Re: OT: Typical Globlist

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