PARADISE, Calif. (AP) — Tens of thousands of people fled a fast-moving wildfire Thursday in Northern California, some clutching babies and pets as they abandoned vehicles and struck out on foot ahead of the flames that forced the evacuation of an entire town and destroyed hundreds of structures.

"Pretty much the community of Paradise is destroyed, it's that kind of devastation," said Cal Fire Capt. Scott McLean late Thursday. "The wind that was predicted came and just wiped it out."

McLean estimated that a couple of thousand structures were destroyed in the town of 27,000 residents about 180 miles (290 kilometers) northeast of San Francisco, was ordered to get out. The extent of the injuries and specific damage count was not immediately known as officials could not access the dangerous area.

A Northern California fire is growing at a rate of about 80 football fields per minute
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/us/calif ... index.html

The smoke extends as far south as San Francisco.

It's pretty bad here. I was going to swim practice at noon in Walnut Creek when I noticed driving into town from the East Bay that there seemed to be a cloud of smoke over Walnut Creek. When I walked out on the pool deck, the sun was high in the sky (it was noon, after all) but the light was orange, as if it was nearing sunset.

As the workout approached midway, ash started falling out of the sky and I found myself swimming through specks of it. Each breath tasted of smoke, like a campfire.

By the time I left at 1:30, the air was stinging my nose as I walked across the parking lot back to my car and my eyes were watering from multiple specks caught in them.

I work in the North Bay, closer to the fire. We went through this last year when a major fire was in the very city where I work, not three miles from my office. The smoke was so bad that you could see it indoors in my office and we had to wear N95 masks inside. If you took them off, you got a headache. The local stores all ran out of N95 masks and some were marking them to $10 ea.

This time, I'm ready. We had a smaller fire a month ago and I ordered 60x masks off Amazon. That fire was put out that same day, so those masks are still at my office waiting to be used. But really, I'm getting tired of this.

Horrendous - so many foothill communities have endured this over the last several years.

A big one in Southern California has broken out this afternoon, not far from the location of the massacre today in Thousand Oaks.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fire-santa-rosa-20181108-story.html

Santa Ana winds will only get stronger overnight and this fire might reach the ocean.

The Camp Fire is now the most destructive wildfire in California history: 9 dead, 6,713 structures incinerated. Just a few months ago and not far away from here was the Mendocino complex fire which was the largest recorded fire complex in California history.

Down south right now there are two two huge fires burning, the Woolsey Fire and the Hill fire and they aren't very far from where the Thomas fire burned tens of thousands of acres and thousands of homes last year; the Thomas fire was the largest fire in California history until the Mendocino Complex Fire if I'm not mistaken.

I can't imagine where all these people are going to live after the fire is out.

Trump is blaming forest management. Is that the reason?

BestWestern wrote:

Trump is blaming forest management. Is that the reason?

No, climate change. This will become more frequent.

BestWestern wrote:

Trump is blaming forest management. Is that the reason?

While its never the only cause of the fire there have been many instances of forest management policies that have literally added fuel to the fire in these scenarios.

The big Yellowstone fires a few decades ago were a wakeup call to bad forest management practices. Often times trying to stop these fires at all costs just makes the ones that do eventually occur much deadlier. Fires are supposed to happen. They need to happen. We need to think about how we build in and around these areas.

BestWestern wrote:

Trump is blaming forest management. Is that the reason?

And he threatened to cut off federal funding. Cutting funding will not help! Without federal funding things will be even worse than they are now.

To some extent Trump is right, California is a bankrupt disaster. Instead of diverting federal funds to help all the illegal immigrants and socialist programs, that money could have been used to cut down trees and clear the forrest. If there is no trees there is nothing to burn. The timber industry would create jobs, the wood could be used for so many other things creating more jobs.

Yep let's cut down the forest ! Desert is so nice.

Dutchy wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Trump is blaming forest management. Is that the reason?

No, climate change. This will become more frequent.

A lot of the terrain in California is scrub and brushland (especially in Southern California) not acres of trees suitable for logging. Trump and his supporters seem to not understand this basic fact.

The climate in most of California is Mediterranean/Chaparral. It only rains in the winter. By fall it's been months since no rain, which results in dry brush and that is fuel for wildfires. Around this time we get hit with hot and very dry winds from the deserts to the east (Santa Ana winds) which can last for days.

The areas burning now have not burned in a long time, which is why it's so intense.

Anyone who's lived here for years will acknowledge that these fires are becoming more frequent and lasting longer. Last year was the first time that there were fires in December. Most reasonable and sane people will acknowledge this is due to the effects of climate change in CA (less rain, longer and hotter summers).

But as usual Trump just talks out of his ass about something he knows nothing about because California is his "enemy."

AA747123 wrote:

To some extent Trump is right, California is a bankrupt disaster. Instead of diverting federal funds to help all the illegal immigrants and socialist programs, that money could have been used to cut down trees and clear the forrest. If there is no trees there is nothing to burn. The timber industry would create jobs, the wood could be used for so many other things creating more jobs.

Nice post Boris - how many rubles did you get for it?

Doc Lightning - I know what you mean about the smoke in the air - had it bad this summer here in the Seattle area - just walking outside or driving, my eyes started watering and burning. Smoke is nasty stuff. Hoping the winds calm and the weather gets a little damper for all those affected. Saw that the town of Paradise was pretty much wiped off the map. So sad....

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

GF

mdsh00 wrote:

But as usual Trump just talks out of his ass about something he knows nothing about because California is his "enemy."

The only thing Trump's comment made me think of was
"So that must mean he also blames Texas, Florida, the Carolina's, and other such states, for absolute mismanagement of flood areas?"

His statement is just sour grapes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

Yes it's inevitable but it is still sad. It is people losing their homes, their livelihood, and for some their lives.

Tugg

In the UK BBC is reporting that the entire town of Paradise has been destroyed, frightning stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46161280

Keep safe DocLightning

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

GF

So why bother rebuilding Gulf States after hurricanes? Or Midwest states after tornadoes? Those things are inevitable.

The fires in Northern California are in more conservative areas. For some reason, Republicans have been led to believe that ALL of California is a liberal cesspool. Every state has cesspools, so no point in talking about that. However, California is one of the most diverse states in the Union. Ultra conservative in the northeast and along the foothills, moderate in the Central Valley, liberal in the largest cities. IMO, the only reason politics comes into this thread is misinformation being parroted by Republicans.

Housekeeping: I used to separate Republicans from the crazy right wingers but right wingers have taken over, so no need to separate the two anymore.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

GF

So why bother rebuilding Gulf States after hurricanes? Or Midwest states after tornadoes? Those things are inevitable.

The fires in Northern California are in more conservative areas. For some reason, Republicans have been led to believe that ALL of California is a liberal cesspool. Every state has cesspools, so no point in talking about that. However, California is one of the most diverse states in the Union. Ultra conservative in the northeast and along the foothills, moderate in the Central Valley, liberal in the largest cities. IMO, the only reason politics comes into this thread is misinformation being parroted by Republicans.

Housekeeping: I used to separate Republicans from the crazy right wingers but right wingers have taken over, so no need to separate the two anymore.

WRT hurricane damage in coastal—inevitable and we should NOT rebuild there. Tornadoes are much more localized events that insurance handles adequately.

Yes, vast portions of Cali are very red, as soon as one moves in from the coast, conservative and still it’s inevitable to burn. Politics isn’t the issue, it’s people’s willingness to defy nature and then expect to be rebuilt by those wiser people. Like the boy who murders his parents, then begs mercy as an orphan.

GF

AA747123 wrote:

To some extent Trump is right, California is a bankrupt disaster.

LOL $8Bn budget surplus.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 03954.html

seb146 wrote:

The fires in Northern California are in more conservative areas. For some reason, Republicans have been led to believe that ALL of California is a liberal cesspool. Every state has cesspools, so no point in talking about that. However, California is one of the most diverse states in the Union. Ultra conservative in the northeast and along the foothills, moderate in the Central Valley, liberal in the largest cities. IMO, the only reason politics comes into this thread is misinformation being parroted by Republicans.

It's important to understand that California Conservative is very different from, say, Alabama Conservative. Most of our Conservatives aren't evangelicals. Catholicism is the largest denomination in California and many of our Conservatives aren't even particularly religious. Most of them are fine with LGBT rights. Their conservatism is mostly based around gun rights, fiscal policy, and environmental policy. Not only that, but many of them are ethnic and racial minorities (Latino, Asian, etc.). In many of our state's crises, (droughts, fires), our liberals and conservatives have been able to work together very productively to get good results that respects the needs of the various demographics in the state. Right now, there's a massive push from people in the deep blue parts of the states to get supplies, donations, everything to people in the fire region, which is a pretty cherry red part of the state. People are offering to put up displaced families, they're shipping huge amounts of diapers and baby formula, all that.

We're all Californians, and we are #NorCalStrong. We stand together way more than we stand apart.

Finger-pointing is easy. The question is: what are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do to PREVENT a next time?

Dieuwer wrote:

What are you gonna do to PREVENT a next time?

Simply put, there is no way to prevent a next time in California and giving it back to Mexico isn't an option.

Well, BROWN’s Spending has gone up three times faster than the combined population growth and inflation, no politician wants to talk about pension debts, but that includes all fifty states and the SSA.

GF

It's important to understand that California Conservative is very different from, say, Alabama Conservative. Most of our Conservatives aren't evangelicals.

What, Alabama conservatives don’t help their neighbors? Have you heard of the Cajun Navy? You make it sound like Cali conservatives are uniquely generous and Alabama ones are Scrooge. Have you lived in Alabama?

GF

Oh the humanity, oh the embrace of diversity. Care to actually explain how the budget has climbed by 53% when inflation is only 12% higher and you have 5% more population? Maybe that’s why so much of Cali country OUTSIDE of LA and the Bay Area. California possesses some of the highest levels of US poverty.

https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

What, Alabama conservatives don’t help their neighbors?

Did I say that? No, I did not.

Looking at some of the pictures/video that have come out, it defiantly looks like hell on earth.

https://us.cnn.com/2018/11/10/us/califo ... index.html

Dieuwer wrote:

Finger-pointing is easy. The question is: what are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do to PREVENT a next time?

CalFire is one of the better management organizations in the country and they have decades of hard-won experience. But their readiness cannot compete with political and development forces - regardless of what red staters believe, with exception to the coast and alpine watersheds, there are not many limits to development. Suburbanization has come to many areas since the 1960s that were previously foothill forest or scrubby chaparral.

This, combined with the impact from warming is causing a tragic confluence of events. For POTUS to sit there and act like he's all-knowing when this is a complex issue is all too typical. All native Californians know wildfires, but we simply have not seen this severity or frequency in our lifetimes.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

GF

So why bother rebuilding Gulf States after hurricanes? Or Midwest states after tornadoes? Those things are inevitable.

The fires in Northern California are in more conservative areas. For some reason, Republicans have been led to believe that ALL of California is a liberal cesspool. Every state has cesspools, so no point in talking about that. However, California is one of the most diverse states in the Union. Ultra conservative in the northeast and along the foothills, moderate in the Central Valley, liberal in the largest cities. IMO, the only reason politics comes into this thread is misinformation being parroted by Republicans.

Housekeeping: I used to separate Republicans from the crazy right wingers but right wingers have taken over, so no need to separate the two anymore.

Kinda funny I used to think Democrats were not crazy left wingers but surprise they are crazy left wingers after all. I am actually more a libertarian now and a registered independant I was at one time a radical right wing guy. It's too bad we can't have a third party. Oh and I don't know how a fire got so political.

^ Because POTUS made it unnecessarily divisive through inane comments

Tugger wrote:

mdsh00 wrote:

But as usual Trump just talks out of his ass about something he knows nothing about because California is his "enemy."

The only thing Trump's comment made me think of was
"So that must mean he also blames Texas, Florida, the Carolina's, and other such states, for absolute mismanagement of flood areas?"

His statement is just sour grapes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

Yes it's inevitable but it is still sad. It is people losing their homes, their livelihood, and for some their lives.

Tugg

In the case of the Houston area, it's not disputed that their land use zoning policies, and, lack of enough flood control reservoirs were factors in the flooding.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Tugger wrote:

mdsh00 wrote:

But as usual Trump just talks out of his ass about something he knows nothing about because California is his "enemy."

The only thing Trump's comment made me think of was
"So that must mean he also blames Texas, Florida, the Carolina's, and other such states, for absolute mismanagement of flood areas?"

His statement is just sour grapes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not sad, it’s inevitable if you build in those areas.

Yes it's inevitable but it is still sad. It is people losing their homes, their livelihood, and for some their lives.

Tugg

In the case of the Houston area, it's not disputed that their land use zoning policies, and, lack of enough flood control reservoirs were factors in the flooding.

And I should have added that while the coast and alpine watersheds are non-starters for development in CA, environmental laws don't generally block development. NIMBYism and planning commission preferences for particular developers have far more impact.

stratosphere wrote:

Kinda funny I used to think Democrats were not crazy left wingers but surprise they are crazy left wingers after all. I am actually more a libertarian now and a registered independant I was at one time a radical right wing guy. It's too bad we can't have a third party. Oh and I don't know how a fire got so political.

It shouldn’t be but your president made it so. Enjoy!

Because of Climate Change, real or imagined, the Federal Govt. can dictate zones in Califronia too hazardous for residential units. Maybe half of California would be annexed by the Govt. because of this. We could offer assistance for them to be relocated to Montana.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Because of Climate Change, real or imagined, the Federal Govt. can dictate zones in Califronia too hazardous for residential units. Maybe half of California would be annexed by the Govt. because of this. We could offer assistance for them to be relocated to Montana.

That would be a great policy for Trump to try and implement. Instantly, all the libertarians would vacate the Republican party, (freedom of choice and all that). I think about half the Republicans would do the same.

And Montana would become a blue state!

stratosphere wrote:

I don't know how a fire got so political.

Post #10 made that a certainty.

salttee wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

I don't know how a fire got so political.

Post #10 made that a certainty.

I can only agree.....

This thread is about wildfires (we call the bushfires in Australia), not politics.

Aaron747 wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Finger-pointing is easy. The question is: what are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do to PREVENT a next time?

CalFire is one of the better management organizations in the country and they have decades of hard-won experience. But their readiness cannot compete with political and development forces - regardless of what red staters believe, with exception to the coast and alpine watersheds, there are not many limits to development. Suburbanization has come to many areas since the 1960s that were previously foothill forest or scrubby chaparral.

This, combined with the impact from warming is causing a tragic confluence of events. For POTUS to sit there and act like he's all-knowing when this is a complex issue is all too typical. All native Californians know wildfires, but we simply have not seen this severity or frequency in our lifetimes.

I was more thinking of preventive dropping of water on large areas of forest, replacing parts of the pine tree forest with hardwood trees (that burn much slower), creating small lakes/water ponds as emergency (mini-)reservoirs, creating wide concrete roads as fire-resistant corridors, etc.

Dieuwer wrote:

I was more thinking of preventive dropping of water on large areas of forest, replacing parts of the pine tree forest with hardwood trees (that burn much slower), creating small lakes/water ponds as emergency (mini-)reservoirs, creating wide concrete roads as fire-resistant corridors, etc.

None of these big fires have been in actual pine tree forests (Thomas fire, Mendocino Complex Fire, Hill fire or the Camp fire) they have been in mostly shrub terrain with some stands of various types of trees. We would need thousands of air tankers for "preventive dropping of water"; most of it just soaks into the ground.

The only tactic that could (and does) work is preventative burns, but those are very problematic as they can get out of control if done anywhere near population centers, and they aren't very helpful if done out in the boonies.

Looks like he's pissed off firefighters too.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/10/california-fires-firefighter-groups-criticize-donald-trumps-comments/1959469002/

http://www.cpf.org/go/cpf/news-and-events/news/cpf-president-brian-rice-responds-to-president-attack-on-ca-fire-response/

One observation I've made over the years. Whenever there's a natural disaster elsewhere in the country, I don't hear of Californians using it as a political ploy or to put down those who are affected. On the other hand if there's a large fire or earthquake, there's always that contingent that seems to make it political or bash "liberals."

salttee wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I was more thinking of preventive dropping of water on large areas of forest, replacing parts of the pine tree forest with hardwood trees (that burn much slower), creating small lakes/water ponds as emergency (mini-)reservoirs, creating wide concrete roads as fire-resistant corridors, etc.

None of these big fires have been in actual pine tree forests (Thomas fire, Mendocino Complex Fire, Hill fire or the Camp fire) they have been in mostly shrub terrain with some stands of various types of trees. We would need thousands of air tankers for "preventive dropping of water"; most of it just soaks into the ground.

The only tactic that could (and does) work is preventative burns, but those are very problematic as they can get out of control if done anywhere near population centers, and they aren't very helpful if done out in the boonies.

As with the fire that destroyed half of STS, this fire that destroyed Paradise could have been lessened if Pacific Gas & Electric had done their job. But, they are beholden to share holders and not we customers.

seb146 wrote:

As with the fire that destroyed half of STS, this fire that destroyed Paradise could have been lessened if Pacific Gas & Electric had done their job. But, they are beholden to share holders and not we customers.

What do you do for a living that places you so high and mighty?

All utilities that manage power distribution have to live in the real world of what's possible. If they increased their rates to cover the cost of new power lines and two or three times the number of maintenance people and equipment, you'd be the first to squawk about how PG&E's rates are so much higher than everybody else's.

Only in America could a topic such as wildfires turn political.

To see how powerful a wildfire is in a controlled manner, keep your old Christmas tree (assuming you have one) and let it dry out for a couple months. Also assuming you have a fire pit or a large open area with no risk of the fire spreading simply light a match and within seconds the tree will go up in flames. A wildfire is that times a million.

In general the US (and to be fair most of the world) does not do a good job on the interface between wild and settled. The East Gulf Coasts want to recede, and global warming and sea rise are making it worse. There is NO policies to really recognize and cope with this. Inland rivers want to meander, and big rivers REALLY meander. We can stop those meanders around the edges, but not really do all that much for most territory. The West Coast wants to shake and it is widely acknowledged that we are poorly prepared.

In this case the building up of towns and housing in forested/shrub areas has created hazards essentially beyond our ability to control. Preventative burning is not feasible in much of the area it is most needed. Trump is right in that things are not managed well, but there is no doubt the he and his party would vote/veto any really good solutions. Civilization and Its Discontents anyone? LOL

would it have something to do with the hollywood stars do you think

How many Hollywood stars do you think there are in Butte county?

Late afternoon sun yesterday, thanks to smoke from the Woolsey fire:







Reddest sun I've seen in....maybe my entire life.

Socal firefighters rebuked 45, and invited him to come learn about the fire situation there and help victims. WH still won't answer about any plans to visit CA...nice. Seems he only visits states where his base lives.

Aaron747 wrote:

WH still won't answer about any plans to visit CA...nice. Seems he only visits states where his base lives.

To him and his followers, that would be like entering the gates of Hell.

You'd think that 43 dead (and likely more to be found) and an entire town burning to the ground would warrant a visit from the president.

Ultimately I don't think there is any love lost here though.

Maybe he could fly over the state and the wildfire affected areas in Air Force One while looking out the window....

He continues to be a poor president, say's whatever he wants without regard to the people he serves, without interest in the truth or the actual facts. Just sound bites for "his base". And his stupidity cost him in the just past election. Sure, great, ignore California, but California has 53 seats in the House of representatives....

Tugg

Lets be honest. If Trump did visit, do you think his visit would be treated with equal respect to help understand the situation? or would he just be met with throngs of protesters that would end up on CNN?

Two years ago we had the largest wildfire in Kansas history (it actually started in oklahoma). The anderson creek wildfire (360-390 thousand acres burned) left us with a lot of the same pictures Vik posted on the previous page. For days we had ash falling. Fortunately it didn't hit any major population centers.

There was a silver lining from that fire. It got rid of a lot of invasive cedar trees which suck up a lot more water than native plants. Burning of prairie is very common here. April is the season for controlled burns. At least once a year the sky runs dark because of the burning of prairie grasses in the flint hills.

https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article105463466.html

Removing invasive cedars is important to the health of our prairies because of the water they steal, but also because of the fire potential they pose in years of drought.