Megafires and Why They Keep Happening

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Climate change is perceived in most circles of the wildland fire community as the boogeyman media prop to glaze over they main issues surrounding these fires. Mismanagement.

Good thing nobody here has even mentioned climate change as the main issue, including the video that kicked off the discussion.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you look at the global temperatures of this planet over the last million years, you will notice that the planet oscillates by about 12-20 degrees Celsius. Quite reliably, in fact.

You will also see massive, rapid spikes in warming for 5-10,000 years, followed by periods of cold (as low as eight degrees below ‘modern normal’) which last 50-90,000 years.

There have been four times in the last 500,000 years where global temperatures reached higher than they are today, and in each case, a 50,000+ year period of extreme cold occurred directly after.

We happen to be at the very end of one of these rapid warming spikes - maybe we have hundreds of years left, maybe thousands - who can say. I’ve heard that by 2200, Alberta is going to be closer to Northern California, climatologically speaking.

What I would say is, being able to grow crops at scale indoors/with genetic modification to adapt them better to changing environments, and an expertise in the extraction of fuel in extreme cold environments might be a useful knowledge set to have in the next 100,000 years. (And also, advanced solar technology - it all works together.)

That, and trying to make any scientific conclusions, much less formulate global policy, based on a 200 year sample size of rising temperatures (during the middle of a warming period) seems, at best, misguided.

Oh, and finally, polluting our environment is, inherently, bad, and we should, as a matter of public policy, try to ensure our societies operate as cleanly as possible.

Given the time scale, I'm sure we will work it out before then. But far more likely is that we know very well how to warm the planet, so we'd probably just do that. In 10,000 years if we aren't doing full scale weather modification all over the Earth I suspect we aren't going to be doing much of anything.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I really hope that the reports that these fires were ignited by power lines are not true.

It's the second biggest cause of fires in California outside of lightning. It's probably the most realistic

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Cappy

It's the second biggest cause of fires in California outside of lightning. It's probably the most realistic

I would say hopefully it was not arson. Much worse scenario there.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

With the prospect of government-run FAIR insurance becoming insolvent, California may just have to recognize that the insurance industry are the experts on risk, and if they won’t insure a property it probably shouldn’t be insured by the government either.

Its the same here, overland flooding insurance is not available in many areas in Alberta and there is a serious risk of hail damage not being insurable in the near future (For cars or homes). Insurance companies still need to make profit and they hire some really smart people to do the math and determine the risk so you are right if they don't think its profitable at all the government would be running it at a loss.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by GGG

When insurance companies cancel Fire insurance because of high risk you need to completely revamp how you protect yourself from Fire.

The answer to stopping fires is not climate stopping climate change. That solution is a hundred years away from making an impact. The change is baked in.

Better building codes applied retroactively with forced upgrades need to happen. Building losses like this from fire are preventable. We chose to let houses burn down because we don’t like the cost of stopping it.

Wouldn't that be political suicide, making things more expensive? It's not the governments that are on the hook, it's either us or insurance.

Let's take something more natural and more local. HAIL.

If it hailed 5x as often as it does now in Calgary and insurance companies not longer included hail as insurable. Now what?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Wouldn't that be political suicide, making things more expensive? It's not the governments that are on the hook, it's either us or insurance.

Let's take something more natural and more local. HAIL.

If it hailed 5x as often as it does now in Calgary and insurance companies not longer included hail as insurable. Now what?

People would fork out the money for hail resistant materials? They'd park their vehicles in their garage, instead of their junk?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

It makes sense that with high winds tree branches could get blown into power lines.

You would think that utility companies would keep trees cut back so that doesn’t happen, but that might be easier said than done.

Utility companies, specifically Investor Owned Utilities, have fire plans that state they proactively turn the power off when the risk of ignition is high. LADWP does not operate that way from what I've been able to read online.

On a lot of distribution systems, the utility company may not have rights to allow for tree trimming, or even easements depending on the age of the line and are at the whims of landowners for access.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't know exactly what Fuzz was trying to indicate with his comparison but GirlySports asked if LA was drier than Calgary. Fuzz posted those which I'm guessing is supposed to indicate that LA is in fact drier than Calgary which isn't true because those graphs show relative humidity where relative humidity is the amount of vapor in the air but the max volume of vapor in air is a function of air temperature where warmer air can support a higher volume. 82% in January in Calgary isn't directly comparable to 53% in LA for ascertaining if one place is drier than another.

For the relevant time periods that GirlySports was referring to (January in LA vs. July in Calgary) LA is in fact drier than Calgary. Their average temperatures are about the same in those periods while LA's humidity is lower.

But if you're really concerned about total water vapor, LA's average dew point in January is 5º while Calgary's is 9º in July. So LA is definitely drier during their fire season.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Its the same here, overland flooding insurance is not available in many areas in Alberta and there is a serious risk of hail damage not being insurable in the near future (For cars or homes). Insurance companies still need to make profit and they hire some really smart people to do the math and determine the risk so you are right if they don't think its profitable at all the government would be running it at a loss.

I seem them locking down coverage before excluding it.

Some insurers are going to ACV on siding and I am sure soft metals will be next as it relates to hail damage.

Exclusions are a bigger step

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Given the time scale, I'm sure we will work it out before then. But far more likely is that we know very well how to warm the planet, so we'd probably just do that. In 10,000 years if we aren't doing full scale weather modification all over the Earth I suspect we aren't going to be doing much of anything.

Given the regularity and consistency of the temperature swings, I’m wondering if it isn’t related to Earth’s proximity to the Sun.

It seems reasonable that there would be periods when the Earth is just a little closer to the Sun than usual, and you get a warming period for 6-10 thousand years that just happens to be ideal for human life to thrive.

As the Earth re-enters its typical orbit, the temperature falls and the ice returns to replenish the land. Biodiversity flourishes and the circle of life continues.

Just thinking out loud, of course.

We’d need to suffienciently warm the planet via industrial pollution/weather modification to overcome moving notably further away from our star, and that feels like a very tall ask, especially with presumably far fewer people.

[woob]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Wouldn't that be political suicide, making things more expensive? It's not the governments that are on the hook, it's either us or insurance.

Let's take something more natural and more local. HAIL.

If it hailed 5x as often as it does now in Calgary and insurance companies not longer included hail as insurable. Now what?

At some point, the government has to step up and modernize building codes based on changing weather patterns. If you start getting major billion dollar hail events every year, insurers are going to start telling people to pound sand on hail coverage. Or it gets really expensive. So then the calculation becomes, do I pay for really expensive hail insurance or do I modernize my building envelope, so that the likely hood of my entire envelope being obliterated is much much lower. It's asinine to me that our building codes still allow vinyl siding.

[TorqueDog]

Is this thread really necessary? It's been established already that California wildfires are because of the gays.

Spoiler!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1877192227178381702

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Given the regularity and consistency of the temperature swings, I’m wondering if it isn’t related to Earth’s proximity to the Sun.

It seems reasonable that there would be periods when the Earth is just a little closer to the Sun than usual, and you get a warming period for 6-10 thousand years that just happens to be ideal for human life to thrive.

As the Earth re-enters its typical orbit, the temperature falls and the ice returns to replenish the land. Biodiversity flourishes and the circle of life continues.

Just thinking out loud, of course.

We’d need to suffienciently warm the planet via industrial pollution/weather modification to overcome moving notably further away from our star, and that feels like a very tall ask, especially with presumably far fewer people.

There is also solar output which needs to be considered both on a short term and long term scale.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Given the regularity and consistency of the temperature swings, I’m wondering if it isn’t related to Earth’s proximity to the Sun.

It seems reasonable that there would be periods when the Earth is just a little closer to the Sun than usual, and you get a warming period for 6-10 thousand years that just happens to be ideal for human life to thrive.

As the Earth re-enters its typical orbit, the temperature falls and the ice returns to replenish the land. Biodiversity flourishes and the circle of life continues.

Just thinking out loud, of course.

We’d need to suffienciently warm the planet via industrial pollution/weather modification to overcome moving notably further away from our star, and that feels like a very tall ask, especially with presumably far fewer people.

There are many cycles that control long term variability. Some we know, some we suspect, some we are clueless about. They have many different time scales, and it's usually when they overlap or interact that we get big changes(if not driven by other Earth bound factors). I think I remember reading about one involving the solar system passing by some other powerful gravitational force. And then there are the one off galactic scale events that won't repeat, but confuse the record. So yes, but there are lots, so you can't look at one in isolation. You could Google it if you are interested.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

This was an appetizer before the main course which will be the cascadia megaquake.

It's just not a good place to reside in until that all blows over.

Hopefully those displaced heed the warning instead of trying to rebuild. There's nothing but disaster and ruin awaiting people who try to make it work there.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by woob

At some point, the government has to step up and modernize building codes based on changing weather patterns. If you start getting major billion dollar hail events every year, insurers are going to start telling people to pound sand on hail coverage. Or it gets really expensive. So then the calculation becomes, do I pay for really expensive hail insurance or do I modernize my building envelope, so that the likely hood of my entire envelope being obliterated is much much lower. It's asinine to me that our building codes still allow vinyl siding.

I agree. But then it becomes political, the government is making houses more expensive!

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you look at the global temperatures of this planet over the last million years, you will notice that the planet oscillates by about 12-20 degrees Celsius. Quite reliably, in fact.

You will also see massive, rapid spikes in warming for 5-10,000 years, followed by periods of cold (as low as eight degrees below ‘modern normal’) which last 50-90,000 years.

There have been four times in the last 500,000 years where global temperatures reached higher than they are today, and in each case, a 50,000+ year period of extreme cold occurred directly after.

We happen to be at the very end of one of these rapid warming spikes - maybe we have hundreds of years left, maybe thousands - who can say. I’ve heard that by 2200, Alberta is going to be closer to Northern California, climatologically speaking.

What I would say is, being able to grow crops at scale indoors/with genetic modification to adapt them better to changing environments, and an expertise in the extraction of fuel in extreme cold environments might be a useful knowledge set to have in the next 100,000 years. (And also, advanced solar technology - it all works together.)

That, and trying to make any scientific conclusions, much less formulate global policy, based on a 200 year sample size of rising temperatures (during the middle of a warming period) seems, at best, misguided.

If this "analysis" was correct, most climate scientists would agree with it. But they don't. And no, it's not because of some "massive globalist conspiracy". It's because they understand this topic far better than those who dabble in climate change denial.

If spreading this stuff makes you feel great about yourself, hey, you do you. Meanwhile, I'll continue to listen to the experts who actually know wtf they are talking about.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by fotze2

What’s the difference between between these and the regular Malibu fires every other year? Are they bigger? Seems like a bigger deal that the usual?

I dont really know, but I think the thing that sticks with me is...does this normally happen in January?

We all know that California experiences fires, just like Kelownafornia, and the rest of BC, but I feel like thats usually a Summer occurrence? Is it unusual that its happening now?

It'll be interesting to see where California goes though, its a jurisdiction that takes pride in and is famed for, its climate, but if its hot and sunny every day thats going to generate some problems of it's own and their water supply is becoming questionable.

[Jason14h]

We all know Mathgod just started this thread because it’s been a few weeks since he’s lectured everyone on how climate change is going to end the world in our lifetime

Good to see you found someone to take the bait so you can start turning the thread into what your original intention was