regions of California are indeed uninhabitable now, and I think anyone buying there at the point has got to be crazy. I think everyone should get the fuck out of there at this point, because I think the tipping point has been passed. California is basically done for. My point was simply that the extent of this problem did not precede the building of those communities.
    Yeah but mudslides, smog, water shortages...oh and that fault line all say it's a bad place to settle. But you know...the temperatures are awesome and there's mountains and ocean so we do it anyhow!
    Vancouver fires, Washington fires and Montana fires.

    All of those places don't suffer the same fate as Cali except the lack of rainfall.
    Wasn't talking about just fires though...neither was the original comment unless you think New Orleans has a huge problem with fires. 
    Just general location then, like living near a volcano?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories