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

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#41

Post by edmundsauto »

wtcactus wrote: post #23
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 ?

This might seem far-fetched, but I wonder if all the money used for reactive actions to the fires and the billions lost during those, couldn't instead heavily subsidize a goat grazing industry at large scale. Keeping the forest clean of combustible materials is the only real preventive solution, but that's almost impossible to do by humans (besides lots of issues with depletion of soils if done incorrectly). The old…

This is the best hacker comment on the thread. Trying to find innovative solutions to a big problem. Thank you!

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#42

Post by theultdev »

aa-jv wrote: post #30
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.

The previous inhabitants knew all about these firestorms and used controlled burning to minimize their impact. Its probably going to be wise for future governors to consider re-learning this knowledge....

No need to look back that far.

They know to do use control burns, we've been doing it.

It's forest management 101.

But they get sued by environmentalists when they do.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#43

Post by lazide »

tikkun wrote: post #29

Another fire project idea: show, based on some kind of prediction model that gives 50th, 90th, 99th percentiles (from historical data, perhaps, or perhaps just from wind/fire speeds), how fast a given fire could reach a specific location. Whenever I've opened watch duty, that's always the question I'm asking. How long might it take to reach [here/there]?

It’s a very dangerous answer to try to give someone, because of how unpredictable and dangerous a wildfire is. Sudden shifts in winds and can have the flames jump (literally) miles in minutes, after sitting calmly for hours.

It isn’t theoretical either - it kills professionals too. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canyon_Fire], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude_fire] for a few examples.

Long story short - never turn your back on a wildfire, and try to stay as far away as possible.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#44

Post by polotics »

vixen99 wrote: post #34
polotics wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 his…

Your comment comes across as markedly authoritative. Are you a climate scientist with first hand knowledge? You appear to be repeating what we all read in countless reports almost daily from innumerable organizations and have done over the past few years. I'm pretty sure like many here I could probably offer an impromptu talk like this at the drop of a hat, covering the same points. I do wonder why we accept the repo…

Hello vixen99

You wrote "You appear to be repeating what we all blah blah" and guess what, the poster I responded to started it :-)

A weak point of zero value like "weather has been changing all the time" deserves absolutely no more effort than the response I gave, what do you think? Anyone with an ouce of honesty and self-respect and care for the future would know by now that such a statement is completely worthless with 100% certainty.

And the so-called skeptics have been shown to be demonstrably wrong in their selection of data and their interpretations many many times, they just choose to ignore the evidence and to lie and lie and repeat. There are whole websites like realclimate that go through absolutely everything that's been ponied up by now.

And finally, full disclaimer but I thought my post was clear enough about that: except for the intro, all the points were pasted straight out of ChatGPT! No one has to accept the worn-out intellectual denial-of-service attack of climate trolls now, demanding exhausting pure sweet clear responses as response to half-baked brain farts. Like I said: low-effort on troll's part, low-effort on responder. Is fair.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#45

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

Mistletoe wrote: post #31
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can extinguish a fire with salt water. Connect the sewage / storm water system to a few massive pumps and back flush everything. Set off a few nukes in the bay to cause a tidal wave. I’m no civil engineer / hydrologished, so there’s probably issues with my drive-by dismissal of a serious issue.

This is the most HN comment ever.

Aww thanks, you’re making me blush.

But I think the honorific goes to the Dropbox dismissal.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#46

Post by tikkun »

lazide wrote: post #43
tikkun wrote: post #29

Another fire project idea: show, based on some kind of prediction model that gives 50th, 90th, 99th percentiles (from historical data, perhaps, or perhaps just from wind/fire speeds), how fast a given fire could reach a specific location. Whenever I've opened watch duty, that's always the question I'm asking. How long might it take to reach [here/there]?

It’s a very dangerous answer to try to give someone, because of how unpredictable and dangerous a wildfire is. Sudden shifts in winds and can have the flames jump (literally) miles in minutes, after sitting calmly for hours. It isn’t theoretical either - it kills professionals too. [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire ], [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canyon_Fire ], [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…

Right, they seem highly volatile/variable. The thinking is that showing the 99th percentile / range of possibilities would cover that, if it's based on historical data - does that seem right to you or no, and if not why not?

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#47

Post by lazide »

tikkun wrote: post #46
lazide wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a very dangerous answer to try to give someone, because of how unpredictable and dangerous a wildfire is. Sudden shifts in winds and can have the flames jump (literally) miles in minutes, after sitting calmly for hours. It isn’t theoretical either - it kills professionals too. [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire ], [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canyon_Fire ], [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/…

Right, they seem highly volatile/variable. The thinking is that showing the 99th percentile / range of possibilities would cover that, if it's based on historical data - does that seem right to you or no, and if not why not?

It would be like if someone you never met came up to you and held a revolver to your head, and told you they were going to play Russian roulette.

If they told you the 99% percentile odds of the next trigger pull, would it be okay to stay if you thought you liked the odds?

And if you were silly enough to believe him, who would be to blame if he was wrong?

Oh, here are some more [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarnell_Hill_Fire]. Oh and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Griffith_Park_fire]. And [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Fire_of_1937]

There is a reason why firefighters are considered to be one of the most heroic professionals.

And some more (not all related to wildfires though) [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_deadliest_firefi...]

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#48

Post by mzs »

xingyzt wrote: post #10
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...

No, looks like they're doing a way better job! Thanks for sharing. I was only aware of the GOES sats. Seems like VIIRS is more intended to do this kind of monitoring.

I still like what you did on break. FWIW GEOS provides Fire Temperature: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/sector_band.php?sat=G1...

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#49

Post by pancakemouse »

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.

> preventable

Preventable via multiple methods, you've been downvoted presumably for seeming insensitivity, but it seems a valid question. Water is plentiful, it's a rich area. This stuff can be prevented. Why wasn't it?

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#50

Post by lostlogin »

lazide wrote: post #47
tikkun wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, they seem highly volatile/variable. The thinking is that showing the 99th percentile / range of possibilities would cover that, if it's based on historical data - does that seem right to you or no, and if not why not?

It would be like if someone you never met came up to you and held a revolver to your head, and told you they were going to play Russian roulette. If they told you the 99% percentile odds of the next trigger pull, would it be okay to stay if you thought you liked the odds? And if you were silly enough to believe him, who would be to blame if he was wrong? Oh, here are some more [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarnel…

Prisoners one day, hero firefighters earning a dollar an hour the next.

https://www.businessinsider.com/california-fire-inmate-firef...

Post reply on HN