• OT: Typical Globlist

    From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 15 09:59:01 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Wed Jan 15 23:42:47 2025
    On 15/01/2025 8:59 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    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

    Not exactly. The trip to Ghana was presumably set up before the fires
    broke out, and 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 (which Cursitor Doom choses not to
    believe in, while fantasising about non-existent Globalists).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Wed Jan 15 13:01:30 2025
    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.

    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Wed Jan 15 07:47:36 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jan 16 03:21:48 2025
    On 16/01/2025 2:47 am, john larkin 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.

    In Australia we have fuel reduction burns every winter, when the weather
    is suitable - dry enough that the scrub will burn, but not so dry that
    the fires they set are likely to run away (though it has been known to
    happen).

    I doubt if the people responsible for monitoring this in California
    don't know about Australian practice - American fire control aircraft
    come over here to work on our fires during the American off season.

    John Larkin might be less well-informed.

    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.

    Modern houses are built to be hard to ignite. Older houses are often
    less carefully constructed. California's earthquakes favour flexible
    timber frames, but you should cover the frame with something that isn't inflamable.

    Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
    were naturally, a century ago.

    Individual pictures can show individual idiosyncrsies. Surveying a whole
    forest is a rather larger job.

    And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other insanely flammible houses?

    Housing regulations are designed to avoid this. Some Americans think
    that this in government interference in their freedom of action.

    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.

    It's less helpful than it might be. Insurance companies set rates based
    on historical records, and if anthropogenic global warming is changing
    the environment, the historical a record is less helpful than it used to be.

    The atlantic multidecadal oscillation produces some long term cycles
    that people weren't aware of -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

    It wasn't even named until 2000.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Wed Jan 15 11:10:56 2025
    On 1/15/2025 6:01 AM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
    I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.

    Of course not! "It's so 'quaint' living amidst the trees and wildlife..." There are costs to every decision; if you want to live amongst the trees,
    then be prepared to flee in an instant AND *lose* your belongings/life.
    The same holds true of living in Tornado Alley, along the Gulf Coast (hurricanes), on active fault lines, in the shadow of active volcanos,
    BELOW sea level, etc.

    PAYING people to live in these places (which is what subsidizing their recoveries does) is just silly.

    The insurers know the costs of these decisions. Just like they know the
    LIKELY cost of your teenage driver buying/operating a sportscar!
    Regardless of "reason", their costs reflect FACTS.

    Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
    either as CO2 or as methane.

    And all trees eventually die. It's just adding a giant lag to the
    system -- to compensate for other issues.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jan 15 17:49:41 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Wed Jan 15 18:24:34 2025
    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.

    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 15 13:51:33 2025
    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!

    This is also a perfect opportunity to update the local building code
    to make the houses et al far less flammable. The typical Mexican
    construction (masonry building with tile roofs) is pretty good, and
    adding measures against wind-driven embers getting inside plus drench
    pipes fed by a gasoline-powered pump drawing on the swimming pool will
    make survival of wildfires the norm.

    Most likely, this new code will be imposed by the insurance companies
    over the objections of the State of California.

    What's left is to allow controlled burns to clear the underbrush, just
    as the local Indian tribes have done for millennia. This policy
    change must come from the State.

    The same thing applies to Smoky the Bear.


    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.

    This search for the guilty is a mug's game. Under Santa Ana Wind
    conditions, there will always be multiple ignition sources, most being
    natural.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 15 11:14:10 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Wed Jan 15 11:20:45 2025
    On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:24:34 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
    (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

    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.

    Blaming ignition sources and Climate Change is a way to deflect actual
    blame.

    The Oakland and Paradise fires should have had policy results. As
    should have the century of LA fires. They didn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 15 23:54:16 2025
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jan 16 14:24:18 2025
    On 16/01/2025 4:49 am, Cursitor Doom 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.

    Why bother. When the vegetation is tinder-dry and the weather is windy
    it's very easy to start a wildfire, and the cops know that they are
    expected to find a careless illegal immigrant that they can blame for it.

    Lightning strikes seem to be responsible for starting most forest fires,
    but politicians do like to have people to blame.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Fri Jan 17 00:52:35 2025
    On 16/01/2025 10:54 am, Cursitor Doom 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 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.

    Why bother. Most wild-fires are started by lightning strikes, but
    politicians who don't like immigrants are happy to believe that they are started by illegal immigrants, and some of the police force is happy to
    give them what they want.

    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.

    Presumably those people kept their tress watered.

    It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
    fires jumping streets.

    Firestorms are nasty. The Allies started a few in Germany and Japan
    during WW2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing

    It helps to break up the houses with explosive bombs before dropping
    incendiary devices. Setting big trees on fire so that they fall over and break-up nearby houses is nature's way of creating the same effect.

    Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and
    flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?

    The spelling is "flammable". Gutters full of leaves is just sloppy
    maintenance. Most housing regulations don't let you put up houses with flammable roofs and sides - the Great Fire of London in 1666 meant that
    London at least got rebuilt in a way that made a recurrence less likely.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke

    had a quite a lot to do with that. The knowledge of how to built cities
    that don't burn easily has been around for a while, but some people
    don't seem to be able to access it.

    One answer is government incompetence, stupid building codes and
    subsidized fire insurance.

    It is the sort of answer that Cursitor Doom or Donald Trump would
    invent. It's not to be taken seriously, even after the spelling has been corrected.

    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.

    Cursitor Doom does like his implausible theories. California didn't vote
    for Trump, so he has an interest in being rude about it's politicians.

    The useful answer will be rather more complicated and less attractive to right-wing politicians, who find it easier to communicate nice simple fairy-stories.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 16 18:53:30 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jan 17 17:54:24 2025
    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??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 17 18:11:28 2025
    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? 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??

    Correction: Not much *charred* vegetation going up the hill. It's so
    weird how some things were left untouched.
    As an aside, what are the odds all those individual house plots will
    now be replaced by towering apartment blocks?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 17 23:05:32 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jan 19 16:02:52 2025
    On 18/01/2025 6:05 pm, john larkin wrote:
    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 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.

    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.

    John Larkin makes a dumb assumption, then gets critical because the
    people who write building codes haven't acted on that dumb assumption.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jan 19 09:49:31 2025
    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?


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Jan 19 22:34:50 2025
    On 19/01/2025 8:49 pm, 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?

    Burning embers have been known to do the job. In high wind, more massive burning chunks of vegetation or debris can spread a fire pretty effectively.

    In Australian bush fires, some people chose to stay and defend their
    property. It can work, but it can also be a fatal mistake.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Jan 19 13:10:58 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 19 08:17:12 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jan 19 18:01:17 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 19 10:45:07 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sun Jan 19 16:36:08 2025
    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/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jan 19 21:45:49 2025
    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.


    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.

    Well, I take your points on board. HOWEVER, there is still so many
    things which don't add up about these fires. Something stinks....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jan 19 16:28:02 2025
    On 1/18/2025 2:05 AM, john larkin wrote:

    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.


    Altadena is 60% non-white, providing high-quality emergency services to
    60% non-white urban areas has never been an American tradition

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sun Jan 19 22:18:15 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jan 19 22:44:06 2025
    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jan 20 00:03:28 2025
    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.


    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.

    There's some dude called Gavin Newsome and he's done this *seriously*
    bizarre interview about the fires which throws up a *lot* of
    questions. The damn fire's not even out properly and he's said he's
    got some sort of plan to 'move forward' with some property speculators
    he's spoken with and the 'lawyers are already working on it' and so
    on! I'm thinking - 'WTAF??" This is all far too sudden. Has he got the agreement of the landowners for these plans? Has he even asked them??
    I can't find the clip right now, due to the lateness of the hour and I
    have to go, but you *must* watch it! It's bound to be on YT somewhere.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 19 16:45:34 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sun Jan 19 16:53:31 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jan 19 19:37:10 2025
    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, 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jan 19 16:40:54 2025
    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:

    [...]
    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!

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jan 19 20:59:01 2025
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sun Jan 19 19:25:46 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Jan 20 10:52:18 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 21 01:16:25 2025
    On 20/01/2025 3:17 am, john larkin 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.

    Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
    with his theories.

    John Larkin's idea of "reality" is what his propaganda sources want to
    tell him.

    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.

    Intense fires are unexpectedly good at igniting adjacent structures.

    This was an unprecedented fire, and calling people criminally stupid for
    not anticipating how bad it was going to be is arm-chair quarter-backing.

    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.

    The Great Fire of London happened in 1666 and Robert Hooke and
    Christopher Wren drew quite a few conclusions from it.

    Australians learned quite a bit from the Black Friday on the 13th
    January 1939. That was 86 years ago - more than seven dozen years.

    Commercial interests aren't always interested in putting into practice
    all stuff we know about making devastating fires less likely.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 21 01:33:32 2025
    On 20/01/2025 5:45 am, john larkin 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.

    What's even more improbable is that John Larkin would pay any attention
    to it if it happened. He's here to harvest praise for his own insights,
    and feels hurt when he doesn't get it. He doesn't take part in our
    little squabbles about circuit design.

    <snip>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Tue Jan 21 01:28:24 2025
    On 20/01/2025 5:01 am, Cursitor Doom 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?

    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.

    If you like living inside a mutual admiration society and approving each other's fatuous, but ever-so-emotionally-satisfying nonsense.

    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.

    We didn't get to find out about the natural cyclical variation until anthropogenic global warming made looking carefully at the climate a
    matter of urgency.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

    That particular cyclic variation wasn't even named until 2000, when it
    was labelled by Michael Mann of hockey-stick fame.

    The unnatural anthropogenic global warming the Cursitor Doom and John
    Larkin are foolishly skeptical about is an even bigger menace, but they
    prefer to ignore it.

    --
    Bil Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Tue Jan 21 01:39:06 2025
    On 20/01/2025 9:44 am, Cursitor Doom 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:

    <snip>

    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!

    But you don't catch John Larkin with posts about circuit design. He is
    only interested in the circuits he has slung together himself.

    Cursitor Doom doesn't have a clue about that, because he doesn't follow
    that kind of thread.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 21 01:43:58 2025
    On 20/01/2025 11:40 am, john larkin wrote:
    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:

    <snip>

    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.

    Anything that John Larkin could recognise as intelligent.

    And all he does is fling coarse insults, whether I respond to him or
    not.

    Anything short of fulsome flattery strikes him as a coarse insult.

    He doesn't matter.

    Not to John Larkin. I don't flatter him about his circuit design skills,
    and that what he is hunting for here.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 21 01:55:03 2025
    On 20/01/2025 11:53 am, 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.

    It doesn't work that way.

    But an increase of a maybe a hundred milliKelvins does not explain the
    LA fires.

    The average global temperature was 1.5 Kelvin above the long term
    average (since the end of the last ice age), but fires reflect local temperatures, not the global average.

    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.

    What it takes is a high wind and very dry grass. If you mowed a couple
    of miles of dry grass you you might be able to create an effective
    fire-break, but mowers need flat ground.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 21 03:08:46 2025
    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.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 20 07:47:27 2025
    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:

    [...]
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Mon Jan 20 23:52:08 2025
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jan 21 21:48:43 2025
    On 20/01/2025 2:25 pm, john larkin wrote:
    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.

    The question is whether anybody would want to live in it or buy it.
    People want houses that are sited close to where they work, and provide
    an attractive environment in which to live. There's a certain amount of compromise involved in making the choice.

    A hundred years of putting out small fires pretty much guarantees big
    fires.

    That's what fuel reduction burns are supposed to deal with. They aren't
    a complete answer.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Jan 21 11:02:55 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jan 22 15:48:50 2025
    On 22/01/2025 6:02 am, john larkin wrote:
    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.

    Bad guess. A vulture picks over rotting corpses to get its food, and a
    vulture capitalist take over failing companies, dismantles the them, and
    sell the bits for what they can get. People who do stuff that works can
    mostly make enough money out of that to stay in business, and aren't
    vulnerable to vulture capitalists.

    Better managed societies don't allow that sort of greed and
    exploitation of the working classes. China and Cuba and North Korea,
    for example.

    The US - with it's extraordinary levels of income inequality and dire
    provision of health care for the less well off - is a pretty horrible
    example greedy exploitation of the working classes. Because the country
    is remarkably rich, the working classes do a lot better than their
    Chinese and North Korean counter-parts. Cuba actually offers pretty
    respectable health care even though it is now quite a poor country after
    half a century of American economic sabotage.

    Western Europe and Australia look after their working classes quite a
    bit better than America does.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)

    James Arthur doesn't believe a word of it. He's a much a sucker for US
    industry propaganda as you are.

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/big-myth-9781635573572/

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)