LA fires

[Jacob]

This dropped in on FB this morning:

https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/morgan-tingley/

 

[AJB Temple]

People spin arguments to suit their position. Wildfires go by many names are are common across the globe and often natures way of regenerating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire

Who knows what the real reason is?

 

[Jacob]

People spin arguments to suit their position. Wildfires go by many names are are common across the globe and often natures way of regenerating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire

Natures way of regenerating Los Angeles? I suppose that's true in a way; it is "nature's" reaction to increasing CO2 levels, caused by ourselves.

Who knows what the real reason is?

As with most things - the experts tend to be the people who have studied and learned about the science, as Tingley seems to have.
https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/person/morgan-tingley/
Do you know more about the topic than he does?
How would you explain the increasing frequency and intensity of these various events around the globe?
Do you think it is a hoax, as per D Trump? https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/trump-clings-to-inaccurate-climate-change-talking-points/

 

[Windows]

As a society, we have schooling and specialisms so that scientists that have put in the time & effort can answer the question about what the real reason is. Are you suggesting that Mr Tingley is not qualified to have an expert opinion?

 

[niall Y]

The people of California who are affected by the frequency and severity of these fires don't need to be told for the umpteenth time why they are happening. They need actual measures in place to control the situation and mitigate the effects .If one finds oneself in the midst of something like this , then the worst is already happening - whatever the cause.

Given that California is the wealthiest State in the whole of the U.S.A. then funds are going to have to be channeled into better managing the land outside the major cities - all those wild, forested areas and, grassy scrubland. The minimum one should expect is that there are, at least, large enough fire-breaks around the major conurbations to protect them.

 

[TRITON]

Who knows what the real reason is?

I suppose you have to look at the data of fires in LA for say the last century. A graph will easily show if it has been steadily increasing.

TBH outwith the last decade, I cant remember any reports of LA going up in flames on a yearly basis.

 

[Jacob]

The people of California who are affected by the frequency and severity of these fires don't need to be told for the umpteenth time why they are happening. They need actual measures in place to control the situation and mitigate the effects .If one finds oneself in the midst of something like this , then the worst is already happening - whatever the cause.

Given that California is the wealthiest State in the whole of the U.S.A. then funds are going to have to be channeled into better managing the land outside the major cities - all those wild, forested areas and, grassy scrubland. The minimum one should expect is that there are, at least, large enough fire-breaks around the major conurbations to protect them.

The point is - efforts to mitigate CC effects are being overwhelmed, LA and elsewhere around the globe.
Including the UK - insignificant little places like Fairbourne (Wales) and Tenbury Wells (Worcs) are hitting the news. London and other low lying areas will be affected sooner or later.
Zero CO2 is the only viable solution on offer.

 

[Jacob]

I suppose you have to look at the data of fires in LA for say the last century. A graph will easily show if it has been steadily increasing.

TBH outwith the last decade, I cant remember any reports of LA going up in flames on a yearly basis.

Interestingly - the number of fires is declining but the extent and intensity of them increasing. https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...HZSdKQkQtKgLegQIGRAB&biw=1398&bih=724&dpr=1.8

 

[TRITON]

Or
https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#5/34.53/-125.77

 

[paulrbarnard]

Reports today that some of the fires are arson.

 

[Spectric]

If you cover a arrid area that is a tinderbox with lots of houses that are fairly well packed in, know you have a shortage of water and yet still allow barbecues then you are setting yourself up for such a disaster. If someone had looked at this problem and thought about fire breaks then the number of dwellings would have been halved and fire breaks put in certain locations to contain a fire.

 

[Jacob]

If you cover a arrid area that is a tinderbox with lots of houses that are fairly well packed in, know you have a shortage of water and yet still allow barbecues then you are setting yourself up for such a disaster. If someone had looked at this problem and thought about fire breaks then the number of dwellings would have been halved and fire breaks put in certain locations to contain a fire.

Yes they shouldn't have built there, or would prohibiting barbecues have been the answer?
Similarly every major coastal city around the globe should have been built further away from the coast.
Nobody should ever build on flood plains, or in places with already hot climates, or narrow valleys which could flood.
Nobody should be using fossil fuels, increasing global temperatures and altering climate patterns.
No problem!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2024-is-officially-the-hottest-year-on-record/

 

[sploo]

Reports today that some of the fires are arson.

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

[Terry - Somerset]

This is not intended to be unsympathetic - clearly those who have lost home and possibly family to the flames are understandably distressed.

That consumption of fossil fuels and increased greenhouse gases needs to be reversed is a given.

However climate change may have had some impact on the outcome, but cannot be reliably held responsible for single events. It was an event waiting to happen with the unhappy combination of high winds, and drought making control very difficult.

• droughts which leave vegetation tinder dry and vulnerable to fire are common in LA - graph. The last couple of years are not unusual.
• large wildfires have increased over the last 50 years, albeit not by the catastrophic extent one may have expected Graph. Incidence remains at a fairly constant level with just one or two peaks. There may be contributory factors outside of climate change.
• the principle construction material for domestic property is wood - the pictures of the devastation caused show buildings destroyed to ground level, with the possible exception in some of a chimney. Wood is not know for its resistance to flames!
• that water supply has hindered firefighting is unsurprising - investment in infrastructure (funded by taxes) even in the best regulated places is set to meet normal max demand. Given the spread and intensity of the fires demand has unsurprisingly exceeded "normal max"
• some fires may have been started deliberately

 

[Spectric]

Yes they shouldn't have built there, or would prohibiting barbecues have been the answer?

Nothing wrong with building there if the houses were spaced out much further apart and the overall layout was good to prevent the spread of fires, the actual problem is the reason why they did not do this which comes down to greed and making the most money at other peoples expense. This is also a reason why we will not see houses built in the Uk that are really energy efficient because they have larger footprints and a developer would have to build less on a given plot of land which would not keep the investors and shareholders happy, so build anywhere you can get away with including flood plains.

 

[niall Y]

If people still wish to continue living in certain areas of Southern California, then measures will to have to be taken to protect them and their property from fire. Otherwise it will increasingly become a no-go, area inhabited, only, by a few intrepid souls I have read that insurance companies have already cancelled their policies in certain areas, well ahead of this present bout of fires, so people will be without cover for their losses, through no fault of their own.

In contrast there seems to be no problem with fires in the north of the state which is, at present, encountering flooding and record levels of rain, To mitigate against the drought in the south. It would seem logical , that major infrastructure projects need to be built to divert water from here to the drought stricken south. Though this would help with the drought - it certainly won't with the wildfires

 

[AJB Temple]

Jacob and others immediately made assumptions about my post. I am not a climate change denier, but I do think Tingley exaggerates for effect (he may have exaggerated 100,000 times...) and as he has a cause to promote, he tends to seize on it, whilst minimising competing explanations. The climate is arid and southern Californian wildfires have been recorded regularly and frequently for 150 years. Pack a lot of timber framed and timber clad houses right next to each other, many of them with flammable insulation and tar felt roof tiles, and you have a recipe for trouble. Saving money by "re-wilding" the fire breaks as has been reported, increases the risk. Climate change may be a factor but so is planning stupidity. There is often some degree of arson involved and that appears to be a potential factor here.