SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    CA Wildfires
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
CA Wildfires Login/Join 
Ammoholic
Picture of Skins2881
posted Hide Post
Wife's parents are south of there, they sent us a video of the hills behind their house on fire two months ago. We got married in their backyard, that night was windy, we returned the next day and everything was covered in ash. It's really weird driving through the neighborhood and seeing everything burnt (no houses lost). The fire stopped at the fences of the houses on the perimeter. Some of the fences were burnt on the sides facing hills, scary how close it was.

We honeymooned in Yosemite and Sequoia Nat Forest and spent time driving all over California, I was amazed by the huge areas burnt. Shit it is bad there.



Jesse

Sic Semper Tyrannis
 
Posts: 21336 | Location: Loudoun County, Virginia | Registered: December 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
California burns. It seems to burn more now than it used to, but it always has. Why don't they have building codes that make the houses either uncombustable, have exterior fire suppression systems, or both?


No, california has had wildfires for a long time. These aren't wildfires. They're different. Many of them aren't burning on wildland.

The forces that blow through these communities may be more intense than you imagine. If the ability were there to put suppression systems on these homes, they'd all have them, mandated by insurance, but such systems don't exist. A firetruck alongside the house wouldn't survive the burnover, let alone a sprinkler, and it doesn't really matter what the homes are made of. They're burning.

People sometimes don't realize the amount of energy released in these fires exceeds that of a nuclear weapon, and the temperatures reached melt and even burn metal roofs, in many cases. They're not survivable.

We like to think that there are solutions for everything, and if only we had done this or that, an event wouldn't have happened. In an urban interface situation, suburbia in wildland, a winddriven fire is going to go where it will go, and lack of defensible space gives homes and structures no chance.

In the case of the fires we've been seeing, involving rapidly moving, wind driven firestorms outside of wildland environments, moving strictly through suburbs and cities, it's different, and un precedented. None the less, wind driven in most cases, they tend to occur within a fairly narrow band of temperature and humidity, but when they move, there's very little that can be done, if anything, to stop them.

Couple that with grounding of firefighting aircraft when the winds get high, the low visibility in smoke, the severe turbulence, and the shift in fire behavior when it goes extreme, and the restriction to only indirect firefighting activity; it's not nearly as simple as one might think.

The public likes to say that the problem lies with too much fire suppression, that we should let the fires burn more often to "clear the underbrush." This isn't correct, and it's not uncommon, in fact it's the norm, for "controlled fire" to lose control...and in today's hotter climate, drier fuels, and higher winds, letting fires run will produce what we're seeing over the past few years: the largest, most destructive fires in history. At the present trend, they will continue to make history.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
Picture of henryaz
posted Hide Post
 
From my wife, who used to make the greater LA area her home, the four seasons of California:
 
Fire
Rain
Mudslide
Riot



When in doubt, mumble
 
Posts: 10887 | Location: South Congress AZ | Registered: May 27, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
No, california has had wildfires for a long time.


So, then, what has changed to produce these suburban firestorms? None of these fires are starting in somebody’s yard, but in a wilderness area before reaching a residential area. There are far more neighborhoods, with houses built a few feet apart, than there was in the past. Something can be done. How about something simple like increasing the offset from say 5 feet to 10 in the building code? This would put more space between structures while decreasing the amount of fuel per acre. But no, that would decrease profit, decrease taxes, and drive up housing costs even further. Why should the cities and developers pay the bill when it can be borne by insurance companies, the state, and the feds.

Another thing would be to enforce the existing codes. Like I said, these fires are entering a neighborhood somewhere. Maintaining a permanent firebreak and making people keep the weeds mowed per code would also help. But code enforcement costs money too, and irritates people, so cities aren’t very aggressive.

People in California want to build neighborhoods in areas and disturb “nature” as little as possible. Whole neighborhoods are built in the foothills without any money spent on fire remediation. In the past people lived in cities, towns, and villages. They now build anywhere, even those places that habitually burn, and now they burn big.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
No, california has had wildfires for a long time.


So, then, what has changed to produce these suburban firestorms? None of these fires are starting in somebody’s yard, but in a wilderness area before reaching a residential area. There are far more neighborhoods, with houses built a few feet apart, than there was in the past. Something can be done. How about something simple like increasing the offset from say 5 feet to 10 in the building code? This would put more space between structures while decreasing the amount of fuel per acre. But no, that would decrease profit, decrease taxes, and drive up housing costs even further. Why should the cities and developers pay the bill when it can be borne by insurance companies, the state, and the feds.

Another thing would be to enforce the existing codes. Like I said, these fires are entering a neighborhood somewhere. Maintaining a permanent firebreak and making people keep the weeds mowed per code would also help. But code enforcement costs money too, and irritates people, so cities aren’t very aggressive.

People in California want to build neighborhoods in areas and disturb “nature” as little as possible. Whole neighborhoods are built in the foothills without any money spent on fire remediation. In the past people lived in cities, towns, and villages. They now build anywhere, even those places that habitually burn, and now they burn big.


What's changed is climate.

Low fuel moistures, high winds, temperature.

It's science. Not difficult science, but it is science.
 
Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get Off My Lawn
Picture of oddball
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Controlled, managed and well thought out continual strategic burns will reduce the number of uncontrolled wildfires.

Same as herd management and most any other "husbandry" or "cultivation".

The problem is the "environmental" whack jobs and their "feel good" interference, resulting in piss poor management and laws.

In the end, people suffer great loss, animals and agriculture suffer more.


I was friendly with my town's fire chief when I lived in CA and he pretty much echoed your words. And I agree, I used to remember trails in different forest areas and years later, they don't exist because of so much over growth. The lumber industry in CA basically ceased to exist in the last couple of decades. Citizens became hysterical over controlled burns and general forest management. Clear cutting trees became a no-no. Add in typical CA weather (dry in the summer, hot and windy in the fall), these trees dry up and die, leaving behind the perfect fuel for these fires.

Forests and trees have been one of CA's greatest assets, but the kid-gloves love by the residents turned this asset into a dangerous enemy.



"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
 
Posts: 17565 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
No, california has had wildfires for a long time.


So, then, what has changed to produce these suburban firestorms? None of these fires are starting in somebody’s yard, but in a wilderness area before reaching a residential area. There are far more neighborhoods, with houses built a few feet apart, than there was in the past. Something can be done. How about something simple like increasing the offset from say 5 feet to 10 in the building code? This would put more space between structures while decreasing the amount of fuel per acre. But no, that would decrease profit, decrease taxes, and drive up housing costs even further. Why should the cities and developers pay the bill when it can be borne by insurance companies, the state, and the feds.

Another thing would be to enforce the existing codes. Like I said, these fires are entering a neighborhood somewhere. Maintaining a permanent firebreak and making people keep the weeds mowed per code would also help. But code enforcement costs money too, and irritates people, so cities aren’t very aggressive.

People in California want to build neighborhoods in areas and disturb “nature” as little as possible. Whole neighborhoods are built in the foothills without any money spent on fire remediation. In the past people lived in cities, towns, and villages. They now build anywhere, even those places that habitually burn, and now they burn big.

Everything you mentioned is already done and enforced with inspections and penalties. Of course, issues like the availability of inspectors not to mention property rights reveal certain solutions aren't so simple. Where my parents are (Calaveras Co), there's been fire trails cleared and fire-break lines dug around the perimeter of the community they're in, however this makes no difference when the wind is howling and the vegetation is bone dry. Last year, the fire that ravaged Santa Rosa the Tubbs Fire, JUMPED highway-101..8 LANES of freeway the fire and embers jumped.

While the fires are starting in wilderness areas, but moving into rural then semi-rural areas, the plots these homes are sitting on are .50 to several acres, were not talking about suburbia culture-de-sac (yet), this is rural and semi-rural areas where these fires are blowing through.

I recently a home kit of Barricade Fire Gel for my parents home after the Butte Fire in '15. It's a last line of defense and isn't a fail safe but, it's cheap insurance that 'could' help should things get hot.
 
Posts: 15186 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
A lot of years ago I read an article in a homebuilding magazine about this. It was about a house that was built in CA specifically to be able to withstand wildfires, and the area did burn, and the house was undamaged. It can be done.

Here's a quick, and not to detailed quick article I just found. There's likely much more to it than this. But I have a feeling most of these houses that are burning in CA are built to normal standards, and don't give much thought to dealing with wildfires.

http://articles.latimes.com/20...v/15/news/vo-milne15

quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
California burns. It seems to burn more now than it used to, but it always has. Why don't they have building codes that make the houses either uncombustable, have exterior fire suppression systems, or both?


No, california has had wildfires for a long time. These aren't wildfires. They're different. Many of them aren't burning on wildland.

The forces that blow through these communities may be more intense than you imagine. If the ability were there to put suppression systems on these homes, they'd all have them, mandated by insurance, but such systems don't exist. A firetruck alongside the house wouldn't survive the burnover, let alone a sprinkler, and it doesn't really matter what the homes are made of. They're burning.

People sometimes don't realize the amount of energy released in these fires exceeds that of a nuclear weapon, and the temperatures reached melt and even burn metal roofs, in many cases. They're not survivable.

We like to think that there are solutions for everything, and if only we had done this or that, an event wouldn't have happened. In an urban interface situation, suburbia in wildland, a winddriven fire is going to go where it will go, and lack of defensible space gives homes and structures no chance.

In the case of the fires we've been seeing, involving rapidly moving, wind driven firestorms outside of wildland environments, moving strictly through suburbs and cities, it's different, and un precedented. None the less, wind driven in most cases, they tend to occur within a fairly narrow band of temperature and humidity, but when they move, there's very little that can be done, if anything, to stop them.

Couple that with grounding of firefighting aircraft when the winds get high, the low visibility in smoke, the severe turbulence, and the shift in fire behavior when it goes extreme, and the restriction to only indirect firefighting activity; it's not nearly as simple as one might think.

The public likes to say that the problem lies with too much fire suppression, that we should let the fires burn more often to "clear the underbrush." This isn't correct, and it's not uncommon, in fact it's the norm, for "controlled fire" to lose control...and in today's hotter climate, drier fuels, and higher winds, letting fires run will produce what we're seeing over the past few years: the largest, most destructive fires in history. At the present trend, they will continue to make history.
 
Posts: 21240 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Festina Lente
Picture of feersum dreadnaught
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by sns3guppy:
No, california has had wildfires for a long time.


So, then, what has changed to produce these suburban firestorms? .


What's changed is climate.

Low fuel moistures, high winds, temperature.

It's science. Not difficult science, but it is science.


Hotter and drier in CA is just reverting to the mean. "We" just didn't live there back when it was even hotter and drier. CA has seen megadroughts lasting > 200 years. Just not in our memory. Same way there will be people surprised the next time the San Andreas or Hayward faults uncork another 7-8 shake (on the Richter scale).





The graphic above shows just how much higher the tree line was in the Middle Ages, and before, and therefore how much higher temperatures were.

The reality is that California has been hotter and drier much more of the time before recent history.

https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...ry-of-mega-droughts/

This message has been edited. Last edited by: feersum dreadnaught,



NRA Life Member - "Fear God and Dreadnaught"
 
Posts: 8295 | Location: in the red zone of the blue state, CT | Registered: October 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Constable
posted Hide Post
NOTHING we can Do!

So let's keep throwing billions of dollars each year at the US Forest Service and other Agencies.

I have a hard time believing there isn't a solution here.
 
Posts: 7074 | Location: Craig, MT | Registered: December 17, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Corgis Rock
Picture of Icabod
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigmonkey:
The problem is the "environmental" whack jobs and their "feel good" interference, resulting in piss poor management and laws.


Have worked doing archeology in a number of National Forests. Forest and fire management was often taught.
One location had been burned over leaving numerous dead trees. A plan was developed to log the area, sell the wood and used the proceeds to replant. This died due to an environmentalist lawsuit. The result will be for lodgepole pine to grow. Pine grows fast, dense and quickly burns. For decades the area will have repeated fires and not be productive.
In Alturas, CA we were shown selective cutting. Think a “Disney Forest.” Being able to see long distances, no underbrush or deadwood. It had been logged, just not clearcut. When fire came through, it burned along the ground and stimulated plant growth.
In many forests there’s a fuel load created by a century of fire surpression. We surveyed a fire area in Utah where huge spalls of rack and come off due to the heat. This was due to the fire fed by the fuel load.



“ The work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation is slow, laborious and dull.
 
Posts: 6066 | Location: Outside Seattle | Registered: November 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
When the Atlas fire came through last year it burned the local PD’s range. Vaporized a 53’ Conex box with all their targets, stands etc. fire estimated the temps would have been 2600-3000 degrees.

I saw several cars picked up and either flipped over or thrown into Coffey park during the Tubbs Fire. Many of the homes in Fountaingrove were stucco with tile roofs, including Santa Rosa’s three month old firehouse. Gone. Like they were never there. The power of these firestorms are incredible.
 
Posts: 312 | Location: California | Registered: September 16, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
goodheart
Picture of sjtill
posted Hide Post
My wife’s family home was on Brush Creek Road just down Montecito from the Fountain Grove Parkway—probably a quarter of a mile. [Wife and home survived, it’s now been sold.]
The power of the firestorm was incredible. Who would have thought those new, stucco/tile roof homes would have been destroyed like that?


_________________________
“Remember, remember the fifth of November!"
 
Posts: 18617 | Location: One hop from Paradise | Registered: July 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
wonder how PG&E gets out of this negligence


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live today as if it may be your last and learn today as if you will live forever
 
Posts: 6321 | Location: New Orleans...outside the levees, fishing in the Rigolets | Registered: October 11, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by snwghst:
wonder how PG&E gets out of this negligence

Are they indeed negligent?
 
Posts: 15186 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
bigger government
= smaller citizen
Picture of Veeper
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tooky13:
Taken near Malibu earlier today...





IMPORTANT LINK
https://twitter.com/KDbyProxy/.../1061076302294216704




“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken
 
Posts: 9185 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get Off My Lawn
Picture of oddball
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by corsair:
quote:
Originally posted by snwghst:
wonder how PG&E gets out of this negligence

Are they indeed negligent?


It is being reported that PGE had downed power lines in the same location as the origin of the blaze, most likely the result of high winds. Reports of the same involving Edison of SoCal in the Woolsey/Malibu fire.



"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
 
Posts: 17565 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
this has been going on for 30 years, how they can get any kind of insurance for anything is beyond me.





Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency.



Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first
 
Posts: 55316 | Location: Henry County , Il | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Purveyor of
Fine Avatars
Picture of Orguss
posted Hide Post
Well, thankfully, the fires have been beaten back to the point that the smoke is mostly cleared from Sonoma County. While I haven't had the PTSD-like symptoms that many people around here have experienced, whether they were actual victims of last year's fire or not, it was still difficult to work in the outdoors due to the ash. What was most surprising to me was how much more concentrated the smoke became the closer one got to the ocean. Santa Rosa was better than Sebastopol, which was better than Bodega Bay. I've heard that Guerneville was the worst in the west county.



"I'm yet another resource-consuming kid in an overpopulated planet raised to an alarming extent by Hollywood and Madison Avenue, poised with my cynical and alienated peers to take over the world when you're old and weak!" - Calvin, "Calvin & Hobbes"
 
Posts: 18121 | Location: Sonoma County, CA | Registered: April 09, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
So, then, what has changed to produce these suburban firestorms?

CA Suburbian has been pushing further and further into the 'wild' areas for several decades.

Hence the mudslides, wildlife attacks, and fire exposures.

Or maybe it's the end of the world due to climate change?
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    CA Wildfires

© SIGforum 2024