The Firestorm This Time: Why Los Angeles Is Burning (wired.com) 231
The Thomas Fire spread through the hills above Ventura, in the northern greater Los Angeles megalopolis, with the speed of a hurricane. Driven by 50 mph Santa Ana winds -- bone-dry katabatic air moving at freeway speeds out of the Mojave desert -- the fire transformed overnight from a 5,000-acre burn in a charming chaparral-lined canyon to an inferno the size of Orlando, Florida, that only stopped spreading because it reached the Pacific. Several readers have shared a Wired report: Tens of thousands of people evacuated their homes in Ventura; 150 buildings burned and thousands more along the hillside and into downtown are threatened. That isn't the only part of Southern California on fire. The hills above Valencia, where Interstate 5 drops down out of the hills into the city, are burning. Same for a hillside of the San Gabriel Mountains, overlooking the San Fernando Valley. And the same, too, near the Mount Wilson Observatory, and on a hillside overlooking Interstate 405 -- the flames in view of the Getty Center and destroying homes in the rich-people neighborhoods of Bel-Air and Holmby Hills. And it's all horribly normal. [...] Before humans, wildfires happened maybe once or twice a century, long enough for fire-adapted plant species like chapparal to build up a bank of seeds that could come back after a burn. Now, with fires more frequent, native plants can't keep up. Exotic weeds take root. Fires don't burn like this in Northern California. That's one of the things that makes the island on the land an island. Most wildfires in the Sierra Nevadas and northern boreal forests are slower, smaller, and more easily put out, relative to the south. Trees buffer the wind and burn less easily than undergrowth. Keeley says northern mountains and forests are "flammability-limited ecosystems," where fires only get big if the climate allows it -- higher temperatures and dryer conditions providing more fuel. Climate change makes fires there more frequent and more severe.
Here come those Santa Ana winds again (Score:5, Interesting)
"What we don’t have every single year is an ignition during a wind event. And we’ve had several."
Whether by foolish acts or (pyro)maniacal disposition, people are the blight on this land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Here come those Santa Ana winds again (Score:4, Insightful)
That must be the reason those hurricanes predominately devastate the Bible Belt, I guess?
Re: Here come those Santa Ana winds again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Here come those Santa Ana winds again (Score:5, Funny)
So ... God is a CEO?
Re: (Score:2)
He gets credit for a lot of touchdowns, yet blamed for very few fumbles.
Someone had better brief him on Sarbanes-Oxley.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the tortured logic of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at the funerals of American soldiers? "God hates fags, and the soldiers protect America which does not have the death penalty for homosexuals, therefore dead soldiers are God's wrath against the homosexuals who aren't dying."
In other words, don't argue with a biblical zealot. They will always find a passage to "support" whatever they want to believe in.
True (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. I remember being in Banning, California back in the late 1980's with my parents and seeing the mountains burning. Back then they called it a seasonal burn, now it's wildfires due to climate change.
Re:True (Score:5, Interesting)
There were never wildfires before climate change was discovered.
The is real problem is that we're been putting out the wildfires for over a hundred years when burning is part of the natural cycle of life for the ecosystem. As a result there are many millions of dead and dry trees just waiting for a spark. [sfgate.com] However, climate change is exacerbating the issue by causing more extreme weather (longer droughts and more extreme downpours) which ultimately kill more plants and turn them into fuel for the fire. Climate change definitely isn't the cause of these giant wildfires but it is making it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were never wildfires before climate change was discovered.
Only if you promote false dichotomy arguments and don't bother to read even the summary: "Climate change makes fires there more frequent and more severe."
Right. Because human beings moving into those areas doesn't cause more frequent and more severe fires. Must be climate change.
Did you seriously just reply to the accusation of making a false dichotomy by piling on a second false dichotomy? Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
500 Years (Score:2)
California has had droughts lasting up to 500 years.
Just a coincidence that the last 500 years in California were wetter than normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Think DUST BOWL..
The history of that man made disaster is rife with the same kind of things they say today, just in reverse.
Nobody wanted to believe that the pan handle of Texas was really a dry desert, unstable for farming. Yea, a decade of rainy weather tricked a bunch of people to plow up thousands of acres of land, year after year, thinking that the rain would return, only to watch their fields blow away as dust.
Re: (Score:2)
So why should harsh, inhospitable conditions in California and the surrounding are surprise anyone ?
Because the real estate sales people said that this was such a nice and hip place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a semi-arid Mediterranean climate, which is technically different from "desert."
Dontcha need wetter for more fuel? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought you needed WETTER conditions to get more fuel. Is anyone surprised that there are a bunch of large fires after California's water supply returned to normal and plants had a chance to grow back? (It was as green along Hwy 1 as I've ever seen it this year.) That stuff dries out...and then burns - science, yo.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/03/will-this-winter-in-california-be-wet-or-dry/
Re: (Score:2)
>> higher temperatures and dryer conditions providing more fuel I thought you needed WETTER conditions to get more fuel. Is anyone surprised that there are a bunch of large fires after California's water supply returned to normal and plants had a chance to grow back? (It was as green along Hwy 1 as I've ever seen it this year.) That stuff dries out...and then burns - science, yo. http://www.mercurynews.com/201... [mercurynews.com]
Yeah, that was poorly worded. Higher temps and low humidity turn the abundant growth into more explosive fuel.
At least with the current rash of fires, firefighters haven't had to contend with extremely high temperatures; we've had highs in the low 70s all week.
Re:Dontcha need wetter for more fuel? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the small stuff (leaves, brush, and weeds) that burns fast, hot, and explosively given the right conditions. In the fall, when the deciduous species lose their leaves, a wet December means that most of this vegetation falls to the ground and begins to decompose, rendering it more dense and less flammable. When you have a combination of dry weather, warm temperatures, and high wind, combined with ignition (historically caused by lightning, but usually by people these days), leaves tend to stay on the trees longer, or fall to the ground without decomposing, and become perfect fuel.
So yes, you're correct that when this stuff dries out, it becomes a hazard.
For example, last fall was a historically notable fire season in the southern Appalachians. Many parts of the mountains in NC/TN/GA had little to no measurable rainfall for a couple months, so the leaves simply dried up and stayed on the trees rather than changing color and falling to the ground. The deadly fires that swept through Gatlinburg, Tennessee [wikipedia.org] became "canopy" fires - an event more common in California but virtually unheard of in eastern forests. Even one good rainstorm could, in theory, have been sufficient to knock enough leaves off of the trees and compress the leaf litter on the forest floor to render it slightly less flammable.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like every Novemeber/December so many people comment on how unusually warm it is in Colorado even though we see warm weather in those months at times every single year...
Re: Dontcha need wetter for more fuel? (Score:2)
Your science fucking sucks because it fails to account for a FIVE YEAR DROUGHT.
Try again when you actually understand science and can think logically.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Fires don't burn like this in Northern California.
I guess this guy must have been asleep a few months ago when the Tubbs fire burned nearly 40,000 acres, destroyed nearly 6,000 buildings, and killed over 40 people In and around Santa Rosa, CA.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because oil companies don't have any money....
Even if there wasn't an overwhelming scientific consensus, we should at least come to the conclusion that God hates petroleum because he fucking buried it mostly under the world's biggest assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Karma... (Score:2)
that's why...
Trump... (Score:2, Funny)
The state, which most actively opposed [thehill.com] — and continues to oppose [politico.com] — Trump, is getting the punishment even while the nation as a whole is prospering [nypost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the opposite about that Hurricane that hit Florida. It swept around the back end Florida, missing the "blue" areas and hitting the "red" areas.
there's that "great CA weather" again (Score:2)
Arson (Score:2)
There was also another fire recently east of Burbank threatening wealthy home owners.
It seems too coincidental that another fire just happened to appear in another very wealthy neighborhood during one of the windiest days this year.
Re: Arson (Score:2)
All it takes is a careless dipshit flicking a cigarette butt out the window. Oh but you didnt pay attention to the 241 toll road fire a couple months back, did you?
Refrain from speaking until you actually have a clue.
Who wrote the summary for this story? (Score:2)
It's surprisingly competent and literate, especially for Slashdot.
Re: Who wrote the summary for this story? (Score:2)
It is not competently written. A quick search on unfamiliar terms in the summary alone proves it because they are incorrectly used. Katabatic winds are cold, not warm, for fuck's sake.
Kill All Humans (Score:2)
Really?
Brandolini's Law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
Same Thing as Every California Wildfire (Score:4, Interesting)
1. High winds
2. Low humidity
3. Unmanaged brush
4. Either a lightning storm or (more likely) some human doing something stupid (camp/bonfire, trash burning, arson, cigarette, etc.)
This year was particularly bad for both Northern and Southern California because this past winter's rain was so significant that it almost completely erased the multi-year drought. That means lots and lots of greenery growing in the spring and waiting to burn throughout the summer and fall.
Left out the other stuff. (Score:4, Informative)
1) We have been ignoring the fire risk for a long time. Specifically we have stopped all small fires before they get anywhere, which means there are a lot fuel wood stocked up. The smarter thing to do is to let small fires become controlled medium sized fires during the WET season, rather than the dry season when they become huge.
2) We have been putting houses in stupid locations and not requiring appropriate fire prevention measures. There is nothing wrong with building a house in the middle of fire zones. But make it a bunker out of concrete. Yes, it won't look the same as a normal house, so freaking what? A good architect can make a concrete, fire-proof home still look good. Yes it costs more. But less than double, which is what most people will pay.
3) Oh yeah, and stop counting fire smoke from intentionally set preventative fires as 'pollution' while saying that smoke from natural forest fires doesn't count because it isn't man made.
Re: Left out the other stuff. (Score:4)
If the current fires encountered a large expanse of concrete devoid of anything directly combustible, how wide would it have to be to actually stop the fire's spread?
As I understand it, once uncontrolled outdoor fires reach a certain size, they act kind of like weak tornadoes that lift flaming objects high into the air & hurl them out to areas that might be several thousand feet away (enabling the fire to jump over thing like freeways, canals, etc).
If a house in the middle of an affected neighborhood had reinforced concrete walls & roof, plus Miami-grade impact-glass windows, would the heat of the fire as it burned down the neighbors' houses cause the concrete house's interior to combust anyway (like food debris in a self-cleaning oven)? Would ICF construction plus roll-down steel shutters keep the interior cooler, or would the intense heat just cause the ICF styrofoam itself to melt or combust?
I know that conventional wisdom is that individual homeowners are helpless against a fire, but I remember reading about one guy in California a few years ago who put sprinklers on his roof & surrounding yard, connected them to the faucet, and left it running when he evacuated. When he got home, his home had major "baking" damage... but his neighbors' homes were literally burned down to the scorched earth. I think some local official later decided to be a dick & fined him $10,000 for violating water-conservation rules to discourage others from trying to do it in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how thick the material is and how far
Re: (Score:2)
Posting from nearish the Thomas fire (Score:2)
I live and work near it. Well, for certain values of near.
I live 5 miles from it, and work about 10 miles from it.
So far, at least three coworkers that I know (and probably a few more that I don't know) have lost houses to it.
Air quality is currently at about .75 LB (that is, 3/4 of Long Beach, where every day is a pack of filterless Lucky Strike 100s).
Ventura (Score:2)
The big fire is in Ventura County, not Los Angeles and not Los Angeles County. There are other fires in Los Angeles County, but the biggin is north west of LA County.
Next you'll tell me JPL is in Pasadena or that the Statue of Liberty is in New York. (And then you'll fucking redraw the map to make it so.)
cut the hysteria, not related to "climate change" (Score:2)
The wildfires in the area are a recurring natural phenomenon, what is *abnormal* is humans developing the area and trying to prevent the normal and expect recurring wildfires.
And of course the number has been declining for decades:
http://www.ocregister.com/2017... [ocregister.com]
Here in aus.. (Score:2)
..we have all the conditions for some terrible bushfires. But where I live in WA we do regular burnoffs during the wet season. In the east they're filled with hippie tree hugging fuckwits that don't like their precious environment getting destroyed by burnoffs, so they let the fuel build up around them, then promptly lose their houses.
I'm guessing theres a similar amount of bleeding hearts for small animals in southern california. Let them burn.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a population issue: Entire population of Australia: 24 million. Entire population of California: 39 million.
Why is this hard to understand? (Score:2)
I grew up in Southern California. It's a desert with brush growing when rain allows it. Increased population pushing out into the desert means more chances of accidental fire. Add in a windy season, as we've always had, and it burns. It burns every year. Always. this year is worse because of the winds sticking around longer, but yeah: wind=fire for the most part in California.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody keeps you from giving us a better explanation for the increasing number and severity of natural disasters.
We're waiting.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
Your assumption that natural disasters are getting worse is false. The "cost of damages" is rising because of increased construction in hazard areas and more expensive construction in those areas.
If you look at hurricane tracking, you'll find a sharp jump in the record a few decades ago. This came from the start of off-shore counting. Before that, only storms that made landfall as a hurricane were counted. This invalidates many claims of worse storms.
Earthquakes of significance are unchanged. Despite panic that small rock-settling after fracking would result in new faultlines exploding (or whatever nonsense those stories got to).
Wildfires happen regularly in nature. The article is nonsense about their rarity. Wildfires of this size occur only if there is an abundance of fuel. Naturally, that requires a drought after a couple decades of being too wet to burn. Thanks to California fire departments, all the small wildfires that would've cleaned out the accumulating fuel were extinguished before they could consume much dead wood.
Volcanos are still erupting within the wide range of statistical uncertainty.
I know this is the part where you log onto one of your sockpuppets and moderate me down for actually answering your dogma, and maybe post a [citation needed] or ad-hominem attack to dismiss my explanations without any further thought on your part.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no sockpuppets, I'm actually happy I got an answer for a change. Thank you.
The arguments sound valid so far, I'll have to look into it.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Funny)
I have no sockpuppets, I'm actually happy I got an answer for a change. Thank you.
The arguments sound valid so far, I'll have to look into it.
Where is Slashdot and what have you done with it?!? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No idea, I'm as astonished that I actually got a relevant, meaningful and well formulated answer to a question as you are.
It really felt like it was 2005 all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
You have an overly rosy view of 2005. Time makes the smell of garbage fade.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember those "Helpful Links" attached to most discussions mostly pointed to Goatse, lol.
There Was an 'eternal september' for Slashdot; the debate is When it Was. :)
Re: (Score:2)
These are the good old days.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Then was a bunch GW Bush bashing on every post. And a lot of Slashdotters were switching to a better tech site called Digg. Users were celebrating the rise of Apple from the ashes, as the only way to bring Microsoft down. Most articles that covered around Global Warming, were more or less poking fun of the Climate deniers as stupid hicks. And jokes and worries about the Terrorist threats being over exaggerated, and fears of the government via Homeland security spying on us and taking our rites away. The
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. Conservation falls on either side of the political spectrum, based on what's being conserved. If what's being conserved are social structures that help the well-off at the expense of the less-well-off, that's conservatism. If what's being conserved are social structures that help the less-well-off at the expense of the well-off, that's liberalism.
Since there are a lot more less-well-offs, I know where I stand from a do-the-most-good perspective. And I've come to favor that ever more as I've grown o
Re: (Score:3)
I have no sockpuppets, I'm actually happy I got an answer for a change. Thank you.
The arguments sound valid so far, I'll have to look into it.
Although they can take away my physics when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, and remember, you are asking another version of my "Give me the science behind the reason that the energy retention effects of certin gases fail on a global level" - I'm not one to say that the intensity of the wildfires are due to global warming.
However, it doesn't negate the fact that the effects exists.
So now that I got that bit of run on setnce out of the way, AC has some points that make it difficult to pin this
It's simple (Score:2)
We are under attack by Galaxy, a worldwide organization led by a trio of mad scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
The relentless assault of Galaxy Tabs, and Galaxy Notes. It's almost like the 'Assault of the IBM' that we fended off decades back. Hunder down under your iGadget and breeeeaathe sloooowly. It will be all right.
If the flames reaches the Cuperino 'Heavens Gate' Spaceship Structure, it can simply take off and land again when it's safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so Apple are playing Terrans. Got it.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Insightful)
Munich Re has a chart with weather/flood related insurance claims versus other (usually geophysical like earthquakes.) The first category has increased 4x relative to the second over the last few decades.
Awesome response (Score:2)
Awesome response. Please keep reposting, whoever you are.
Re: (Score:2)
While what you said is largely true, higher temperatures and drier weather increase fire danger, and those have both increased all up and down the US West coast. There's also insect pests moving North as the weather stops getting cold enough to kill them off. This has caused large numbers of tree deaths in, e.g., Oregon and Northern California, and dead trees are fire hazards.
So fire dangers have gotten worse, It's also true, however, that methods to combat those fires have improved. It's my judgment th
No Ad hominen attack (Score:2)
I live in Az, and I'll tell you this much: We get fires all the time. Ever time it happens we bail out the rich guys who's mansions burn. The trailer parks? Not so much. It's been a bone of contention around here for decades but our
Re: (Score:2)
Excess sodium and calories are bad for your health even if you can't pinpoint any specific adverse events caused by them yet. Carbon and methane are wildly unbalanced in the atmosphere
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense there is no such thing as a "natural disaster" -- natural disasters are always the interaction of natural forces with human development. If there's an avalanche in an uninhabited mountain valley, it's just something that happens, it's not a disater.
And there's no doubt that as population and development increases, our exposure to natural events increases. That said, it's extremely important to note that technology is a powerful counterbalancing force to that exposure. Take the familiar Saffi
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody keeps you from giving us a better explanation for the increasing number and severity of natural disasters.
We're waiting.
I'm a SoCal native; been living here over 0x3C years. Low humidity and high winds show up at the same time during Santa Ana events, and it happens every year. Brushfires occur so regularly that an autumn without at least one bad one is pretty rare. Maybe the reason they look like they're getting worse (causing more destruction) is that more more people are moving into fire-prone areas.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
When the population increases in an area, people are always driven to build more housing on the bad land. It's no surprise when 'expensive new housing' is flooded or beset upon by a hurricane. The 'bad land' is the places where there aren't already 100 year old structures.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
When the population increases in an area, people are always driven to build more housing on the bad land. It's no surprise when 'expensive new housing' is flooded or beset upon by a hurricane. The 'bad land' is the places where there aren't already 100 year old structures.
Upvote, upvote, upvote.
I grew up going to NC outer banks for holidays. The Styrofoam stucco houses on the beach regularly get devastated while some of the first structures built are still there. People in the 1600's and 1700's knew about the ocean and weather and built as high up as possible and as far from the beach as feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like how the Hemingway House is on the best spot on the Key.
These guys didn't learn these things from books, written by someone with no skin in the game, and willing to deal with 'Acceptable Losses".
People counted for a lot more back then.
Hell, even Cats counted more back then, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough that no place is 100% safe from natural disaster. But some places seem to get hit on an annual basis and others once in 100 years. The former are bad lands. That doesn't mean you absolutely can't build there, but it does mean you're an idiot if you don't build differently in order to handle the conditions. Stilt homes in flood plains, fireproof where fires happen, etc.
I read a while back about a guy who built his own home using appropriate materials in an area where the risk of fire was high. Su
Re: (Score:2)
But has a Santa Ana ever occurred this late in the year? Generally they strike in October.
Re: (Score:2)
But has a Santa Ana ever occurred this late in the year? Generally they strike in October.
See this [ucla.edu].
"Santa Ana conditions can exist at any time in which the Great Basin tends to be cooler than Southern California -- typically the September to May period. However, the winds garner the most attention around October because of unique aspects of Southern California climate which enhances fire danger in the autumn season."
With respect to duration: "Santa Ana conditions can exist at any time in which the Great Basin tends to be cooler than Southern California -- typically the September to May period.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has watched a 737 at Ontario Airport land with a ground speed of around 30 MPH ...yes, the Santa Ana winds to reach those speeds. They just seemed to hover above the runway sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
The population numbers do not have any effect
Yes they do. Less cattle and sheep grazing on the land, more hipsters who don't want occasional brush clearing fires.
Re: (Score:2)
But Santa Ana events lasting for a week straight are unheard of in the past
Bzzt! Wrong answer.
as are rates of spread exceeding 100 mph in many cases.
Bzzt! Strike two. No gusts exceeding 100 mph have been recorded in the current Santa Ana event. Gusts up to 80 mph were predicted for last night, but failed to materialize. Not uncommon for Santa Ana gusts to exceed 70 mph.
There have never been such explosive fires here (at least during the period after Europeans showed up).
Bzzt! Strike three; you're outta here. Read about the Cedar Fire of 2003, here. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, don't forget that humans have been putting out fires in these areas for decades. Fire is a natural part of this ecosystem and we put them out and restrict land management practices that would have reduced the available fuel in these areas currently burning. In that way we HAVE made these particular fires worse. So, I don't think we can lay the whole blame here on Global Warming... Even if it fits the accepted narrative... Some blame? Maybe a very small part of the hot/dry weather, but this is hardly provable. LA is a hot dry and windy place this time of year and always has been in our recorded history.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody keeps you from giving us a better explanation for the increasing number and severity of natural disasters.
We're waiting.
Because... We put fires out and restrict landscaping practices that would otherwise reduce the available fuel so when fires do happen, they are more intense and do more damage than they used to.
We discovered this in the nation's national forests. Where for decades we kept putting out fires, even small ones, that naturally cleared out the brush and growth on the ground. This brush grew bigger, creating huge fuel loads that was getting stacked up at the base of mature trees. Finally, a uncontrollable fire would happen and because of all the fuel that collected would burn hotter and faster. Where the mature trees used to survive the smaller more frequent fires, the less frequent hotter fires was enough to kill them. The solution was to either clear the brush manually, or let the fires burn more often.
In LA, the issue is not that fires happen more often, but that they happen LESS often and more fuel piles up. Then when the hot/dry conditions come on those windy days then the whole mess of kindling will be impossible to put out, burn hotter, faster and more deeply. Then like idiots, we build houses next to all this and try to make excuses for why we cannot keep them from burring down every so often.
Yea, man caused this mess, but not the way you think.
Re:The priesthood has spoken (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of the fire problem has to do with the sorts of people moving onto the land. In the past, land like this would probably have been used as ranch land. And the people responsible for it would have allowed fires to burn through it occasionally. Now, it's the hipsters. And just look at all that beautiful desert scrub growing right up to my back door!
We have the same problem (to a lesser degree due to rainfall) where I live. We used to clear brush annually and burn it. But now the eco-whackos have put a stop to that. So be prepared for a ten year cycle of fire ripping through the canyon, burning all your houses to the ground.
I think the problem (Score:2)
From what I can tell the funding to do that got slashed. Budget Cuts. The funding to put out the small fires did not get slashed. And eventually you get one of these disasters. As for building houses, that's life. People need a place to live and work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe, just maybe that the idea of building large cities in places where they can't be supported is a good reason the rest of the country looks at good ol' Cali funny.
Yeah, like those folks who live on the eastern seaboard in the path of hurricanes. What weirdos. That goes double for any floodland, including Arizona, of all places.
And how about those folks who build in areas prone to tornadoes? playing Russian Roulette, they are.
How about Las Vegas and much of the Southwest? Talk about settling where the land doesn't support it.
This doesn't even go into states in this country without enough industry where they have to rely on tax dollars that come from other states to su
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to Shogun37's good mannered response. I might have to wait a while, lol. Good response anyhow Rakarra.
Re: The priesthood has spoken (Score:3)
What the fuck are you talking about? The SoCal fire departments stopping fires prematurely, thus allowing brush/fuel to accumulate, is the fucking cause of this fire. I am a SoCal resident. It is literally a hot-bed issue here.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider yourselves lucky he couldn't find a way to jam the word 'egregious' into it, or he would've.
Re: (Score:3)
If you bothered to at least google the matter instead of just making a cynical comment, you'd learn that you can actually find something like this in the soil.
What do you base your doubt on? Gut feeling or something substantial?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, was just trying to use terms you'd grasp.
Basically it's a little like the strata in rock that differentiate the various geologic times, just on a much smaller scale and, depending on the location, it can be harder to gain a level of fidelity comparable to it, at least if you don't have enough core samples. Since it is (usually) no big deal to get such samples, the accuracy can actually be increased considerably. Obviously the whole process is more accurate in areas that do not suffer from too much hu
Re: (Score:2)
That's why having a meaningful sample of cores is crucial.
Re: (Score:2)
https://cdn.uanews.arizona.edu... [arizona.edu]
Please, try not to be so retarded....
Re: (Score:3)
I guess "Santa Ana winds" was too pedestrian for the author. Warm, dry air driven by big high pressure areas over the desert. You could set your watch (well, your calendar anyway) by their arrival each year.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hope they're enjoying their warm weather. You have to take the good with the bad. Didn't the U.S. steal it from the Indians or Mexicans anyways? Bad karma?
Best thing that ever happen to the land if you've ever seen Mexico. If we could go back in time we should have just absorbed Mexico. We'd have a smaller border to defend and the Mexicans would already be integrated and English speaking. It would save everyone a lot of trouble in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope they're enjoying their warm weather. You have to take the good with the bad. Didn't the U.S. steal it from the Indians or Mexicans anyways? Bad karma?
Best thing that ever happen to the land if you've ever seen Mexico. If we could go back in time we should have just absorbed Mexico. We'd have a smaller border to defend and the Mexicans would already be integrated and English speaking. It would save everyone a lot of trouble in the long run.
We actually took all of Mexico during the Mexican-American War which started over the disputed border after Texas came into the union. What amazes me is that we gave back to Mexico everything we took except the part which was in dispute. We could have kept the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope they're enjoying their warm weather. You have to take the good with the bad. Didn't the U.S. steal it from the Indians or Mexicans anyways? Bad karma?
Pretty much all US land was stolen from the Indians (though not always by the US), California included. The state rebelled and was a (very very) short-lived independent republic, but Mexico was not able to take it back since they were distracted by the Mexican-American war. California was included anyway in the peace treaty.
Re: (Score:2)