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

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#21

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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 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.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#22

Post by thangalin »

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…

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202...

'California has experienced increasingly severe autumn wildfires over the past several decades, which have exacted a rising human and environmental toll. Recent fire and climate science research has demonstrated a clear link between worsening California wildfires and climate change, mainly though the vegetation-drying effect of rising temperatures and shifting precipitation seasonality.'

https://weatherwest.com/

'Thus, the wildfire risk across much of SoCal will be even greater than the sum of its parts (i.e., the strong winds or dry fuels individually). This is an increasingly prominent concern, as has been previously discussed, with increasing overlap between “offshore wind season” and “critically dry vegetation season” in California---and is something that is expected to happen more often with climate change (especially in Southern California).'

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#23

Post by wtcactus »

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 ?

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 way of doing that (and raise meat for human consumption) in Southern Europe, was to have goats, lots of goats, eating up all that combustible mass and transforming it into meat and "natural fertilizer".

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#24

Post by lazide »

defrost wrote: post #17
lazide wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt very much it’s a matter of lack of knowledge/education.

Rather various degrees of ‘fuck you, I got mine’ and ‘it won’t happen to me because I’m special’. Which, often, is true enough they can keep doing it until they die, at which point they ‘win’.

Sometimes though, either something happens and they ‘don’t have theirs’ anymore, or it becomes too clear it will happen to them - and some action occurs. Usually too late for it to be an easy or smooth change, of course.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#25

Post by calgoo »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #21
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…

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

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#27

Post by xingyzt »

pixelesque wrote: post #14
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...

Interesting that FIRMS doesn't seem to yet be showing the "Sunset" fire, or anything West of Griffith Park...

Maybe because FIRMS uses data from satellites in polar orbits, which only pass over the area once every few hours? With choosing near-Earth polar vs. farther geostationary orbits there's a tradeoff between space and time resolution.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#28

Post by keraf »

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?

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.

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#29

Post by tikkun »

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]?

Re: Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis

#30

Post by aa-jv »

block_dagger wrote: post #6
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.

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....
Post reply on HN