| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
From a March 2017 LA Times story:
| Quote: | | California is having its rainiest water year on record, lifting many out of drought conditions |
So what happens when there is a lot of winter rain in California? LOTS of new growth - brush, trees, etc. So what happens when the typical dry summers with Santa Ana winds follow up? More and bigger fires. Shocking!
From Mac's posted story: | Quote: | | California has been ravaged by record wildfires in recent years. 2017 was the state’s costliest and most destructive fire season on record. The Mendocino wildfire in July 2018 was California’s largest-ever by a whopping 60 percent. |
The costliest and most destructive fire season happened because there seems to be no end to the expansion of home building in potential disaster areas across the country, either on the coasts or in the forest/brush areas. No surprise as to what is happening. Add a rainy winter and a dry summer and bingo...………..
Take a look at the annual rainfall stats for LA since 1877 and see if you can see a trend? Just one city, but likely typical across the state as far as trends go - just a guess.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sigh. It's almost impossible to understand what Techno's point is, except that nothing could possibly be due to climate change. Most of this was dealt with on the thread related to the Paradise fire, where I said:
| Quote: | Even for conservatives on this forum, there has been a remarkable number of silly postings on this thread. Of course, Isobars censors what he is exposed to, so he frequently responds to something different than what is posted. And like others, he is always sure of himself--and occasionally correct.
Nobody is arguing that Trump caused climate change--he is just making addressing the issue more difficult. Nobody is arguing that climate change causes wildfires--but the greater heat that is well documented, and the more errative patterns of rainfall make the wildfire season longer and the wildfires more severe. Looking at any of the posted metrics--length of season, acres burned in any given year, or trends makes that clear.
I've made two points assiduously ignored by the stooges and their apprentices. First, many of those who politically support limited government are in fact being supported by government expenses to manage disasters and compensate them for their losses. Second, any level of improvement in preventing the impacts of disasters requires more government, not less.
NW correctly identifies the increase in homes in fire-prone areas as making the costs of wildfire greater. But it is unreasonable to tell someone who owns property in a fire-prone area that he cannot use that property, unless perhaps it is large enough to manage as timberland. Those who are new to these issue don't seem to know that in the Santa Monica Mountains, it was the very conservative Board of Supervisors who allowed subdivision and development of land that put thousands more at risk. That development requires more money to try to protect than it generates in taxes, and requires fire departments to fight fires in many more locations.
Those of you who whine at insults, yet respond to most posts with insults, haven't offered any solutions showing how the free market will solve these problems. Government cannot prevent rebuilding in hazard areas without a compelling public interest or buying the land in question. That is impossible with available resources. Fire risk can be reduced, but not eliminated, by stringent regulations that limit the nature of building materials and requiring clearing of vegetation. There isn't the political will to do those things. Even in cases where it has been attempted--the hurricane building codes adopted in the Carolinas and Florida--it proves difficult. Many of the roofs designed at some stage for hurricane winds, were destroyed by winds that were even greater.
As I've posted here before, the reddest states are often first at the trough, and California pays for their foolishness. Is anyone actually willing to offer and constructive suggestions? |
To the point that an increase in rural building has made risk worse, Techno is correct. But any number of policy steps, largely resulting from conservative government bodies and court decisions, over many decades, limit what can be done now. In the Santa Monica Mountains, where I had 14 years of experience dealing with the risk of development in chapparal covered hillsides, the land was subdivided by Los Angeles County's Board of Supervisors--and extraordinarily conservative body. At that point, no government agency--from the County to the Coastal Commission--could deny permits to build. That would be a taking under a decision penned by Scalia. In rural counties, the practice of splitting pardels into 4 is very common, and has been going on for at least 50 years that I know about. For property that has substantial value as timber land, that makes management mroe difficult and introduces more people into the rural fringe.
But the problem is not limited to rural lands. Look at the maps on this web site: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps
The Berkeley Oakland hills are very high in hazrd, and we know from fires in the Oakland Hills in 1991 and the Berkeley fire of 1923 that fires that start in the hills during strong eastern winds represent major threats to dense areas--something we saw in Santa Rosa last year as an urban subdivision in the heart of Santa Rosa was wiped out in minutes.
The point is not that climate change causes such fires--it is that the climate change we have already seen, longer hot seasons, increasingly chaotic weather with longer droughts followed by periods of higher rainfall--increase the risk.
So I'll repeat the challenge to NW--who offered nothing constructive except a deflection to the high speed rail--what would conservative governance do to reduce these risks that they have had a hand in creating? Remember, despite Trump's braying about forest management--he proposed cuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: |
So I'll repeat the challenge to NW--who offered nothing constructive except a deflection to the high speed rail--what would conservative governance do to reduce these risks that they have had a hand in creating? Remember, despite Trump's braying about forest management--he proposed cuts. |
It was not a "deflection", it was my constructive answer to the question you posed, you just didn't like it, tough titties.
It seems that when you get a response or answer to something you pose, which you don't like, you always call it a "defliction", which in your mind, obsolves you of carring on your discussion any further, just because you didn't like the direction it went. That's just being a wuss.
So my answer is still the same.
Which, if anyone is interested, can be found on mac's other thread about the increase costs of fires due to climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are many different things that need to be done to deal with fire risk. Improve evacuation plans and critical roads—a big source of deaths in Paradise. Clear vegetation—requires government funding and political will to require clearing on private land. Pass regulations that require new development and rebulding after fires to be hardened. All of that can only be done by government, not by private enterprise.
Most of those things are performed by local governments, not State goverment, and cannot be funded by bonds, the funding source for high speed rail. Again, I’m not a fan—but NW is profoundly ignorant of how government works, and how conservative groups like Jarvis’, have crippled local government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | There are many different things that need to be done to deal with fire risk. Improve evacuation plans and critical roads—a big source of deaths in Paradise. Clear vegetation—requires government funding and political will to require clearing on private land. Pass regulations that require new development and rebulding after fires to be hardened. All of that can only be done by government, not by private enterprise.
Most of those things are performed by local governments, not State goverment, and cannot be funded by bonds, the funding source for high speed rail. Again, I’m not a fan—but NW is profoundly ignorant of how government works, and how conservative groups like Jarvis’, have crippled local government. |
You're just guessing, again, and you're not a very good guesser, you have no idea.
My local gov't is doing just fine, not "crippled" at all, and we have a very good program of clearing all dead wood, trees, shrubs, and all vacant lots are required to be clean and mowed down, or you'll get a bill from the local CSD if they have to do it. My town is in a heavy forested area, in a very high fire danger zone, the danger can be mitigated in a fair financial way if you wisely look ahead which we have done.
You can put away your favorite broad brush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guessing? In response to a question about what to do about fuel build-up--something that requires funding from Federal, local and State governments, NW suggests cutting high speed rail. That program is fundamentally paid for by State bonds, approved by the public. Those funds can't be used for anything but high speed rail. Pretty much Ignorance 101. Profoundly so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ManBearPig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From mac's posted climate change story:
| Quote: | | The Golden State’s hotter, drier conditions |
Since there was no comment on the LA rainfall history and the trend if any, my take on the graph is that there isn't a trend and that rainfall in LA is up an down, up and down, with no "dryer conditions" trend whatsoever. That part of the story seems like a crock to me.
Last edited by techno900 on Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:02 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Guessing? In response to a question about what to do about fuel build-up--something that requires funding from Federal, local and State governments, NW suggests cutting high speed rail. That program is fundamentally paid for by State bonds, approved by the public. Those funds can't be used for anything but high speed rail. Pretty much Ignorance 101. Profoundly so. |
Listen oh brilliant one. You still don't get it.
How long has the perceived urgent threat of global warming been around, and how long have we known about the drought's negative impact on our forests here in Ca.?
Much, much longer than the stupid bullet train idea. It's amazing that it ever made it to the ballot, and sold at about half the price that it will end up costing. Any smart ones would think that more money would be needed to minimize the fire threat with the conditions that we had, and currently still have, than some liberal pet project. I don't remember anyone who was pushing the bullet train, mention anything about our current drought, or "global warming" as being more important than that boondoggle of a train.
That's my point, totally stupid decisions made at a stupid time, and the result of these latest fires are nothing but a testament to that stupidity.
And you're only stuck on process.
In this case, the process failed miserably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
