In wondering why the LA wildfires had worse outcomes than say those in Wisconsin, Mr. Bruce Hall makes this assertion.
This might be true today, but over time it isn’t. Once again, referring to data, I examine the PDSI for California Division 6 (LA), and Wisconsin Division 8 (Madison).
Figure 1: California Div 6 minus Wisconsin Div 8 PDSI (blue), and quadratic fit (red). Source: NOAA and author’s calculations.
So, since about…1968, or so, Madison has been drier than LA…
Possibly winds/currents off the ocean play a part in the extreme fire danger in Cali?? Is that a hard one to figure out that the winds would “feed” the fires in a way not often experienced in other states??
Obviously there are other factors involved, but one also wonders, when living in a region with very high fire danger, if insurers etc might push hard for these celebrities (who can afford nearly any material) to opt for stucco homes. . Added bonus would be less whining from Jillian Michaels.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1hxzgh4/this_house_remained_intact_while_the_neighborhood/?rdt=34862
I had some family who lived in Albuquerque once upon a time. I always found stucco homes to be charming myself.
Brucie followed his mistaken claim about “Caifornia” with a perhaps-perhaps-perhaps argument. “Perhaps management of the landscape is practiced differently out west. Perhaps they want to go “natural” out there.” Brucie claims sea water wasn’t used to fight tire, knowing full well that it was.
All this thrashing around to avoid admitting that he’s wrong, all these cheap rhetorical tricks on the way to “I stand by my original comment” is classic Brucie. Faux News blather is Brucie’s only way of thinking. Facts be damned.
The place from where Bruce pulls his random postulates never runs dry.
Sorry I don’t check the spelling late at nigh, but your penchant for trying to use typos in an attempt to discredit the points I’ve made seems a little petty.
As to Wisconsin and Michigan being as dry as southern California, that’s based on the current drought monitor map.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx
Of course,the midwest/north central isn’t chronically as dry as southern California, but the point should be fairly obvious … dry conditions don’t necessarily result in large wildfires. Political policies and land management regulations and actions largely determine if dry conditions become perfect conditions for these fires. The fact that the danger was highlighted last fall should dispel any notion that such policies, regulations, and lack of actions were unforeseen as a real danger.
https://cepr.net/publications/us-forest-service-decision-to-halt-prescribed-burns-in-california-is-history-repeating/
Controlled burns are done when winds are generally less than 5mph which is significantly different from wildfires whipped by 60-80 mph Santa Ana winds.
Ounce of prevention….
Rather that spend millions of dollars on preventive actions, California (and US taxpayers) are now facing a bill of billions of dollars.
Bruce Hall: Of course, it’s in part the combination of big rainfalls that spurs vegetation growth, and then long stretches of dry hot conditions.
Did you pick it up?
Maybe this should be a direct response to Bruce on the original thread, but here we go:
1. It’s a lot hotter in Southern California,
2. Wisconsin doesn’t have the Santa Anas,
3. Wisconsin doesn’t have steep, narrow canyons in hillsides everywhere that magnify the effect of any wind that is present and are also extremely hard to get into when a fire starts,
4. The native vegetation (forests vs chaparral) is far less susceptible to quick, explosive combustion.
Menzie, you have a colleague at Eau Claire who has devoted his late career to the economics of skateboarding:
https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/01/14/g-s1-42171/this-skateboarding-economist-suggests-we-need-more-skateparks-and-less-capitalism
Apparently, the field of skateboard economics is now pretty crowded. Unicycle studies, though underfunded, remain largely unexplored. In case you’re looking for something to do.
Off topic.
Ukraine launches its biggest attack ever on Russia.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwypg2z780go
They were using a mixture of their own and western supplied weapons to strike deep and broad on important strategic military targets. They may be in the process of using up US supplied missiles on Russian targets and also test their own home produced weapons that can strike twice as far into Russia as any of the western weapons.
California goes throught periods of dry/drought conditions. 2024 was not “wet”, but let’s call it “less dry”. See the chart titled “California Drought History”.
https://data.rgj.com/drought/california/06/
This fire spread rapidly because 1) controlled burns were not done when conditions were favorable several months ago (a conscious decision) and 2) fire departments did not have sufficient resouces when the fires began (athough as the article below indicates even more resouces may not have been enough once the fire got out of control)..
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/14/us/la-fire-department-resourses-understaffed-invs/index.html
Bad decisions were compounded by wrong priorities.
Now Gov. Newsom suggests that he will shortcut the permit process for rebuilding.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/governor-newsom-signs-executive-order-to-help-los-angeles-rebuild-faster-and-stronger
While this situation puts the governor between a rock and a hard place politically, is it unreasonable to ask whether “restoration” of a highly vulnerable community 1) can be done quickly given the vast amount of rubble to be removed and infrastructure to be restored plus the acquistion of massive amounts of building materials and 2) should be done quickly presuming nothing would be done to ensure homes would be built to more fire resistant specifications (perhaps concrete and steel rather than wood)?
Repeating past mistakes may not be the best course of action.
It’s not surprising that some insurance companies called it quits given both the restrictions on premiums and the questionable management displayed by the government.
Regardless of what is done, this could be a budget busting situation for Los Angeles and California, and possibly FEMA although some economists are already quick to dispel that notion. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/economists-say-los-angeles-fire-have-limited-national-economic-impact-2025-01-14/
Still other sources say the losses could be $50 – 150 billion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/business/dealbook/los-angeles-fires-costs.html
https://www.investopedia.com/los-angeles-wildfires-loss-estimate-now-up-to-usd150b-as-death-toll-rises-8772312
Regardless, it is considerably more than prevention and rapid response with sufficient resources would have cost.
Bruce Hall: The map on your first link indicates 9 January for area encompassing much of CA division 6 is “severe”…
As for rebuilding, having been very near (within miles) of the East Bay Hills fire of 1991, I can say that rebuilding with fire resistant materials imposed by building codes can reduce risk considerably. If you don’t know the event, google it. Signed – a former resident of CA.