Bit like Nero; fiddling while Rome burned.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/mayor-karen-bass-was-at-embassy-cocktail-party-as-palisades-fire-exploded
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything
about anthropogenic global warming
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything
about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything
about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that.
When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other insanely flammible houses?
Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything
about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that.
When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that.
When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its
neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our
culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those
square miles of ruins and ashes.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that.
When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its
neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our
culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those
square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
[...]
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien.
The citizens of Germany were told the Reichstag fire was started by a
Dutch communist Jewish homosexual. His trial was a travesty of justice
and it was quite obvious that the fire had been started by the Nazis >themselves to give them an excuse to stir up anti-communist hatred.
I'm not saying the recent fires were started with any plan in mind, but
the sudden trumpeting of blame sounds to me like a convenient way to fan
the flames of hatred.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even >>>better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the >>>landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its >>neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our >>culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those >>square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition
sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green
trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and >flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and
subsidized fire insurance.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>> I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that.
When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other
insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its
neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our
culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those
square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:14:10 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>>> I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>> When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>> insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very interesting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its
neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our
culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those
square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition
sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green
trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and
flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is government incompetence, stupid building codes and
subsidized fire insurance.
Very true. I certainly wouldn't want to be Karen Bass when the embers
finally settle as it looks like she's going to be the focus of the
blame whether it's her fault or not.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even >>>better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the >>>landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its >>neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our >>culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those >>square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition
sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green
trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and >flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and
subsidized fire insurance.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:14:10 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's >>>>been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>>When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century >>>>now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The >>>>Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even >>>>better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they >>>>were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn, >>>>because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the >>>>landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its >>>neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the >>>area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by >>>another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our >>>culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those >>>square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition
sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green
trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and >>flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and
subsidized fire insurance.
Houses set houses on fire:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aea8f5fed828e3195db8f5a4995f983d6a553ad6/0_6_4944_2967/master/4944.jpg?width=1300&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:53:30 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:14:10 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>>>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>>>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's >>>>>been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>>>When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century >>>>>now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The >>>>>Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even >>>>>better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina >>>>>fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived. >>>>>
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they >>>>>were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>>>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn, >>>>>because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the >>>>>landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its >>>>neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the >>>>area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew >>>>on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from >>>>Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by >>>>another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our >>>>culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those >>>>square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition >>>sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green >>>trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and >>>flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and >>>subsidized fire insurance.
Houses set houses on fire:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aea8f5fed828e3195db8f5a4995f983d6a553ad6/0_6_4944_2967/master/4944.jpg?width=1300&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none
Those houses - right on the beach! HTH could they possibly have been >destroyed? They've got the ocean on one side and a freeway on the
other and there doesn't look like there was much vegitation going up
that hill behind, plus the FD had a limitless water resource right on
the site! Tidal waves and earthquakes, yes, I can see how they'd be at
grave risk from either, but fire??
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:53:30 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:14:10 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together - >>>>>>I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>>>>either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's >>>>>been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>>>When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century >>>>>now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The >>>>>Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even >>>>>better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina >>>>>fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived. >>>>>
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they >>>>>were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>>>insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn, >>>>>because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the >>>>>landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its >>>>neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the >>>>area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew >>>>on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from >>>>Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by >>>>another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our >>>>culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those >>>>square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition >>>sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green >>>trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and >>>flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and >>>subsidized fire insurance.
Houses set houses on fire:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aea8f5fed828e3195db8f5a4995f983d6a553ad6/0_6_4944_2967/master/4944.jpg?width=1300&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none
Those houses - right on the beach! HTH could they possibly have been >destroyed?
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:54:24 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:53:30 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:14:10 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything >>>>>>>> about anthropogenic global warming
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later, >>>>>>> either as CO2 or as methane.
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's >>>>>> been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that. >>>>>> When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century >>>>>> now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The >>>>>> Bear.
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even >>>>>> better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived. >>>>>>
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they >>>>>> were naturally, a century ago.
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other >>>>>> insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
Let the insurance free market work.
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its
neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the >>>>> area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew >>>>> on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our >>>>> culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those >>>>> square miles of ruins and ashes.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
Explain *that* away, Bill.
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition
sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green
trees alongside.
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and >>>> flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and
subsidized fire insurance.
Houses set houses on fire:
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aea8f5fed828e3195db8f5a4995f983d6a553ad6/0_6_4944_2967/master/4944.jpg?width=1300&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none
Those houses - right on the beach! HTH could they possibly have been
destroyed?
If even one house had flammible grass or gutters full of leaves, and
one ember ignited it, it exploded into flame and the radient heat set
off all its neighbors sequentially.
Pretty dumb. Times a few thousand.
The assumption seems to be that when this happens, a fire truck will
show up and hose things down before all the houses burn up. But that
solution doesn't scale.
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.
There are many pics of the LA fire, and of Paradise and Lahaina.
Houses set houses on fire, leaving rubble and green trees. The fire
codes, and especially enforcement, were criminally stupid in all those
cases.
Our cabin in the mountains is not very flammible from radiation or
grass fires or from embers, and the local enforcement of defensible
space rules are brutal. Steel roof, no gutters, no attic with vents,
first floor is concrete blocks.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9tvka59d0mizo5e5qxnn/Sides.jpg?rlkey=qbzapwuvtju7bjoswnfu1gmhc&raw=1
We are required to trim tree limbs and remove pine needles and scrub
bushes and such. Housing density is low by design.
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues >periodic reports too.
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
There are many pics of the LA fire, and of Paradise and Lahaina.
Houses set houses on fire, leaving rubble and green trees. The fire
codes, and especially enforcement, were criminally stupid in all those >>cases.
Our cabin in the mountains is not very flammible from radiation or
grass fires or from embers, and the local enforcement of defensible
space rules are brutal. Steel roof, no gutters, no attic with vents,
first floor is concrete blocks.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9tvka59d0mizo5e5qxnn/Sides.jpg?rlkey=qbzapwuvtju7bjoswnfu1gmhc&raw=1
We are required to trim tree limbs and remove pine needles and scrub
bushes and such. Housing density is low by design.
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues >>periodic reports too.
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.
Indeed! It would appear the building codes badly need updating to take
the natural, cyclical climate change which is taking place into
account.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when >>>that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes >>>with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about >electronic design, which is highly improbable.
There are many pics of the LA fire, and of Paradise and Lahaina.
Houses set houses on fire, leaving rubble and green trees. The fire >>>codes, and especially enforcement, were criminally stupid in all those >>>cases.
Our cabin in the mountains is not very flammible from radiation or
grass fires or from embers, and the local enforcement of defensible
space rules are brutal. Steel roof, no gutters, no attic with vents, >>>first floor is concrete blocks.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9tvka59d0mizo5e5qxnn/Sides.jpg?rlkey=qbzapwuvtju7bjoswnfu1gmhc&raw=1
We are required to trim tree limbs and remove pine needles and scrub >>>bushes and such. Housing density is low by design.
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues >>>periodic reports too.
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.
Indeed! It would appear the building codes badly need updating to take
the natural, cyclical climate change which is taking place into
account.
When people excavated for all those houses in the hills in so cal,
there were chunks of old charcoal in the dirt. Clue?
San Francisco had giant fires after the 1906 earthquake. Now we have
over 200 cisterns that gravity feed high pressure water into a piping
system dedicated solely to fire hydrants. And the system is still
being expanded.
We live two blocks from a canyon that is a known fire hazard, one of
maybe 10 around here. There were crews out there recently cleaning up
brush and leaves.
They also hire goats.
The assumption seems to be that when this happens, a fire truck will
show up and hose things down before all the houses burn up. But that
solution doesn't scale.
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam: ><https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when >>>that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes >>>with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about >electronic design, which is highly improbable.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when >>>that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes >>>with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about >electronic design, which is highly improbable.
There are many pics of the LA fire, and of Paradise and Lahaina.
Houses set houses on fire, leaving rubble and green trees. The fire >>>codes, and especially enforcement, were criminally stupid in all those >>>cases.
Our cabin in the mountains is not very flammible from radiation or
grass fires or from embers, and the local enforcement of defensible
space rules are brutal. Steel roof, no gutters, no attic with vents, >>>first floor is concrete blocks.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9tvka59d0mizo5e5qxnn/Sides.jpg?rlkey=qbzapwuvtju7bjoswnfu1gmhc&raw=1
We are required to trim tree limbs and remove pine needles and scrub >>>bushes and such. Housing density is low by design.
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues >>>periodic reports too.
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.
Indeed! It would appear the building codes badly need updating to take
the natural, cyclical climate change which is taking place into
account.
When people excavated for all those houses in the hills in so cal,
there were chunks of old charcoal in the dirt. Clue?
San Francisco had giant fires after the 1906 earthquake. Now we have
over 200 cisterns that gravity feed high pressure water into a piping
system dedicated solely to fire hydrants. And the system is still
being expanded.
We live two blocks from a canyon that is a known fire hazard, one of
maybe 10 around here. There were crews out there recently cleaning up
brush and leaves.
They also hire goats.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam: >><https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
On 1/19/2025 5:18 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>> during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam:
<https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
2024 was globally the hottest year on record,
experienced its warmest summer ever, following a decade of record heat.
It's mitigated somewhat when the winter rains show up this year they
didn't show up.
The hills above Altadena/Pasadena have had lots of burns controlled and >otherwise in recent years but after a certain percentage of the larger
trees are gone (from climate change or logging/development or otherwise)
they controlled burns don't do shit except let even more flammable
invasive species in. The hills up there were covered in foxtail:
<https://californiaagnet.com/2021/04/20/the-many-faces-of-foxtails/>
the stuff burns like newsprint
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and
during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam:
<https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:45:07 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when >>>>that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes >>>>with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him. >>>Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about >>electronic design, which is highly improbable.
Bad idea. He'll start throwing in barbs and before you know it, you've
been hooked and sucked in again. Old Bill's a master angler!
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 19:37:10 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:18 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>>> during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam:
<https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
2024 was globally the hottest year on record,
Maybe because we have thousands of times more sensors than we had in
previous millenia.
But an increase of a maybe a hundred milliKelvins does not explain the
LA fires.
and Los Angeles
experienced its warmest summer ever, following a decade of record heat.
It's mitigated somewhat when the winter rains show up this year they
didn't show up.
The hills above Altadena/Pasadena have had lots of burns controlled and
otherwise in recent years but after a certain percentage of the larger
trees are gone (from climate change or logging/development or otherwise)
they controlled burns don't do shit except let even more flammable
invasive species in. The hills up there were covered in foxtail:
<https://californiaagnet.com/2021/04/20/the-many-faces-of-foxtails/>
the stuff burns like newsprint
It takes really stupidity to let a house to be burned up by a grass
fire.
On 1/19/2025 7:53 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 19:37:10 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:18 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>>>> during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam:
<https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
2024 was globally the hottest year on record,
Maybe because we have thousands of times more sensors than we had in
previous millenia.
But an increase of a maybe a hundred milliKelvins does not explain the
LA fires.
The word "Pasadena" means "valley" in Ojibwe, the nearest Ojibwe lived >somewhere around Minnesota in the 1800s. it was chosen by white settlers
from Indiana.
Other than its relatively mild climate the area was probably not
super-duper ideal for large-scale human habitation, experiencing
windstorms droughts and fires pretty regularly. It's not strictly desert
but it's close.
Sort of the 1800s CA equivalent of selling Florida swampland but capital
does as capital does.
and Los Angeles
experienced its warmest summer ever, following a decade of record heat.
It's mitigated somewhat when the winter rains show up this year they
didn't show up.
The hills above Altadena/Pasadena have had lots of burns controlled and
otherwise in recent years but after a certain percentage of the larger
trees are gone (from climate change or logging/development or otherwise) >>> they controlled burns don't do shit except let even more flammable
invasive species in. The hills up there were covered in foxtail:
<https://californiaagnet.com/2021/04/20/the-many-faces-of-foxtails/>
the stuff burns like newsprint
It takes really stupidity to let a house to be burned up by a grass
fire.
The Santa Ana winds make conditions more like a fire hurricane, unless
the buildings are made of fireproof materials what are you gonna do,
spray every burning ember that the wind carries?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:18:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>>during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam: >>><https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
Those little sparks should not set houses on fire.
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
No puzzle: dry wind and lots of fuel.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.
There are many pics of the LA fire, and of Paradise and Lahaina.
Houses set houses on fire, leaving rubble and green trees. The fire
codes, and especially enforcement, were criminally stupid in all those
cases.
Our cabin in the mountains is not very flammible from radiation or
grass fires or from embers, and the local enforcement of defensible
space rules are brutal. Steel roof, no gutters, no attic with vents,
first floor is concrete blocks.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9tvka59d0mizo5e5qxnn/Sides.jpg?rlkey=qbzapwuvtju7bjoswnfu1gmhc&raw=1
We are required to trim tree limbs and remove pine needles and scrub
bushes and such. Housing density is low by design.
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues periodic reports too.
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about electronic design, which is highly improbable.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Airborne embers I would guess.
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues
periodic reports too.
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.
Indeed! It would appear the building codes badly need updating to take
the natural, cyclical climate change which is taking place into
account.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:45:07 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes >>>> with his theories.
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about
electronic design, which is highly improbable.
Bad idea. He'll start throwing in barbs and before you know it, you've
been hooked and sucked in again. Old Bill's a master angler!
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:44:06 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:45:07 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid >>>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Bad idea. He'll start throwing in barbs and before you know it, you've
been hooked and sucked in again. Old Bill's a master angler!
As noted, his saying anything intelligent about electronic design is extremely improbable.
And all he does is fling coarse insults, whether I respond to him or
not.
He doesn't matter.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 19:37:10 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:18 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>>> during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam:
<https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
2024 was globally the hottest year on record,
Maybe because we have thousands of times more sensors than we had in
previous millenia.
But an increase of a maybe a hundred milliKelvins does not explain the
LA fires.
and Los Angeles
experienced its warmest summer ever, following a decade of record heat.
It's mitigated somewhat when the winter rains show up but this year they
didn't show up.
The hills above Altadena/Pasadena have had lots of burns controlled and
otherwise in recent years but after a certain percentage of the larger
trees are gone (from climate change or logging/development or otherwise)
they controlled burns don't do shit except let even more flammable
invasive species in. The hills up there were covered in foxtail:
<https://californiaagnet.com/2021/04/20/the-many-faces-of-foxtails/>
the stuff burns like newsprint
It takes real stupidity to let a house to be burned up by a grass
fire.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:52:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:45:34 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:18:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
No puzzle: dry wind and lots of fuel.
In that picture you posted, there were substantial patches of unharmed
vegetation right among the ashes of countless buildings. It doesn't
make sense.
It's simple. The most flammible, and the hottest burning, and the
closest things, were other houses.
I wonder if they will rebuild the same way.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:45:34 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:18:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off >>>>>> an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>>>during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam: >>>><https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
Those little sparks should not set houses on fire.
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's >>>puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
No puzzle: dry wind and lots of fuel.
In that picture you posted, there were substantial patches of unharmed >vegitation right among the ashes of countless buildings. It doesn't
make sense.
On 21/01/2025 2:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:52:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:45:34 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:18:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
No puzzle: dry wind and lots of fuel.
In that picture you posted, there were substantial patches of unharmed
vegetation right among the ashes of countless buildings. It doesn't
make sense.
It's simple. The most flammible, and the hottest burning, and the
closest things, were other houses.
It's probably not quite that simple. The fires started on a very windy
day, and got big, which generated even more air circulation. There are
eddies - vortices - in that circulation, and you do get tongues of flame
that can burn something down-wind while skipping an adjacent area
I wonder if they will rebuild the same way.
They will want their houses to look much the same as they used to, which
does constrain the architects, and have the same impressive views.
People with enough money to build that sort of house aren't good at
taking inconvenient advice, any more than Trump was about taking advice
on how to avoid getting Covid-19.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:59:01 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 7:53 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 19:37:10 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:18 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure >>>>>>>> that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.
In that case, what spread the fire?
Embers can fly up to 20 km depending on fuel and weather conditions, and >>>>>> during high winds fire breaks are useless.
Observe embers from this doorbell cam:
<https://www.instagram.com/abc7marccr/reel/DEny6FGSX1f/>
I don't doubt embers could have spread the original fires. What's
puzzling is how the hell could they have got massive and out of
control in the first place.
2024 was globally the hottest year on record,
Maybe because we have thousands of times more sensors than we had in
previous millenia.
But an increase of a maybe a hundred milliKelvins does not explain the
LA fires.
The word "Pasadena" means "valley" in Ojibwe, the nearest Ojibwe lived
somewhere around Minnesota in the 1800s. it was chosen by white settlers >>from Indiana.
Other than its relatively mild climate the area was probably not
super-duper ideal for large-scale human habitation, experiencing
windstorms droughts and fires pretty regularly. It's not strictly desert
but it's close.
Sort of the 1800s CA equivalent of selling Florida swampland but capital
does as capital does.
and Los Angeles
experienced its warmest summer ever, following a decade of record heat. >>>> It's mitigated somewhat when the winter rains show up this year they
didn't show up.
The hills above Altadena/Pasadena have had lots of burns controlled and >>>> otherwise in recent years but after a certain percentage of the larger >>>> trees are gone (from climate change or logging/development or otherwise) >>>> they controlled burns don't do shit except let even more flammable
invasive species in. The hills up there were covered in foxtail:
<https://californiaagnet.com/2021/04/20/the-many-faces-of-foxtails/>
the stuff burns like newsprint
It takes really stupidity to let a house to be burned up by a grass
fire.
The Santa Ana winds make conditions more like a fire hurricane, unless
the buildings are made of fireproof materials what are you gonna do,
spray every burning ember that the wind carries?
It isn't hard to build a house that won't ignite from an ember. Or to
site it somewhere that's not likely to have a firestorm.
A hundred years of putting out small fires pretty much guarantees big
fires.
On 1/20/2025 11:08 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/01/2025 2:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:52:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:45:34 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:18:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
No puzzle: dry wind and lots of fuel.
In that picture you posted, there were substantial patches of unharmed >>>> vegetation right among the ashes of countless buildings. It doesn't
make sense.
It's simple. The most flammible, and the hottest burning, and the
closest things, were other houses.
It's probably not quite that simple. The fires started on a very windy
day, and got big, which generated even more air circulation. There are
eddies - vortices - in that circulation, and you do get tongues of flame
that can burn something down-wind while skipping an adjacent area
I wonder if they will rebuild the same way.
They will want their houses to look much the same as they used to, which
does constrain the architects, and have the same impressive views.
People with enough money to build that sort of house aren't good at
taking inconvenient advice, any more than Trump was about taking advice
on how to avoid getting Covid-19.
Maybe not, the US has a lot of "trickle down" housing, development in
much of Altadena had been banned for decades due to the threat of fire.
A lot of homes there were 50-100 years old and while worth millions on
paper due to scarcity and gentrification pumping up the values I'm sure
a lot were stll laughably outdated by even modern US building codes much
less European codes. Those were cheap houses for working-class people at
one time!
Not everyone in that area is Hollywood-rich even today there are
families who're only "home rich" in that their home (which may have been >passed down three generations) was worth a lot on paper but there's
nowhere cheaper to buy nearby anyway so it's a highly illiquid asset.
Long story short a lot of the less well-to-do residents will likely have
to leave and the vulture capitalists (including it seem Trump himself)
are already circling, they'll build much more expensive properties if
they can, which will likely at least be fully up to modern code
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:52:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
On 1/20/2025 11:08 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/01/2025 2:47 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:52:18 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:45:34 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:18:15 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:36:08 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 1/19/2025 4:49 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
No puzzle: dry wind and lots of fuel.
In that picture you posted, there were substantial patches of unharmed >>>>> vegetation right among the ashes of countless buildings. It doesn't
make sense.
It's simple. The most flammible, and the hottest burning, and the
closest things, were other houses.
It's probably not quite that simple. The fires started on a very windy
day, and got big, which generated even more air circulation. There are
eddies - vortices - in that circulation, and you do get tongues of flame >>> that can burn something down-wind while skipping an adjacent area
I wonder if they will rebuild the same way.
They will want their houses to look much the same as they used to, which >>> does constrain the architects, and have the same impressive views.
People with enough money to build that sort of house aren't good at
taking inconvenient advice, any more than Trump was about taking advice
on how to avoid getting Covid-19.
Maybe not, the US has a lot of "trickle down" housing, development in
much of Altadena had been banned for decades due to the threat of fire.
A lot of homes there were 50-100 years old and while worth millions on
paper due to scarcity and gentrification pumping up the values I'm sure
a lot were stll laughably outdated by even modern US building codes much
less European codes. Those were cheap houses for working-class people at
one time!
Not everyone in that area is Hollywood-rich even today there are
families who're only "home rich" in that their home (which may have been
passed down three generations) was worth a lot on paper but there's
nowhere cheaper to buy nearby anyway so it's a highly illiquid asset.
Long story short a lot of the less well-to-do residents will likely have
to leave and the vulture capitalists (including it seem Trump himself)
are already circling, they'll build much more expensive properties if
they can, which will likely at least be fully up to modern code
I guess your definition of "vulture capitalist" is someone who did
something that worked.
Better managed societies don't allow that sort of greed and
exploitation of the working classes. China and Cuba and North Korea,
for example.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 109:05:38 |
Calls: | 8,692 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,259 |
Messages: | 5,948,430 |