Pacific Palisades Fire Threatening Santa Monica, California

[russ_watters]

I think we can agree, that there's a difference between "shutting off power" and "shutting off power to the fire pumps." Especially in light of the statement that the fire pumps have their own generators.

@berkeman makes a good point about not rushing to conclusions.

Yeah, I was thinking that too. Water supply is one of those things that "has to work" and not be affected by a power failure. In buildings the backup fire pump is diesel powered(not diesel generator powered) and I'd expect both domestic water and fire main pumps to have such a backup.

More likely cause of low flow/pressure:
-Lots of people drawing water from the system.
-Broken pipes.

 

[russ_watters]

Not really. There’s lots of reports of then canceling coverage starting months ago, and unconfirmed reports of people getting their coverage cancelled during the evacuations.

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/ca-insurance-commissioner-addresses-homeowners-policy-cancellations/10103-e3f2f83e-ed87-432a-b4a4-a6cec2239256#

Insurance is a binding contract and can't be cancelled, only declined to renew. How long is a typical insurance term, a year? So, 2% get their renewal notice in the mail every week(with a month or two notice), and if the insurance provider is declining to renew, that's what they get instead. No doubt for some people the lapse date happened during the evacuations. It sucks, but it isn't "canceling during the evacuations".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

US weather service estimates total Los Angeles fire damage between $135-150 billion so far​

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-st...ween-135-150-billion-so-far_6736927_133.html#

 

[fresh_42]

US weather service estimates total Los Angeles fire damage between $135-150 billion so far​

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-st...ween-135-150-billion-so-far_6736927_133.html#

I have heard that figure even when CNN still spoke about 30 or so. They also mentioned celebrities a lot (Paris Hilton, Mel Gibson, etc.) However, it's the normal people I share my thoughts and sadness with, not rich people who suffered a loss they can probably far more easily recover from than ordinary people who lost everything.

 

[snorkack]

It's not as if Spain wouldn't know the situation!

Maybe the landscape fires - but do this kind of whole cities razed to ground happen to Spain? Old houses are unfired brick/adobe if poor, fired brick or (unreinforced) masonry when rich. What are the new houses in Spain resorts like? Hollow cinder block masonry? Concrete?
Unreinforced masonry is worse than wood in earthquakes. How do stone houses respond to landscape/neighbouring house fires? I suppose that heat radiation might overheat window panes and cause them to shatter from thermal stress... wooden doors catching fire from same reason... adobe, masonry and concrete cracking and spalling from surface, limestone burning to lime, but that takes well over 500 Celsius...
Still, when houses are standing alone in a field of ashes, how did they get the water to protect it? Or was it simply fireproof construction - sparks landing on roof and walls have nothing to ignite, and windows and doors small and well protected?

 

[gmax137]

US weather service estimates total Los Angeles fire damage between $135-150 billion so far

Fire insurance in California was already getting very expensive. I know a number of people in Northern Cali who have dropped their fire insurance because they simply can't afford it. I've heard fire premiums going from $2,000 a few years ago to 6,000 or more this year. Some just accept the risk, others have installed water tanks (two or three 5,000 gallon tanks) with a small engine-driven fire pump so they can keep their roofs wet.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...-brain-surgeon-saved-malibu-street-wildfires/
How a ‘warrior’ brain surgeon saved his Malibu street from wildfires and looters
Chester Griffiths led his son and his neighbour in a marathon stand-off against flames and criminals under hail of burning debris

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fire insurance in California was already getting very expensive. I know a number of people in Northern Cali who have dropped their fire insurance because they simply can't afford it. I've heard fire premiums going from $2,000 a few years ago to 6,000 or more this year. Some just accept the risk, others have installed water tanks (two or three 5,000 gallon tanks) with a small engine-driven fire pump so they can keep their roofs wet.

Smerconish had an interesting take on things this morning. He said capitalism and environmentalism have typically been at odds with each other in that environmentalism can be expensive and halt economic progress. But now climate change is having a significant economic impact and, from floods to droughts to fires, the insurance companies are responding. Perhaps we are seeing the first cases of major economic changes due to the environment. The current trends would exclude all but the rich from living in many areas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the mean time, the winds in the Palisades are expected to blow East, towards Brentwood and Belair - more very exclusive areas - with gusts up to 40 mph tonight.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One evacuee said when they tried to find a place to rent, already rent prices were hyperinflated. But today the Governor said they are making price gouging illegal. Still, where will everyone go? There is already a housing shortage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just saw a woman interviewed who still lives in Paradise Ca. She said before the fire, her fire insurance was about $500 year. Now they want between $20,000 and $30,000 a year for fire insurance that does not provide good coverage.

 

[DaveE]

 

[Tom.G]

Today's (Sunday, Jan.12, 2025) LA Times headline:

Fire battle shifts to new front
Change in wind prompts evacuations in Brentwood, Encino, Tarzana

Some excerpts from the article:
Why water ran out as crisis raged
The water system that supplies neighborhoods simply doesn't have the capacity to deliver such large volums of water over several hours, said Martin Adams, former general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power "The system has never been designed to fight a wildfire that then envelops a community..."
|
|
referring to the Eaton fire:
Pasadena fire chief Chad Augustin said having dozens of fire engines battling multiple fires resulted in overuse of the water system. "On top of that, we had a loss of power temporarily," he said, which affected the system Wednesday. (After a major fire in 1993 when the power failed, they installed backup generators at all of their pumping stations.)
|
|
The manager of the Altadena Water district, Tom Majich:
"To fight a wildfire, you have to have Lake Havasu behind you. You could fill a Rose Bowl with water and it wouldn't be enough. There's not a system that can do it."

From memory, another statement I ran across but can't find at the moment said:
City neighborhood water systems are designed to handle the daily usage of our customers and a building fire or two. We had 4 times the normal usage for 15 hours. (If i recall correctly, that emptied 2 large reservoirs, a third reservoir had been drained for needed repairs.)
[EDIT: for clarification/correction, see: https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...monica-california.1067975/page-3#post-7144495[/EDIT]

Another comment I ran across:
The fire spread so fast because "...high winds were carrying burning embers one to three miles beyond the fireline."

Well, that's the hot news from Sunny Southern California today.

Remember that "Smokey the Bear" says: "Only you can prevent forest fires."
. . . Well, maybe.

Tom

 

[PeroK]

I just saw a woman interviewed who still lives in Paradise Ca. She said before the fire, her fire insurance was about $500 year. Now they want between $20,000 and $30,000 a year for fire insurance that does not provide good coverage.

This is climate change, is it not? Places that previously were habitable will no longer be so. I saw a quotation from a climate scientist saying something like "2025 will be one of the coldest years this century - enjoy it while it lasts." Unless there is a something of a miracle, this can only get worse.

 

[gmax137]

This is climate change, is it not?

What makes you think that? IMO, it is overbuilding inadequately designed housing in the steep canyons. In an area well known for fires and high winds. The winds are so frequent, and so high, and so dry, that they even have a name.

Santa Ana winds originate from high-pressure airmasses over the Great Basin and upper Mojave Desert. Any low-pressure area over the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of California, can change the stability of the Great Basin High, causing a pressure gradient that turns the synoptic scale winds southward down the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada and into the Southern California region.[9]
...
The Santa Ana winds and the accompanying raging wildfires have been a part of the ecosystem of the Los Angeles Basin for over 5,000 years, dating back to the earliest habitation of the region by the Tongva and Tataviam peoples.[22]
...
22. Rutten, Tim (October 15, 2000). "L.A., land of fire -- always". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2011-06-06. Retrieved 2013-05-03.

EDIT:
Have a look at the first "similar thread" below
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ence-wildfires-in-southern-california.193170/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What makes you think that? IMO, it is overbuilding inadequately designed housing in the steep canyons. In an area well known for fires and high winds. The winds are so frequent, and so high, and so dry, that they even have a name.



EDIT:
Have a look at the first "similar thread" below
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ence-wildfires-in-southern-california.193170/

They are in a serious drought - esp the areas that burned. Excessive and abnormally heavy rains last year and almost none this year. So everything that grew from all rain died and was just tinder.

They have been in a super drought for over 20 years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

• California has become increasingly dry since 1895. From 2012 to 2016, California experienced the most severe drought on record: thirteen of the 30 driest months on record occurred during this period.
• Except for brief wet periods in the 2017 and 2019 water years, drought conditions have largely persisted through 2021 and 2022.

https://oehha.ca.gov/climate-change...me increasingly dry since 1895.,-A three-year

 

[PeroK]

What makes you think that? IMO, it is overbuilding inadequately designed housing in the steep canyons. In an area well known for fires and high winds. The winds are so frequent, and so high, and so dry, that they even have a name.

Very little, if anything, is going to happen in the next few years that couldn't have happened in the past. It's the increased frequency and severity of these extreme events that is the key factor that makes me think that. Especially as this was the predicted result of climate change.

 

[fresh_42]

This is climate change, is it not?

No, it is not. It has always been a characteristic of this area and will remain so. Among all possible such events, you will occasionally observe a severe one if several things happen at the same time. If at all, then climate change lowers the risk of wildfires in LA since a warming Pacific means a smaller difference in air temperature between the desert and the ocean which is responsible for the Santa Ana winds which in turn are responsible for the fires.

Climate change only affects the duration and number of droughts. However, flying sparks from an existing normal fire is a concern in an urban area whether there was rain a month ago or not. We shouldn't allow climate change to be the killer argument for anything. Sometimes, it is simple topography.

 

[PeroK]

We shouldn't allow climate change to be the killer argument for anything.

Precisely the extreme events (and their increased frequency and severity) isn't just "anything". This is what was predicted.

 

[gmax137]

increased frequency and severity

Any data supporting "increased frequency"? Especially in light of this:

Nearly 85 percent* of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson.

*Source: 2000-2017 data based on Wildland Fire Management Information (WFMI) and U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive

Along with the population increase in the Los Angeles metro area, 4 million in 1950, nearly 13 million today. (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23052/los-angeles/population)

So, roughly three times as many people to start fires, and three times as many dwellings to burn.

 

[PeroK]

Any data supporting "increased frequency"? Especially in light of this:


Along with the population increase in the Los Angeles metro area, 4 million in 1950, nearly 13 million today. (https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23052/los-angeles/population)

So, roughly three times as many people to start fires, and three times as many dwellings to burn.

Here are three reputable sources who disagree with your analysis:

https://www.c2es.org/content/wildfires-and-climate-change/

https://www.edf.org/climate/heres-how-climate-change-affects-wildfires

https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/v...wildfires-and-air-pollution-has-major-impacts

 

[PeroK]

Just to pick out the key point:

But climate change also has an indirect role by increasing the frequency and intensity of heatwaves and prolonging drought. These conditions heighten the risk and likelihood of forest fires spreading, which in turn has a major impact on air quality.

 

[gmax137]

Thank you @PeroK
I am not a climate change denier, and I have no doubt that overall increasing temperatures and less rainfall will lead to a higher risk of wildfires. I'm just saying that pointing to the ongoing fires in LA and saying "see? climate change!" is not helpful. There are plenty of conditions in that region that share some blame in the scope of these fires. I don't think that fixating on climate change will lead to any improvement in the future.

From the first link, the trend (1984 - 2011) in "Mediterranean California" (the coast including the Los Angeles basin) is fewer large fires. It would be nice to have more up to date data like this.

And their first three recommendations to "Build Resilience" line up with my previous comment "overbuilding inadequately designed housing in the steep canyons. In an area well known for fires and high winds"

How to Build Resilience

• Communities, builders, homeowners, and forest managers can reduce the likelihood and impacts of wildfires by:
  • Discouraging developments (especially residential) near fire-prone forests through smart zoning rules.
  • Increasing the space between structures and nearby trees and brush, and clearing space between neighboring houses.
  • Incorporating fire-resistant design features and materials in buildings.
  • Increasing resources allocated to firefighting and fire prevention.
  • Removing fuels, such as dead trees, from forests that are at risk.
  • Developing recovery plans before a fire hits, and implementing plans quickly after a fire to reduce erosion, limit flooding, and minimize habitat damage.
  • The Climate Mapping for Resilience and Adaptation portal helps communities understand and plan for their climate risks today and in the future, including a real-time map of wildfire, drought, flooding, and extreme heat across the United States.

 

[PeroK]

Thank you @PeroK
I am not a climate change denier, and I have no doubt that overall increasing temperatures and less rainfall will lead to a higher risk of wildfires. I'm just saying that pointing to the ongoing fires in LA and saying "see? climate change!" is not helpful.

Perhaps not, but how can it be helpful to say that climate change has nothing to do with it? Nature cannot be fooled.

 

[DaveE]

If i recall correctly, that emptied 2 large reservoirs

Citation please. It's nearly impossible to drain a large reservoir in a few days.

 

[QuarkyMeson]

I just saw a woman interviewed who still lives in Paradise Ca. She said before the fire, her fire insurance was about $500 year. Now they want between $20,000 and $30,000 a year for fire insurance that does not provide good coverage.

This sounds like a passive aggressive way of saying, "We can't legally deny you coverage, so we're going to make it prohibitively expensive." From a logic standpoint does this even make sense? After a wildfire has burnt most of the fuel in an area you'd think fire insurance would go down.

California should just work on burying all their powerlines, especially if they aren't designed with frequent? Santa Ana winds in mind. I guess then you just have to worry about earthquakes, but thats what conduit is for right...

 

[Bandersnatch]

Perhaps not, but how can it be helpful to say that climate change has nothing to do with it? Nature cannot be fooled.

I think the issue is with the link being a category error. People will complain about those things.
It's the same kind of mistake as with pinning any particularly hot day on global warming (or a cold one on lack thereof). Or with e.g. any single large wave on the rising tide, or a car crash fatality on the global increase in car ownership.
So, in the latter example, (let's assume) it's fair to say that having more cars in the world will cause more car-related deaths globally. But saying that any particular death was the result of there being more cars, or wouldn't happen if there were fewer, is problematic.
Causes of individual events should be assessed on individual basis, with more granularity than general trends. There might or might not be a direct link or a contribution, but it shouldn't be assumed with a broad stroke - even as everyone agrees that the general trend is there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

California should just work on burying all their powerlines

They made the point of saying they are doing just that, in the same report about Paradise.

Only about 30% of the town has returned.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the issue is with the link being a category error. People will complain about those things.
It's the same kind of mistake as with pinning any particularly hot day on global warming (or a cold one on lack thereof). Or with e.g. any single large wave on the rising tide, or a car crash fatality on the global increase in car ownership.
So, in the latter example, (let's assume) it's fair to say that having more cars in the world will cause more car-related deaths globally. But saying that any particular death was the result of there being more cars, or wouldn't happen if there were fewer, is problematic.
Causes of individual events should be assessed on individual basis, with more granularity than general trends. There might or might not be a direct link or a contribution, but it shouldn't be assumed with a broad stroke - even as everyone agrees that the general trend is there.

This is a decades long drought.