RIP. Greenville, Berry Creek, Big Creek, Paradise California

[neptronix]

re: the chatGPT comment

"I am using it as example to showcase what someone needs to use for information when they are from another part of the planet See it as a sign post for people to post more sources with their claims, it will help people from other regions and prevent them from having to ask Bing / ChatGpt because as you say they do hallucinate a lot and are very good at confirming underlying insinuations in questions even if completely off the mark."

Hey, that's basically admitting you don't know much about this situation and you're googling/GPT-ing stuff just to counter argue.

Nobody's compelling you to make arguments about things you don't have a good understanding of. It would be better if zero people on the internet did that.

If this is the angle you're taking, i'm out, i don't agree to the terms of argument!



Confused why you're quoting something i didn't say. Editing error?

 

[marvin78]

Hey, that's basically admitting you don't know much about this situation and you're googling/GPT-ing stuff just to counter argue.

No, it's meant to get people to post more sources instead of just regurgitating their existing believes... because you're obviously right

It would be better if zero people on the internet did that.

I do not care how someone is capable of wording an argument, I only care about what that argument is based on. But most arguments here in 'off topic' are just people regurgitating their 'believes' without any posting of actual useful source material/references.

Like I said about that Newsom thing you don't want to get into. You blame him, I blame 'pistachio farmers'. The fact I have to base that blame on sources like Politico ( or what ever, doesn't matter we can go as deep as needed in the source list ) doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, but it's worth mentioning what an opinion is based on.

Confused why you're quoting something i didn't say. Editing error?

Don't think so?

*All I did was select text and press 'reply'

edit:

If this is the angle you're taking, i'm out, i don't agree to the terms of argument!

.. you have no idea how much this cracked me up, wonderful <3

What their saying, couples with the footage of storm damage ( enormous trees uprooted like it's nothing ) is pretty much what I said earlier. Even while they show there has been preventative measures being taken ( clearing brush / creating preventative fire lines ) they also conclude it would never be enough given the topography and plants/tree growth. So much extremely dry fuel, and so much wind, so many issues with accessability.

*ps no I am not claiming corridor crew are an authority on fire safety / fighting. But just looking at the video, that terrain and these conditions, I tend to agree with their conclusion non the less.

 

[neptronix]

My bad, you're quoting me from 2021 and i didn't recognize that.
For the record, that's not how i feel about this incident.

 

[marvin78]

My bad, you're quoting me from 2021 and i didn't recognize that.

Yeah this thread has old bones

For the record, that's not how i feel about this incident.

If we replace 'idiots and assholes' with 'certain politicians', and 'unsupervised land' with 'bad policies', can we get closer? Because if so, it's actually not a big change.

And water mismanagement certainly seems to be high on most people's 'blame list', though at which level is differs for most.

ps I'd put the availability of firefighting infrastructure in with water management

 

[marty]

LLMs aren't capable of learning in real time, and the less they know about something, the more they hallucinate. I hope you aren't using a LLM as a primary information source.

Nep, I know you are paid per each word ya type. But how about typing the whole word so I know what's in your brain?

What is LLM (Large Language Model)?

What are Large Language Models?

Large language models, also known as LLMs, are very large deep learning models that are pre-trained on vast amounts of data.

 

[marty]

Arguing with marvin78 is like fighting with a pig in the mud. The pig enjoys it

 

[marvin78]

The pig enjoys it

..only if the mud is of high enough quality, I do get bored.

ps. I did mention Bing, but maybe I should've said copilot or whatever the current hip slogan is

 

[99t4]

Yeah but 5-15% humidity is still weird when you're literally on the coast.

View attachment 364261

Well here is a photo from Malibu beach, looking S/SE. Of course the beach itself is not burning but close inland is.


We think of the beach there as always humid; it is not always.
But you have to realize during Santa Ana conditions any coastal humidity is entirely displaced by the extremely dry inrushing air from the "Great Basin" (Nevada and Utah high deserts).

Growing up mostly in So. Cal., the Santa Ana winds made us irritable and on edge. Chronic chapped lips, sparks flying when taking off shirt, sparks just touching the door handle or another person. Hard to relax, sleep was difficult. Bicycling against the forceful winds was unpleasant, even walking was sometimes near impossible. Author Joan Didion famously wrote about it in the 1960s (recommended reading):

https://www.murrieta.k12.ca.us/cms/lib5/CA01000508/Centricity/Domain/1538/The%20Santa%20Anas.pdf

Several interesting fact and concepts are in this FAQ:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Santa_ana_winds.jpg

 

[neptronix]

Good to know. I grew up some hundred miles north of there, so never experienced it.
Santa Ana winds - Wikipedia

Thanks for the explanation!

 

[JackFlorey]

then another year goes by without clear cutting the whole landscape down to nothing because: it will burn up your house, business and kill people, animals and create pollution.
Mow it down like the huge herds of cattle and horses used to on the Ranchos while men cut lumber for fuel.

You've never been to California have you.

The places the fires are burning are in the mountains. You would have to rappel from helicopters to "clear cut" - and then use helicopters to take the brush out. And then it would just grow back in a year or two. It takes 1-2 years for an area to grow back completely from a fire; this is because the ecology out here evolved for fire.

There is no lumber. There are effectively no trees. There is sage, and mesquite, and laurel, and queen palm. No "lumber." Occasionally you will see eucalyptus but not in the "forests" since it's not native to California.

 

[JackFlorey]

I live in the high desert with little water around and at no point during the year does the humidity get below 20%. That part of California is right next to the ocean.

In Santa Anas the winds come from the desert. The wind doesn't touch the ocean until it's already over the ocean.

The reservoir normally used for firefighting was drained.

That was one reservoir out of dozens, and it was drained for repair. That's because our fire season is August to Novermber. Then it rains and the fire risk goes way, way down. Didn't happen this year. Also we don't usually get Santa Anas in January.

Local fire fighting efforts were puny

Local firefighters are trained to deal with house and structure fires, not wildfires covering tens of thousands of acres. California has aerial firefighting crews for them, and they were in the air hours after the first blaze began. But they are not "local" - they are based at inland airports.

If ANY place in the US had a fire that torched two thousand homes a day, their response would look similar. And they would have the same problems with water and access. Water systems are designed to supply domestic needs and fight sporadic local fires - a fire that consumes half a dozen homes in a day, for example. Not one that consumes half a dozen homes a minute.

 

[neptronix]

If ANY place in the US had a fire that torched two thousand homes a day, their response would look similar. And they would have the same problems with water and access. Water systems are designed to supply domestic needs and fight sporadic local fires - a fire that consumes half a dozen homes in a day, for example. Not one that consumes half a dozen homes a minute.

Where else have you lived?

Here in Utah we have tons of reservoirs. Multiple ones per city. Our fire risk and weather conditions are similar to the drier parts of So Cal. And we are not rich in water.

Things get put out quick & with consistency. We have lots of short lived fires.
Basically you can assume the fire department has it under control all the time.

>95% of the fire smoke we breathe comes from California, not our state. It's many times worse than our local pollution.

I don't see why CA's govt couldn't do better.

 

[JackFlorey]

Where else have you lived?

Long Island, Boston, Sacramento.

Here in Utah we have tons of reservoirs. Multiple ones per city.

And dozens of rivers and lakes.

Our fire risk and weather conditions are similar to the drier parts of So Cal.

Do you get hot, dry 100mph winds on clear days, after six months of zero rain?

I don't see why CA's govt couldn't do better.

Of course they can do better. (So could Utah.) But Socal is not Utah; there is always going to be a higher fire risk in Southern California because wildfires are a fact of life here. They are so common that the vegetation out here has adapted to a lifecycle that includes fire.

And the population densities are completely different. In 2007 Utah had a single fire that burned 360,000 acres. Three structures were lost. No one was killed by the fire, although two motorcyclists were killed by a hit-and-run driver who might have been affected by the low visibility in the smoke.

Why didn't you guys put that one out? Why let it burn so much? Why don't you have the infrastructure to stop fires like that? Why don't you do better? Because, to you, it doesn't matter. Utah has a population density of 41 people per square mile. Get those few people out of the area and you can let it burn. Which you did.

The Palisades fire is less than 1/10 the size of that fire - but the population density of Southern California is more than 10x yours. And so 8 people are dead and 5000 structures have burned in a fire much smaller than yours. THAT is why the same fire will cause far more destruction here than in Utah - a fire you couldn't put out, either.

And it's just going to get worse. Temperatures are rising, which means 1) more risk of fires starting, 2) less moisture in the soils and vegetation, 3) more air conditioner use (and thus more power line droop) and 4) more water shortages. You can say "well just put in more reservoirs!" but there's no place to get more water to fill them. Socal is pulling as much water as it can from both northern sources (the Sacramento river) and eastern sources (the Colorado.) And in the summer we take all the water from the Colorado; none reaches Mexico any more. And we take so much water from the Sacramento river that the pumps are starting to pull in salt water from the ocean. There's no more water to be had.

The best approach for human safety is to mandate defensible spaces, so that fires burn to developments but can't cross them. Unfortunately a lot of people just ignore those laws; they want their tall shady palms and orange trees, and aren't going to cut them down because some stupid bureacrat tells them to.

 

[neptronix]

Yeah, we lost 3 structures in a rural area with a population of 1500, 17 years ago.
But Northern California and Southern Oregon have multiple worse fires than that per year in rural areas.. so...
You really want that to be the metric of judgement now?

We get >= 80mph super dry winds here from time to time BTW. California is not the only recipient of Mother Nature's power demonstrations.

You can fight fires with limited water, you just need to spot fires really early. The longer the fires burn, the more water you need to stop the fire. Utah isn't awash in water, it just has tons of reservoirs and quick detection + response in areas where people actually live.

Nobody's perfect but California's govt's techniques and technology isn't keeping up with the problem that geography and climate presents.

Do you think it'll improve or continue to get worse?

 

[marvin78]

Nobody's perfect but California's govt's techniques and technology isn't keeping up with the problem that geography and climate presents.

Lumping politics in with 'technological advances' makes this so broad it can't be denied as there will always be technological advances which aren't incorporated yet due to political hogwash.

Needs to be way more specific. Which technological advances in firefighting were not present, and off course only then you can look at who's responsible for it.

You can fight fires with limited water, you just need to spot fires really early.

But even when located, people still need to be able to get there in time with sufficient equipment to be able to make a difference.

Do you think it'll improve or continue to get worse?

Depends on what you mean with 'get better'. If you mean: will we 'develop' firefighting techniques which would have prevented this: I don't think so.

If you mean: eventually, people will have to adapt to their environment if they aren't able to control it, then yes. If climate or climate related circumstances are causing current population centers to be located in very disadvantageous locations, depending on severity, trying to fight the results of a changing climate locally might not be the most advantageous way forward.

It's different with say the floods in Spain, there the issue wasn't the weather phenomena on it's own. There you can actually apply your argument almost perfectly: failing early detection and when finally detected a failed warning system. Loss off life there could have been prevented, and building better drainage to handle flash floods will be able to prevent part of future property damages.

In California, the best suggestion I've read so far, in my opinion that is off course, is changing the zoning laws to create enforceable community fire borders which would prevent fires from getting into residential area's. This won't be popular, people like having green around their houses and those living on the edges of communities usually do so on purpose to have more access to / a better view off nature. But it's more feasible then trying to stop all the fires when they are small. Now as I understand, the effective width of a firebreak is directly related to windspeed and this means communities would have literal wastelands surrounding them ( on purpose though ). This will prevent loss of life and property damage, but again I wonder if people living there would find it acceptable.

Then again, I'm sure people living in Zeeland here don't always like the way our Deltaworks look... but they sure are happy when there is a big storm and that 'ugly' structure in the sea is protecting their houses and their lives.

If you have other firefighting techniques in mind which are available but not implemented ( correctly ) I would love to know what you are thinking off.

 

[marvin78]

It's so eerie seeing rows of houses which look totally unaffected, and then 'out of nowhere' a house is totally gone.

Thoughts are with those affected.

 

[JackFlorey]

You can fight fires with limited water, you just need to spot fires really early.

Not when winds are hitting 99mph.

If fires are literally traveling faster than fire trucks can drive, there's simply no way to use them to "stop them early."

Nobody's perfect but California's govt's techniques and technology isn't keeping up with the problem that geography and climate presents.

And Florida/North Carolina aren't keeping up with the problems that hurricanes present. And the Central Valley isn't keeping up with the problems that warmer weather is causing.

And in all cases, infrastructure can surely be improved. But none of them are going to stop damage from hurricanes, or wildfires, or droughts - especially since all of those are getting worse.

Do you think it'll improve or continue to get worse?

It will get worse. As the climate warms a few things will happen:

1) Individual rain events will become stronger, since warmer air will evaporate more water. And thus more fuels will grow.
2) Winds will get stronger, since the driver of wind is temperature differentials - and the land is warming faster than the ocean.
3) Fuels will become more flammable, since warmer temperatures dry out soils and vegetation faster.

About the only "lever" we have to prevent fires to begin with is either burying all utilities or shutting down power to most customers when it gets windy - and that is indeed happening more and more often.

 

[JackFlorey]

It's so eerie seeing rows of houses which look totally unaffected, and then 'out of nowhere' a house is totally gone.

Yeah, that's one reason we got a bunch of fireproofing work done on our house. A very common way that happens is that hurricane-force winds will blow embers across homes, and if the eaves aren't enclosed, a single ember will get blown into an eave vent - and that's all she wrote. It lands on the tinder-dry wood inside someone's attic, is fanned by those 100mph winds, and the fire starts almost instantly.

 

[marvin78]

If home fireproofing is so effective, it should be mandatory imho.

Just as I feel Spain should by law mandate better early detection, warning and implementation of flash flooding drainage systems.

Just like the Dutch did after the 1953 floods.

It is the only way to ensure things get done regardless of future politics.

Now our struggle was simple in the sense that it didn't require adaptation of people's houses for instance, just new structures built to protect them. Thus, less issues with 'but who's going to pay for this or that aspect'.

But we learned a lesson, trying to fight the water by building higher and higher sea walls everywhere would have been way to costly, so they decided to shorten our coastline artificially. New Orleans has implemented way improved flood protection ( .. I think a Dutch company helped design it.. ), it's time for this affected region to also learn a lesson. Fireproofing housing being mandatory seems like a valid step ( whoever that forces costs on, those costs are far less then the costs are now ) probably one of many they could make.

 

[neptronix]

So you think there's no hope to save the area?

For Florida, there's solutions. Domes, bubbles, and domes/bubbles on stilts.

Your only problem is all the debris from torn apart non-aerodynamic homes hitting the dome during a hurricane. The ideal dome house needs a layer of armor, or to be located away from non-aerodynamic homes.



These below domes on stilts lasted about 35 years in Florida. The problem is that the seafloor is being remodeled by hurricanes, so they're sinking.



I think you don't need exactly a dome shape. You just need an aerodynamic shape that is somewhat unidirectional.

I think there are answers for So Cal's situation. But first, they need working firefighting infrastructure in the first place.

 

[neptronix]

Not when winds are hitting 99mph.
If fires are literally traveling faster than fire trucks can drive, there's simply no way to use them to "stop them early."

I wonder if this challenge could be overcame by not using brick shaped vehicles.

 

[marvin78]

Spherical buildings would indeed deal with winds better.

But there are some issues with them, as we can glean from the 'Bolwoningen' we have here ( maintenance issues and limited internal space, both can be fixed one with modern design and materials and the other with just increasing scale ).

But then you need a larger footprint for each house, which will affect how applicable this will be in relation to population density.

It's hard to replace highrise with spherical buildings.

Or hospitals. Again, without creating really big footprints ( assuming, as a non architect, that the curvature needs to be kept even in all directions or it could in some circumstances act as a foil instead of offering smooth flow ).

 

[neptronix]

A dome is a difficult form factor to make work.

Nearly anything would be better than what we are currently using. ( bottom right picture )

A box with rounded edges would make a sizeable improvement.
Orientation relative to the force also affects things.

 

[neptronix]

Could they not build a massive, load bearing deflector/divertor for the santa ana winds somewhere along it's path out the desert? ( using a series of air deflectors )

It would be an insanely expensive project, but.. it would cost a lot less less than the area being gradually destroyed.

Example of such a thing in The Netherlands:

 

[marvin78]

Not to mention starting to model an entire city of 'odd shaped' buildings, the vortexes they could create depending on wind conditions.

That windbreak protects shipping right behind it. The further you get from it the less effect on groundspeed it has. Don't see how this would even be applicable at larger scale as you propose. If you would want it to have measurable effect you should build it right next to current development, and it will need to be huge for each off them ( depending on how much distance they need to lower groundspeed over ).