Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I feel for all of the people impacted by the fires. It's a terrible disaster. In times like these those who have had their homes destroyed deserve nothing but sympathy, offers of warm meals, and homes that are open to them and help cleaning up.

For those of you who had nothing but empathy for those in Western North Carolina but find yourselves finding fault with those near LA, you should be ashamed of yourselves. They've just been through a major tragedy.

NP. Difference is NC that flooding was unusual while LA fire is not. In CA, it’s fire season everyday due to overcrowding.

No, the flooding in NC wasn’t unusual. It was in a flood zone and entirely predictable.

And even if you want to ignore the past flood zone warnings, now we know that it’s a routine occurrence so NC should be considered as a future risk as well.

The cognitive dissonance from the people who want to pretend that natural disasters in their favored states should be paid for by the rest of the country but not ones in disfavored states is so disgusting.

+1, there was almost identical flood in NC in the early 1910’s. Those towns in NC were literally built IN the flood zone.

California was a totally different situation. Fires like this never occurred before climate change. This is a new phenomenon.

Just like Camille coming through Va. Many people died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder if it is an act of terrorism. You don't need a dirty bomb or something huge to cause massive destruction. Something as small as purposefully throwing a cigarette onto dry brush can in CA can now cause mass destruction and massive financial pain for the whole country.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

What should be done about the vast numbers of structures on the New Madrid fault, none of which are built to withstand even a mild earthquake? What should be done about Texas and its failed power grid. At least 365 people died directly from heat in Texas last year, so what about that? Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that no one can live anywhere.

Yeah, that’s the thing I don’t get about posters like the PP. Do we empty the entire Midwest because of New Madrid, for which the Midwest is horrifyingly unprepared?

It won't be just the midwest. Because of the geology of the plates east of the Mississippi, the shocks are going to felt a very long way away. Geologists ignored the New Madrid fault for a long time and only recently understood the size of the earthquake that happened there. Most of the land affected by the huge earthquake in the early 1800s was sparseley inhabited mostly by native Americans. No one believed their stories until recently. You can still see sandblows in fields outside of St. Louis. It's only recently being studied. In the past it was assumed it wasn't a fault that would cause more earthquakes.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-great-midwest-earthquake-of-1811-46342/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s awful, but it’s God’s way of sending a message.

OK?
What's the message

He’s showing us who is capable of empathy and who is not
He is showing us who lies and who tells the truth
He will soon show us who with power and resources will help, and who with power and resources will hoard rather than help

He?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think it’s related to global warming (drought + higher temps longer)
I’m very surprised they didn’t or haven’t brought in federal forest fire crews sooner. Why not bring in national guard or military to truck in water?

Seems eerily similar to what happened in Hawaii.

Yes, fires like this occurring in January is related to a hotter planet. And we should expect to see more and more incidents like this in the coming years and decades.

I posted above a link to John Vallaint's "Fire Weather" which talks about the Fort McMurray fire but also provides a lot of insight into the complexity of fires like these which are essentially wildfires occurring in urban areas. Fires like this make their own weather, and fighting them is extremely complicated. In many instances, things that seem like they make sense to seasoned firefighters can have unexpected and counterintuitive effects. And almost no one has expertise in fighting these fires. Nothing about fighting them is simple or straightforward, and they move an unimaginable speeds, changing course unpredictably.

There will surely be years and decades of analysis into what happened and what went wrong. It will probably be possible to point to pretty much anyone with a modicum of power and blame them for something. But in reality, the world's climate is changing very fast, and we are unprepared for the consequences.

California has always had a volatile climate including years long droughts. The difference is that now we’ve put millions of people in to an entire that is literally adapted to deal with frequent fires (chaparral). It is irresponsible for people to ascribe these fires to climate change. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/amp/

It's easier to whip out the climate change card than practice forest management and clearing dead underbrush and trees like many countries do. We prefer to lecture from a keyboatd while mischarging our employer for the time spent doing it and claiming it as "work".

Another idiot thinking none of this was done. "Forest Management" would not have prevented this. Clearing dead underbrush? Are you f'ing serious?

Drought, high winds, heat = this. Climate change has exacerbated these.

Prescribed burns in a suburban neighborhood? People already try to clean up their yards. They know the risks.

Actual evidence that doesn't involve urban heat islands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

You didn’t need to say that. It’s obvious from your posts. We all knew already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder if it is an act of terrorism. You don't need a dirty bomb or something huge to cause massive destruction. Something as small as purposefully throwing a cigarette onto dry brush can in CA can now cause mass destruction and massive financial pain for the whole country.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

What should be done about the vast numbers of structures on the New Madrid fault, none of which are built to withstand even a mild earthquake? What should be done about Texas and its failed power grid. At least 365 people died directly from heat in Texas last year, so what about that? Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that no one can live anywhere.

Yeah, that’s the thing I don’t get about posters like the PP. Do we empty the entire Midwest because of New Madrid, for which the Midwest is horrifyingly unprepared?

It won't be just the midwest. Because of the geology of the plates east of the Mississippi, the shocks are going to felt a very long way away. Geologists ignored the New Madrid fault for a long time and only recently understood the size of the earthquake that happened there. Most of the land affected by the huge earthquake in the early 1800s was sparseley inhabited mostly by native Americans. No one believed their stories until recently. You can still see sandblows in fields outside of St. Louis. It's only recently being studied. In the past it was assumed it wasn't a fault that would cause more earthquakes.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-great-midwest-earthquake-of-1811-46342/

And worse, many Midwestern and East Coast municipalities/states have steadfastly refused to enact earthquake-proof building standards.

It’s no different in foolishness than living in fire-prone areas of California. The outcome is inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I kind of disagree about the population issue. There are too many of us. This is why we have shortages of homes in many places. We are encroaching on every wild area that exists in our need for housing and stuff. It is, in part, a population issue.

Altadena is an old area. Most people didn't move there recently. Everyone I saw on the news had been there for many decades.

My neighborhood in Pasadena, which has thus far been mercifully spared, hasn’t had any more people living there in the last 50 or more years. It’s always been single family homes and most of them have been there for 100 years or more.

[Anonymous]

This is a crazy picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, I think just living in CA - the Palisades is asking for trouble. Given the context of wildfires these days wrecking havoc in dry conditions, goodness, you really have to be in serious denial not to recognize the potential danger of living there. It's one thing to accept that risk and continue but another to act all shocked and surprised it's happening.

100000% this is a tragedy of epic proportions that I wouldn't wish upon anyone but on the other hand, from a very sensible perspective, given enough time, this is going to happen. I'll tell you what else will happen in time - a major earthquake. It's science and logic.

It's not that you need to avoid all danger all the time, it's that people need to respect how the earth works and be cognizant and practical about their choices. Be prepared. Be aware and informed. Be realistic. Just know that if you live in one of the most beautiful paradises on earth daily, around dry conditions with brush fires and Santa Ana winds - you will see a day when you might experience a wildfire burning your neighborhood down. It's not some fantasy situation - it's a real risk and it's OK to take that risk but you can't say you never saw it coming.

The other thing I hate about it is that in choosing that reality, they hike up premiums for the rest of us who require home insurance which sucks for me.

Where do you live out of interest? Where is the right place to live?

Not in DC. Not in Florida or the Gulf coast (hurricanes). Not in Tornado Alley. Not on the Pacific Coast (tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes). Not on the Outer Banks (hurricanes and rising sea levels). Not in New Zealand or Japan or Indonesia or anywhere on the Ring of Fire or Iceland or Italy or Greece or on any coast (earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis). Not near the Himalayas (earthquakes). Not in Hawaii (volcanoes and tsunamis). Not in Australia (drought and bush fires). Not in Ashville, NC (floods). Not along the Mississippi. Not in the Caribbean.

Why not DC?

Lots of reasons. But read Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen for a start.

We're all going to die some day, regardless of nuclear war. Now if nuclear war hits, sure, some areas will be more at risk. Are you actually living your life based on natural and geopolitical disasters, or do you just happen to live somewhere generally low risk, like some part of Maine or Connecticut?

I moved from Southern California to DC for work. So I think there’s risk to living anywhere. Maine seems pretty unsafe if you read Stephen King…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

It feels a little mercenary to speculate on this right now, no?

I'm guessing the real estate will become less valuable one way or another (insurance or regulation)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I feel for all of the people impacted by the fires. It's a terrible disaster. In times like these those who have had their homes destroyed deserve nothing but sympathy, offers of warm meals, and homes that are open to them and help cleaning up.

For those of you who had nothing but empathy for those in Western North Carolina but find yourselves finding fault with those near LA, you should be ashamed of yourselves. They've just been through a major tragedy.

NP. Difference is NC that flooding was unusual while LA fire is not. In CA, it’s fire season everyday due to overcrowding.

It was unusual though, both in terms of how dry it has been and the direction of the winds. This wasn't a normal event at all.

And the areas that burned were not new or overcrowded either. Not to mention that parts of Asheville are in a flood zone, and Altadena had not had a fire before.

That’s not true. Eaton Canyon had a huge fire about 30 years ago. I lived in Pasadena at the time and we didn’t have school because the air was so bad and my friends who lived up there had firefighters sleeping on their lawns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

You didn’t need to say that. It’s obvious from your posts. We all knew already.

Yeah, doubling down on sarcasm is like talking about yourself in the third person.

It just does not work. Someday you will be witty.


The fair insurance collective most palisades homeowners have since they could not have traditional insurance will raise all California’s insurance rates as it will hit 10-20B.
The fund has like 500m - and by CA law
Can collect from all homeowners. So all of the state homeowners pays for the average 3.5m palisades homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

You didn’t need to say that. It’s obvious from your posts. We all knew already.

Yeah, doubling down on sarcasm is like talking about yourself in the third person.

It just does not work. Someday you will be witty.


The fair insurance collective most palisades homeowners have since they could not have traditional insurance will raise all California’s insurance rates as it will hit 10-20B.
The fund has like 500m - and by CA law
Can collect from all homeowners. So all of the state homeowners pays for the average 3.5m palisades homes.

Jeez. What a nightmare. Not good public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s awful, but it’s God’s way of sending a message.

OK?
What's the message

I haven’t figured it out yet, but it doesn’t look good.

My read is that he’s displeased but I’m an atheist so he and I aren’t on speaking terms.