LA fires

[danst96]

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.

What's amusing about this statement is the fact a single environmental event such as a volcano or the annual wildfires that Canada, Australia and US experience and experience every year for as long as time has been, release more C02 than man does in a year.

AJP is correct, a large part of the extent of the destruction here is down to poor management, poor planning and poor budget allocation.

Pointing a finger squarely at climate change is misleading at the very least. Just like the massive wildfires in Quebec last year which likely are still smouldering were started as arson by an individual who wanted to create an event that could be blamed on "climate change". Not denying climate change, I'm simply suggesting that such a simplistic view is naive at best.

 

[Jacob]

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.

Why not?

It was an event waiting to happen with the unhappy combination of high winds, and drought making control very difficult.

The exceptional high winds and drought are the consequences of climate change

• 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.

You need to look at the graphs again. You are simply wrong. Many of these buildings were built 100 or more years ago and currently subject to the worst fires since.

 

[Jacob]

What's amusing about this statement is the fact a single environmental event such as a volcano or the annual wildfires that Canada, Australia and US experience and experience every year for as long as time has been, release more C02 than man does in a year.

AJP is correct, a large part of the extent of the destruction here is down to poor management, poor planning and poor budget allocation.

Pointing a finger squarely at climate change is misleading at the very least. Just like the massive wildfires in Quebec last year which likely are still smouldering were started as arson by an individual who wanted to create an event that could be blamed on "climate change".

The point you have missed is that an arsonist would not have caused the same extent of damage say 50 years ago. In any case most fires are started by lightning and other accidental causes, in a changeg environment

Not denying climate change,

Well done!

I'm simply suggesting that such a simplistic view is naive at best.

Tell that to the scientists.

 

[Jacob]

I'm amazed that there are still so many simplistic and naive CC sceptics about!
How strange!
In the face of overwhelming evidence and events happening as forecast I really don't understand why people are in denial, unless it's just that the prospects are so alarming that people are too frightened to contemplate them.

 

[Jacob]

What's amusing about this statement is the fact a single environmental event such as a volcano or the annual wildfires that Canada, Australia and US experience and experience every year for as long as time has been, release more C02 than man does in a year.

Factually incorrect. You are wrong. Why not check them for yourself instead of just believing any old nonsense?
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

 

[Vulcan]

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.

They seem to have a propensity for building homes almost entirely from wood. I couldn’t help notice the seemingly unburnt houses in this picture. Why are they still standing. The roofs look to have terracotta tile. Maybe the rest of the house is brick or block? Just wondering.

It’s the same with hurricanes. You see all these destroyed stick buildings, but often with one or two seemingly unscathed ones built from something stronger?

 

[danst96]

They seem to have a propensity for building homes almost entirely from wood. I couldn’t help notice the seemingly unburnt houses in this picture. Why are they still standing. The roofs look to have terracotta tile. Maybe the rest of the house is brick or block? Just wondering.

View attachment 195804

It’s the same with hurricanes. You see all these destroyed stick buildings, but often with one or two seemingly unscathed ones built from something stronger?

It's a north american thing. Houses here get built in literal days as opposed months. Timber is also cheaper and more readily available than alternatives. Further to that, in colder areas like where I am in Saskatchewan, timber framed houses are often better insulated or have better r value than brick or block homes.

Looking at the picture, I do think the roof could be pretty critical here. Majority of roofs are asphalt tile and would be pretty susceptible to catching on fire from falling embers.

 

[danst96]

Factually incorrect. You are wrong. Why not check them for yourself instead of just believing any old nonsense?
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

I stand corrected.

 

[Jacob]

They seem to have a propensity for building homes almost entirely from wood. I couldn’t help notice the seemingly unburnt houses in this picture. Why are they still standing. The roofs look to have terracotta tile. Maybe the rest of the house is brick or block? Just wondering.

View attachment 195804

It’s the same with hurricanes. You see all these destroyed stick buildings, but often with one or two seemingly unscathed ones built from something stronger?

Well it's true that houses with inflammable materials within, can catch fire.
In fact all houses everywhere have inflammable materials within, even if the house itself is solid concrete.
You might as well argue that people at flood risk due to climate change, should have been living in boats. Sort of true, but obviously irrelevant nonsense at the same time.

 

[danst96]

The point you have missed is that an arsonist would not have caused the same extent of damage say 50 years ago. In any case most fires are started by lightning and other accidental causes, in a changeg environment

In the same breath, you could argue that the lack of forest management and burn backs etc. in the name of protecting the environment (which is a widespread issue in Canadian forests) is a much more significant factor to the outcome of the wildfires that happen naturally and unnaturally.

The same point can be made re LA, the mismanagement, lack of resources and funding are all compounding features.

My point RE the Quebec fires though is how ridiculous, messed up and plain bizarre some of the extreme climate catastrophists are to the point they intentionally create genuine disasters that threaten lives in the name of "climate change".

 

[Vulcan]

Well it's true that houses with inflammable materials within, can catch fire.
In fact all houses everywhere have inflammable materials within, even if the house itself is solid concrete.
You might as well argue that people at flood risk due to climate change, should have been living in boats. Sort of true, but obviously irrelevant nonsense at the same time.

That’s obvious all houses contain flammable materials within. I was talking about EXTERNAL BUILDING MATERIALS.

 

[niall Y]

Brilliant! Why has nobody else thought of that?

It might be the logical thing to do but could those involved in such a scheme be trusted to carry out their duties, without the level of corruption and insider trading epitomised by earlier schemes to supply the likes of Los Angeles with water.

Given the history and bad feeling from such schemes in the past it is probably a lot easier to rely on conservation methods, and the more expensive desalination plants, to top up the water supply, rather than embark upon such a large scale infrastructure programme

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The exceptional high winds and drought are the consequences of climate change

Droughts recur frequently - they are a feature of Californian climate. It is simply a complete nonsense to attribute this drought to climate change.

You need to look at the graphs again. You are simply wrong. Many of these buildings were built 100 or more years ago and currently subject to the worst fires since.

In 1924 the population of LA was about 1m - it is now nearly 4m (city not county). Given that many, possibly most, properties existing in1924 will have been replaced, it seems unlikely that even 1 in 10 properties destroyed by the current fire are 100 years old.

That climate change is a real concern I would not dispute. But blaming every weather event on climate change is more aligned to paranoia than rational analysis, and may serve only to undermine rather than reinforce a sensible public response.

 

[Jacob]

It might be the logical thing to do

I was joking.
It may be "logical" but it isn't practical, because of the sheer volumes and distances involved. In any case it would not solve the problem of climate change and rising temperatures.

 

[Jacob]

Droughts recur frequently - they are a feature of Californian climate. It is simply a complete nonsense to attribute this drought to climate change.

The increased severity is due to climate change

.......

That climate change is a real concern I would not dispute. But blaming every weather event on climate change is more aligned to paranoia than rational analysis

Blaming changing patterns of weather on climate change is perfectly logical. "Climate change" means changing patterns of weather (and other consequences thereof), it's not another separate issue, it does not mean something else.

, and may serve only to undermine rather than reinforce a sensible public response.

The undermining of a sensible public response has been the result of ill-informed climate change sceptics and deliberate misinformation from vested interests, principally the fossil fuel industry.
I'm really surprised that as events unfold before our very eyes as forecast but somewhat sooner, that people are still in denial.

 

[AJB Temple]

Climate has always changed. Always has (sometimes very dramatically) and always will. The debate is about a) causation and b) what, if anything, can we do about it. It is probably impossible to separate natural changes from human exacerbation as there is no 'control' model.
Clearly sensible humans should try to protect themselves. Building lots of very flammable houses close to each other is unwise. Re-wilding fire break zones with natural brush and scrub that catches fire easily is cheap but stupid. And just hoping that a big fire will not happen so there is no need to invest in fire control water supplies is unintelligent and, has been shown, delusional.

It's awful of course, but using this incident as a climate change hammer is quite stupid, as it is so easily undermined.

 

[John Brown]

or the annual wildfires that Canada, Australia and US experience and experience every year for as long as time has been,

I have to challenge that. My wife grew up in the North West(Washington State), and she reckons that the "wildfire season" is a new phenomenon. Those of her brothers who still live there agree.
I'm not saying it's all due to climate change, but she says that they didn't have an annual ",smoke season" when she was a lass.