California wild fires

[si_c]

It's impossible to clear all the forests of tinder, there is just too much area to cover and the only way to do this is with controlled burns - but conditions have to be right for this to occur. Trump wanted them to "rake" the forests, which is insane.

The issue currently is that even though they have made fire breaks in certain areas to protect property the winds are so strong they are blowing the fire over them and making them burn so hot it's not possible to extinguish.

This is all exacerbated by the complete lack of water in the region - there used to be massive lakes and much more water in the rivers but it all got diverted to grow corn in the desert.

 

[FishFright]

Just heard that in an interview on the Radio. Stunning!
(I'm guessing that's feedback - the heat of the fires is creating local air currents. As opposed to winds blowing across California at 50mph? )

As far as I know the wind's were that strong before the fires .

 

[Beebo]

As far as I know the wind's were that strong before the fires .

Correct. The winds are a local phenomenon called the Santa Ana winds, and they are dry winds that come from the hills inland and rip down the valleys to the sea.

I suspect the fire would increase the winds power but the winds were definitely before the fires.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Well the forecast is for winds of 6mph, gusting 7mph. Just saying.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/los-angeles/90012/hourly-weather-forecast/347625

 

[MichaelW2]

The problem is not timber where people live, but people living where there is timber.
The "exburbs" are extensive, very low density developements that stretch over large areas of bush and forest, within commuting range of cities.
Proscibed burns are harder around homes unless the homeowner cooperates. Firefighting usually means burning barrier zones, where people live.
Oct 24.
Last week, the US Forest Service announced it would stop prescribed burning in California “for the foreseeable future,” stating that the decision was made as a precautionary measure to ensure the availability of staff and equipment in case of potential wildfires. But temps are falling across California, and state, tribal authorities, and prescribed burn associations have commenced with their prescribed burns. If the federal agency doesn’t hold up its end of the work, all that mitigation work can be undone.

 

[Gillstay]

They were warned about vegetation close to their homes years ago, Australians know not to let this happen regarding wild fires.
Trump wanted them to clear the forests of tinder and branches but they ignored this advice because of harming small wildlife.

You ever tried clearing a forest of branches and tinder ? That's not advice, but yet another of his endless vague opinions.

 

[Drago]

It's eminently doable, but extremely labour intensive and thus very, very expensive.

The number one thing we can do is reduce the tinder and fuel available for fires to get started or continue to burn. Reduction can be accomplished by:

• Clearing the forest floor from brush, shrubs, and fallen trees.
  This reduces the fuel available to the fire and decreases the intensity, making it easier to fight.
• Increasing the height of the canopy.
  The process of eliminating smaller trees that will ignite and act as an elevator to the large canopy will help prevent larger trees from igniting.
• Eliminating smaller trees and branches.
  These are fuels that can carry a ground fire all the way from the forest floor to the top of the trees.
• Systematically removing large trees.
  This reduces overlap of branches and the ability to transfer fire from tree to tree. Thinning can be conducted in an eco-friendly way that still maintains clusters of trees and is favorable to wildlife and habitats.

Clearing underbrush from the forest floor, thinning small trees, and maintaining large trees to prevent the spread of fire to the canopy is a sizeable project - in which you'll need mechanical assistance

So perhaps the permatanned loon was on to something, albeit a very expensive something. That said, probably a lot less expensive than the damage caused in this conflagration. When weighed against the cost of rebuilding it has turned out to be sage advice - far more than mere vague opinion.

 

[slowmotion]

Only 38% of Californian voters supported Trump in the 2024 election. My guess is that he won't be in any hurry to give federal aid.

 

[Baldy]

It's eminently doable, but extremely labour intensive and thus very, very expensive.

The number one thing we can do is reduce the tinder and fuel available for fires to get started or continue to burn. Reduction can be accomplished by:

• Clearing the forest floor from brush, shrubs, and fallen trees.
  This reduces the fuel available to the fire and decreases the intensity, making it easier to fight.
• Increasing the height of the canopy.
  The process of eliminating smaller trees that will ignite and act as an elevator to the large canopy will help prevent larger trees from igniting.
• Eliminating smaller trees and branches.
  These are fuels that can carry a ground fire all the way from the forest floor to the top of the trees.
• Systematically removing large trees.
  This reduces overlap of branches and the ability to transfer fire from tree to tree. Thinning can be conducted in an eco-friendly way that still maintains clusters of trees and is favorable to wildlife and habitats.

Clearing underbrush from the forest floor, thinning small trees, and maintaining large trees to prevent the spread of fire to the canopy is a sizeable project - in which you'll need mechanical assistance

So perhaps the permatanned loon was on to something, albeit a very expensive something. That said, probably a lot less expensive than the damage caused in this conflagration. When weighed against the cost of rebuilding it has turned out to be sage advice - far more than mere vague opinion.

Have you actually been to California? I don't think you have any idea how much forest there is. Many of the bushes around the west coast have a very oily sap, this readily catches fire.

 

[C R]

Have you actually been to California? I don't think you have any idea how much forest there is. Many of the bushes around the west coast have a very oily sap, this readily catches fire.

I think HL Menken's ditty needs an airing:

For every complex problem there's a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.

 

[Dave7]

Just watching the news. It's not just isolated pockets of houses affected, it's complete towns gone. Looks like I imagine a nuclear bomb going off. I am watching but it won't sink in to my brain.

 

[FishFright]

Just watching the news. It's not just isolated pockets of houses affected, it's complete towns gone. Looks like I imagine a nuclear bomb going off. I am watching but it won't sink in to my brain.

The magnitude is of the fires is mind blowing.

 

[Andy in Germany]

It's eminently doable, but extremely labour intensive and thus very, very expensive.

The number one thing we can do is reduce the tinder and fuel available for fires to get started or continue to burn. Reduction can be accomplished by:

• Clearing the forest floor from brush, shrubs, and fallen trees.
  This reduces the fuel available to the fire and decreases the intensity, making it easier to fight.
• Increasing the height of the canopy.
  The process of eliminating smaller trees that will ignite and act as an elevator to the large canopy will help prevent larger trees from igniting.
• Eliminating smaller trees and branches.
  These are fuels that can carry a ground fire all the way from the forest floor to the top of the trees.
• Systematically removing large trees.
  This reduces overlap of branches and the ability to transfer fire from tree to tree. Thinning can be conducted in an eco-friendly way that still maintains clusters of trees and is favorable to wildlife and habitats.

Clearing underbrush from the forest floor, thinning small trees, and maintaining large trees to prevent the spread of fire to the canopy is a sizeable project - in which you'll need mechanical assistance

So perhaps the permatanned loon was on to something, albeit a very expensive something. That said, probably a lot less expensive than the damage caused in this conflagration. When weighed against the cost of rebuilding it has turned out to be sage advice - far more than mere vague opinion.

The problem is that the things described here as "problems" like ground cover, different heights of trees, et c, are features of a healthy normal forest. Removing them could cause more problems than it solves, and/or would probably be ineffective in the long run because left to its own devices for a year the forest will return to its natural state.

I think the problem is partly what my old geography tutor said when speaking about natural hazards and disasters: "There are no natural disasters; there are human disasters caused when people live in places where natural hazards exist."

 

[Drago]

Have you actually been to California? I don't think you have any idea how much forest there is. Many of the bushes around the west coast have a very oily sap, this readily catches fire.

Yes, I've been there, thank you.

Of course it's vast, but that's no excuse for doing nothing. The area affected is about twice the size of Reading. Nevertheless, the scale isn't insurmountable if the necessary resources are in place the the project rotates through the area over the years. After all, the US can completely deforeset hundreds of thousands of acres when there's money to be made from doing so, but they're not so keen to do the less intensive work of thinning and managing an area when it's going to cost them.

At a technical level etc least Trump's idea was not at all fanciful. Probably by complete accident he came out with a sensible idea, at least at a technical level. People are dancing around the real issue which is who would pay for it- the expense would be vast, although less so if targeted in the few miles aprund the boundary of each settlement.

The expense would be eye watering, but then the expense in life, limb and property has already been eye-watering, so it comes down to a political will to spend the money preventatively instead of retrospectively.

 

[Jameshow]

Yes, I've been there, thank you.

Of course it's vast, but that's no excuse for doing nothing. The area affected is about twice the size of Reading. Nevertheless, the scale isn't insurmountable if the necessary resources are in place the the project rotates through the area over the years. After all, the US can completely deforeset hundreds of thousands of acres when there's money to be made from doing so, but they're not so keen to do the less intensive work of thinning and managing an area when it's going to cost them.

At a technical level etc least Trump's idea was not at all fanciful. Probably by complete accident he came out with a sensible idea, at least at a technical level. People are dancing around the real issue which is who would pay for it- the expense would be vast, although less so if targeted in the few miles aprund the boundary of each settlement.

The expense would be eye watering, but then the expense in life, limb and property has already been eye-watering, so it comes down to a political will to spend the money preventatively instead of retrospectively.

It dies seem odd that they have forest (which in the climate can be very dry) right up close to the city.
They ought to have a buffer zone perhaps 5 miles surely??

Do they not have lookout posts for watching for fires as they do in other parts of American and Canada?

Also lakes reserved for fire fighting so the water supply isn't contaminated?