Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#11

Post by hedora »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

I really don't understand why something that is presumed preventable with little investment is allowed to continue happening. What's worse is the water shortage is what I don't understand. It's a state literally bordering the ocean. That graph is impressive, and really shocking how much land these fires are just taking.

There are two issues. For thousands of years, indigenous people maintained the forest and small fires cleaned out the underbrush. The US halted maintenance, and suppressed fires, creating a backlog of fuel.

The second issue is global warming.

If you have any ideas on how to get the manpower necessary to perform 100+ years of backlogged forest maintenance spanning the entire west coast, or (better) how to fix global warming, I’d love to hear it.

Also, desalination at the scale necessary to meet California’s demands is beyond current technology (especially if it’s done without destroying the ocean ecosystem). Note that the central valley relies on irrigation, and is the bread basket of the US.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#12

Post by defrost »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #7
giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

I really don't understand why something that is presumed preventable with little investment is allowed to continue happening. What's worse is the water shortage is what I don't understand. It's a state literally bordering the ocean. That graph is impressive, and really shocking how much land these fires are just taking.

Who's presuming it's preventable? What little investment do you suggest California make? Probably slow controlled burns would be helpful in reducing potential fuel, but who's going to perform controlled burns over the entirety of all the hills surrounding LA ?

I cannot answer the "who" but here in a region with similar vegetation and fire risk we don't cool burn the entirety, we stagger mosaic burns that break up the fire risk area into patches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKsLRNbczJY

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#15

Post by lazide »

defrost wrote: post #12
jazzyjackson wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's presuming it's preventable? What little investment do you suggest California make? Probably slow controlled burns would be helpful in reducing potential fuel, but who's going to perform controlled burns over the entirety of all the hills surrounding LA ?

I cannot answer the "who" but here in a region with similar vegetation and fire risk we don't cool burn the entirety, we stagger mosaic burns that break up the fire risk area into patches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKsLRNbczJY

When I last talked to USFS folks, one big issue is complaints and even legal action from folks about smoke when they do burn. It’s a lose/lose situation for them.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#16

Post by mackid »

xingyzt wrote: post #13
mackid wrote: post #4

Thanks for sharing. Do you work with the folks at Watch Duty?

No, just a student on winter break who got curious why CA Fire's map wasn't showing the up-to-date extent of the Eaton fire. Do they have this kind of heat data?

They integrate a number of sources. Satellite, cameras, weather, CalFire, etc. Check out their app, it’s free. They are a non-profit Startup, which is an interesting approach.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#17

Post by defrost »

lazide wrote: post #15
defrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot answer the "who" but here in a region with similar vegetation and fire risk we don't cool burn the entirety, we stagger mosaic burns that break up the fire risk area into patches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKsLRNbczJY

When I last talked to USFS folks, one big issue is complaints and even legal action from folks about smoke when they do burn. It’s a lose/lose situation for them.

That and insurance no doubt.

What's needed is the reeducation of the NIMBY crowd .. I live in a state where many local community members are motivated to egage with local volunteer bush fire services and cool burning is less of an issue.

As the urbanisation and luxury housing increases the resistance to "inconveniance" seems to also climb.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#18

Post by the_third_wave »

7e wrote: post #9
block_dagger wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildfires in California date back millions of years and are a natural part of the region's ecology. The difference in recent centuries has been dense human habitation. I think your statement about presumed prevention is inaccurate or misleading.

Another difference is a steady increase in the world temperature due to climate change.

That is nonsense, the climate has been changing all the time without the place burning down to the roots when it happened to be a bit warmer or not burning at all when it was cooler. These fires have nothing to do with 'climate change', they are caused by the lack of controlled burning which leads to an accumulation of combustible material on the forest floor. Once a fire starts - and fires start all the time, both from natural (lightning etc.) as well as man-made (PG&E cables, careless campers, smokers, fireworks, arson, etc.) causes - they quickly bloom into massive conflagrations due to the presence of all that combustible material. Increased habitation makes these massive fires more costly since fire consumes a McMansion just as readily as it does a Pacific pine.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#19

Post by notatoad »

mzs wrote: post #5

Nice, thanks but did you know about NASA FIRMS? https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:24hrs;@-117.8,34...

FIRMS is very cool, but take it with a grain of salt - we were all looking at it obsessively while Jasper AB burned this summer, and apparently it has issues with differentiating between fire on the ground and fire in the smoke clouds, so it can make the fire boundary look bigger than it actually is.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#20

Post by polotics »

the_third_wave wrote: post #18
7e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another difference is a steady increase in the world temperature due to climate change.

That is nonsense, the climate has been changing all the time without the place burning down to the roots when it happened to be a bit warmer or not burning at all when it was cooler. These fires have nothing to do with 'climate change', they are caused by the lack of controlled burning which leads to an accumulation of combustible material on the forest floor. Once a fire starts - and fires start all the time, both f…

You wrote "the climate has been changing all the time" It must have taken you so much effort and thinking to come up with such an illuminating, novel, and profound assertion.

Here is something of that ilk:

The statement "the climate has been changing all the time" is often used to downplay the significance of current climate change. While it's true that Earth's climate has undergone natural changes throughout its history, the current warming trend is different for several reasons:

Rate of Change: The current rate of warming is unprecedented in the past several thousand years. Natural climate fluctuations typically occur over much longer timescales, allowing ecosystems and species to adapt gradually. The rapid pace of current change is making it difficult for many species to keep up, leading to disruptions in ecosystems and biodiversity loss.

Cause of Change: While past climate change events were triggered by natural factors like volcanic eruptions or solar variations, the current warming trend is primarily driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. This has led to a significant increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, trapping heat and warming the planet.

Magnitude of Change: The projected magnitude of future warming, if left unchecked, is likely to exceed the changes experienced during the past several million years. This could have severe consequences for human societies and natural ecosystems, including rising sea levels, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and widespread species extinctions.

Evidence: The overwhelming scientific consensus supports the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of current climate change. This is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple independent lines of research, including temperature records, ice core data, and climate models.

In summary, while the Earth's climate has naturally changed over long periods, the current warming trend is distinct in its rate, cause, magnitude, and supporting evidence. It is crucial to recognize the unique nature of human-induced climate change and take action to mitigate its impacts.

Post reply on HN