Show HN: LA Wildfire Satellite Analysis (opens in new tab)

No, looks like they're doing a way better job! Thanks for sharing. I was only aware of the GOES sats. Seems like VIIRS is more intended to do this kind of monitoring.

FIRMS is very cool, but take it with a grain of salt - we were all looking at it obsessively while Jasper AB burned this summer, and apparently it has issues with differentiating between fire on the ground and fire in the smoke clouds, so it can make the fire boundary look bigger than it actually is.

Interesting that FIRMS doesn't seem to yet be showing the "Sunset" fire, or anything West of Griffith Park...

Wonder why the whole central band of Africa is just covered in fires, households? deforestation?

It’s a very dangerous answer to try to give someone, because of how unpredictable and dangerous a wildfire is. Sudden shifts in winds and can have the flames jump (literally) miles in minutes, after sitting calmly for hours.

It isn’t theoretical either - it kills professionals too. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Gulch_fire], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canyon_Fire], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude_fire] for a few examples.

Long story short - never turn your back on a wildfire, and try to stay as far away as possible.

No, just a student on winter break who got curious why CA Fire's map wasn't showing the up-to-date extent of the Eaton fire. Do they have this kind of heat data?

There are two issues. For thousands of years, indigenous people maintained the forest and small fires cleaned out the underbrush. The US halted maintenance, and suppressed fires, creating a backlog of fuel.

The second issue is global warming.

If you have any ideas on how to get the manpower necessary to perform 100+ years of backlogged forest maintenance spanning the entire west coast, or (better) how to fix global warming, I’d love to hear it.

Also, desalination at the scale necessary to meet California’s demands is beyond current technology (especially if it’s done without destroying the ocean ecosystem). Note that the central valley relies on irrigation, and is the bread basket of the US.

Wildfires in California date back millions of years and are a natural part of the region's ecology. The difference in recent centuries has been dense human habitation. I think your statement about presumed prevention is inaccurate or misleading.

The Sierra Club sues any attempt to do preventive burns. Forest management can take 4-7 years between planning and execution for any one task.

https://x.com/tahrajirari/status/1877110097790312519

1) There wasn't a water shortage. The local reservoirs were full at the start of the fire. The problem was that there was so much simultaneous demand that there was insufficient water pressure. This was compounded by the destruction of pumping stations by the fire, and by the extreme winds preventing the use of aerial support (i.e., water and fire retardant) on Tuesday, when most of the Palisades were burned.

2) Salt water is highly corrosive to equipment, and also kills vegetation. But it used as a last resort when fresh water reservoirs are empty...and was used in previous Malibu fires...

3) For an example of how important aerial support is: the Sunset Fire and the Mt Wilson flameup of the Eaton fire were controlled within an hour each through the use of aerial water drops.

Who's presuming it's preventable? What little investment do you suggest California make?

Probably slow controlled burns would be helpful in reducing potential fuel, but who's going to perform controlled burns over the entirety of all the hills surrounding LA ?

> preventable

Preventable via multiple methods, you've been downvoted presumably for seeming insensitivity, but it seems a valid question. Water is plentiful, it's a rich area. This stuff can be prevented. Why wasn't it?