https://edition.cnn.com/videos...-rescued-orig-kj.cnn

This is the kind of thing that chaps my ass.
Melodrama.

You have no idea how close we were, how bad it was. There was no way out. I thought we were gonners. We couldn't escape, and we had no cell service, and I didn't even know if anyone knew where we were.

Dumbass. Looks like he's going to cry.

He's in a boat. In the middle of a lake. He's already escaped.

Idiots.

And after all that, they got a helicopter ride out, anyway.

It's a lake. Lakes don't burn. Seriously.

We actually use them to stop fires...

^^^That was pathetic^^^

Played up to the cameras, got his face on national news, actually comes across as a whiny bitch. Resourceful he is not.

Fifteen firefighters deployed shelters during a burnover near Big Sur on the Dolan fire this morning. Very unusual to have a burnover or a shelter deployment in the morning. Historically, nearly every death, and every shelter deployment on a wildfire occurs during the "burn period," which historically is between about 11 AM and 4:30 in the afternoon.

Fire lays down at night, relative humidity increases, fire behavior decreases, and fire spread is primarily due to wind.

Two firefighters were transported to a burn unit in Fresno; one in serious condition, the other critical.

Do Oregon and Washington have the same (or similar) environmental mismanagement as California?

I'm curious...what is the carbon footprint of a wild fire by 1000 acres?

What is the add of all of the vehicles and aircraft required to fight it?

What is the add for every structure that burns?

Add that up and I wonder if the yearly impact overshadows the gains from all of their silly rules and laws intended to reduce emissions.

Maybe, perhaps someday these enviormental fools will wake up. Until then enjoy what you voted for.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I'm curious...what is the carbon footprint of a wild fire by 1000 acres?

What is the add of all of the vehicles and aircraft required to fight it?

What is the add for every structure that burns?

Add that up and I wonder if the yearly impact overshadows the gains from all of their silly rules and laws intended to reduce emissions.

Ding Ding Ding.

How many efforts to "save the environment" actually harm the environment? One example, CA's Ivanpah solar plant had to register as a gross CO2 polluter.

Sidenote. Al Gore is one of the strongest climate crisis voices around. Yet his "carbon footprint" is 10X, maybe 20X that of the average American.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I'm curious...what is the carbon footprint of a wild fire by 1000 acres?

What is the add of all of the vehicles and aircraft required to fight it?

What is the add for every structure that burns?

Add that up and I wonder if the yearly impact overshadows the gains from all of their silly rules and laws intended to reduce emissions.

AND yet...people continue to be virulently opposed to nuclear, the ultimate in clean energy

The take-away is that nuclear power is good, because at least it's not as dirty as a forest fire? Is this a contest for the best straw man argument?

I haven't looked recently, but in the past using nuclear "fuel" was the most efficient source of generating electricity, in terms of cost per megawatt, and produced the least amount of CO2 per megawatt. But nuclear energy does have an "oopsie" factor.

But the point remains, much of what CA does in the name of protecting the environment actually hurts the environment.

If a tanker drop is used to control a fire, that's hurting the environment?

The regardant that serves as a fertilizer to generate regrowth, or that protects the fuels it coats, or that contributes to altering or stopping a fire, is hurting the environment?

The burned Kerosine, maybe? What's the goal here? Denigrate the firefighting operations because they're environmentally unfriendly?

Disaster relief, compared to commercial production of nuclear energy?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
If a tanker drop is used to control a fire, that's hurting the environment?

The regardant that serves as a fertilizer to generate regrowth, or that protects the fuels it coats, or that contributes to altering or stopping a fire, is hurting the environment?

The burned Kerosine, maybe? What's the goal here? Denigrate the firefighting operations because they're environmentally unfriendly?

Disaster relief, compared to commercial production of nuclear energy?

Not sure your point, I am not denigrating firefighters. Once there is a fire, all the CO2 and retardants generated by firefighters is nothing compared to the environmental damage that will be done by the fire if it isn't stopped. Firefighters significantly reduce the damage, and at great effort and risk on their part.

I posted earlier I worked for a firm that did software to help incident commanders. Our company pres had been a front line incident commander for Calif Dept of Forestry, and also did flight training for wildfire pilots.

Seems the point of the thread is that much of what CA has done in the name of saving the environment has made the wildfires worse than they would have been otherwise and done notably more harm than good.

I saw a tv program a few years ago, not sure how many, 4 or 5 years ago? And I *think* it was a PBS program, but maybe not.

As I seem to recall, it was about a neighborhood area in or near a forest that may have been ravaged by fire before. It was definitely in California.

The gist of the program was that someone came in with an idea for the homeowners and that was to clear out all the burnable stuff from around the homes, as well as put on a, I think it was, a tin roof so the embers couldn't ignite it. I seem to recall a, not sure what you call it, a ground barrier radius was established where nothing was burnable or at least easily ignited.

Decks, exterior walls, doorways, etc were replaced. The wood and burnable materials were removed and fire resistant materials were installed. There just wasn't hardly anything to catch fire and burn.

Then the video shifted to a fire coming through. Those who did not participate in the program saw their homes burn down.

Those who participated in the program has virtually no damage, practically nothing at all, burned on their homes.

I just did a google search trying to find that show but I can't seem to locate it now.

Makes perfect sense to me. Remove the stuff that burns, use stuff that won't burn, or will resist burning, clean up. It's just common sense.

I think the reason I remembered this show was how effective the modifications were.

I guess living in the big ugly dirty busy cities makes some people crave something different, yet they seem to have no idea, or the common sense, or be willing to listen to others who can prevent such problems.

This is an excellent thread of info, thanks for posting and the responses.
.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Fifteen firefighters deployed shelters during a burnover near Big Sur on the Dolan fire this morning. Very unusual to have a burnover or a shelter deployment in the morning. Historically, nearly every death, and every shelter deployment on a wildfire occurs during the "burn period," which historically is between about 11 AM and 4:30 in the afternoon.

Fire lays down at night, relative humidity increases, fire behavior decreases, and fire spread is primarily due to wind.

Two firefighters were transported to a burn unit in Fresno; one in serious condition, the other critical.

Prayers for the two firefighters.

Noon today in San Francisco.

Surreal.

Sitting in my house in the east bay. Headache, nose is messed up, seems like smoke is in the house. Outside is orange just like the photo above. Was in Oregon over the weekend. Drove 7 hours. Smoke the whole time.

This is year number 5 I've been out in Cal/Oregon and this has happened every year. I'm starting to think it's happening on purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
Once there is a fire, all the CO2 and retardants generated by firefighters is nothing compared to the environmental damage that will be done by the fire if it isn't stopped. Firefighters significantly reduce the damage, and at great effort and risk on their part.

That is true: there's more energy release in a wildfire, in most cases, than a nuclear weapon. Just released differently, over time, without radiation...but more energy.

The balance of when fire is good and when it's bad will be debated for a long time to come. There are strong cases to be made on both sides, and neither side holds exclusive ground.

The fire area that had the shelter deployment near Big Sur; I worked that area with a fire that lasted close to three months, back in the late 90's. It hadn't burned in 25 years at that time, and part of the reason it lasted so long is that we progressively treated a valley or ridge at a time to let it burn. The law didn't allow prescribed fire in that area, so the unspoken fire policy in the field was that it was going to get burned...just keep nature in check one section at a time. It took a long time.

I had my closest mid-air near-collision there, and one that was close with a helicopter; the helicopter during a drop on a ridge, and the other was Skywest Airlines, inside the temporary flight restriction, as I came off the drop; I was in a C-130 both times.

It was the Kirk Complex fire back then, probably 1999 or somewhere in there. There are a lot of very flammable fuels out there; Chapparral, pinion, juniper. Some of them, including a lot of the scrub oak, can burn, then burn again. Fires move fast through the terrain, which is mountainous, and between daily diurnal winds and the accelerated winds that take place in the venturis of valleys and canyons, fire behavior is elevated, despite being relatively close to the ocean. Lots of ladder fuels and grasses, that carry the fire to the larger fuels, and make it move quickly; the ladder fuels are sometimes 1 and 10 hour fuels, meaning it only takes an hour to ten hours to change their moisture content, while others are 100 hour fuels...meaning that when dry, rain won't moisturize them, and neither will the humidity. The lighter fuels grow quickly and abundantly, and die in lack of moisture, leaving tinder everywhere. The result is fires that can burn rapidly, burn for a prolonged time, burn explosively, that spot over the fire line easily and can do so for miles in some cases. Add some wind, and it's a big strike-anywhere match box that is miles wide.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:. . .
I had my closest mid-air near-collision there, and one that was close with a helicopter; the helicopter during a drop on a ridge, and the other was Skywest Airlines, inside the temporary flight restriction, as I came off the drop; I was in a C-130 both times. . . .

From the pres of our firm, who trained pilots to fly wildfires, flying conditions in such are as nasty and difficult as they can get.

Thank you for your service.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
The take-away is that nuclear power is good, because at least it's not as dirty as a forest fire? Is this a contest for the best straw man argument?

The issue, and Scoutmaster pointed it out, is many of the policies that are pushed in CA is constantly revolving around an environmental preservation/protection angle. The enviros love to fixate on human factors causing climate change, however they have no issue ignoring natural factors such as forest fires, volcanic eruptions and natural methane release. Environmental alarmism has taken over good governance and policy making within the state. Nobody is denigrating firefighters or, blaming them for what goes up in the air or, goes into the ground. Thank you for your insight on this topic, perhaps one less cup of coffee a day?

Fires are carbon neutral.

Plant growth pulls CO2 out of the air. Burning merely releases it back into the air.

If it didn't burn all at once in a big ass fire, it would have naturally burned away a little bit at a time in smaller fires over the years.

Whatever plant life that doesn't burn over time will either be converted back to CO2 by digestion or decomposition, or converted over millennia into future fossil fuels.

Ultimately, if you didn't pull it out from deep underground in the form of petroleum, all activities concerning plants is carbon neutral.