|
| I'm in the middle of these fires and operate a contract dozer for Cal Fire.
The problem has been putting fires out and not letting them burn since the 20s. Now the fuel load is so insane that any fire with a little bit of wind is a raging inferno. We can't let the fires burn now because there is too much housing in these wildlands (urban interface). When they hit some of the larger forests or national forests they do let them burn (I'm not involved with those.) Also, grazing is frowned upon due to bogus climate concerns (grazing does not contribute to climate change) as well as controlled burns (again, controlled burns are problematic as the fuel load is huge but either way it will eventually burn). Also, anyone attempting to do anything to reduce fuel loads meets with a ton of environmental law suits. PG&E, the power company, often has to have an armed presence on scene when trimming or removing trees.
Where I live in Sonoma County, the Nuns and Tubbs fire followed the same path that it did in 1871, 1923, 1964, and last year, 2017 (that we know of). It is largely an issue of topography; the way that the winds occasionally come through here. If there is a fire when those winds come, it is off and running. The 23, and 64 fires took a couple of weeks to do what the 2017 did in a couple of days. It is not that it is any hotter or climate has significantly changed, it is that there is no grazing, no controlled burns, smaller fires aren't allowed to burn to reduce load, housing density is such that controlled burns are not feasible, resulting in an extreme fuel load. It's like turning my forge up to a higher fuel pressure and adding a jet engine as a blower. The climate has not changed, at least not significantly, the conditions and management have. | |
|
California wild fires caused by global warming
