Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
0
Comments
724
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I merely meant that type of plane is important since they have different roles.

    In fact the air resources on the LA fires are significantly greater than you outlined. I haven't been following it at that level but for the Palisades fire alone Watchduty says there are 5123 Personnel, 540 engines, 66 dozers, 60 water tenders and 44 helicopters. I haven't seen a list for fixed wing but it's way more than 3 tankers - they've been drawing S2s, LATs and VLATs from all over the state. And there are of course more aircraft from other states.

    BTW if you are interested the Watchduty app is great for this info. I also use FlightAware and/or FlightRadar24 to see aircraft in the sky. And yes I nerd out on this stuff - I used to do fire reporting for my community.

  • "of this type"

  • Lots of them.

  • Concur. I use Duplicati-> Backblaze.

  • Great post but I have one quibble.

    Californians did not build their houses in wildfire country

    In fact we did. Most of the state is comprised of fire-adapted ecosystems. I think it would be more correct to say that we built in wildfire country when the impacts of wildfire were manageable.

    I only mention this because I believe it's important to accept that fire is good and a part of these ecosystems that we need to embrace if we are going to live in them. It's not that climate change has "introduced" fire it's that it, the scale of human development, and over a century of misguided fire management has made it so dramatically impactful.

  • You really don't understand simple concepts like "fire hydrants do not generally have the capacity to be used in large-scale firefighting" do you?

    Your other "facts" are not actual facts. They are made up inexpert nonsense that have no bearing on the reality at hand.

    You want to learn something? Go watch a few of Zeke Lunder's videos: https://www.youtube.com/@TheLookout1 and his posts on https://the-lookout.org/

    Your arrogance, presumption and nastiness is growing tiresome. Good bye.

  • Why did the fire hydrants not have water?

    How about instead of slavishly repeating Faux News talking points you employ some logic. You can start by doing the math.

    A class C fire hydrant that is common in residential areas delivers less than 500 GPM. This is adequate to fight the fire at one house at a time, maybe two. When it's opened there is an instant drop in pressure in the entire water line for that area because the pipes are only so big - usually 6-12" or so up to 16" for very large subdivisions. So assuming a 12-16" pipe you are looking at less than 5000 GPM at the water main. Even if you had fire hydrants appropriately spaced that would at most get you 10-20 houses worth of water capacity. This is further degraded by (a) the use of garden hoses by residents; (b) power failures at lift stations; (c) the fact that water pressure is dropping across the entire system.

    In short, municipal water systems are not designed to fight wildfires of this magnitude and the amount of investment in infrastructure to make that a possibility is staggering. You employ a logical fallacy here - that if climate change were a priority investment would be greater. First, it has been greater. CalFire's budget has doubled in less than a decade and there have been millions of dollars in investments. Secondly, it doesn't follow that because a disaster occurred investment wasn't made OR that because a disaster occurred the need for greater investment wasn't recognized.

    If you want to lay some blame - and it seems like you are that kind of person, you can start with society's use of fossil fuels and from there move on to things like the homeowner's responsibilities to create defensible space. Pull up a satellite photo of, say, Malibu or Pacific Palisades and you will instantly see that that is a rarity, never mind the California Fire code that requires it.

    You've demonstrated that are you are fundamentally ignorant of even the most basic aspects of fighting wildfires. I would encourage you to exercise a little more humility in learning about these things and a little less misplaced arrogance.

  • Hyponatremia is actually a thing. A very bad and dangerous thing.

  • Arrogant people are typically also ignorant.

  • It's not the paper that's at issue from what I see. It's your binary interpretation of it.

  • Seems to me people are stumbling on words - "caused" vs "exacerbated" or "accentuates".

    Climate change is both "causing" fires in the sense that conditions allow more fires to grow to become problems and, as the paper says, "accentuate" fires.

    Historical forest management techniques, specifically fire suppression, has also "caused" fires in the sense that conditions allow more fires to grow to become problems.

    Both these things are true. It's also true that neither "cause" fires as in ignite them. Wildlands don't spontaneously combust. In fact almost all fires in the western US at least are human caused with the balance being lightning.

  • Ca leadership fucked up big time.

    Enlighten us. Precisely how?

  • It's ok to be wrong. Being wrong is actually really handy - you get to learn something. I understand it's hard to be vulnerable and admit you are wrong but it does show a lot of character.

    I'd urge you to find a way to do that. You will be the better for it.

  • Wow. You are mind-blowingly ignorant.

  • "This is just astrology for the politically feeble."

    Brilliant.

  • "Why some of my best friends are atheists! I just don't let them anywhere near my kids."

  • Nope. You shifted your goal posts and are determined to be "right" at any costs. You don't even have an actual point to make.

    Good bye.

  • LOL. What was that you were saying about a strawman?