Patrick Brown has crafted an insightful and balanced analysis of the Los Angeles wildfires, breaking down the interplay of factors like meteorology, fuel conditions, and human activity. His post challenges the dominant narratives that overemphasize climate change as the sole culprit, offering a nuanced and data-driven perspective. With clear-eyed attention to practical solutions—like home hardening, fuel management, and ignition prevention—Brown provides a roadmap for mitigating fire risks without resorting to alarmist or impractical global policies. It’s a refreshing, must-read take on an issue too often clouded by ideology. The following is a section by section commentary on his post.
Introduction: Setting the Scene
The article begins by situating the reader in the context of ongoing wildfires in Los Angeles, marked by “tragic loss of life and property.” This straightforward acknowledgment underscores the gravity of the situation, setting up the key questions: What drives these events, and how can we mitigate their impact? The framing of this inquiry is critical—it moves beyond simplistic explanations, paving the way for a nuanced exploration.
The article wastes no time highlighting the triad of wildfire factors: meteorology, fuel conditions, and ignition sources. By doing so, it establishes a holistic foundation. This is a welcome break from the overemphasis on climate change often seen in mainstream discussions.
Meteorological Factors: The Role of Santa Ana Winds
One of the strongest sections is the discussion of the Santa Ana winds, described as a “particularly intense” phenomenon with gusts exceeding 80 mph. The article stresses that these winds are a natural part of the Los Angeles climate, with “little evidence that climate change will make them worse.” In fact, it cites research predicting that climate change could reduce their intensity and frequency.
This point is critical because it disrupts the often-repeated narrative that climate change amplifies every aspect of wildfire behavior. The inclusion of data from a Geophysical Research Letters study supports this assertion, which projects a decrease in Santa Ana wind activity as climate patterns shift. This adds credibility and moves the discussion from speculation to evidence-based conclusions.
Fuel Conditions: A Critical Variable
The article then addresses fuel conditions, noting that vegetation in the region is “very dry” due to a lack of rainfall. However, it challenges the assumption that climate change is the primary driver of this dryness, citing long-term precipitation data showing no clear trend attributable to climate change (page 3). Instead, it emphasizes that Southern California’s rainfall variability is a long-standing feature of the region.
The article also references the Local Climate Change Snapshot tool, which predicts longer dry spells in some scenarios but acknowledges the region’s inherent variability. The balance here is notable—it doesn’t deny potential climate impacts but carefully refrains from overstating them.
Fire Intensity and Warming: A Complex Relationship
The discussion of warming’s impact on fire intensity is both cautious and data-driven. While the article concedes that the LA area is “about 3°C warmer” than pre-industrial levels and that this warming can “dry fuels,” it tempers this with modeling results. Specifically, it shows that the predicted increase in wildfire intensity due to warming (7.2% by mid-century) is modest and would still be outweighed by effective fuel treatments (page 5).
This section also critiques the prevailing focus on emissions reductions as a panacea, noting that even aggressive mitigation scenarios only reduce the intensity increase slightly—from 7.2% to 5.5%. This challenges the cost-benefit logic of current climate policies while emphasizing the importance of localized interventions.
Human Ignitions: The Often-Ignored Catalyst
A standout aspect of the article is its focus on human ignitions, which it rightly identifies as a major driver of fire outbreaks. From sparks caused by equipment to utility-caused fires, the article provides a thorough catalog of ignition sources. Importantly, it discusses practical measures such as public awareness campaigns, vegetation management near power lines, and utility upgrades like burying power lines or de-energizing systems during high-risk periods.
This section is refreshing for its pragmatism. While global-scale climate policies dominate headlines, simple steps to reduce human ignitions could have an immediate, measurable impact.
Mitigation Strategies: A Balanced Perspective
The article’s mitigation proposals are among its strongest elements. It champions “home hardening”—using fire-resistant materials and creating defensible space around properties—as a proven method for reducing structural losses during wildfires. It also highlights the synergistic benefits of widespread adoption within communities, showing how individual actions can amplify collective resilience.
In addressing firefighting resources, the article emphasizes the need for well-funded, well-equipped personnel and infrastructure. This practical focus contrasts sharply with the abstract, long-term goals of many climate policies, demonstrating a clear preference for actionable solutions over ideological posturing.
Fuel Treatment: A Realistic Solution
Returning to fuel conditions, the article makes a compelling case for mechanical brush removal and prescribed burns. It cites specific examples, such as the protective effect of the Franklin Fire footprint on Malibu, to illustrate the effectiveness of such treatments. Moreover, it quantifies their potential benefits, showing that fuel reduction could offset warming-driven increases in wildfire danger by as much as 15%.
The acknowledgment of trade-offs—such as ecosystem impacts—is equally commendable. This balanced approach lends credibility and avoids the one-sidedness that often plagues environmental debates.
Climate Change: An Overstated Influence?
The article closes by synthesizing its findings, arguing that while climate change may “contribute” to fire danger, it is far from the dominant factor. By framing climate change as one variable among many, it avoids the hyperbolic claims that undermine public trust in environmental science.
The conclusion also critiques the media’s tendency to give “primary billing” to climate change, citing the relatively modest impact of emissions reductions on wildfire intensity. This final point underscores the need for a more nuanced discourse—one that prioritizes evidence over ideology.
Overall, climate change may be contributing to the fire danger of this event, but only if the warming/drying influence outweighs the potential reduction in Santa Ana winds. To me, that means climate change does not deserve primary billing (e.g., https://x.com/dwallacewells/status/1877030739344081343) Fire suppression and the long-term build-up of fuels are not as much of an issue in the Southern California brush environment as they are in the Northern CA Forests, but our machine-learning wildfire intensity model indicates that fuel treatment would still reduce danger substantially. Other than that, the main way these types of events can be mitigated in the future is via reduced human ignitions, potentially increased firefighting resources, and enhanced “home hardening” measures within fire-prone communities.
https://x.com/PatrickTBrown31/status/1877134442839310573
Conclusion: A Pragmatic Path Forward
This article exemplifies the kind of balanced, evidence-based analysis that is sorely needed in discussions about wildfires and climate policy. By addressing meteorology, fuel conditions, human activity, and mitigation strategies in equal measure, it avoids the reductive narratives that dominate much of the debate.
Its practical recommendations—home hardening, fuel treatments, ignition prevention—offer a clear roadmap for reducing wildfire risks without resorting to costly and ineffectual global policies. In doing so, it shifts the focus from abstract climate goals to tangible local solutions, where progress can actually be measured.
For policymakers, the message is clear: stop chasing global unicorns and start addressing the specific, solvable problems in your own backyard.
I solidly recommend going to X and reading the original.
“The conclusion also critiques the media’s tendency to give “primary billing” to climate change, citing the relatively modest impact of emissions reductions on wildfire intensity. This final point underscores the need for a more nuanced discourse—one that prioritizes evidence over ideology.”
Agreed, that Patrick Brown’s post, from his pro-AGW position, was a welcome dose of reasoned commentary.
But from the skeptic position, we need not concede that emissions reductions should be thought capable of ever producing any actual mitigation of wildfire intensity. You certainly could never isolate the effect for reliable attribution of a marginal improvement. And for that matter, it is not in evidence that the static radiative effect of incremental CO2 concentrations has anything to do with the reported warming itself, despite the “consensus” claims.
On the news last night…A man on a bicycle was arrested in Woodland Hills (North of Pacific Palisaides) with a Flame Thrower in a backpack. Arrested for suspected arson!
I have a hard time blaming all the damage on a couple of degrees of warming. Looking at the fire spread in populated areas, it went from house to house not tree top to tree top. That is what wind and fire does, it spreads by the wind pushing embers. I also noticed many shake roofs. Makes one wonder if building codes need to be changed going forwards. Metal roofs and siding may have saved a lot of houses. If you want to live in a fire prone area with little spaces between houses, you must also build appropriately.
How easily the lessons from Maui are forgotten/ignored. No doubt the results of this fire will be to blame climate change and then solve the problems by promising more of the same. Sad.
The left learns nothing ever, whether from Maui or long established common sense fire hardening rules in fire prone reasons. Heck, even the Australian aboriginals and Native Americans knew about preventative burns.
That is why Darwin assured us long ago that people who can learn will likely survive while leftists likely won’t.
They don’t want to learn, it’s not part of the agenda. Their goal is to bring down the West, period. That’s why they created the CC bogeyman in the first place.
Did Indians initiate burns as part of forest management? Or just to drive game? How could they possibly do a “controlled” burn??
Cool weather burns close to a natural fire break such as a creek, with a light wind blowing towards it. The hotter part of the fire burns out, but the fire will slowly burn into the wind.
Then go out a bit further, and burn onto the wider firebreak you just burned.
Like any other controlled burn, it can get away if the wind changes, but they have a nice wide burned area to keep them safe if it gets out of hand.
If your survival and that of your family depends on the weather, you get very good at reading weather conditions and making short-term forecasts.
Control burns can be accomplished by managing small areas. We did this with vacant lots when I was a kid. Burn a square meter and keep it from spreading (easy enough). Move to the next square.
I am making no claims as to what the Indians in history did, only that there are techniques for controlled burns that do not require technology.
Did Indians initiate burns as part of forest management? Or just to drive game? How could they possibly do a “controlled” burn??
Indigenous people burned to: 1) create firewood, 2) clear brush: safety, fuel, sight, 3) improve browse and mast for game, 4) encourage craft fibers, 5) encourage food crops: roots, berries, medicinals, 5) drive game, 6) repel predators, 7) and more…
Indigenous burning was patch burning, so-called “yards and corridors”, on a frequent, regular schedule. Some studies provide evidence that as much as 1/3 of landscapes were burned every year. Using survival statistics it has been proposed that the fire return interval for most acres was 2-6 years. That amount of burning ensured that fires were low burning and confined to pre-burned patterns.
Pre-Contact “forests” were open and park-like with fewer than 10 trees per acre. Crown fires were rare, which allowed the widely spaced trees to survive repeated burns and achieve great ages. Old-growth trees (>200yo) are thus culturally modified; they owe their long survival to human influence.
The journals of the early 19th century British explorers in inland Australia report the same open woodland park-like character.
What they have learned is that they can blame their incompetence on the boogeyman of “climate change” and never have to accept responsibility. As the old saying goes– “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” Add to that the desire to destroy the existing framework of society and rebuild it with their distorted vision of a future Utopia and you get what Blue is.
KABC: LAFD Chief Crowley Named 2024 L.A. Pride Parade Community Grand Marshal | June 4, 2024
Youtube
How many of that community now have lost their home?
the results of this fire
will beare to blame climate changeAlready being done
But the local establishment is opposed to sensible wildlands management, as that involves controlled burns and brush clearing, which the Green Blob also opposes.
Another issue is homeless camps in the brush setting fires, and doing anything real about the homeless is another taboo issue.
The top three fire ignition source theories are:
1. CO2
2. Arson
3. Accidental fire from a homeless person.
There are videos of arsonists and at least one homeless person starting a fire during the event. We’ll need to get Greta to observe for CO2.
Electrical power line faults? Seems Kauai had that.
Yeah, maybe that should be #4.
Controlled burns that are small enough and cool enough for the animals to have a chance of survival, bad.
Uncontrolled burns that are kill everything for miles and sterilizes the ground, natural, so it’s good.
When I do controlled burns on the tall grass prairie portions of our farm, I usually stay out an hour or two after dark to make sure I find all of the glowing embers.
The edges just outside of the burn are thick with coyotes that are hunting down all of the displaced wildlife.
It has happened on every single burn, so I assume the coyotes are smart enough to go to the smell of grass smoke as soon as it gets dark.
CA is a dangerous place for controlled burns. Especially with leftists in charge
Too dry most of the year and too windy at other times. We should return CA to mexico an demand our $15 million back. PLUS INTEREST.
California can be considered a relatively “dangerous” place for controlled burns due to its often dry climate, variable weather conditions, and high wildfire risk, meaning that even carefully planned controlled burns can quickly escalate if not managed properly under very specific atmospheric conditions; however, prescribed burning is still used in the state with strict regulations and monitoring to minimize risks.
“We should return CA to mexico an demand our $15 million back. PLUS INTEREST.”
Nah, just all the leftists in CA to Mexico. We’ll keep the land.
Los Angeles just had the last two years with double the “normal” amount of rainfall. But due to water waste and mismanagement, and forest mismanagement, they let too much of the water in the state flow into the ocean to “save” the Delta Smelt, and let fuel build up rather than have sensible policies to use resources for humans and their safety and protection…
If Californians don’t see this as a wake-up call and change their ways by electing responsible politicians, there’s nothing anyone can do for them. Although I’m sure we will waste a lot of Federal (taxpayer) dollars to bail them out.
Bail out western NC and eastern TN. Those folks were not regularly hurricane prone.
Do NOT bail out LA, known since forever to be seasonally fire prone. Yet the LA DEI hires did nothing preventative, then bungled the immediate LA response. See newly posted comment just below for details.
The fires are such a tragedy I am sure they will be bailed out – but I’m also sure the contrast between what LA will get and what NC and TN got – or rather didn’t get – will be quite stark and unforgiveable, and shameful.
And what happened in LA was preventable, or could have been made much less destructive with good management policies. What happened with the hurricane was not preventable.
Much of the damage was preventable, and predicted. The Tennessee Valley Authority had detailed plans for dams in the French Broad River basin, for both flood control and hydroelectric power, but the people there decided that they wanted to preserve their wild river. So some of them got to experience what can happen when you live too close to a wild river.
“Damming The TVA: 50 Years Ago A Grassroots Groundswell Fought The Federal Agency’s Plan To Reshape The French Broad River Basin”
wnc Magazine; Fall 2021
the contrast … will be quite stark
Headline I saw yesterday about it backs that up.
“Responsible politicians” is an oxymoron.
Very nice spot, CtM. Good post.
In addition to the noted three underlying ignored LA fire basics, there are several emerging Los Angeles specific ‘worsening’ factors.
As MAGA actor James Woods tearfully pointed out yesterday after losing his Palisades home of several decades, Bass and Newsom should face a ‘tribunal’ for criminal negligence.
Nobody working for the government should earn $750k/year.
“In 2021 the LAFD fired several hundred seasoned fire veterans”
They fired 12.
“cut the LAFD budget almost $20 million last year”
The budget was increased by $50M.
Your data are not accurate Mr. Stroker:
A total of 113 Los Angeles city firefighters have been removed from duty without pay for failing to meet the city’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.
Seven months before the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, the city’s fire department budget was cut by more than $17.5 million, records show.
The LA Fire Chief warned in the weeks before the devastating Palisades fire that the decision to cut the department’s budget by nearly $18 million would diminish its ability to prepare for and respond to large scale emergencies.The budget reduction, approved last year by Mayor Karen Bass, was mostly absorbed by leaving many administrative jobs at the fire department unfilled, but that left about $7 million that had to be cut from its overtime budget — which was earmarked for training, fire prevention, and other key functions.”The reduction… has severely limited the department’s capacity to prepare for, train for, and respond to large-scale emergencies, including wildfires,” Chief Kristin Crowley wrote in a memo Dec. 4, 2024.The variable overtime hours, called “V-Hours” within the LAFD, were used to pay for FAA-mandated pilot training and helicopter coordination staffing for wildfire suppression, the memo said
I’m not sure a one hundred more firemen would have made much of a difference if fire hydrants are dry,
“Your data are not accurate Mr. Stroker:”
I gave my source, where’s yours? Though even 113 is not “sevral hundred”.
“ Seven months before the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles, the city’s fire department budget was cut by more than $17.5 million, records show.”
No. Here is the full story:
“Also weighing in against her was Patrick Soon-Shiong, the politically idiosyncratic owner of the Los Angeles Times, who echoed the attack, posting on X that “the Mayor cut LA Fire Department’s budget by $23M.”
That assertion is wrong. The city was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the fire department at the time the budget was being crafted, so additional funding for the department was set aside in a separate fund until that deal was finalized in November. In fact, the city’s fire budget increased more than $50 million year-over-year compared to the last budget cycle, according to Blumenfield’s office, although overall concerns about the department’s staffing level have persisted for a number of years.”
“ if fire hydrants are dry,”
Only because of the size of the fire
“The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in a Wednesday press conference refuted those claims. The three tanks in the area had been filled to capacity with around 1 million gallons of water each, department officials said, but those supplies were tapped out by early Wednesday morning. High winds made it impossible for firefighters to use aerial means to combat the flames, putting inordinate pressure on the fire hydrant system.”
Your sources refute what you say both in terms of firings and budget cuts.
Cuts were so bad, they even cancelled fire hydrant testing. What could go wrong?
The good news is that Kristin Crowley, the LA fire chief is a woman, a lesbian and was hired at 750K/year, almost twice what her male predecessor made. She has committed to institute DEI and LGBTQ+ across her whole dept.
Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley also warned Mayor Karen Bass just weeks ago that the nearly $18 million slashed from the fire department’s budget would impact its response to emergencies like this week’s deadly wildfires.
I don’t have the slightest idea why she would warn the mayor about budget cuts that didn’t exist. Sounds like incompetence to me. She should have contacted Nick for the URL.
Emergency Alert just sent out to just about everyone in LA county telling them to evacuate.
Sent out by accident of course.
You provided a source?
So what?
BS has a source too
We know you are biased pro-government and pro-Democrat for YOUR sources
I am pro truth.
I previously explained that even if there had been 100 more LA firefighters, that would have made little difference. So the Covid firings and the budget cut were not very important.
One correction to my prior commet: Fire hydrants were not “dry”. In general. the water pressure was often low from record water demand, but there was water.
While the LAFD’s budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year did decrease by about $17.6 million from the previous year, the amount is a small fraction of the department’s total annual budget of almost $820 million.
Your claim that the LAFD budget increased by $50 million is total BS
Bass proposed a $12.8 billion LA city budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year in April last year.
The proposal included $814,281,952 for the fire department—with $77,957,494 for salaries and $41,324,458 for expenses.
This amounted to a decrease of $22,909,285 since the department’s funding for the 2023-2024 fiscal year was $837,191,237. The estimated expenditures for that year were more than $903 million, according to the document.
The adopted budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year increased the amount for the fire department to $819,637,423, according to a summary on the city administrative officer’s website. That meant the department’s funding saw a decrease of $17,553,814, rather than almost $23 million.
Bass signed the budget in June 2024
Fact Check: Did Los Angeles Cut Fire Department Funding by $17.6M? – Newsweek
.
Mr. Green, now that you provided a reputable source on the budget, it must be wrong because Nick Stokes says so. Besides the LA fires aren’t even that bad. In fact, we can build back better.
Plus, lots of fire equipment from LA was sent to Ukraine and we can always send more. Lastly, pay no attention to those roving South American gangs who have figured out that they can start fires and then loot whole neighborhoods. Their enriching diversity makes us stronger, and we have plenty of room to house them and their belongings.
BS has a source. Yep much internet content is BS. Must be the B.S. degrees in journalism
ABC news LA, local news: https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-cut-175m-fire-department-budget-months-before-palisades-signed-mayor-karen-bass/15782731/
Budget was reduced by 17.6 million, the initial request was to cut it by 22million.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-los-angeles-cut-fire-department-funding-2011568
Overtime was cut and 58 positions were eliminated:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-wildfires-los-angeles-fire-chief-budget-cuts/
As per the source I cited (Cr Blumenfeld) The June budget was 17.6M less, but only because it did not include a pay package being negotiated with the union. When that came through in November, the nett was a $50M increase.
The Union doesn’t negotiate operational readiness in any department.
Why would you think otherwise?
LAFD was 66+million over budget from the previous year and their budget was cut but 17.6million. They eliminated 58 positions and then got about 76 million in salary and benefits (the previous salary/benefit/sick time levels were 45million) in a later negotiation, while losing equipment and people. It was noted as late as December by the LAFD fire chief that the operating budget reductions would hinder operations (NOTE: THE CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED A MONTH PRIOR!). All of those facts are noted in my citations. You quoted a bureaucrat covering their azz, I cited the city budget and the fire chief.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/verify/money-verify/yes-los-angeles-cut-176-million-from-the-lafd-fire-departments-budget/536-4b902910-08f5-42d5-bc5e-bdfad1cb0560
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-wildfires-los-angeles-fire-chief-budget-cuts/
From your source:
“In November 2024, the Los Angeles City Council approved a four-year, $203 million contract with the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, a union representing LAFD personnel, that will increase base wages and improve health benefits, according to multiple news outlets.
On Jan. 9, 2025, Ben Ceja, an assistant city administrative officer, told VERIFY that the city’s General Fund budget for this fiscal year includes an undisclosed amount to cover the potential increases to existing staffing costs in an account outside the fire department’s budget.
“These funds will be transferred into the Fire Department budget during the course of the fiscal year,” Ceja said.
According to a memo dated Nov. 4, 2024, the new contract is expected to cost an additional $76 million this fiscal year, which will come from the city’s General Fund.”
So they took $17M from the budget but added in $76M from the general fund.
You’re talking about salaries and health benefits, not operational readiness, or infrastructure readiness.
not operational readiness, or infrastructure readiness.
Nick knows nothing about firefighting.
He seems to know that it requires fire fighters that, in turn, require salaries and health benefits. Unlike some…
And what else is required, BOB? Even if that $17m didn’t impact salaries, what else is required? Do you have ANY idea?
require salaries and health benefits.
52% of firefighters are volunteers. ~70% of of fire departments are volunteer, with another 15.5% being mostly volunteer.
Unlike some…
As you just proved.
“52% of firefighters are volunteers”
In LA, or other big cities?
To paraphrase the Chief. “Max, I find that hard to believe…”
Perhaps not, but that’s a choice, not a necessity. Firefighting does NOT require salaries (as you claimed) is my point. In the past, many socal municipalities had volunteer programs. But they’re gone now. Many municipalities in my area still have them.
Gotta say I love the selective response, too: you don’t address my first point, that personnel is NOT the only thing required for operational readiness. (“what else is required?”) You can have all the people you want and still not be able to operate.
Can you even speculate an answer to that question?
With regard to LA, don’t take my word for it. LAFD Fire Chief Kristen Crowley has complained that the budget reductions “severely limited the department’s capacity to prepare for, train for, and respond to large-scale emergencies, including wildfires.”
So, is the chief lying?
I maintain that Nick knows nothing about firefighting, and you don’t seem to know much either.
So tell us when those funds will hit. How much time does it take to flow through the department during the Christmas period?
The answer is they won’t. It was only bringing salaries and benefits up to market for the remaining staff. The rest of the department and operations look to be in a bigger hole than they were a year ago.
It seems the wages are paid out of general funds until that funding can be transferred to the LAFD budget. So, immediately.
I doubt that Nick, the wages will always be paid out of the department account. Then a journal transaction will take place to move money from the “general fund” into to the LAFD payroll account, just like they do when the department runs over budget like they did last year to the tune of 66 million. But next year the deficit will be something closer to 83 million. Except the mayor and council will probably ‘revise’ the budget and add money to it (especially given this event) to try and cover up how badly they screwed the pooch here.
I believe I noted that in my post captain obvious. You don’t know how to read a P&L do you? The increase was only in salary/benefits (and only an increase from the previous 45million), after losing 58 people, and after already being 66million in the hole for operations in the previous year . So that 17 million came from department operations and equipment, that was already in the red by more than what they got in salary/benefit compensation. 66 +17= 83million IN THE HOLE for the department.
The union gave away some staff to increase the pay and benefits level of the remaining staff. As well as cutting the overtime and variable hours used to train air assets and outside contract assets.
So you cut staff, pay fewer people more to do the job of the people they won’t let them hire, reduce the amount you allow them to spend on the actual work they do but still claim to increase the budget…. well someone has to be a special kind of stupid to believe that story.
Sounds like Nick is a politician posed to make a run for office.
“is expected to cost…”
Do you have any clue what a budget is?
It is (hopefully) set before the fiscal year begins and does not change unless there is a personnel reorganization that requires a budget transfer between organizations.
LAFD spending exceeded their budget in 2023, 2024 and very likely will again in 2025.
They do not get to automatically increase their budget (and hire more firefighters) every time their spending exceeds their budget. They get bailed out by the City of LA (raising taxes or borrowing more money)
The City of Los Angeles is required to have a balanced budget, as is every city in California. This means that the city’s estimated revenues must equal its estimated expenditures.
For my first year at Ford Motor product development I worked on a formula for engineering prototype vehicle counts and spending budgets for each engineering manager. There was a war between finance and engineering. Developing a budget is a nightmare of “salesmen”, liars and back stabbers. I can not imagine the process of developing a US federal government budget.
Telling.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-wildfires/la-widlfires-budget-cuts-palisades-fire/3598438/
So 4 news sources (3 local) reporting that the budget was cut, according to the Fire Chief and City Controller, one political rag saying that it was not cut, quoting a politician. Nick goes with the political reporting.
There’s only one way that enhanced CO2 levels affect wildfires (Forest fires) and that is through the CO2 fertilization effect on indigenous grasses. Higher CO2 concentrations lead to faster grass growth and more dense blades. More taller grass means more potential fuel in open spaces where OH Transmission lines traverse.
More CO2 more fuel load.
But that’s about the only effect CO2 has on the process.
Most wild grasses in California are C4 plants that will not grow much larger with more CO2.
A good rule of thumb for C3 plants is a 10% to 40% more biomass for +100 ppm of CO2. Growth increases for C4 grasses would be half of C3, or less, probably 10% to 20%.
Only half of the story Richard: There is a significant difference in their response to temperature increase which in C3 plants enhances photo-respiration thereby curbing growth.
2
Sorry this site wouldn’t show the graph I attached!
The article is the equivalent of Trump telling Californians to ‘rake the forest’.
Plenty of green jobs there
They will both be ignored?
Now, that is a rake.
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=28855
It really is amazing how quickly socialists pick up the meme the party pushes without ever trying to learn for themselves.
Warren Beeton
“The article is the equivalent of Trump telling Californians to ‘rake the forest’.”
Apparently Trump is both more intelligent and more informed than you are.
The proper tool on my property to clean up downed trees and cut brush is called a grapple rake, and it is awesomely efficient when mounted on the front of a skidsteer.
I assume you must be a college-educated Democrat to preen so much in your abject ignorance?
Gavin Newsom is waiting until the 90 Billion dollar State budget deficit is resolved so he can order new electric Skidsteers and dumptrucks to rake the forests.
Battery operated, of course. ! 😉
Introduce a new potential Man-made ignition source.
Brilliant!
“educated” seems a bit of a stretch.
“‘rake the forest’.”
Which is effectively what should happen within at least a couple of hundred metres of all residential areas.
Removal and control of all underbrush and keep the growth very low, always.
Thinning of trees where appropriate.
Well, I live in rural central coastal California and we definitely “rake our forest”. It’s even in the CalFire guidelines to reduce fuel load under trees and cut back branches out to 100ft from your home and cut branches up to 6ft above the ground.
Dolt.
No kidding, CA needs more fuel
Warren
100% right
unfortunately for you Trump was also 100% right
Isn’t it basically Winter up there.. So blame the fires on global warming ???
Sorry, I just don’t get it. !
It is January. Santa Anna temps have been in the range of 10°C to 22°C.
The climate is warm and temperate; Köppen Csc.
” in the range of 10°C to 22°C”
That could hardly be called overly warm. !
It’s SoCal. People there put on their parkas when it’s 70F.
and rightly so.
Hawaii, too.
There are on average 24 fires daily in LA requiring response that are caused by the homeless.
Article misses the main point
Humans start almost all fires
A slightly warmer winter from global warming does not cause more people to accidentally or deliberately start fires
CA fuel gets dry every year. A slightly warmer climate can not make already dry fuel any drier. This winter has been unusually dry in CA but that is weather not climate.
Winds do not start fires
Dry fuel does not start fires
Poor forest management does not start fires
Humans start fires
Plus a few started by lightning
I believe the article claims about knowing the LA average temperature pre-industrial are baloney
CA was not even a US state until 1850.
The summer TMAX guesses I found online for 1900 were NOT warmer than the summer TMAX measurements for the past decade for LA … despite the huge population growth.
The population of Los Angeles in 1850 was 1,610. The city was incorporated on April 4, 1850. The latest definition of the pre-industrial period for climate change is generally considered to be 1850–1900
Whatever it takes to make future fires less severe, CA will do the opposite. Just like the best climate and energy policy for a state is to observe CA and do the opposite.
The article at the link below is by a former conservative Malibu, CA resident is somewhat over the top but was fun to read. (CA is so bad that all my leftist relatives moved out to other states!)
WAYNE ROOT: Wildfire Alone Didn’t Destroy Los Angeles. How the Dumb, Radical, Left’s 6 Favorite Obsessions Made the Fire Unstoppable- Woke DEI, Climate Extremism, Homelessness, Vaccines, Open Borders & Ukraine | The Gateway Pundit | by Assistant Editor
It is amazing how new fires keep popping up in new locations around LA, but somehow not 50 miles to the north or south. Isn’t it amazing how global warming works?
“Overall, climate change may be contributing to the fire danger of this event, but only if the warming/drying influence outweighs the potential reduction in Santa Ana winds.”
The supposed reduction in SA winds comes from a paper cited that is actually a predictive exercise based on climate models, and the result was “sharpened seasonality”. Winds outside winter would be reduced, but not during winter.
Anyway, the observation, as opposed to that theory, is that the SA winds this time were particularly intense. So that doesn’t outweigh anything.
It was not particularly windy during the Oakland Hills fire in 1991. But mismanagement of brush was a major contributing factor, as it was here.
I worked in the Oakland Hills before the fire, and there were very poor defensible zones around anything, as well as brush and eucalyptus that had been growing since the 1920’s. It was a wonder it had lasted that long without a major fire.
“mismanagement of brush”
Fires seem to be getting worse. Is the management of brush getting worse?
In California, yes. Greens will demand an EIR for anything, as they have the superstition that “nature knows best”, and oppose active management. California politicians either support that, or are too feckless to oppose it.
“ Is the management of brush getting worse?”
It is certainly not improving !
That is the big point.. It needs to improve… radically
“Fires seem to be getting worse. Is the management of brush getting worse?”
Democrat governors for CA since Pete Wilson left in 1999. (Unless you think Ahnold was a true GOP.)
Democrat mayors of LA since 2001.
So the answer is “Yes, brush management is getting worse.”
Yes it is Nick. And housing is getting pushed farther into the difficult lands as developers cut the tops off of ridges and steep hills to build McMansion developments over the ravines filled with creosote and brush.
In the 80’s I used to hike a lot in the Angeles forest and there is a peak just shy of Mt Wilson named Mt Lowe. Back then that area was kept clear of brush and you could camp up there and see the whole basin spread out before you. I took a group of boy scouts up there in the early 2000’s and the whole mountain top was covered in creosote and scrub to almost 6ft high. It was too thick and overgrown to actually see the city anymore. So yeah, brush and wilderness fuel reduction has been pretty much abandoned.
https://www.newsweek.com/controlled-burns-california-forest-management-los-angeles-fires-2012492
FTA: “But in order for these prescribed fires to occur, they must go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, which can last anywhere from 3.6 years to 7.2 years between the time of initiation to when the burning can actually begin, according to a 2022 policy brief from the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).”
Only in your mind.
Definitely in Australia – an image from the recent Grampions fire – a tangled mess that you would struggle to walk through in amongst the old growth in the background.
This looks very much like the arroyos of the Angeles National Forest or the Malibu hills.
In Australia there is commentary on the LA Fires, at The Conversation. No comments allowed. More like a Monologue than a Conversation. 🙁
Link?
https://theconversation.com/how-santa-ana-winds-fueled-the-deadly-fires-in-southern-california-246965
https://theconversation.com/as-los-angeles-combusts-2024-is-declared-earths-hottest-on-record-246976
https://theconversation.com/la-is-on-fire-how-will-australia-cope-when-bushfires-hit-sydney-melbourne-or-another-major-city-246967
The first article at least addressed the issue that homes are driving out into the dangerous areas, but yeah it was a left handed reference and without the ability to comment it’s useless. The other article were pure drivel.
“Seem”
Is the management of brush getting worse?
Yes.
Nick, my wife and I drove through Cervantes (Western Australia) just a few days before the November 25 (2024) fire destroyed about 82,000 hectares (2.4 times that if you think in acres). I commented to my wife that being the end of the “dry”, the entire area was bereft of moisture. Plenty of roadside vegetation thou, and the dominant grass Spinifex burns like stink. Spinifex covers its in-rolled leaves in wax, and one tussock is enough to boil the billy in three or four minutes.
A few days later a car crash, a fire, and the rest is history. Like LA, they were considering a massive evacuation — but, but, where to go. The fire to the east and the ocean to the west…
They don’t do control burns in national parks. Bad for diversity (and probably equity and inclusion). Instead, nature takes care of it eventually and cooks virtually everything. Just like that.
After all we now know, fires like these should not happen. It should be routine practice to create fire-breaks or fire lines around settlements well before the fire season.
(https://www.bomwatch.com.au/nsw-bushfires-2019-2920/)
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
That is actually the historic pattern of fires before humans started managing things, and SURPRISE, when we stop managing them they go back to that pattern Who’d a thunk it!
but I suspect you knew that.
“I commented to my wife that being the end of the “dry””
Bill, November is just the start of the dry in Cervantes. There will be another six dry months. And the “wet” isn’t too reliable either.
There isn’t really a “wet” or “dry” outside of the tropics.
That far down, it should be a winter rainfall area, though, as your table shows.
It should be a pretty good wheat growing area, with rain in winter and spring, a 20 inch average and mild conditions. Nice and dry in November and December to get it off.
The soil’s not much good for wheat. The wheat belt is further south and inland over the Darling range, where they also have those conditions.
They grow wheat in the Mallee country of Vic and SA. You just have to throw enough fertiliser at it 🙂
I was just going by the rainfall though.
Thanks. It looks like this was the wheat belt as of about 2000.
https://www.publish.csiro.au/PC/pdf/PC030009
If prices are good, that’s likely to expand a bit.
“ that’s likely to expand a bit”
There is a story that I have told a few times in discussions of the alleged cooling scare.I transferred to Perth s a junior research scientist in CSIRO in 1976. We had a request from the WA govt about climate. Wheat growing then at least happened only near the network of WAGR railroads. Mechanisation had made it economic to plant in areas where you might get a crop every send year or so, and there was pressure on the Govt to expand. So the asked CSIRO what the future climate held.
I knew people in the Div Atmos Physics, so I was delegated to find out. The answer I got was unequivocal. AGW was the coming thing, with bad news for WA wheat. The Hadley cell would expand, the westerlies retreat south, and rainfall would drop. Not a time to expand. So they didn’t.
As it happened, there was then a run of three very hot, dry years, and rainfall never really recovered. So by luck at first, our advice looked very good.
Thanks for the story. It’s always good to have a bit more background. You hadn’t mentioned WA before, so I wondered where your knowledge of the area came from. That’s on our Big Lap wish list, but is probably still a few years away.
How is the WA area under wheat now compared to 1976?
Ooh, I just found https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/wheat/grain-production-western-australia-map while I was looking for historical grain-growing maps. It looks like the area may have expanded since you were there.
And https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/gis_maps/2/, which has more detail. It seems Cervantes is in a “State Forest and Reserves” area, so there’s not likely to be much farming there any time soon.
“ It looks like the area may have expanded since you were there.”
Yes, I think farmers now rely more on trucking relative to rail, which hasn’t expanded.
It always had to go to the silo by truck. The trucks now are bigger, faster and more powerful, so can carry more, further.
It’s unlikely to be practical to take it to the ports by truck, but I could be wrong.
There is probably much more on-farm storage now, as well.
True from a rainfall perspective Nick. However, potential evaporation increases from around 170 mm in September to around 350 mm in December. Rainfall in November was only ~ 6 mm vs. Ep 300 mm. There was also no surface water to be seen.
The only per-emptive hazard reduction that I saw was limited, patchy, roadside burning between Port Hedland and Marble Bar.
Leaving it to someone running off the road, a lightening strike or a camp fire is like guaranteeing the next disaster in my view.Dry bush burns. The Grampians fire is another example of fire management in a national park – don’t climb the cliffs thou!
Cheers,
Bill
Nick can you please just stop, you are making a total fool of yourself. Go to a different article or something
So your hallowed climate models are wrong?
How could this happen?
From this WUWT blog:
Urban sprawl into fire-prone areas—the wildland-urban interface—further exacerbates the problem. California has seen a significant increase in housing developments encroaching into areas historically prone to fires. A report from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) highlights how poor planning and a lack of defensible space around structures are key contributors to wildfire destruction.
The last place you would want to build in LA would be a valley where the Santa Anna winds howl down, unless you built a bunker.
Just like building on a flood plain – you will eventually get wet.
Worse is that they don’t actually build in the valley or ravine, they knock the tops off of the hill and make terraced develops above them. Which leaves the ravine filled with brush and creosote below the development that nobody manages so these developments sit right above the the worst fire danger.
It’s not like they’re natural chimneys or anything /s
The biggest problem with regard to the terrible LA fires is not the burnt scrubland but the incinerated houses and buidlings. So many people have lost everything, I dont know how the community can recover, but I guess they will eventually.
A quick look at the news aerial images of the burnt suburbs shows that many thousands of houses have been completely turned to ash but remarkably many of the large trees along the roads and adjacent to the houses are still standing and looking green. This indicates to me the real problem is the flamability of the houses. I lived in California and some other US states a while ago, and I was astonished to see most houses had flammable cladding, flammable roofs and flammable structures and many were also surrounded by flammable scrub. The result is fast and complete destruction of these houses when a fire gets going with a strong wind behind it.
If these houses are ever to be rebuilt, the the building codes should be amended to prohibit the extensive use of flammable materials in houses and other surrounding buildings. Flammable scrub gardens should also be avoided. Many lessons have been learned in Australia about building houses to survive bush fires. Flammable cladding and roofs are never used now.
“ in Australia about building houses to survive bush fires.”
My house is BAL29 rated..
The back veranda cost me a motza because I had to use Merbau for all the structure rather than pine….
Merbau is so much heavier, harder and nicer than pine. 🙂
Tried to get some Aussie hardwood, but too hard to find in the right seasoned sizes, and even more expensive.
Policies enacted by the Calif. marxo-democrats forced insurance companies to cancel home insurance of a lot of people prior to these fires.
That seems to be the case Bernie, here’s a photo of a friend’s house after the fire, the neighboring trees don’t seem bad!
The University of Arizona dendrochronology unit has a detailed wildfire record
from fire scars dating back to 1714 and have developed a mean fire interval (MFI)
of different times. Wildfires seemed to be common in that area. I would imagine
that sediment cores would give an even longer view.
https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/277864
Here is the recent temperature history of California. About 1.3°C rise since 1970:
And Los Angeles warmed nearly 2°C:
If that is surface data, all it shows is Urban warming and other corrupted/adjusted site data.
There is absolutely no way anyone can disentangle any mythical human CO2 warming.
Set your thermostat on 68F, and start a wood fire in your fireplace. Please document the results.
Next, set your thermostat on 71.6F, and start a wood fire in your fireplace. Come back to WUWT and report the changes you documented in your “global warming” fire compared to your control fire.
I got home at 4 PM today and just went through that exercise. My fire is in a modern wood stove with a catalytic burner. The area near the stove is now about 74°, the hallway 72°, and the far bedrooms about 65°. I need to turn the house fan on to circulate the air via ducts and even things out.
Now what was the question? 🤠
You make really nice graphs, Nick. Not sure what your point is though. They have absolutely nothing to do with the LA wildfires.
they have very little to do with reality either.
Nick is arguing that that this fire didn’t happen:
The Great Fire of 1889 – – – Santiago Canyon Fire – Wikipedia
A list of California wildfires by size is here:
Santiago Canyon at 300,000 acres burnt is number nine, but the first eight were in 2018 or later. Mendocino was over a million acres.
Thanks for making the point that fires are common in CA. Therefore, a prudent government would prepare. It hasn’t!
Common since 2017
Geez you are dumb
“Geez you are dumb”
As always, an articulate intellectual comeback.
Common since 2017
Common since I was growing up there, through the 70’s-00’s
You ever live there?
Area burned goes up when your preparedness and training goes down.
Those would be sort of tolerable as minima, but a bit fresh as averages 🙁
Here is a monthly breakdown.
Here are LA Jan ave temps (without 2025), also more than 2°C rise since 1970:
Here are the max temps, also more than 2°C rise
Again…4 times the population over that time.
No way you could say CO2 had any cause in the rise.
It is all urban expansion and densification from totally unfit-for-purpose surface sites…
… plus, almost certainly, some data “adjustment” shenanigans on top.
That’s still way too nippy 🙁
What happened in 1949 and 1950? That was almost a 5 degree C drop.
Quite a few recent days were around 22C max, well above those averages:
Los Angeles is a massive URBAN area.
You cannot rationally compare to urban temperatures in the 1950s.
22C is not a dangerously high temperature.
After 6 months of no rain and during above average temperatures it’s definitely dangerous conditions for fires!
That seems pleasant enough for the middle of winter.
It’s a pity about the blasted wind, though. And the smoke.
Well, if there weren’t a few days above the average, the average would be lower 🙂
Ouch! LMAO
Yes, but look at the timing.
Isn’t that what happens? A bit of a cold spell, then a couple of warmer days. Actually, it’s often the other way around, with a couple of warm days before a cold front comes through.
Getting serious for a bit, it’s often the wind which causes extreme fire conditions. We had a moderately warm day a couple of weeks ago with a forecast maximum around 35, but it was extreme fire danger with a total fire ban. That was due to the wind. There were a couple of hot days (forecast 40 odd) following that without fire bans.
22 is neither here nor there, we often get that in winter. It’s the wind and dry conditions which were the problem. Apparently mid-winter Santa Ana winds are common, but rarely coincide with dry spells.
Jim Steele’s youtube presentation covers it quite nicely.
Oh, I should mention that we get some pretty good south-westerlies in August and September when maximum temperatures are in that area. Nothing like those Santa Ana wind speeds, though.
Nick, don’t quite see what your argument is.
Is it basically that the rise in temperature in California is the cause of the current fires, or at least of the intensity of the current fires?
With an implied related argument, that California is warmer because global warming?
I think the basic case will be a very hard one to make. You would have to argue that the two years of increased rain which led to the increase in brush and grass fuel were due to the reported instrument temperature rise, and not to natural variability which occurs regardless of average temps.
Then you’d have to argue that the very strong current Santa Anna winds were due to the same thing. Is there any correlation between average recorded temps and strength of these winds?
Then you’d have to argue that this year’s drought was due to the same thing. Again pretty hard to do, since you will previously have had to argue that the heavy rain of two years back was due to the increased temps.
Or maybe you are going to argue that increased temps lead to both more rain, in some years, and less, in others?
The trend in climate activism is to claim that every big climate event is somehow extreme and would not have happened without the recorded increase in global temps, but I don’t see any evidence for that – don’t see any evidence of increased extreme weather globally, or any plausible causal chain for it to be caused by the very small recent increases in global and local temps.
And this in spades for the current LA fires, if you’re going to attribute them to general warming in California, you have to produce a causal chain connecting this to rainfall patterns and Santa Anna. Don’t think it can be done.
And then join Newsome etc in proposing to somehow change global, or at least California temperatures by lowering CA CO2 emissions? That’s a simply ludicrous idea, it will have no more effect than standing on our heads.
Same idiotic line of reasoning in the UK. Some event, a flood, a hot summer or as now a cold spell, and the cry goes up to reduce UK emissions. Right, and to how much affect, measured in degrees C?
michel,
The article itself says:
“While the article concedes that the LA area is “about 3°C warmer” than pre-industrial levels and that this warming can “dry fuels,””
In Australia we are acutely aware of the association between heat and bad fires, and drying fuels is only part of it.
Yes, I’m sure that temperature has a role, and so I was surprised that the discussion proceeded without saying what the temperature actually was. There is a long term rise, which shifts everything up a bit, and there is the temperature of the preceding days.
As to drought, we have an LA-like climate in Perth. Air descending from the Hadley cells turns into a belt of rainy westerlies. These move up and down in latitude with the seasons, with dry summer and wet winter. AGW will expand the H cell, and the westerlies will come less so far south (LA). I understand that the last two winters were wet, but so far no rain this winter, so past winter growth just kept drying.
“I understand that the last two winters were wet, but so far no rain this winter, so past winter growth just kept drying.”
Yes, no rain for the last 6 months, the last time there was significant rain was May 5th , 0.13″.
This is the result:
Oh, hell. That looks like kerosene grass 🙁
Temperature does not ignite these fires.
Concrete, steel, and glass do not burn, but they do raise the local temperature.
That’s actually interesting to me Nick.
Looks like that’s some tool over at NOAA that generates the charts?
Can you provide a link to it?
Yes, it is NCEI Climate at a Glance. Here is the LA page. If you look at the top you can navigate around.
Thanks Nick!
Why anyone would down vote you for answering a question is quite beyond me, but there it is.
Population has increased 4 fold since 1945 = your graph is meaningless in the context of natural warming.
LA is part of California = your graph is meaningless.
“ natural warming.”
The question is whether warming was a cause. Whether it is natural is irrelevant to that.
So how does your graph address warming as a cause? Please explain how a <2C rise in the urban area of South Central affects the coastal mountain fire probability.
Because when it coincides with over six months without rain you get this:
I know you blokes mean well, but for goodness sake watch Jim Steele’s presentation – the second video.
I break out in a cold sweat every time I see that picture. Whoever is walking there is bloody lucky to still be alive. Substitute the grass for kerosene or petrol (gasoline) That’s what he’s walking in.
What you are showing is nothing unusual, and kinda looks like my lower 12acres before I mow around Memorial Day. My grass is usually knee to thigh high by then and just going full brown. Some seasons I have to get it done by mid may, others I can push out until early June. 1-5 degrees doesn’t make a spit of difference.
Your graphs didn’t answer that question. Temp went up, big deal. Would there still be fires if it went down? The answer is most likely yes, because temp isn’t the determining factor.
You hit the nail on the head, to have a fire you need fuel, oxygen, and an ignition source. High temperatures are not an ignition source. Prolonged high temperatures will dry out the fuel but so do high winds. On the other hand if there is little fuel, dry or otherwise, you may have a small fire but not a catastrophe.
The other determining factor is how close the residences and other buildings are to one another. Current building practice around here has setbacks of less than 10 ft resulting in houses that may be as little as 10 ft apart.
BS Nick,
Just as is the case for Australia’s temperature records, you know all the data used in those graphs has been homogenised to create a warming trend that does not exist.
You just have not done the work to look into it.
Bill
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
“You just have not done the work to look into it.”
Bill, I have done plenty of work on it. Every month, for fourteen years, I have calculated a global average using GHCN unadjusted data. That is, direct from the thermometer. Have you ever done that? Even for Australia? I find it matches the NOAA and GISS averages very well. And that is what matters.
No gentle say to say this. you’re engaging in mental masturbation with garbage numbers.
I believe you believe what you say.
However, in Australia’s case, the main reason there is “agreement” between ACORN-SAT and AWAP was the rollout of more sensitive 60-litre Stevenson screens that replaced the previous 230-litre screens (and site changes associated with that), and the use of fixed adjustments that did not compensate for that on a site by site basis.
For both ACORN-SAT and AWAP (which are not independent networks), poor metadata and lack of site control due to automation contributed to their apparently similar trends.
I also have many well-researched examples of where adjustments were made for site changes that made no difference, and in addition, where site changes that affected data were ignored to imply changes reflected the climate.
You should talk to Blair Trewin about this and report back.
As all the different data-doodlers used similar homogenisation methods, they all created similar but bogus trends.
In your use of “GHCN unadjusted data” unless you show you have untangled actual site change effects from the data used in your analysis (and detail your methods), I cannot possibly believe your “trends” reflect the true climate.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Data Doodler,
Dr Johnston, that has got to be the most apt description I have seen regarding climate “science” yet. Thank you sir!
Bill,
Again, you are just fussing over endless special cases. What you need to do is see what effect it has on the global average. That is what I do, and the answer is, virtually none. With unadjusted GHCN I ignore changes of enclosure and all the rest – just take literally what the thermometer says. And I get the same answer.
BS Nick,
There are only 112 “special cases’ in ACORN SAT. All have been massaged by Blair Trewin (and before him Neville Nicholls and Simon Torok, then Della Marta et al.).
I know this stuff from back to front but it seems you don’t.
While I have not reported on all ACORN-SAT sites I have actually analyzed all of them. Guided by that I am collecting metadata and aerial photographs that explain the analysis results. There is no trend in any ACORN-SAT datasets. The methodology is entirely biased. Suck that up CSIRO!
In contrast you have not done that – not even cursorily using tools available such as Google Earth Pro.
I fact at this point I’m unsure that you could tell your elbows from your nether regions let alone compare satellite images.
Please stop being a goose!
With great respect,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
The problem is not forest or grass fires. Those areas are small compared to the housing stock that is burning. I watched a time lapse of one of the fires. It certainly started on top of a “mountain” and quickly spread downhill due to the wind. Ask yourself if fires rush downhill or uphill by the way. Anyway, after reaching the occupied areas it erupted. The spread at that point had nothing much to do with dry grass or shrubs. It was the wind and embers from HOUSES. Houses that were stacked on top of each other with nothing to stop the spread. Not enough firemen and water.
The paper cited seems an odd one to include if Patrick had actually read it. The last paragraph states that
“In December, back‐to‐back SAWs are most probable providing opportunities for wildfires to burn
longer and bigger. In the future, the probability of back‐to‐back events will diminish somewhat,
but will still remain much stronger in December than it ever was in October or even November.
The higher year‐to‐year precipitation volatility (Polade et al., 2014) translates into higher
probability of extremely wet winters followed by extremely dry winters (Swain et al., 2018) and
additionally suggests a boost to the availability of dry fuels, bolstering the later peak in
future wildfire activity, that is, nudging the extremes of future later fires to be more intense
and, therefore, more extensive.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080261
So the modelling suggests that climate change will make later fires to be more intensive and
extensive. Which seems to be exactly what has happened.
He doesn’t appear to be Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
Sorry, I don’t get that reference.
“Robinson Crusoe” was a novel by Robert Louis Stevenson about a sailor marooned by himself on a desert island for years.
It’s fairly common idiom here. If somebody is no Robinson Crusoe, they aren’t the only one.
‘modelling suggests”…
LOL.. what an incredibly meaningless pair of words.
If they knew there was going to be more dry fuel, why didn’t they do something about it.
Seems you are just highlighting the total incompetence of the far-leftists that run the place.
However.. you seemed to have missed the tile of your linked article.
Climate Change Suppresses Santa Ana Winds……
Nowhere does it say what you think it says.
But it is from “climate modelsᴸᴼᴸ“, so is meaningless anyway.
“Nowhere does it say what you think it says.”
It says exactly what I copied from the article. I quoted it. If you think those words mean something different to way they say then that please explain why that is. The conclusion clearly states that climate change will cause “the extremes of future later fires to be more intense and, therefore, more extensive”. Which unfortunately appears to be the case.
I repeat….
“But it is from “climate modelsᴸᴼᴸ“, so is meaningless anyway.“
And as shown below, not even the models agree.
So any conclusion they make is basically just total BS.
Climate change can’t cause anything, climate is a result not a cause.
Decrease by how much? Is it meaningful? Like >50%? Or is it meaningless, like 1-3mph?
Gotta love those “climate modelsᴸᴼᴸ”, though
They should also have a z-score chart similar to Figure 3, to show if these changes are in any way statistically significant. (ie normalised change/st-dev for each axis.)
This is what passes as “climate science ᴸᴼᴸ”
If there had been no or little fuel, dry or otherwise, the fires would not be so intense or extensive. Intensity is dependent on local fuel load and extent is dependent on the area of the fuel load. Little or no fuel, little or no fire.
Intensity has no bearing on extent. a low intensity grass fire can burn thousands of acres, a high intensity fire can be very local depending on fuel load and availability. Fuel availability and area are the determining factors.
Thank you for a succinct summary.
It really is that simple.
The current LA fires are not due to local fuel load of vegetation. The fires are being spread by wind and embers from burning houses and other structures being the fuel source.
It’s more than a little ironic that California, which is supposedly a national leader in climate action, should be plagued by these wildfires in general. One would think with all the taxes, regulations, restrictions, etc. the state would have any wildfire threats under control. Or maybe the excessive fossil fuel consumption in the surrounding areas and in countries far beyond its control is causing these events in the first place and it’s up to governments, consumers, and construction companies to take precautions that will defend built-up areas from the vulnerability that they’re showing in areas like the LA region is currently experiencing. Or maybe it’s a case of human activities having no effect in triggering or preventing such catastrophes, just as they can’t prevent earthquake and tsunamis.
Third grade future scientist: WAIT!!! Carbon Dioxide extinguishes fires, so the more Carbon Dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the less the odds of fires breaking out and spreading. We need MORE Carbon Dioxide to protect us from wild fires.
CO2 with increasing concentration displaces O2 which means less burning.
🙂
Why summer drought or date of first rainfall in Southern California is meaningless climate fear mongering.
https://x.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1877426317102383531
Also watch Watch: Why California Fires Are Getting Bigger
…and
Understanding Wildfires and Climate and How we Must Adapt
Thanks, Jim.
There wasn’t anything new to me there, but the “Understanding Wildfires” video was very well presented.
read Why summer drought or date of first rainfall in Southern California is meaningless climate fear mongering.
https://x.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1877426317102383531
also Watch: Why California Fires Are Getting Bigger
…and
Understanding Wildfires and Climate and How we Must Adapt
The temperature was low 20s Centigrade in Los Angeles on the fire days.That is hardly blistering conditions.
Fire conditions in Australia are tough when the temperature is 40C and above.
The conditions in Melbourne on Black Saturday in 2008 were 43C with humidity as low as 16%. Those conditions would lead to urban fires in Melbourne if they took hold..
I wonder how many BEVs contributed to the intensity and persistence of the fires once they got to houses. Burning batteries will add considerably to the toxic soup produced by urban fire.
I’m not an expert nor a resident or expert in Californian building materials so this is just an observation.
Most houses in California appear to be made of wood. When a wildfire hits the area they burn to a small pile of ash. This must make the fire much worse and much harder to control.
Is there no way of making houses that don’t catch fire so easily and burn to nothing, or aren’t wood built houses a problem in wildfires?
Most houses in California appear to be made of wood
Most of these are also newer construction, and filled with modern furniture, meaning they are inherently more combusitble.
New engineered lumber is thinner and more volatile than the dimensional lumber that was used in the past. I’ve seen side-by-side tests where a floor made using LVL beams totally collapses in less than 5 minutes, while the same construction using dimensional lumber is still structurally sound and overall just not burning anywhere near as badly.
Modern furniture also uses more flammable material and has a structure made of smaller and more combustible wood (i.e. pine)
Well they actually have refugees from man made warming now to point to. Unfortunately for them it’s from people lighting the fires not AGW
That’s a 1950s Palisades house among the gum trees is it?
559 Bienveneda Ave, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 | Zillow
That one is most likely no longer for sale you’d expect.
Well after the 2009 Victorian Black Saturday Bushfires and the loss of 173 lives naturally there was some circumspection and a Royal Commission but most notably like the outcome of Cyclone Tracy devasting Darwin in 1974 the new Cyclonic Building Code came into force thereafter and welcome to the Bushfire Attack Levels in the National Construction Code too-
Siting and general design considerations | vic.gov.au
We learn from experience and no doubt California could cut and paste those requirements from Australia’s NCC fairly quickly. What they mean however is most destroyed buildings will be severely underinsured for replacement in order to ensure that level of natural event devastation doesn’t recur.
Mind you that was after the fire tornado with 250km/hr winds had rattled Canberra’s pickets that nobody dreamed could happen as it never had since its founding-
2003 Canberra bushfires – Wikipedia
That’s the point with such extreme events and complacency or simply you inherit generations of buildings and the urban sprawl continued in like fashion. Once bitten though you have to build back with that experience in mind and best preventative practice and that’s the bad news for those who’ve lost their homes already and many can’t return.