https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46230927

Jesus Christ there can't possibly be that many dead can there ? Is it possible many fled and in the chaos haven't been found and accounted for by the authorities ?

alberchico wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46230927

Jesus Christ there can't possibly be that many dead can there ? Is it possible many fled and in the chaos haven't been found and accounted for by the authorities ?

Apparently ~1000 people are officially missing. ( Need not be dead though.)

alberchico wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46230927

Jesus Christ there can't possibly be that many dead can there ? Is it possible many fled and in the chaos haven't been found and accounted for by the authorities ?

Some people simply left with zero thought about anything but their own lives. Some of these fires move just that quickly. With no cell phone or computer for internet, some are alive but just not able to communicate with anyone. Then, there are people who where out of town. The whole thing is a complete shock.

I was living in Santa Rosa when fire burned thousands of homes there. People were missing for weeks. Many were found alive in some other place. The number of missing is over 1000 but the death toll will not be that high.

salttee wrote:

The Sacramento Bee is running an article on the humanitarian crisis caused by the burning down of the town of Paradise.
What are these people going to do?

Refugee camps for fire survivors? Butte County on ‘edge’ of humanitarian crisis after Camp Fire
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/calif ... 94715.html

What will they do? Go back and rebuild. Long term, they will. Short term, the state of California has processes in place.

Missing and death toll counts are worrisome.

The country seems to be tone deaf to CA fires. Hope needy are getting the help they need and didn't get bundled with the elite and ignored.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Missing and death toll counts are worrisome.

The country seems to be tone deaf to CA fires. Hope needy are getting the help they need and didn't get bundled with the elite and ignored.

It's headline news, I assume people are talking about it. FEMA is involved, what do you want the rest of the country to do?

trpmb6 wrote:

Equal respect where equal respect is due.

Well, good news is that so far the visit by Trump to California's fire devastated areas is going well and smoothly. After an initial start in the wrong direction Trump has been doing the right and proper things for the situation. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has been helpful in how he has addressed the disaster.

I am hopeful for continued good things regarding this situation.

Live updates available here:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presid ... management

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Equal respect where equal respect is due.

Well, good news is that so far the visit by Trump to California's fire devastated areas is going well and smoothly. After an initial start in the wrong direction Trump has been doing the right and proper things for the situation. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has been helpful in how he has addressed the disaster.

I am hopeful for continued good things regarding this situation.

Live updates available here:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presid ... management

Tugg

It went fine until this skullduggery comment:

"We have to take care of the floors, the floors of the forest; it is very important. You look at other countries, they do it definitely and it is a whole different story. I was with the president of Finland and he said: we’re a forest nation. He called it a “forest nation.” And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem."

a. no forests in Woolsey fire in Socal
b. Paradise fire was not a treetop crown fire when it came into town and burned house to house
c. CalFire already does prevention activity
d. FINLAND HAS A SUBARCTIC CLIMATE FFS

Surely on the 5.5 hr flight to CA, someone discussed the basics of wildfires with 45? Ugh

Now the liberal news is consumed with the fires happened because of climate change .....Sigh. I am sure there is more to the story than that same tired old song. I am for a clean planet but politicians when they are for it you might find it is because they have a vested interest in it..Like Al Gore and his personal investments in solar panels and scolding us all the while flying around in his private jet and driving his big SUV. Spare me.

stratosphere wrote:

Now the liberal news is consumed with the fires happened because of climate change .....Sigh. I am sure there is more to the story than that same tired old song. I am for a clean planet but politicians when they are for it you might find it is because they have a vested interest in it..Like Al Gore and his personal investments in solar panels and scolding us all the while flying around in his private jet and driving his big SUV. Spare me.

I remember when I was a kid, winter was from mid-October to mid-April. We would get snow as late as early May. Rain would come, even in the dry parts east of the Cascades, all through the same time. Sure, it was blazing hot in June, July, and August. The cooling would come in September. Now, we don't get rain until November. Rain and, sometimes snow, ends in February or March. After centuries of the same weather patterns, don't tell me we humans are not responsible at all?

You literally lay ALL the blame on one guy, too. Well played, sir. You win. Lock the thread *eye roll*

stratosphere wrote:

Now the liberal news is consumed with the fires happened because of climate change .....Sigh. I am sure there is more to the story than that same tired old song. I am for a clean planet but politicians when they are for it you might find it is because they have a vested interest in it..Like Al Gore and his personal investments in solar panels and scolding us all the while flying around in his private jet and driving his big SUV. Spare me.

So what was that word salad? You don’t believe in climate change? Btw, there’s always more to the story but it seems not only irresponsible but unintelligent to discount climate change. And politicians have forever tainted your view of it? At least you didn’t say global warming - that’s always a good start.

Aaron747 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Equal respect where equal respect is due.

Well, good news is that so far the visit by Trump to California's fire devastated areas is going well and smoothly. After an initial start in the wrong direction Trump has been doing the right and proper things for the situation. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has been helpful in how he has addressed the disaster.

I am hopeful for continued good things regarding this situation.

Live updates available here:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presid ... management

Tugg

It went fine until this skullduggery comment:

"We have to take care of the floors, the floors of the forest; it is very important. You look at other countries, they do it definitely and it is a whole different story. I was with the president of Finland and he said: we’re a forest nation. He called it a “forest nation.” And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem."

a. no forests in Woolsey fire in Socal
b. Paradise fire was not a treetop crown fire when it came into town and burned house to house
c. CalFire already does prevention activity
d. FINLAND HAS A SUBARCTIC CLIMATE FFS

Surely on the 5.5 hr flight to CA, someone discussed the basics of wildfires with 45? Ugh

Finland doesn't have subarctic climate, only the northen (20%) part. Last summer season in the south we had +20 c average day temperature.

Trump used wrong words but the main thing is that in Finland forests are cleaned when trees are cut so there are nothing to burn easily. As far as I know that is not how it is done in California.

It doesn't matter what burns when it has what it needs.

In Finland the forest floor is taken care so we don't get forest fires. Whatever you call that burns is not important.

THS214 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Well, good news is that so far the visit by Trump to California's fire devastated areas is going well and smoothly. After an initial start in the wrong direction Trump has been doing the right and proper things for the situation. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has been helpful in how he has addressed the disaster.

I am hopeful for continued good things regarding this situation.

Live updates available here:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presid ... management

Tugg

It went fine until this skullduggery comment:

"We have to take care of the floors, the floors of the forest; it is very important. You look at other countries, they do it definitely and it is a whole different story. I was with the president of Finland and he said: we’re a forest nation. He called it a “forest nation.” And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem."

a. no forests in Woolsey fire in Socal
b. Paradise fire was not a treetop crown fire when it came into town and burned house to house
c. CalFire already does prevention activity
d. FINLAND HAS A SUBARCTIC CLIMATE FFS

Surely on the 5.5 hr flight to CA, someone discussed the basics of wildfires with 45? Ugh

Finland doesn't have subarctic climate, only the northen (20%) part. Last summer season in the south we had +20 c average day temperature.

Trump used wrong words but the main thing is that in Finland forests are cleaned when trees are cut so there are nothing to burn easily. As far as I know that is not how it is done in California.

It doesn't matter what burns when it has what it needs.

In Finland the forest floor is taken care so we don't get forest fires. Whatever you call that burns is not important.

You can opine as you like, the facts are quite different. Fact: officially the Finnish climate is mostly subarctic. Fact: Finland has lower temperatures and better water content than California. Fact: California's forests have different flora and ecology than Finland. Fact: comparing the two for 'management' of fires is illogical.

So what is California going to do NOW to prevent NEXT YEARS big fire? Because I can guarantee you that if people just foam and cry about it online, all the while sitting on their asses, NOTHING will change and we will have the same discussion in November 2019.

Oh, and cutting green house emission sounds good, but even that won't have an immediate impact. So let's hear some real ideas that can be implemented asap that have an immediate impact for next year.

Most if the people that foam and cry about it online are not from California, and know not about that which they speak.

Those of us who are from California (with the exception of one kook from Orange County) recognize the enormity of the problem and realize that the current practices of the Cal Dept of forestry and local (county) efforts are about all that can realistically be expected. Maybe effort can be stepped up a bit, but it's just not possible to eliminate the danger of wildfires in California.

Dieuwer wrote:

So what is California going to do NOW to prevent NEXT YEARS big fire? Because I can guarantee you that if people just foam and cry about it online, all the while sitting on their asses, NOTHING will change and we will have the same discussion in November 2019.

Oh, and cutting green house emission sounds good, but even that won't have an immediate impact. So let's hear some real ideas that can be implemented asap that have an immediate impact for next year.

Nothing that can be done now will have immediate impact for next year, other than increasing the resources available to Cal Fire. There's talk of having PG&E put utilities underground along major roads, but a. that will take years b. they'll have no way of funding it after the lawsuits are paid out from the Paradise fire

salttee wrote:

Most if the people that foam and cry about it online are not from California, and know not about that which they speak.

Those of us who are from California (with the exception of one kook from Orange County) recognize the enormity of the problem and realize that the current practices of the Cal Dept of forestry and local (county) efforts are about all that can realistically be expected. Maybe effort can be stepped up a bit, but it's just not possible to eliminate the danger of wildfires in California.

1. Had homes not been built in the fire-prone areas, we would not have talked about loss of life (or at least the number of casualties would have been less).

Aaron747 wrote:

Nothing that can be done now will have immediate impact for next year, other than increasing the resources available to Cal Fire. There's talk of having PG&E put utilities underground along major roads, but a. that will take years b. they'll have no way of funding it after the lawsuits are paid out from the Paradise fire

2. The US and California are one of the richest countries/states in the world. Surely they can find the money to start putting those cables underground.

The cables that present the greatest risk are the high voltage transmission lines. Realistically, cost wise, they can't be buried. California is earthquake territory anyway, if the ground shifts buried cables part. Overhead cables can take up or let out slack.

Buried cables are for the consumer end of the grid.

Dieuwer. you make strong statements on the subject, but do you actually know anything about electrical transmission?

I will give you a Dutch example how things are done.

Two decades ago, several main rivers in Holland were almost to overflow the country. Thousands of people had to be evacuated just in case. Fortunately, nothing bad happened but the Dutch took this as a warning.
As a result, the Dutch government spend tens of billions of euros to increase the height of dykes, deepening the rivers to allow more room for the rivers in case of high water, and designate farm land that would be set underwater as to save the more economically important areas. As part of this, a massive automated storm surge barrier ("Maeslantkering", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeslantkering) was designed and built just west of Rotterdam that would seal off the river from sea water in case of a storm surge. That barrier alone had a price tag of half billion euros. Nobody in Holland whined about the money. Not even those people who lived far away and would not get wet feet in any case.

So far in the US, I have only heard endless whining about money and a "can't do" attitude. Seriously, people. If you want anything to be done, you need to learn to cooperate and think for the greater good. And if that means you have to spend some money that doesn't benefit yourself immediately, you need to get over it.

Dieuwer wrote:

I will give you a Dutch example how things are done.

Two decades ago, several main rivers in Holland were almost to overflow the country. Thousands of people had to be evacuated just in case. Fortunately, nothing bad happened but the Dutch took this as a warning.
As a result, the Dutch government spend tens of billions of euros to increase the height of dykes, deepening the rivers to allow more room for the rivers in case of high water, and designate farm land that would be set underwater as to save the more economically important areas. As part of this, a massive automated storm surge barrier ("Maeslantkering", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeslantkering) was designed and built just west of Rotterdam that would seal off the river from sea water in case of a storm surge. That barrier alone had a price tag of half billion euros. Nobody in Holland whined about the money. Not even those people who lived far away and would not get wet feet in any case.

So far in the US, I have only heard endless whining about money and a "can't do" attitude. Seriously, people. If you want anything to be done, you need to learn to cooperate and think for the greater good. And if that means you have to spend some money that doesn't benefit yourself immediately, you need to get over it.

Your point is taken but far easier said than done. For instance, decisions to develop in fire-prone areas happened over many decades and nearly always as a local government handshake with real estate interests. Doing anything for public good in the US is difficult because land area is very large (unlike the Netherlands) and resources required are large. This puts public good in direct competition with the corporate interests that get the vast majority of government attention and protection. Remember: America's a place where a group of billionaires enjoys a market of 320 million people competing for whatever's leftover.

Folks just need to get together and listen to the president. It’s time to Rake America Great Again!

Dieuwer wrote:

I will give you a Dutch example how things are done.

Two decades ago, several main rivers in Holland were almost to overflow the country. Thousands of people had to be evacuated just in case. Fortunately, nothing bad happened but the Dutch took this as a warning.
As a result, the Dutch government spend tens of billions of euros to increase the height of dykes, deepening the rivers to allow more room for the rivers in case of high water, and designate farm land that would be set underwater as to save the more economically important areas. As part of this, a massive automated storm surge barrier ("Maeslantkering", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeslantkering) was designed and built just west of Rotterdam that would seal off the river from sea water in case of a storm surge. That barrier alone had a price tag of half billion euros. Nobody in Holland whined about the money. Not even those people who lived far away and would not get wet feet in any case.

So far in the US, I have only heard endless whining about money and a "can't do" attitude. Seriously, people. If you want anything to be done, you need to learn to cooperate and think for the greater good. And if that means you have to spend some money that doesn't benefit yourself immediately, you need to get over it.

You need to hike the Pacific Crest Trail to see why this is not possible. Thousands of acres of uninhabited land, steep mountains and ravines. Controlling flooding is one thing, but controlling fire is different.

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

Now the liberal news is consumed with the fires happened because of climate change .....Sigh. I am sure there is more to the story than that same tired old song. I am for a clean planet but politicians when they are for it you might find it is because they have a vested interest in it..Like Al Gore and his personal investments in solar panels and scolding us all the while flying around in his private jet and driving his big SUV. Spare me.

I remember when I was a kid, winter was from mid-October to mid-April. We would get snow as late as early May. Rain would come, even in the dry parts east of the Cascades, all through the same time. Sure, it was blazing hot in June, July, and August. The cooling would come in September. Now, we don't get rain until November. Rain and, sometimes snow, ends in February or March. After centuries of the same weather patterns, don't tell me we humans are not responsible at all?

You literally lay ALL the blame on one guy, too. Well played, sir. You win. Lock the thread *eye roll*

I was in seattle for a work assignment in 2011. I recall it being one of the coldest and wettest summers on record there that year, if memory serves. Meanwhile, Kansas had 52 straight days of 100+ degree heat. I was depressed by what seemed to be an eternal shadow of clouds over seattle, but thankful I wasn't baking to death back home as well. Kansas media blamed global warming that summer for the uncharacteristic heat wave. Called it the new normal. Oddly enough, nothing even close to that has happened since then. This year we only hit 100+ I think twice the whole summer. And this winter has already started off with record lows and the earliest recordable snowfall in our history.

The problem we have as humans is we see things through a lens of only a few years. Do we impact the environment and climate? absolutely. But to what level of significance is that impact? That I am not so sure on. This doesn't change the fact that California is going to have wildfires. Even if we somehow cut man's influence on the climate to zero.

Aaron747 wrote:

Fact: comparing the two for 'management' of fires is illogical.

sure. In scope of what kind of logic ( reminds me : "Aryan Physics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
I see a kind of repeat in today's conservatives way of reasoning ).

for example Sweden had rather devastating fires this summer. not only in forested areas.

Summer in the North is short but it can be quite hot and dry.
dry heath on top of a good old bog can bring up a rather dangerous fire zone that will reignite on a regular basis.
shrubbery flashburning in California at least eats up all combustibles in one go.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Another solution to living on the interface: You are there because you like the wilderness/brush/view. So don't build an expensive 'dream house' (unless you can afford to lose it). Used mobile homes come to mind, we lived in one for a few years. And have a small room (parlor, den) with all the the stuff you want to escape with - next to the garage! And a big enough vehicle to hold the stuff. Evacuate early, earlier even that recommendations.

What about one that you can lower into the ground ( like an inverted Maginot bunker ) ?

Extensive hot fires, and the US West has a lot of them can be too extreme for easy 'shelter in place'.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Extensive hot fires, and the US West has a lot of them can be too extreme for easy 'shelter in place'.

My understanding is that they work on easily combustible but limited fuel going forward as a fast fire front.
Short term hot but no endurance.

Aaron747 wrote:

THS214 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It went fine until this skullduggery comment:

"We have to take care of the floors, the floors of the forest; it is very important. You look at other countries, they do it definitely and it is a whole different story. I was with the president of Finland and he said: we’re a forest nation. He called it a “forest nation.” And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem."

a. no forests in Woolsey fire in Socal
b. Paradise fire was not a treetop crown fire when it came into town and burned house to house
c. CalFire already does prevention activity
d. FINLAND HAS A SUBARCTIC CLIMATE FFS

Surely on the 5.5 hr flight to CA, someone discussed the basics of wildfires with 45? Ugh

Finland doesn't have subarctic climate, only the northen (20%) part. Last summer season in the south we had +20 c average day temperature.

Trump used wrong words but the main thing is that in Finland forests are cleaned when trees are cut so there are nothing to burn easily. As far as I know that is not how it is done in California.

It doesn't matter what burns when it has what it needs.

In Finland the forest floor is taken care so we don't get forest fires. Whatever you call that burns is not important.

You can opine as you like, the facts are quite different. Fact: officially the Finnish climate is mostly subarctic. Fact: Finland has lower temperatures and better water content than California. Fact: California's forests have different flora and ecology than Finland. Fact: comparing the two for 'management' of fires is illogical.

WOW, hold on a second. I just opioned that you were wrong about Finland and what Trump said. I told that we have a lot higher temperatures most of the year to be considered subarctic. Do you know what subarctic means? During the summer season it means less than 10c average day temperatures. Last summer we had normally 30c day temperatures and only slightly lower temperatures at night. Hardly subarctic. Sure we have four seasons but that doesn't make it subarctic.

Its not illogical to compare. Like having a heart surgeon and a neurosurgeon doing surgeries, one succeed one kills the patient. Is it illogical to compare results.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/busi ... e=Homepage

This is a good background article for understanding the impact of 'natural' disasters on home ownership and insurance in vulnerable areas. A similar article could be written about the SE US and receding shorelines. Florida is discussed. Insurance is an ultimate limiting factor. It is the strongest reason for my observation that if you are going to live in an area where your home is likely to be destroyed make sure you can afford to lose it, because insurance costs otherwise will bankrupt you.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/business/california-fires-insurance.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

This is a good background article for understanding the impact of 'natural' disasters on home ownership and insurance in vulnerable areas. A similar article could be written about the SE US and receding shorelines. Florida is discussed. Insurance is an ultimate limiting factor. It is the strongest reason for my observation that if you are going to live in an area where your home is likely to be destroyed make sure you can afford to lose it, because insurance costs otherwise will bankrupt you.

Seems more like a good article on how to wipe out insurance companies.

After last year’s fires, United Policyholders, an advocacy group, heard from homeowners who had received letters from their insurers, stating that their coverage would end in 45 days. The group set to work with regulators and lawmakers on a legislative package that would have required insurers to seek state approval before pulling out of high-risk areas,

So insurance companies cannot increase rates immediately to fund the liabilities but have to do it over 20 years AND cannot even pull out if economics dictate so. Then what's gonna happen when these fires happen every year? Every insurer gone bankrupt? Sorry, but is California becoming a roach motel? Can check in, but not out?

If the new legislative package passes, I expect all private insurers to leave California. That would mean FAIR has to take over 100%. And of course, residents then would vote that FAIR be funded with tax payers' money. Meaning, that people in other parts of the state are paying for those that insist in living in fire-prone areas.

Dieuwer wrote:

Seems more like a good article on how to wipe out insurance companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance

The immediate hurt may be smaller than lamented.

WIederling wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Seems more like a good article on how to wipe out insurance companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance

The immediate hurt may be smaller than lamented.

Reinsurers are not stupid either.

THS214 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

THS214 wrote:

Finland doesn't have subarctic climate, only the northen (20%) part. Last summer season in the south we had +20 c average day temperature.

Trump used wrong words but the main thing is that in Finland forests are cleaned when trees are cut so there are nothing to burn easily. As far as I know that is not how it is done in California.

It doesn't matter what burns when it has what it needs.

In Finland the forest floor is taken care so we don't get forest fires. Whatever you call that burns is not important.

You can opine as you like, the facts are quite different. Fact: officially the Finnish climate is mostly subarctic. Fact: Finland has lower temperatures and better water content than California. Fact: California's forests have different flora and ecology than Finland. Fact: comparing the two for 'management' of fires is illogical.

WOW, hold on a second. I just opioned that you were wrong about Finland and what Trump said. I told that we have a lot higher temperatures most of the year to be considered subarctic. Do you know what subarctic means? During the summer season it means less than 10c average day temperatures. Last summer we had normally 30c day temperatures and only slightly lower temperatures at night. Hardly subarctic. Sure we have four seasons but that doesn't make it subarctic.

Its not illogical to compare. Like having a heart surgeon and a neurosurgeon doing surgeries, one succeed one kills the patient. Is it illogical to compare results.

The climates are not comparable. Just take a quick look at these averages for Helsinki and Los Angeles to see why.
https://www.yr.no/place/United_States/C ... stics.html
https://www.yr.no/place/Finland/Souther ... stics.html
Yes, I realize there is more to Finland than Helsinki, but I challenge anyone to find a place in Finland that's climate looks like LA. It just doesn't rain there in the summer.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we08aa.php

The point of the article is that insurance will become more unavailable in high risk areas. Congress (and states) with the support of both parties have tried to limit insurance rates going up, or insurance companies leaving, but they can only slow things down. Rates are going up, and companies are more often exiting certain markets. Warren Buffet noted that his flood insurance/re-insurance would not be in trouble because they could reset rates annually. And of course the title of the article included homes becoming uninsurable.

Keep in mind that if you can't get insurance, you also can't get financing.

salttee wrote:

Keep in mind that if you can't get insurance, you also can't get financing.

Also important and probably more so, remember that most people own their homes for years and have purchased, financed, and insured it with little real issue. And so many people may become trapped in a situation where they can no longer insure their home nor sell it.

Tugg

California is about to get a train of storms over the next two weeks.

Watch out for the mudslides and floods, but it looks like Fire Season is done starting tomorrow.

https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/

cledaybuck wrote:

THS214 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You can opine as you like, the facts are quite different. Fact: officially the Finnish climate is mostly subarctic. Fact: Finland has lower temperatures and better water content than California. Fact: California's forests have different flora and ecology than Finland. Fact: comparing the two for 'management' of fires is illogical.

WOW, hold on a second. I just opioned that you were wrong about Finland and what Trump said. I told that we have a lot higher temperatures most of the year to be considered subarctic. Do you know what subarctic means? During the summer season it means less than 10c average day temperatures. Last summer we had normally 30c day temperatures and only slightly lower temperatures at night. Hardly subarctic. Sure we have four seasons but that doesn't make it subarctic.

Its not illogical to compare. Like having a heart surgeon and a neurosurgeon doing surgeries, one succeed one kills the patient. Is it illogical to compare results.

The climates are not comparable. Just take a quick look at these averages for Helsinki and Los Angeles to see why.
https://www.yr.no/place/United_States/C ... stics.html
https://www.yr.no/place/Finland/Souther ... stics.html
Yes, I realize there is more to Finland than Helsinki, but I challenge anyone to find a place in Finland that's climate looks like LA. It just doesn't rain there in the summer.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we08aa.php

Looking at averages is a sure way to miss the point. QED!

WIederling wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

THS214 wrote:

WOW, hold on a second. I just opioned that you were wrong about Finland and what Trump said. I told that we have a lot higher temperatures most of the year to be considered subarctic. Do you know what subarctic means? During the summer season it means less than 10c average day temperatures. Last summer we had normally 30c day temperatures and only slightly lower temperatures at night. Hardly subarctic. Sure we have four seasons but that doesn't make it subarctic.

Its not illogical to compare. Like having a heart surgeon and a neurosurgeon doing surgeries, one succeed one kills the patient. Is it illogical to compare results.

The climates are not comparable. Just take a quick look at these averages for Helsinki and Los Angeles to see why.
https://www.yr.no/place/United_States/C ... stics.html
https://www.yr.no/place/Finland/Souther ... stics.html
Yes, I realize there is more to Finland than Helsinki, but I challenge anyone to find a place in Finland that's climate looks like LA. It just doesn't rain there in the summer.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we08aa.php

Looking at averages is a sure way to miss the point. QED!

Climate is pretty much by definition an average.

sorry, I munged the quoting, fixed:

cledaybuck wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Looking at averages is a sure way to miss the point. QED!

Climate is pretty much by definition an average.

you haven't been attentive in school.

Enough places around that have similar averages but completely different climate.
Like: Moscow and Hamburg have about the same average temperature ( and precipitation?)
But climate is continental ( colder Winter, hotter Summer) for Moscow and maritime for Hamburg ( not much freezing time but also not much hot time in the summer.).[/quote]

WIederling wrote:

sorry, I munged the quoting, fixed:

cledaybuck wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Looking at averages is a sure way to miss the point. QED!

Climate is pretty much by definition an average.

you haven't been attentive in school.

Enough places around that have similar averages but completely different climate.
Like: Moscow and Hamburg have about the same average temperature ( and precipitation?)
But climate is continental ( colder Winter, hotter Summer) for Moscow and maritime for Hamburg ( not much freezing time but also not much hot time in the summer.).

[/quote]If you clicked on any of the links that I provided, you would see that it is broken down (temperature and precipitation) by month. The averages given are across a series of years (by month) not the entire year. While it might not be perfect, it shows the climate of a location pretty well.

cledaybuck wrote:

THS214 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You can opine as you like, the facts are quite different. Fact: officially the Finnish climate is mostly subarctic. Fact: Finland has lower temperatures and better water content than California. Fact: California's forests have different flora and ecology than Finland. Fact: comparing the two for 'management' of fires is illogical.

WOW, hold on a second. I just opioned that you were wrong about Finland and what Trump said. I told that we have a lot higher temperatures most of the year to be considered subarctic. Do you know what subarctic means? During the summer season it means less than 10c average day temperatures. Last summer we had normally 30c day temperatures and only slightly lower temperatures at night. Hardly subarctic. Sure we have four seasons but that doesn't make it subarctic.

Its not illogical to compare. Like having a heart surgeon and a neurosurgeon doing surgeries, one succeed one kills the patient. Is it illogical to compare results.

The climates are not comparable. Just take a quick look at these averages for Helsinki and Los Angeles to see why.
https://www.yr.no/place/United_States/C ... stics.html
https://www.yr.no/place/Finland/Souther ... stics.html
Yes, I realize there is more to Finland than Helsinki, but I challenge anyone to find a place in Finland that's climate looks like LA. It just doesn't rain there in the summer.
http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we08aa.php

Agree, my point was that Summer in Finland are nor subarctic and we do get forest fires.And we also "clean" our forests to prevent fires. Aaron747 was against what Trump said. I tried to prove that that was not the case but obviously i failed.

Dieuwer wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/business/california-fires-insurance.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

This is a good background article for understanding the impact of 'natural' disasters on home ownership and insurance in vulnerable areas. A similar article could be written about the SE US and receding shorelines. Florida is discussed. Insurance is an ultimate limiting factor. It is the strongest reason for my observation that if you are going to live in an area where your home is likely to be destroyed make sure you can afford to lose it, because insurance costs otherwise will bankrupt you.

Seems more like a good article on how to wipe out insurance companies.

After last year’s fires, United Policyholders, an advocacy group, heard from homeowners who had received letters from their insurers, stating that their coverage would end in 45 days. The group set to work with regulators and lawmakers on a legislative package that would have required insurers to seek state approval before pulling out of high-risk areas,

So insurance companies cannot increase rates immediately to fund the liabilities but have to do it over 20 years AND cannot even pull out if economics dictate so. Then what's gonna happen when these fires happen every year? Every insurer gone bankrupt? Sorry, but is California becoming a roach motel? Can check in, but not out?

REUTERS: "PG&E mulls bankruptcy", https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pg-e ... OY225?il=0

Not surprised. Kinda predicted this could happen.

Trump is attempting to keep FEMA from supporting those folks in California that are suffering from the forest fire.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ia-1090253

"Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forrest fires that, with proper Forrest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!" Trump wrote on Twitter. Trump sent a new tweet about an hour later correcting his spelling."

What kind of pathetic leader is this?

casinterest wrote:

Trump is attempting to keep FEMA from supporting those folks in California that are suffering from the forest fire.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ia-1090253

"Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forrest fires that, with proper Forrest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!" Trump wrote on Twitter. Trump sent a new tweet about an hour later correcting his spelling."

What kind of pathetic leader is this?

This is genuinely disgusting. Even the Breitbart and Fox News coverage of this isn’t spinning it in a way that makes Trump look like anything but an ignorant bad actor.

Most of the land that burned in California in 2018 was federally managed, but Trump is either too ignorant to recognize that or doesn’t care because it’s happened in a Democratic state. Pathetic.

casinterest wrote:

What kind of pathetic leader is this?

I'd spell it out, but the mods would just delete it.

winginit wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Trump is attempting to keep FEMA from supporting those folks in California that are suffering from the forest fire.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/ ... ia-1090253

"Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forrest fires that, with proper Forrest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!" Trump wrote on Twitter. Trump sent a new tweet about an hour later correcting his spelling."

What kind of pathetic leader is this?

This is genuinely disgusting. Even the Breitbart and Fox News coverage of this isn’t spinning it in a way that makes Trump look like anything but an ignorant bad actor.

Most of the land that burned in California in 2018 was federally managed, but Trump is either too ignorant to recognize that or doesn’t care because it’s happened in a Democratic state. Pathetic.

Thanks to the Trump Shutdown, the federal funds needed for training isn't even available to these firefighters.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 02340.html

Wow. Reading posts from last month, lots of dumb in this thread.

It is very difficult to categorize wildfires in California. And there is much, much more to California than Los Angeles. Some of these fires are primarily grass fed, some are brush, others are forests. I have a house in wildfire zone, there have been 5 or 6 fires around it in the area last 15 years or so, I've lost track. My house was saved once from a direct firestorm by CalFire(tenant burned it down last year). All these fires have been man-made and the impact of our felonious utility company cannot be understated. They absolutely should be out of business and their leaders past and present in jail for their malfeasance. They charge us the highest rates in the continental US and have plenty of money to promote a liberal social agenda but not enough to replace or even maintain 100 year old transmission towers. And people die.

For those who don't know, (seems to be everybody in this thread), California has had long-standing policies that suppressed fires. I recall hearing plenty of debate about this 20-30 years ago, many in those zones were upset and predicting exactly what we have today. I am not familiar enough with the issue to have an opinion on it but Trump is not entirely out of line when he talks about Cal forest management and logging practices. Ironically, one of the big fires in my area began from a CalFire "controlled" burn. And as they keep importing more people into the state, more people are going to spread out farther into remote areas.

Insurance for homeowners is a real issue, my insurance company would not insure that house and the tenant burned it down last year, (I found out after the fact that there are secondary insurers who will). I accept the risk of the wildfires, preventive measures save the house, the insurers however have no good reason to deny fire coverage for regular house fires because of "wildfire zones". In that regard, they should be made to cooperate. In fact, after a fire is the safest time, nothing to burn for another 15-20 years.

Perhaps more despicable is my local county government, who charged $20,000 for permits and fees on a new $80,000 manufactured home. They love this.

i'd like to post pictures but it isn't clear anymore how to post private photos....

YOU are part of the problem.

mham001 wrote:

the impact of our felonious utility company cannot be understated.................. They charge us the highest rates in the continental US

If PG&E is cutting corners on safety it is solely to keep costs down because people like you are demanding lower rates.
You are even putting out false information to support your demand that PG&E hold costs down.
https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricit ... -by-state/

mham001 wrote:

(PG&E has) plenty of money to promote a liberal social agenda but not enough to replace or even maintain 100 year old transmission towers.

Two things here:
What 100 year old transmission tower are you talking about, were there even any "towers" in CA in 1919? Is there a problem with PG&E's current towers?
and
What "social agenda? You're making things up again.

Perhaps more despicable is my local county government, who charged $20,000 for permits and fees on a new $80,000 manufactured home. They love this.

Is $20,000 too much for the roads, sewers and other infrastructure to support your building lot in an economy where the median price of homes is approaching a million dollars?

You whine way too much about California. Why don't you just move back to Mississippi where you belong and will feel more at home.

salttee wrote:

YOU are part of the problem.

mham001 wrote:

the impact of our felonious utility company cannot be understated.................. They charge us the highest rates in the continental US

If PG&E is cutting corners on safety it is solely to keep costs down because people like you are demanding lower rates.
You are even putting out false information to support your demand that PG&E hold costs down.
https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricit ... -by-state/

mham001 wrote:

(PG&E has) plenty of money to promote a liberal social agenda but not enough to replace or even maintain 100 year old transmission towers.

Two things here:
What 100 year old transmission tower are you talking about, were there even any "towers" in CA in 1919? Is there a problem with PG&E's current towers?
and
What "social agenda? You're making things up again.

Perhaps more despicable is my local county government, who charged $20,000 for permits and fees on a new $80,000 manufactured home. They love this.

Is $20,000 too much for the roads, sewers and other infrastructure to support your building lot in an economy where the median price of homes is approaching a million dollars?

You whine way too much about California. Why don't you just move back to Mississippi where you belong and will feel more at home.

You have no idea what a complete fool you just made of yourself.

"You are even putting out false information to support your demand that PG&E hold costs down.
https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricit ... -by-state/ "

I don't know where in hell they get their numbers but we haven't seen $0.15/kWh for years. Even at that we are ranked 4th. In real life, PGE residential electric rates START at $0.22/kWh until you use a little and it jumps to $0.28/kWh. There is a third tier, somewhere around $0.32, I don't have that on my bill. You as a PGE customer should know this, why are you lying to us?

"What 100 year old transmission tower are you talking about, were there even any "towers" in CA in 1919? Is there a problem with PG&E's current towers?"

You really don't know much, do you.... NBC Bay Area has learned that authorities investigating the deadly Camp Fire have tied its origin to the failure of a single steel hook that held up a high voltage line on a nearly 100-year-old PG&E transmission tower.

PGE is already a convicted felon, on probation for blowing up Brisbane, due to malfeasance. Last year, it was Sonoma. Maybe it will be your Marin next year?

But they have enough money to spend on radio ads for whatever their social agenda, last one I heard was for LBGT rights.

There are a few other misstatements in that post, I don't have time, nor desire....