Quite a big plume of smoke blowing over the Pacific...
Yeah, it's not a pleasant experience at all. We had one (20km2) nearby earlier this week which fortunately was dealth with quickly but it was behind the hospital (but blowing away). Wind changes though and it's horrible to get stuck in smoke, or have to re-route because the fire has jumped a main road or train track.
Great site I use is bushfire.io you can see size of fire, ground temps and air support. Also use scanner radio to listen to the local fire service and SES. If you use the site you can see what the current state of bushfire is across Australia but you can also zoom out and look at the size of the California situation.
No but some people might want to know, that is what interests a lot of people…… what car a celebrity drives, what coat they are wearing, and what the soft furnishings in their lounge look like. Personally I have zero interest but I understand that many people are fascinated by such stuff.
In terms of what interests people, I think there’s also quite a primal interest in fire and it’s destructive power, an interest more hard wired in us than any in earthquakes or floods, it also seems to make quite vivid television.
Unfortunately we do also seem to be in an age of bread and circuses so things burning is going to be a ratings winner.
referring to the bulldozer in the OP. or is it a superscooper?
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c24n4pz6p2eo
Controversial- some of the wealthy, film stars types (mostly foreign) who have homes there, aren’t climate change deniers, don’t agree with Trump and will be helping their poorer less fortunate neighbours with funding.
We can’t lump them all in the same boat.
We can’t lump them all in the same boat.
No we can't, because a lot/most of the people who have lost their properties in Malibu will almost certainly have another property somewhere else to which they can move to. At the very least they'll be holed up in 5 star hotel somewhere else in LA. I doubt very much they will be on a camp bed in a local school or sports centre. Looking at it another way, if we're concerned about minimising human suffering then we should be thankful that a disaster like this has occured in such a wealthy area rather than say a Brazilian favela where 10s of thousands might have died. Small mercies I guess!
The area burned or on fire is roughly the size of The Wirral.
Yeah it's huge. Sky news had a graphic showing it as the same area as central London. Having said that though the greater LA area is comparable in size to the entire North West of England from the Wirral up to the Lake District and due to the size of the properties the housing density is nowhere near what we have here so need to keep that in mind.
The Palisades fire alone is 20,000 acres - that's over 30 square miles. Can't really imagine such a thing.
Yes that is correct, every house in LA is a huge mega-mansion owned by billionaires who deserve to burn. They deserve zero empathy.
every house in LA is a huge mega-mansion owned by billionaires who deserve to burn.
Wind your neck in. I haven’t said anything of the sort. The fact there have only been 10 fatalities (so far) indicates that this disaster isn’t on the scale of many others. Property can be replaced.
You literally have no idea. This is a huge fire in terms of the wider impact as it is so highly populated. Suburbs on the fringes of one of the largest cities in world are literally being burnt to a crisp.
This sequence of fires will probably cause over $50 billion of insured losses. For every $1 of insured loss there will be at least $1 of non-insured loss, often referred to as economic loss. These are the people who didn't have insurance, couldn't afford insurance, or forgot to renew it, or were refused insurance and so on. These are YOUR kind of people as per your spouting on political threads. They are the disenfranchised, the poor, the needy that need some support. Why do have zero empathy for them? They have literally lost everything apart from the clothes that they are wearing. They have no means to get their life back. That is the same as being a refugee in Darfur, or an arrival on a boat in Europe probably the victim of human traffickers. So why do you have such as shitty attitude towards them?
I've got news for you, we are all going to be affected by this. Insurance and reinsurance is a global business where participants diversify their risk by taking on risks across the world to avoid all their eggs in one basket scenarios. That means every time there's a container ship that sinks, or an airplane crashes or an earthquake or a US wildfire or an Australian Cyclone with flooding, all of our insurance goes up. The cost of doing business increases for everyone in the sector.
So when your home insurance goes £20 next year up you can blame it on the wildfires and once again blame those blumming billionaires with the now crispy skin. They deserve it after all.
They deserve it after all.
I never said that. If you're going to put words in my mouth though two can play at that game. Sounds like you're mainly concerned with how your insurance prices are going to be affected. Nice!
It's not that I don't have empathy, more that I can put this disaster into proper perspective in terms of human fatalaties and injuries, which are thankfully minimal. It's true I don't care too much about property losses, especially when many of those affected can absorb those losses. Even the ones who can't will benefit from living in a country which routinely provides direct support from the govt in response to natural disasters. If I was going to be affected by a natural disaster like this, I'd want to have lots of money and/or live in a country with a govt which will support me to rebuild my life. It's terrible for those involved, but it could have been very much worse if it happened somewhere else.
Weird how we care so much about people who suffer through ‘acts of god’ but conveniently ignore those who suffer by the design of our own actions.
Some of us have the empathy and emotional capacity to care about both. Some of us don't.
James Woods has hit the Internet to cry that his house has burned down and he didn't have insurance.
So it's not all bad news.
but it could have been very much worse if it happened somewhere else.
That's the thing, you need the right set of conditions for this to happen and to turn into a very large uncontrollable fire. You really don't get them in many places so your somewhere else argument isn't really valid.
Wildfires need fuel (basically dry or dead plants), dryness and/or sustained reasonably high temperatures, they need wind to fan the flames and slope is another key factor. Why slope? well firefighters cannot normally tackle blazes on slopes over 30deg as the terrain is too difficult to get into and the water supply is often not there plus it is often too dangerous to fight those fires. The seasonal Santa Anna wind pushes the flames down the slopes - can you imagine trying to fight fire above your head that is leaping forward?
Why is that relevant? the antecedent conditions (situation before the bad thing happened) and topography of the hills around LA provided all these worse cases scenarios for this fire. The fuel was there as they've had a drought, then record rains to hep grow vegetation all year followed by another drought to turn it into a tinder box. Add into this mix an increase in housing being built in forested areas on the periphery of the suburbs which are often occupied by people with no experience of living with natural fires around them (this is the wildland urban interface). These new houses are just merely more potential fuel if the grounds around them are not maintained well enough. (California has very strict fire management rules for vegetation clearing near properties)
So to say that it'd be worse somewhere else is like saying that recent earthquake in Tibet would have been terrible if it was in Newcastle. Yes but no, as it physically could not have happened in Newcastle. It is an ill-informed thing to say.
FWIW, in 2018 there was a wildfire called the Woolsey fire, just slightly NW of this now infamous Palisades fire. It burnt ~80,000 acres but the population is very low there so it was nowhere near as bad as this one. So the location is critical in determining the impact or much worse-ness . That caused around $8-10 Billion of economic losses. Everyone pays to fix this mess so we all suffer
The Palisades fire alone is 20,000 acres – that’s over 30 square miles. Can’t really imagine such a thing.
The Jasper wildfire last summer was 80k Acres or 1.2 Birminghams... Your head truly can't get around that size of fire.
There is also a cultural impact that hasn't been considered by most people outside of LA but just an example, Bob Clearmountain's house and studio has been lost, so that's a load of Rock recording history memorabilia and tapes etc gone, he was the man who recorded Born To Run and tons of other significant albums/singles; as well as loss of another studio because the buildings will struggle to be justified to be replaced and the console, microphones etc all gone . Bob and his wife have evacuated safely.
There’s been a lot said, particularly by the likes of Diaper Don and his enablers, about the lack of water, how the hydrants have been allowed to run dry, how it’s all the fault of the governor, blah, blah, blah…
Apparently the water system was designed to cope with small local fires, houses, large buildings, etc; it was never intended to deal with wildfires driven by hurricane force winds, sending burning embers miles ahead of the main fire. This article from the LA Times explains in a lot of detail just what they’ve had to contend with…
The complete lack of empathy being shown by certain people here is astounding, but I’m not surprised, it’s a clear indication of certain psychological issues.
I dont understand is how detached properties managed to go up in flames one after another.
Have they no fire brigade or water sources that would allow people/authorities to damp down adjacent homes ?.
In some of the pics it certainly appears that they've done nothing like that and allowed them to burn one after another.
Another thing I find odd is many of the burnt homes have trees near them that are untouched by fire. Trees on the properties themselves are burnt, but there are others including scrub that is untouched
I dont understand is how detached properties managed to go up in flames one after another.
I assume you have not read any one of the multiple news reports about the fires then?
I dont understand is how detached properties managed to go up in flames one after another
In a perpetually sunny place like southern California shade is a valued asset. Trees provide shade. In the foothills of a massive forest, trees are something you'd naturally keep or replant for both aesthetic and functional purpose.
Looking at Google maps shows massive infill of foliage. Predominantly trees and pools rather than open lots devoid of combustible material.
The typical roof being asphalt shingle and presumably good use of soffit and ridge venting along with embers following air currents means there's a strong likelihood that smouldering embers will easily be carried into lost spaces and hot spots start quickly then run away as they begin to be fueled by the oil in the roof material.
Looking at the "normal neighborhoods" it's fascinating to see some houses still stood amongst the destruction. These aren't "brick houses" and not necessarily any more fire resistant materials than the majority but perhaps they had fire proof soffit vents, were more fire smart with their property, cleaned the leaf/tree debris from their gutters and employed roof sprinklers?
I dont understand is how detached properties managed to go up in flames one after another.
Because they're made out of wood?
I dont understand is how detached properties managed to go up in flames one after another.
I assume you have not read any one of the multiple news reports about the fires then?
[img] 
[/img]
I dont understand is how detached properties managed to go up in flames one after another
With a hurricane force wind blowing glowing embers several miles? Flames turning into a building sized blowtorch with a hundred mile per hour wind behind it?
Son, you really need to get out more. [img] 
[/img]
Horrendous for all involved. I was listening to Radio four the other day and they were speaking to a lady who lost a lifetimes worth of writing. Doesn't sound like much but really made me stop and think.
I'm just glad that the emergency services have done a cracking job when it comes to protecting life. Considering the size and scale (that I can't even wrap my head around) the low casualty rate shows what outstanding work has been done.
Because they’re made out of wood
This probably isn't as significant as people who live in brick houses think.
The majority of these homes will be covered in stucco (render) or cementious Hardie shingle/plank and equally as flame spread resistant as a brick facade. Sure, some will have vinyl or cedar siding coated in oil based treatments or paint.
Your brick house still has wooden roof trusses, flammable fascia/soffit, wooden floor systems and glass windows along with a house full of flammable belongings. All the same wild fire ingress points exist.
Spacial separation calculations are done here in BC at least based on the unprotected openings (glass) as once a window blows out, even without these winds, established interior fire spreads sideways. If they've a window close enough, they'll get Burnet too.
A significant heat source of a burning bush next to a window in a brick house could equally provide fire a pathway into a house, contents take over, floor systems goes, roof too and on it goes.
The brick walls might stay standing, but the house is likely a tear down anyway.
Now, concrete homes with fire protected openings, metal roofs, ember proof ventilation, interior/exterior sprinklers, vegetation free yards are where it's at. Likely be further revisions to California's home hardening and defensible space rule following this
On top of everything else, now a SuperScooper water bomber had had to be grounded after a wing leading edge was damaged after being impacted by a drone being flown in an active fire region. [img] 
[/img]
Seems there is a problem with insurance. In 1988 a law was passed preventing insurance companies from pricing according to risk. As a result many stopped writing fire risk policies in California.
No problem. There was a state backed insurer of last resort. The FAIR plan. It has $2.5Bn of reserves. The LA fire is $25BN and counting. The shortfall will be made up by surcharges of up to $3700 on every policy in California.
" By suppressing price signals about risk, California’s regulatory regime encouraged development in fire-prone areas while simultaneously reducing incentives for fire prevention. When you can get subsidised insurance regardless of risk, why spend extra money on fire-resistant materials or clearing brush? When property owners don’t bear the full cost of their location decisions, they’ll naturally take more risks than they would in a free market."
Water - "Consider water infrastructure. California hasn’t built a major new reservoir since 1992, despite adding 10 million residents. Environmental regulations, particularly those protecting populations of Delta smelt, have actively reduced water availability to Southern California."
https://capx.co/the-la-fires-a-story-of-political-failure
The physical size of the fires really aren't that big. It's where they are and the population density.
2020 here was way way bigger but from a human perspective* less damaging:
Up to 19 million hectares were burnt, with 12.6 million hectares primarily forest and bushland. 33 lives were lost and around 3,094 homes destroyed.
The fact it happened at the arse end of the world and didn't affect major connurbations (by pure luck) just as Covid kicked off meant it got less attention.
*estimated 3 billion animals affected
If you want see how many fires rage across the world year after year click link and press play on the world map
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MOD14A1_M_FIRE
The typical roof being asphalt shingle and presumably good use of soffit and ridge venting along with embers following air currents means there’s a strong likelihood that smouldering embers will easily be carried into lost spaces and hot spots start quickly then run away as they begin to be fueled by the oil in the roof material.
Thanks for that BlackBear, certainly a more informative answer than the sarcastic retort some members felt like giving.
It kind of explains why some houses were left unburnt and surrounded by greenery.
Spacial separation calculations are done here in BC at least based on the unprotected openings (glass) as once a window blows out, even without these winds, established interior fire spreads sideways. If they’ve a window close enough, they’ll get Burnet too.
Windows are definitely the weak point.
Our building code demands specific glass but we also have fire rated screens.
Also there's not allowed to be a gap more than 2mm around the whole exterior to prevent ingress.
However the problem with codes is they apply to new houses and renovations, most of the housing stock here and no doubt in LA if they have similar will pre-date the code.
Good stuff from C5 as usual..
Even the ones who can’t will benefit from living in a country which routinely provides direct support from the govt in response to natural disasters. If I was going to be affected by a natural disaster like this, I’d want to have lots of money and/or live in a country with a govt which will support me to rebuild my life.
You obviously don't remember Katrina.
How much support do you really think people will get?
Thanks for that BlackBear, certainly a more informative answer than the sarcastic retort some members felt like giving.
Ah, irony.
Yeah, that was an interesting read, thanks.
Update on current situation, or as current as possible…
Looters dressed as fire fighters are looting the homes of the rich and famous apparently.
Well that sounds like an unnecessary requirement to carry a 300 inch flat screen TV out of an abandoned home. Where are they getting their hands on fire fighters uniforms?
Is it definitely not fire fighters doing the looting?
Where are they getting their hands on fire fighters uniforms?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/FEESHOW-Firefighter-Boyshorts-Jumpsuit-Fireman/dp/B0DFY9DC55/?th=1
Where are they getting their hands on fire fighters uniforms?
Same places you can buy other sorts of PPE, along with eBay.
Is it definitely not fire fighters doing the looting?
That is really a stupid, ridiculous statement! There are barely enough fire fighters to deal with containing the fires, have you not looked at the containment figures?
Same places you can buy other sorts of PPE, along with eBay.
Well it's good to see looters putting a bit of preplanning before looting the homes of the rich and famous of their valuable goods, and first of all going on eBay to purchase some PPE.
But tell me, wouldn't the looters be drawing attention to themselves by dressing up as fire fighters? I mean you don't often see a fire fighter coming out of a house carrying a large flat screen telly and walking down the road with it, do you?
spekkie
Free Member
Looters dressed as fire fighters are looting the homes of the rich and famous apparently.
Do you REALLY believe this and do you REALLY think it's good idea to spread such shite? No wonder social media is such a cesspit...
One hopes that maybe, just maybe, such publicity of “natural disasters” so close to home may cause Trump-voting, climate change denying f++kwits to think twice about which type of leadership they want in their country.
For the rest of the worlds sake, I hope so but I’m not optimistic…
It's an area that voted democrat. For both Trump and his supporters that'll be the main cause of the fire - it's just a bit of justifiable retribution. God will have done it to teach them a lesson.
Having said that, I'm struggling to get too piqued by it - it's a country with the political and financial influence to have prevented (or slowed) climate change if it'd wanted to, and has the financial capacity to put things right now. Devastation to natural habitat and death of wildlife is bloomin sad though.
Meanwhile....an evening with neighbours that work for MSF, specifically on the issues in Sudan currently, brings into the sharp relief the huge bias in our news reporting and focus and probably a better idea of where I should currently be giving my ****s.
But tell me, wouldn’t the looters be drawing attention to themselves by dressing up as fire fighters? I mean you don’t often see a fire fighter coming out of a house carrying a large flat screen telly and walking down the road with it, do you?
Well, I’ve seen news footage of looters stealing all kinds of stuff, including tellies, computers etc, during spates of rioting and looting, but I don’t think anyone has said these looters are stealing stuff from millionaires, the police have said there has been looting, probably from the homes of ordinary Angelinos, and don’t you understand the concept of camouflage? As in, wearing fire fighters clothing that matches the actual fire fighters? Also, they’re looting from active fire areas, wearing highly inflammable synthetics is stupid, even the BBC reporter on scene is wearing very similar equipment, she looks not dissimilar to fire fighters, apart from a helmet, she’s been wearing a full face mask and goggles, all things that would allow someone to blend in from a distance, and as the fires have now been burning for some days, there’s plenty of time to obtain kit from a huge city like LA.
