189
The L.A. Fires Show the Need for Climate Realism
(www.cfr.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
189 points (98.0% liked)
Futurology
3099 readers
42 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There was too little rain this year which made the fires much worse.
Blaming it on climate change seems like a cop-out for the egregious failure and oversight by the local/state government.
Blaming it on local/state government seems like a cop-out for the egregious failure and oversight by world governments and the fossil fuel industry.
None of that contributed to these fires. They were started by people, regardless of climate change. It is disingenuous to appropriate climate change as the culprit to this and dismiss any responsibility from the leaders of California.
No it isn't. Climate change has changed the predicability and severity of weather. It's established fact. They had a ton of rain months ago, which cause a ton of plants to grow, then, a drought which dried that extra vegetation up. Along with that, they're receiving 100mph winds.
To say that is normal there is being disingenuous.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/01/the-role-of-climate-change-in-the-catastrophic-2025-los-angeles-fires/
You have no idea wtf you’re talking about. Look up pyroconvective effects of large fires. Climate change has nothing to do with the extreme winds.
I don't need to, I can rely on people that have dedicated their entire lives to studying it, and they agree with each other.
Also, read the article.
A circle jerk of idiocy.
I'm over it, plausible deniability was done for this a decade ago. Take care
It's ok to be wrong. Being wrong is actually really handy - you get to learn something. I understand it's hard to be vulnerable and admit you are wrong but it does show a lot of character.
I'd urge you to find a way to do that. You will be the better for it.
Dispute anything I’ve said. Tell me how it’s wrong.
Sure snowflake, 90mph wind gusts after months of drought conditions is the government's fault. It's not like the entire western US and Canada have seen increasing red flag conditions for years which are only getting worse.
See my other comments. You evidently lack any knowledge about fires. Understand how firestorms work before commenting like an ignoramous. Otherwise, detail for me how climate change caused the “90mph winds”, which aren’t anything unique here.
100mph winds and drought are not that easy to fight/control. Budget decisions look bad in retrospect, but the budget required to handle this would not have been approved/popular.
100% agree. Ca leadership fucked up big time.
Enlighten us. Precisely how?
Why did the fire hydrants not have water? Why was funding for the fire dept cut, if climate change was so super duper known to cause such a catastrophe. Shouldn’t it have been a major priority? Or, maybe they are culpable to some negligence as mentioned.
How about instead of slavishly repeating Faux News talking points you employ some logic. You can start by doing the math.
A class C fire hydrant that is common in residential areas delivers less than 500 GPM. This is adequate to fight the fire at one house at a time, maybe two. When it's opened there is an instant drop in pressure in the entire water line for that area because the pipes are only so big - usually 6-12" or so up to 16" for very large subdivisions. So assuming a 12-16" pipe you are looking at less than 5000 GPM at the water main. Even if you had fire hydrants appropriately spaced that would at most get you 10-20 houses worth of water capacity. This is further degraded by (a) the use of garden hoses by residents; (b) power failures at lift stations; (c) the fact that water pressure is dropping across the entire system.
In short, municipal water systems are not designed to fight wildfires of this magnitude and the amount of investment in infrastructure to make that a possibility is staggering. You employ a logical fallacy here - that if climate change were a priority investment would be greater. First, it has been greater. CalFire's budget has doubled in less than a decade and there have been millions of dollars in investments. Secondly, it doesn't follow that because a disaster occurred investment wasn't made OR that because a disaster occurred the need for greater investment wasn't recognized.
If you want to lay some blame - and it seems like you are that kind of person, you can start with society's use of fossil fuels and from there move on to things like the homeowner's responsibilities to create defensible space. Pull up a satellite photo of, say, Malibu or Pacific Palisades and you will instantly see that that is a rarity, never mind the California Fire code that requires it.
You've demonstrated that are you are fundamentally ignorant of even the most basic aspects of fighting wildfires. I would encourage you to exercise a little more humility in learning about these things and a little less misplaced arrogance.
Nice one assuming I follow FoxNews, simply because what I’m saying is “wrongspeak” to the hivemind narrative. Except, it isn’t fictional and I read it on Snopes, here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/palisades-fire-hydrants-ran-out-of-water/
You’re also fixating on one, minute detail I’ve mentioned and ignoring the other facts I’ve stated around large-scale fires. Understanding how the effects of firestorms occur is not the result of climate change is my primary argument.
You really don't understand simple concepts like "fire hydrants do not generally have the capacity to be used in large-scale firefighting" do you?
Your other "facts" are not actual facts. They are made up inexpert nonsense that have no bearing on the reality at hand.
You want to learn something? Go watch a few of Zeke Lunder's videos: https://www.youtube.com/@TheLookout1 and his posts on https://the-lookout.org/
Your arrogance, presumption and nastiness is growing tiresome. Good bye.