Major Wildfire causes large evacuations in SoCal.

[Alanis Star]

Sounds like this fire is acts like some people in Congress

"I'm creating jobs! The construction industry is gonna be YUUUUGE when I'm done here!"
This is bad and I should feel bad joking about this when tons of people have lost their homes. But damnit, humor is a coping mechanism!

I really love this, but not sure if I should put in my Quotebook. Yeah, people lost their homes and it's quite bad for everyone, but you know, comedy is tragedy plus time... Maybe I will wait a month or so, lest it's too soon!

[Major-Tom]

At least save the weed farms...

Amen.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

No forest fires, you say?

I'd call Hurricane Harvey a little more than "residual clouds from dying hurricanes" too.

Personally, I'd be all for just finding some other means to control mudslides rather than leaving that ultra-flammable California vegetation intact, but there's no sense pretending there's any way to completely avoid all natural disasters.

We had so many forest fires in the last year or so in weird ass places and bad ones recently...

It's almost as if climate change leaves every place vulnerable.

[Ransium]

I mock California and we have always joked, non-stop, about "Californication" sliding into the sea, but we only do so in jest. I would never wish an innocent man to have their house burnt down, or to lose their lives and loved ones, or to suffer, regardless of their sins, sexual impurity, or their political leanings.
They are our fellow Americans and, in this time of need, I believe it is imperative that we at least appeal to God for deliverance, if not actually donate.

I've been praying for California for weeks, if not months, now. The heroism and patriotism of the firemen engaged in this blaze, risking it all, is something that everyone should reflect on this Christmas.

As for why the fires are this way, I personally believe that the radical environmentalists and tree-huggers have impeded the National Forest Service's ability to set controlled fires and clear out brush. As noted here, the solution is greater than just logging the trees (although that can help in terms of dead and bug-infested trees), but actual work on the ground and undergrowth as well. This "forest thinning" is critical in removing dead wood and leftover crap from the natural progression of forests. Remember, some fire is healthy for trees: Smokey the Bear says "only you can prevent wildfires" for a reason.

Buildup of dead trees and excess trees due to benign neglect is a fire hazard. Sustainable, precise, quota-limited logging in National Forest Service Zones of excess or dead trees (etc.) would provide revenue for the Treasury and create jobs without decreasing the forests' occupancy of the land or damaging the habitat. In addition, this would not require clear-cutting or raising timber stands. Logging could be done on a case-by-case, acre-by-acre situation, relying on careful analysis by Forest Servicemen. As I said, there's more to it than logging. Thinning out undergrowth, brush and grasses, dead material and plant matter, and so on, will also be necessary.

Of course, some leftists propose the option to not build in the middle of forests, but I think that's stupid.

This literally has nothing to do with the Thomas Fire as it is almost entirely occurring over chaparral.

Even the Sierras most of the fuels that contribute to fire aren’t really merchantable timber. If you want to actually reduce fuels it’s going to cost money. It’s far more complex than ‘the Forest Service could be doing so much if it weren’t for those lefty environmentalists’.

Beyond that, while I think fuels are a part of the problem that's driving fires to be bigger and more severe, most studies have concluded the driving factor behind this is climate, not fuels. See

Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., & Swetnam, T. W. (2006). Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. science, 313(5789), 940-943.

for an often cited example.

So I don't disagree with you that more thinning and even commercial could be helpful ecologically, to say that it's the single solution to this problem is disingenuous and to say that 'leftist' are resisting the thinning oversimplifies things. I also completely disagree that not building in the middle of forest is stupid. No matter what there's going to be wildfire, and if there's wildfire and houses are involved the expense of fighting the fire is going to increase by an order of magnitude. That would be something I think folks who want a leaner more efficient government would care about. I think trying to fit this on a left or right ideological scale misses the complexity of things.

[Reploid Productions]

December 18 fire map of the Thomas fire. Interesting to see the current blaze's perimeter superimposed alongside the fire scars from the past several years of fires in the region and see where the thinner fuel has helped slow the fire's growth. Especially the Tea and Jesusita scars on the western flank, the Zaca on the north, and the Day over on the eastern side.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

So I don't disagree with you that more thinning and even commercial could be helpful ecologically, to say that it's the single solution to this problem is disingenuous and to say that 'leftist' are resisting the thinning oversimplifies things. I also completely disagree that not building in the middle of forest is stupid. No matter what there's going to be wildfire, and if there's wildfire and houses are involved the expense of fighting the fire is going to increase by an order of magnitude. That would be something I think folks who want a leaner more efficient government would care about. I think trying to fit this on a left or right ideological scale misses the complexity of things.

I wasn't trying to dilute this into a left-right conundrum, but I ended up doing so because of the tree huggers intervening.
I do believe that the environmentalists resist thinning of the undergrowth and strategic logging, among other sustainable forestry measures, are the primary reason we have such massive fires. You can't blame every natural disaster on MUH CLIMATE CHANGE, as much as you wish you could, any more than I can assert that the environmentalists are obstructing a silver bullet. The big issue with wildfires, in terms of climate and weather, has to be the fierce Santa Anna Winds, alongside drought. The Santa Anna Winds blow embers and the like extraordinary distances, bypassing the control fires and barriers that firemen erect to contain the flames.
(IIRC, though, the Thomas Fire was caused by an accidental human action: a homeless man's campfire jumped and ignited.)

I said that it was stupid to stifle human development because of forest fires. We should be taking action at minimal cost of human luxuries. That said, much like abstinence is one hundred percent effective in preventing STDs, not building next to a fire zone is one hundred percent effective in preventing your house burning down.

I don't usually advocate for more govenrment spending, but I think we should be expanding the numbers of Forest Service firemen and equipment.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

December 18 fire map of the Thomas fire. Interesting to see the current blaze's perimeter superimposed alongside the fire scars from the past several years of fires in the region and see where the thinner fuel has helped slow the fire's growth. Especially the Tea and Jesusita scars on the western flank, the Zaca on the north, and the Day over on the eastern side.

Reploid, do you believe these maps indicate that the fire will be contained soon?

[Reploid Productions]

December 18 fire map of the Thomas fire. Interesting to see the current blaze's perimeter superimposed alongside the fire scars from the past several years of fires in the region and see where the thinner fuel has helped slow the fire's growth. Especially the Tea and Jesusita scars on the western flank, the Zaca on the north, and the Day over on the eastern side.

Reploid, do you believe these maps indicate that the fire will be contained soon?

Not bloody likely. Containment at last check was still only 55%, and SoCal only has a temporary break in the weather before the Santa Anas kick back up. That will tank the humidity yet again and fan the existing flames, along with potentially re-igniting areas previously thought extinguished. This next blast of wind isn't predicted to be nearly as strong as the one that set half of SoCal on fire in the first place more than a week ago at least. InciWeb's data currently has an ETA for full containment a week into January.

From the map I linked earlier, my guess is crews are going to be focusing most of their equipment and manpower on the westernmost and easternmost flanks of the fire, try to get it stalled out and contained in areas where human lives and structures are most at risk in Santa Barbara and the Fillmore areas. I suspect they'll end up doing much like they had to for the Day fire, and just let it burn where it's out in the middle of the howling wilderness in the mountains. From the map they've already got multiple completed bulldozed firebreaks across the northern side of the fireline already, they may have to just let it burn itself out in those areas since they're not really populated regions. Or at least put those areas on a lower priority over the populated areas along the western and eastern flanks.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

So I don't disagree with you that more thinning and even commercial could be helpful ecologically, to say that it's the single solution to this problem is disingenuous and to say that 'leftist' are resisting the thinning oversimplifies things. I also completely disagree that not building in the middle of forest is stupid. No matter what there's going to be wildfire, and if there's wildfire and houses are involved the expense of fighting the fire is going to increase by an order of magnitude. That would be something I think folks who want a leaner more efficient government would care about. I think trying to fit this on a left or right ideological scale misses the complexity of things.

I wasn't trying to dilute this into a left-right conundrum, but I ended up doing so because of the tree huggers intervening.
I do believe that the environmentalists resist thinning of the undergrowth and strategic logging, among other sustainable forestry measures, are the primary reason we have such massive fires. You can't blame every natural disaster on MUH CLIMATE CHANGE, as much as you wish you could, any more than I can assert that the environmentalists are obstructing a silver bullet. The big issue with wildfires, in terms of climate and weather, has to be the fierce Santa Anna Winds, alongside drought. The Santa Anna Winds blow embers and the like extraordinary distances, bypassing the control fires and barriers that firemen erect to contain the flames.
(IIRC, though, the Thomas Fire was caused by an accidental human action: a homeless man's campfire jumped and ignited.)

I said that it was stupid to stifle human development because of forest fires. We should be taking action at minimal cost of human luxuries. That said, much like abstinence is one hundred percent effective in preventing STDs, not building next to a fire zone is one hundred percent effective in preventing your house burning down.

I don't usually advocate for more govenrment spending, but I think we should be expanding the numbers of Forest Service firemen and equipment.

Well I'm an environmentalist who sees the value of selective logging and deferring to experts who actually know a thing or two about resource conservation and sustainable forestry. Obviously there's going to be drought and heat waves every year, but it's hard to deny that climate change has increased the probability that more severe extreme weather events will occur, when people's homes are being burnt down or flooded left and right.

[Ransium]

I wasn't trying to dilute this into a left-right conundrum, but I ended up doing so because of the tree huggers intervening.

That's your opinion, in particular in associating 'tree huggers' uniformly with the 'left'. It does not jive with my personal experience. Lots of people on the left support thinning, forest management, etc. Some even work as foresters for the US Forest Service. Lots (but not all) environmental interest groups support US Forest Service thinning projects. Lawsuits from environmental groups are a barrier for more thinning projects, but in my experience, the greater barrier is insufficient funding for all things associated with doing those projects correctly, planning, implementation, contract oversight, etc.

I do believe that the environmentalists resist thinning of the undergrowth and strategic logging, among other sustainable forestry measures, are the primary reason we have such massive fires. You can't blame every natural disaster on MUH CLIMATE CHANGE, as much as you wish you could, any more than I can assert that the environmentalists are obstructing a silver bullet.

I didn't (and don't wish I could) blame every natural disaster on climate change. I think sustainable Forest measures are helpful in reducing fire behavior. But it's probably third on the list of things that will reduce massive fires, behind climate change and preventing humans from setting ill-timed fires. I hate the snootiness of citing a peer-reviewed study, but my point in doing so is that my opinion isn't just based on me, but rather based on lots of peer-review studies. Westerling el al. specifically looks into whether fuels are instead the primary driver behind increased fire behavior and dismiss it. Besides, as I said in my first post, the Thomas fire is not occurring in a forested environment, it is occurring in chapparal where what your advocating doesn't even apply.

The big issue with wildfires, in terms of climate and weather, has to be the fierce Santa Anna Winds, alongside drought. The Santa Anna Winds blow embers and the like extraordinary distances, bypassing the control fires and barriers that firemen erect to contain the flames.
(IIRC, though, the Thomas Fire was caused by an accidental human action: a homeless man's campfire jumped and ignited.)

Sure, wind is certainly one of the primary drivers behind fire spread. But for the Thomas fire, the bigger problem is it hasn't really rained yet. Usually, there would be several inches of precipitation so fuels wouldn't be bone-dry in mid-December. Obviously, neither of us can say whether this is due to climate change, the strong La Nina right now, or something else entirely. But periods of increased extreme precipitation variability (included prolonged drought) are modeled to be associated with climate change in California (and across the world). This isn't just my opinion but the results of peer-reviewed science, which I can happily post supporting citations for if you're curious.

I don't usually advocate for more govenrment spending, but I think we should be expanding the numbers of Forest Service firemen and equipment.

Just a note, the number Forest Service firemen are already expanding quite a bit and, in fact, consuming the budget for sustainable forestry activities which you have been advocating elsewhere. What you really want is an increased budget for Forest Service foresters to implement thinning and forest health projects, and we are very much in agreement on that.

[The Black Forrest]

December 18 fire map of the Thomas fire. Interesting to see the current blaze's perimeter superimposed alongside the fire scars from the past several years of fires in the region and see where the thinner fuel has helped slow the fire's growth. Especially the Tea and Jesusita scars on the western flank, the Zaca on the north, and the Day over on the eastern side.

Reploid, do you believe these maps indicate that the fire will be contained soon?

Not likely. They just called up a friend who is a "smoke jumper" he just finished with the fires in the North and his wife said he pretty much has battle fatigue.

[Corrian]

I am by all definitions an environmentalist and I don't entirely see a problem with thinning things out for safety reasons. What I don't approve of at all is clear cutting entire freaking hillsides. Selective logging or just some management to keep things from going too crazy seems reasonable to me.

[The Black Forrest]

I am by all definitions an environmentalist and I don't entirely see a problem with thinning things out for safety reasons. What I don't approve of at all is clear cutting entire freaking hillsides. Selective logging or just some management to keep things from going too crazy seems reasonable to me.

Don't forget a dead tree is a gold mine to the wildlife.....

[Reploid Productions]

Reploid, do you believe these maps indicate that the fire will be contained soon?

Not likely. They just called up a friend who is a "smoke jumper" he just finished with the fires in the North and his wife said he pretty much has battle fatigue.

Oh yikes, the smoke jumpers are a special kind of hardcore; them and the hotshots. My late grandfather had some tales about his time on one of California's first formal hotshot crews in the 40s. Can't say I'm surprised about fatigue either. I mean, when you look at the personnel and resource demands on a big fire, it's functionally on par with a military operation- fire crews are working their asses off out there.