What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

So Cal Fires (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twelve fires ignited across the region since January 7, when a rare Santa Ana wind event blew across the region. Over 60 square miles have been scorched and more than 12,000 structures, including homes and businesses, have been lost. The Eaton and Palisades fires now rank as the most destructive in Southern California’s history.

Several climate-related factors have heightened this fire fuel, including unusually wet winters, unseasonably warm summer and fall temperatures and a delayed rainy season. The last two winters brought double the average rainfall to downtown Los Angeles, promoting an overgrowth of grasses and shrubs, which later dried out in the heat.

The phenomenon of “weather whiplash” — rapid shifts between wet and dry conditions — has intensified, further exacerbating wildfire risks. Between May 2024 and January 2025, Los Angeles recorded only 0.29 inches of rain, marking one of the driest spans on record.

https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-ne...fornia-01-14-25-hnk#cm5xd38fx00003b6now7ve39u
 
Wind gusts reach 72 mph overnight

"Dangerously high winds that could fuel wildfires are impacting the Los Angeles area Tuesday and Wednesday. The highest wind gust recorded so far was 72 mph in the western San Gabriel Mountains, which is in northern LA County. A 50 mph wind gust was recorded in Malibu Hills.

The gusty winds will spread from the mountains into the valleys and the canyons by Tuesday afternoon. A slight break in the wind is expected Tuesday evening before the rough winds pick back up Wednesday morning. The winds will stay strong into Wednesday afternoon and then finally begin to relax Wednesday night into Thursday."
 
No. But it’s the cheapest, that’s why it’s being used

I have a feeling that line of reasoning is going to be seriously revisited. Smells like incompetence to me.


Open Memo to those that oversee this.

A) we are going to have dry seasons again
B) Santa Ana winds will continue to blow, every year for the rest of your lifetime

FIGURE IT OUT
Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen.

These disasters are only going to continue.
aka people that build houses on a side of a cliff and then are shocked when the house slides down the cliff
Really? How'd they even get insured? Seems not real bright on both ends.

When and where did this take place, approximately?
 
Climate change is going to make a lot of places uninhabitable. Portions of the Carolina's tried to alter the rising waters by building an earth work project. The sea ate it in a few days.

Huge areas of economic activity, docks, ports, marinas, beaches will need to be abandoned soon. There's no cheap solution. People getting dumped by insurance is just the start of the wealth destruction this will bring.
Mind you, these fires are a one-time thing in Cali. Never seen anything like it; not where I'm from.
 
Several climate-related factors have heightened this fire fuel, including unusually wet winters, unseasonably warm summer and fall temperatures and a delayed rainy season. The last two winters brought double the average rainfall to downtown Los Angeles, promoting an overgrowth of grasses and shrubs, which later dried out in the heat.

The phenomenon of “weather whiplash” — rapid shifts between wet and dry conditions — has intensified, further exacerbating wildfire risks. Between May 2024 and January 2025, Los Angeles recorded only 0.29 inches of rain, marking one of the driest spans on record.

https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-ne...fornia-01-14-25-hnk#cm5xd38fx00003b6now7ve39u
Weird, never seen that before, seems like a one-time thing.
 
Twelve fires ignited across the region since January 7, when a rare Santa Ana wind event blew across the region. Over 60 square miles have been scorched and more than 12,000 structures, including homes and businesses, have been lost. The Eaton and Palisades fires now rank as the most destructive in Southern California’s history.

Several climate-related factors have heightened this fire fuel, including unusually wet winters, unseasonably warm summer and fall temperatures and a delayed rainy season. The last two winters brought double the average rainfall to downtown Los Angeles, promoting an overgrowth of grasses and shrubs, which later dried out in the heat.

The phenomenon of “weather whiplash” — rapid shifts between wet and dry conditions — has intensified, further exacerbating wildfire risks. Between May 2024 and January 2025, Los Angeles recorded only 0.29 inches of rain, marking one of the driest spans on record.

https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-ne...fornia-01-14-25-hnk#cm5xd38fx00003b6now7ve39u
Weird, never seen that before, seems like a one-time thing.
While the location is new, the destruction is not. Several fires in CA have looked like this- just in places with fewer residents.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire, we move on. The rest of the land/state going up in smoke, yearly, is a minor flesh wound?

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
 
Last edited:
Twelve fires ignited across the region since January 7, when a rare Santa Ana wind event blew across the region. Over 60 square miles have been scorched and more than 12,000 structures, including homes and businesses, have been lost. The Eaton and Palisades fires now rank as the most destructive in Southern California’s history.

Several climate-related factors have heightened this fire fuel, including unusually wet winters, unseasonably warm summer and fall temperatures and a delayed rainy season. The last two winters brought double the average rainfall to downtown Los Angeles, promoting an overgrowth of grasses and shrubs, which later dried out in the heat.

The phenomenon of “weather whiplash” — rapid shifts between wet and dry conditions — has intensified, further exacerbating wildfire risks. Between May 2024 and January 2025, Los Angeles recorded only 0.29 inches of rain, marking one of the driest spans on record.

https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-ne...fornia-01-14-25-hnk#cm5xd38fx00003b6now7ve39u
Weird, never seen that before, seems like a one-time thing.
While the location is new, the destruction is not. Several fires in CA have looked like this- just in places with fewer residents.
It was a bad joke, my apologies, sincerely.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
"Firsts" don't discard the reality of what it is now. And the amount of years we've lived here reside between irrelevant and pointless, now. Those days are long gone.
 
Last edited:
. There is also, unfortunately, a lot of price gouging going on. Which is really scumbag IMO.
.

:censored:

Putting aside any discussion of the validity of price gouging, if the law is in the books I sure hope these folks get corrected. I mean, I doubt they will as they seem to just arrest guys trying to make a quick buck off of generators and the like. They never seen to hit sophisticated gougers.

Climate change is going to make a lot of places uninhabitable. Portions of the Carolina's tried to alter the rising waters by building an earth work project. The sea ate it in a few days.

Huge areas of economic activity, docks, ports, marinas, beaches will need to be abandoned soon. There's no cheap solution. People getting dumped by insurance is just the start of the wealth destruction this will bring.
In this case the sea level rise thing is a climate constant. In fact, the data shows it has slowed down.
 
. There is also, unfortunately, a lot of price gouging going on. Which is really scumbag IMO.
.

:censored:

Putting aside any discussion of the validity of price gouging, if the law is in the books I sure hope these folks get corrected. I mean, I doubt they will as they seem to just arrest guys trying to make a quick buck off of generators and the like. They never seen to hit sophisticated gougers.

Climate change is going to make a lot of places uninhabitable. Portions of the Carolina's tried to alter the rising waters by building an earth work project. The sea ate it in a few days.

Huge areas of economic activity, docks, ports, marinas, beaches will need to be abandoned soon. There's no cheap solution. People getting dumped by insurance is just the start of the wealth destruction this will bring.
In this case the sea level rise thing is a climate constant. In fact, the data shows it has slowed down.
Interesting. Is the data from the bottom of that chart legit in thousands of years? I would question that.

Also, from their site: "While not limited to this region, a significant portion of the research centers around the Mediterranean Sea due to its rich maritime history."
 
No. But it’s the cheapest, that’s why it’s being used

I have a feeling that line of reasoning is going to be seriously revisited. Smells like incompetence to me.


Open Memo to those that oversee this.

A) we are going to have dry seasons again
B) Santa Ana winds will continue to blow, every year for the rest of your lifetime

FIGURE IT OUT
Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen.

These disasters are only going to continue.
aka people that build houses on a side of a cliff and then are shocked when the house slides down the cliff
Really? How'd they even get insured? Seems not real bright on both ends.

When and where did this take place, approximately?


There are many more stories like this all over the US
 
After about 24 hours of stops and starts I got lucky and secured an apartment on Wilshire Blvd,
Glad your in-laws found a place and didn't get gouged. My daughter also lives on Wilshire in a rent-controlled unit. She went back to her apt yesterday for the first time in a week to grab some things, air quality is pretty terrible and water is not safe to consume/use. She took the red eye home to Boston last night, staying here and working remote for a while until things settle down.

Lots of folks getting away with gouging because many of those looking for a place have the means and are desperate. They are happy to pay a gouger whatever they ask, no incentive to report it and end up in competition with others with lesser bankrolls.
 
No. But it’s the cheapest, that’s why it’s being used

I have a feeling that line of reasoning is going to be seriously revisited. Smells like incompetence to me.


Open Memo to those that oversee this.

A) we are going to have dry seasons again
B) Santa Ana winds will continue to blow, every year for the rest of your lifetime

FIGURE IT OUT
Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen.

These disasters are only going to continue.
aka people that build houses on a side of a cliff and then are shocked when the house slides down the cliff
Really? How'd they even get insured? Seems not real bright on both ends.

When and where did this take place, approximately?


There are many more stories like this all over the US
I thought we were talking about the topic at hand...the fires in Cali. You mentioned cliffs and insurance.

Where and when?
 
No. But it’s the cheapest, that’s why it’s being used

I have a feeling that line of reasoning is going to be seriously revisited. Smells like incompetence to me.


Open Memo to those that oversee this.

A) we are going to have dry seasons again
B) Santa Ana winds will continue to blow, every year for the rest of your lifetime

FIGURE IT OUT
Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen.

These disasters are only going to continue.
aka people that build houses on a side of a cliff and then are shocked when the house slides down the cliff
Really? How'd they even get insured? Seems not real bright on both ends.

When and where did this take place, approximately?


There are many more stories like this all over the US
I thought we were talking about the topic at hand...the fires in Cali. You mentioned cliffs and insurance.

Where and when?
maybe you didn't read the post I was replying too :shrug:

"Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen."

I was pointing out that it's the same old story where we are told by experts to not build in certain areas and yet we continue to do so and then have outrage when the experts are right
 
No. But it’s the cheapest, that’s why it’s being used

I have a feeling that line of reasoning is going to be seriously revisited. Smells like incompetence to me.


Open Memo to those that oversee this.

A) we are going to have dry seasons again
B) Santa Ana winds will continue to blow, every year for the rest of your lifetime

FIGURE IT OUT
Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen.

These disasters are only going to continue.
aka people that build houses on a side of a cliff and then are shocked when the house slides down the cliff
Really? How'd they even get insured? Seems not real bright on both ends.

When and where did this take place, approximately?


There are many more stories like this all over the US
I thought we were talking about the topic at hand...the fires in Cali. You mentioned cliffs and insurance.

Where and when?
maybe you didn't read the post I was replying too :shrug:

"Reality is people don’t want to commit to the costs of fixing and mitigating these problems. Experts have been warning us for decades but as a society we don’t listen."

I was pointing out that it's the same old story where we are told by experts to not build in certain areas and yet we continue to do so and then have outrage when the experts are right
Fair enough, I was just asking when this happened and where were these places exactly?
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
"Firsts" don't discard the reality of what it is now. And the amount of years we've lived here reside between irrelevant and pointless, now. Those days are long gone.
We just have to agree to disagree. My sister lost her house in a one off event. Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event. Could it happen again, sure. But it’s extremely unlikely.

Simply because this first might be more likely to happen again than ever before, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a first time event.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
"Firsts" don't discard the reality of what it is now. And the amount of years we've lived here reside between irrelevant and pointless, now. Those days are long gone.
We just have to agree to disagree. My sister lost her house in a one off event. Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event. Could it happen again, sure. But it’s extremely unlikely.

Simply because this first might be more likely to happen again than ever before, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a first time event.
Twice for me.

Friends also. At this point I'm not buying the anomaly thing, especially not any part of it that being any sort of "one off" thing. These aren't asteroids that hit yearly.

Whatever, and wherever, you want to label these "anomalies" or "one-offs", I disagree, it's here to stay.

I would venture to go as far as stats on this one, but at the same time, my mind is made up so whatever. This is not 50 years ago, and isolated areas do nothing to prove a point, or even close.

Should we start about the sheer size of California, and then give the perspective of what you've seen?
 
Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event.
I am truly sorry about that and feel for anyone that has lost a home to any of these natural disasters. Much more so for anyone that has lost a loved one.

I think we can all point to something that's happened in our lifetimes that we consider a "one off". Working in an industry that responds to these events after the fact, I can say with a fair degree of certainly that these climate related events will continue to escalate. Regardless of your leanings about climate, the weather patterns are a changing. We were blessed with a few years of minimal hurricane events, this year came back in spades and I expect it to continue. The western fires (not just CA but everywhere) are only going to increase as the drought cycle picks back up. I don't have an answer for anything being discussed here but we can probably drop the "my event was worse than yours" ******** if it hasn't already derailed the conversation.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
"Firsts" don't discard the reality of what it is now. And the amount of years we've lived here reside between irrelevant and pointless, now. Those days are long gone.
We just have to agree to disagree. My sister lost her house in a one off event. Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event. Could it happen again, sure. But it’s extremely unlikely.

Simply because this first might be more likely to happen again than ever before, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a first time event.
Twice for me.

Friends also. At this point I'm not buying the anomaly thing, especially not any part of it that being any sort of "one off" thing. These aren't asteroids that hit yearly.

Whatever, and wherever, you want to label these "anomalies" or "one-offs", I disagree, it's here to stay.

I would venture to go as far as stats on this one, but at the same time, my mind is made up so whatever. This is not 50 years ago, and isolated areas do nothing to prove a point, or even close.

Should we start about the sheer size of California, and then give the perspective of what you've seen?

Ok. It's every year from now on that heavily populated burn over night in January due to 100 mph winds. Let's say we all accept that and not concern ourselves with the ongoing current fire.

And?

Did you make a bigger point outside of this argument that seems important enough for you to repeat (with insults). Maybe I missed it earlier.
 
At this point I'm not buying the anomaly thing, especially not any part of it that being any sort of "one off" thing.

Totally agree.
I don’t.

But this is an extremely important question, probably the most important question before we rebuild: was this an anomaly? If it was, we can and should commence rebuilding in the same areas without too much hesitation. If it was not an anomaly then we need to rethink this.

Again I know what I think about this right now: I think this was a set of circumstances that are extremely unlikely to be repeated. But I’m no expert. We had better be damn careful before we make a decision here.

I remember 20 years ago right after Katrina there was a lot of talk about why you would rebuild a city (New Orleans) that was essentially below the water line. And yet they went ahead with it. Always wondered how wise that was…
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
"Firsts" don't discard the reality of what it is now. And the amount of years we've lived here reside between irrelevant and pointless, now. Those days are long gone.
We just have to agree to disagree. My sister lost her house in a one off event. Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event. Could it happen again, sure. But it’s extremely unlikely.

Simply because this first might be more likely to happen again than ever before, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a first time event.
Twice for me.

Friends also. At this point I'm not buying the anomaly thing, especially not any part of it that being any sort of "one off" thing. These aren't asteroids that hit yearly.

Whatever, and wherever, you want to label these "anomalies" or "one-offs", I disagree, it's here to stay.

I would venture to go as far as stats on this one, but at the same time, my mind is made up so whatever. This is not 50 years ago, and isolated areas do nothing to prove a point, or even close.

Should we start about the sheer size of California, and then give the perspective of what you've seen?

Ok. It's every year from now on that heavily populated burn over night in January due to 100 mph winds. Let's say we all accept that and not concern ourselves with the ongoing current fire.

And?

Did you make a bigger point outside of this argument that seems important enough for you to repeat (with insults). Maybe I missed it earlier.
Actually, I'm not sure about that, but I suspect where the angst is coming from (your TENNIS obsession and my "other take" on it). But whatever the case may be, no hard feelings!

Save the thinly veiled insults, btw, not becoming of you.

And yes, I am well aware of this particular situation. And I also feel quite sure you are less versed, shall we say? I would even surmise you know plenty more than myself on other topics. But on this one, no way.
 
Every state is good at telling other states how to do things.

When/if other states have to foot the bill for potential mismanagement, seems like it would be okay for those states to have an opinion...especially since their taxpayers are Federal taxpayers.

California leadership is under an even greater microscope now, which seems like an appropriate thing.
Did you raise this point for other natural disasters, like the massive rainstorm event in western North Carolina and surrounding areas?
That rainstorm in NC was a once in a lifetime event. These fires happen every year now in California.
While fires do happen in the western US every year, this event is a one off. Definitely once in my lifetime. Could it start to happen regularly? I guess. But so far in my lifetime, this is a one time event. 4.4 million acres burned in 2020. But not in densely populated areas. There’s a huge difference.
But what makes this a "one-off"? The density part?

So, like a multiple vehicle disaster, not some flat tire. We move on. The rest of the land going up in smoke yearly is a minor flesh wound.

Nothing to be gleaned off it, move along.
Thousands of structures burning to the ground. First time I’m every seeing it on this scale. :shrug: It’s always been a possibility, but it’s always been contained and didn’t have the mitigating factors. Mostly the wind. This happened in 2022. Directly across the canyon from me. 20 very high end homes burned to the ground. But they contained it. With 70-100 mph winds, they probably wouldn’t hVe been able to. The winds were the outlier.

This many People aren’t supposed to live in the desert. But the toothpaste is way out of the tube there.
"Firsts" don't discard the reality of what it is now. And the amount of years we've lived here reside between irrelevant and pointless, now. Those days are long gone.
We just have to agree to disagree. My sister lost her house in a one off event. Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event. Could it happen again, sure. But it’s extremely unlikely.

Simply because this first might be more likely to happen again than ever before, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a first time event.
Twice for me.

Friends also. At this point I'm not buying the anomaly thing, especially not any part of it that being any sort of "one off" thing. These aren't asteroids that hit yearly.

Whatever, and wherever, you want to label these "anomalies" or "one-offs", I disagree, it's here to stay.

I would venture to go as far as stats on this one, but at the same time, my mind is made up so whatever. This is not 50 years ago, and isolated areas do nothing to prove a point, or even close.

Should we start about the sheer size of California, and then give the perspective of what you've seen?

Ok. It's every year from now on that heavily populated burn over night in January due to 100 mph winds. Let's say we all accept that and not concern ourselves with the ongoing current fire.

And?

Did you make a bigger point outside of this argument that seems important enough for you to repeat (with insults). Maybe I missed it earlier.
Actually, I'm not sure about that, but I suspect where the angst is coming from (your TENNIS obsession and my "other take" on it). But whatever the case may be, no hard feelings!

Save the thinly veiled insults, btw, not becoming of you.

And yes, I am well aware of this particular situation. And I also feel quite sure you are less versed, shall we say? I would even surmise you know plenty more than myself on other topics. But on this one, no way.
Tennis obsession? You feel insulted by what I wrote? I wasn't trying to insult you, just disagree with what you're saying. Apologies for that, and for.. tennis?

I just wanted you to get to your point instead of bringing fairly hostile arguments about things that to my eyes have nothing to do with immediate tragedy to people who were in the middle of it. I've already expressed that. But instead you repeat whatever this argument is and don't make your bigger point.

Or if that's not in the cards, I can just assume Tim made your point for you so I don't have to bother with this not funny Monty Python sketch.
 
Two cat 5 hurricanes in a week. While always statistically possible, it was a one off event.
I am truly sorry about that and feel for anyone that has lost a home to any of these natural disasters. Much more so for anyone that has lost a loved one.

I think we can all point to something that's happened in our lifetimes that we consider a "one off". Working in an industry that responds to these events after the fact, I can say with a fair degree of certainly that these climate related events will continue to escalate. Regardless of your leanings about climate, the weather patterns are a changing. We were blessed with a few years of minimal hurricane events, this year came back in spades and I expect it to continue. The western fires (not just CA but everywhere) are only going to increase as the drought cycle picks back up. I don't have an answer for anything being discussed here but we can probably drop the "my event was worse than yours" ******** if it hasn't already derailed the conversation.
Agreed
 
A lot of people who spent the last couple of decades telling everybody about climate change don't seem to actually believe in climate change.
This is an odd take. There can be debate about whether another fire of this magnitude in a city as dense as LA will happen frequently in the future without calling into question the existence of climate change
Until a couple of weeks ago, California didn't permit insurers to price the risk of climate change in insurance premiums. So regulators were effectively denying the issue in service of keeping insurance costs artificially low.
 
A lot of people who spent the last couple of decades telling everybody about climate change don't seem to actually believe in climate change.
This is an odd take. There can be debate about whether another fire of this magnitude in a city as dense as LA will happen frequently in the future without calling into question the existence of climate change
Until a couple of weeks ago, California didn't permit insurers to price the risk of climate change in insurance premiums. So regulators were effectively denying the issue in service of keeping insurance costs artificially low.
It wasn't specific to the risk of climate change, but that was certainly one of the effects.

Now if the DOI would stop overriding the language written into contracts after the fact, maybe some carriers would actually reconsider.
 
A lot of people who spent the last couple of decades telling everybody about climate change don't seem to actually believe in climate change.
This is on my mind a lot, in so many different ways, I wish it were just black and white, but no.

Frustrating, but also needs to be addressed in some (hopefully the right) way.

And when I say "right" it's not about who was or is not right. Just fixing where we are now should be paramount.

Which is also to say, I would give a slight nudge to the people that said this was coming. I mean, is there something wrong with that?
 
Bill burr on Jimmy Kimmel on the fires. NSFW. It’s all bleeped, but it’s there.

Pretty great.

Pretty funny with lots of truth...I always love Burr.

But I can assure you, "mismanagement" will be the topic of discussion for years to come. There will be significant policy and leadership changes. People will lose their jobs.

If there wasn't mismanagement, there would be no need for leadership and policy changes. One can argue that that's not going to happen, but one will be on the wrong side of history.
 
A lot of people who spent the last couple of decades telling everybody about climate change don't seem to actually believe in climate change.
This is an odd take. There can be debate about whether another fire of this magnitude in a city as dense as LA will happen frequently in the future without calling into question the existence of climate change
Until a couple of weeks ago, California didn't permit insurers to price the risk of climate change in insurance premiums. So regulators were effectively denying the issue in service of keeping insurance costs artificially low.
Yep. This is the sort of thing that you don't do if you believe in climate change. If you don't think climate change is real, I could understand telling insurers that they can't price it into their policies. I wouldn't agree with that decision, but it would be logical, in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premises. What California did is just outright incompetence. They knew better than this.

Likewise, if you know that fire risks have gotten more extreme, you should be doubling down on mitigation efforts, not blowing them off. Keep your reservoirs full. I know clearing out brush is probably a challenge in a place like LA, but there's no way it's not massively +EV. Elect competent people to office, and demand that they appoint competent people into agencies. This is all day-one stuff, not complicated, expensive projects like burying all your power lines. Climate change didn't cause any of these fires -- the proximate cause was a spark, a transmission tower, arson, human error, whatever -- but climate change sure made it worse. Incompetent leadership also didn't cause the fire, but it clearly made it much, much worse than it needed to be.

Climate change didn't happen overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight. In the short run, we just have to deal with it. Fix the stuff that you have agency to fix.
 
Incompetent leadership also didn't cause the fire, but it clearly made it much, much worse than it needed to be.
I’m not convinced this argument can be definitively made and imo is much more an opinion based position. There is certainly a case to be made that even with perfect management the extreme conditions (record dry and extreme winds) were too much to overcome. Now the counter argument is valid too, that better management meditates the damage. But unfortunately we’ll never know, therefore it lives in opinion land.
 
Incompetent leadership also didn't cause the fire, but it clearly made it much, much worse than it needed to be.
I’m not convinced this argument can be definitively made and imo is much more an opinion based position. There is certainly a case to be made that even with perfect management the extreme conditions (record dry and extreme winds) were too much to overcome. Now the counter argument is valid too, that better management meditates the damage. But unfortunately we’ll never know, therefore it lives in opinion land.
Of course. Because alternate planes of existence aren’t at our disposal, where we could test out what would have happened under different circumstances, judgement can and will be made based on the sheer amount of undelivered promises and mismanagement that would have impacted the outcome.
 
Incompetent leadership also didn't cause the fire, but it clearly made it much, much worse than it needed to be.
I’m not convinced this argument can be definitively made and imo is much more an opinion based position. There is certainly a case to be made that even with perfect management the extreme conditions (record dry and extreme winds) were too much to overcome. Now the counter argument is valid too, that better management meditates the damage. But unfortunately we’ll never know, therefore it lives in opinion land.
Of course. Because alternate planes of existence aren’t at our disposal, where we could test out what would have happened under different circumstances, judgement can and will be made based on the sheer amount of undelivered promises and mismanagement that would have impacted the outcome.
And I’m sure all those individuals with the desire to place said judgement will also be Fire Science experts, fiscally capable of budget management of the worlds 5th largest economy all while being free of bias and political leanings. And apparently these same people are also able to predict, with absolute certainty, alternate outcomes in other planes of existence.

Arm chair quarterbacking is fun I guess.
 
"The Los Angeles region experienced two "extraordinarily wet" winters -- in 2023 and 2024 -- followed by dry conditions that began in February, Edith de Guzman, a water equity and adaptation policy cooperative extension specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, told ABC News. Since May 6, Los Angeles has only seen 0.16 inches of rain, so the region’s rainy season is off to an unusually dry start. "Right now, we essentially have had no measurable precipitation since last spring, which has dried out all of that vegetation that grew happily over the last two wet winters," De Guzman said."

"The shrub cover that popped up as a result of the extra precipitation later dried out -- providing large volumes of fuel for a fire, De Guzman said. Combined with the highly flammable materials many of the houses were constructed with, such as wood frames, it was a recipe for disaster, De Guzman said.

In Southern California, dry conditions are also now more likely to last later into the fall, leaving the region more vulnerable during high wind events, according to Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with both UCLA and UC Agriculture and Natural Resources. "Climate change is increasing the overlap between extremely dry vegetation conditions later in the season and the occurrence of these wind events," Swain said.

"Hydroclimate variability has always been a staple of California's natural climate, leaving it particularly vulnerable to wildfires. Among all of the states in the continental U.S., California has the most year-to-year variability between wet and dry conditions. "As you move down into Southern California, that variability increases even more," Julie Kalansky, climate scientist and deputy director of operations at the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told ABC News. However, some climate experts point to growing evidence that shows climate change has increased the volatility between very dry and very wet conditions around the world, like moving from a devastating drought to record-breaking precipitation and then back to a drought. These rapid swings between extreme weather events will amplify many of the associated hazards and contribute to devastating wildfire events."


How hydroclimate whiplash contributed to the severity of California wildfires
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top