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

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#51

Post by lostlogin »

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…

The climate has been changing a long time. I’m a big fan of the XKCD about it.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#52

Post by lazyeye »

hedora wrote: post #11
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 w…

You missed the third issue which was utterly incompetent management from the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, and the governer of California, Gavin Newsom.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#53

Post by lazyeye »

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…

Side question, is goat poop flammable?

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#54

Post by alienthrowaway »

keraf wrote: post #28
dbetteridge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder why the whole central band of Africa is just covered in fires, households? deforestation?

A sibling comment mentioned that it can detect smoke, so my guess is waste disposal, aka burning trash in your backyard. Some can produce quite a lot of smoke. I did a private pilot license in Africa, the biggest "plus" was that I always knew the direction of the wind on the ground by looking at all these fires. There was never a time when I didn't see smoke unless I was flying in very remote areas.

Why did you assume they are burning trash instead of log fires? What was the primary fuel for cooking and heating for poor people in the part of Africa you got your PPL?

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#55

Post by alienthrowaway »

dbetteridge wrote: post #26
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...

Wonder why the whole central band of Africa is just covered in fires, households? deforestation?

If you look at all the green, you'll notice the fires are in the equatorial rainforest that runs along the equator. Fire is a quick, non-mechanical way to clear land of vegetation for farming or other uses.

Additionally, in a rainforest, wood is a cheap and easily available source of fuel for day to day household energy needs in areas that are rural, remote and with no electrical services.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#56

Post by shwaj »

francisofascii wrote: post #39
hedora wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> manpower necessary to perform 100+ years of backlogged forest maintenance spanning the entire west coast Curious what is involved with this. If indigenous people could do it, why couldn't a larger population with superior tech do it? Sounds like a worthwhile venture. Even if it costs a fortune it might be better than rebuilding LA every 30-50 years.

It’s unfortunate that Claude can’t provide references, but it plausibly suggests that the indigenous population actively managed forests in a radius around their population centers, not the entire land area. So the current larger population doesn’t make the task easier, since the size of the task scales with the population size. Superior technology should certainly make it easier, though. Probably a matter of lack of political will, and bureaucratic inefficiency.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#57

Post by shwaj »

calgoo wrote: post #25
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.

So yes, you can put out fires with salt water but its bad for any equipment that is currently being used * and it hurts the future plant life (salting the earth is an old method of hurting your enemies * ). * https://firefighterinsider.com/can-you-put-out-a-fire-with-s... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth

I love how you respond seriously to the logistical challenges of salt water, and don’t blink at the prospect of using nukes to create a tidal wave.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#58

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

calgoo wrote: post #25
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.

So yes, you can put out fires with salt water but its bad for any equipment that is currently being used * and it hurts the future plant life (salting the earth is an old method of hurting your enemies * ). * https://firefighterinsider.com/can-you-put-out-a-fire-with-s... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth

While we’re speaking about future plant life, it isn’t necessarily looking particularly good.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#59

Post by gamblor956 »

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?

The authorities already do the type of broad analysis you're suggesting. That's how they generate the evacuation maps.

If you mean a more specific analysis: there's no way to do that with a level of detail or accuracy that would be relevant to individual decision-making. There are simply too many variables in the air, in the fuel, and even in the fire itself.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#60

Post by gamblor956 »

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.

1) There wasn't a water shortage. The local reservoirs were full at the start of the fire. The problem was that there was so much simultaneous demand that there was insufficient water pressure. This was compounded by the destruction of pumping stations by the fire, and by the extreme winds preventing the use of aerial support (i.e., water and fire retardant) on Tuesday, when most of the Palisades were burned.

2) Salt water is highly corrosive to equipment, and also kills vegetation. But it used as a last resort when fresh water reservoirs are empty...and was used in previous Malibu fires...

3) For an example of how important aerial support is: the Sunset Fire and the Mt Wilson flameup of the Eaton fire were controlled within an hour each through the use of aerial water drops.

Post reply on HN