https://www.sierraattahoe.com/live-cams/

That's a bit south of the lake, almost between two fires. That region
is running over a 500 ug/m3 particulate level.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:eoikig1fiqce8n9ls7hi6cdmua7030tns3@4ax.com:

>
> https://www.sierraattahoe.com/live-cams/
>
> That's a bit south of the lake, almost between two fires. That region
> is running over a 500 ug/m3 particulate level.
>
>
>

Good time to wear a mask. N95 preferrably in this case.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:47:40 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> https://www.sierraattahoe.com/live-cams/
>
> That's a bit south of the lake, almost between two fires. That region
> is running over a 500 ug/m3 particulate level.

That's the new normal, until every last bit of everything that can burn, has burned.

>
>
>
> --
>
> Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
> but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
> always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:07:47 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:47:40 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> https://www.sierraattahoe.com/live-cams/
>>
>> That's a bit south of the lake, almost between two fires. That region
>> is running over a 500 ug/m3 particulate level.
>
>
>That's the new normal, until every last bit of everything that can burn, has burned.

In past millenia, each patch of central California burned about every
10 years. Some was controlled burns by the natives. The small fires
cleaned up the trash and left the mature trees. Now we put them out
with trucks and airplanes, until the fuel loads build up to 10x the
natural levels. The giant firestorms kill everything.

Thanks a lot, Smokey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Bear

Basically everything that grows in forests here has the same exit
strategy: it gets made in to plywood or it burns.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:34:22 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> In past millenia, each patch of central California burned about every
> 10 years. Some was controlled burns by the natives.
Cute story.
> The small fires
> cleaned up the trash and left the mature trees.

Well, yeah; the life cycle of pines, redwoods, and the like is about
surviving multiple small fires.

>Now we put them out
> with trucks and airplanes, until the fuel loads build up to 10x the
> natural levels. The giant firestorms kill everything.

Nonsense. First problem: we have trucks and airplanes, that technology is
used largely to contain or limit 'giant firestorms' not small burns.

Second problem: 'the fuel loads' were always building up, and when they
got above average, that's when the 'natural levels' were reestablished by
fire. It wouldn't always have been small burns, of course. Why would you
assume otherwise? Why would the natives have done controlled burns,
if they weren't seeing devastating wildfires?

Third problem: the giant firestorms might not kill an old-growth tree, IF WE
STILL HAD THOSE. Harvesting the last big 'uns is part of why the ground-level
fuel is so abundant, unlike a century ago.

Controlled burning is always a judgment call, and (like all city-dwellers) you're
in no position to criticize those judgments.

lørdag den 28. august 2021 kl. 22.41.31 UTC+2 skrev whit3rd:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:34:22 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> > In past millenia, each patch of central California burned about every
> > 10 years. Some was controlled burns by the natives.
> Cute story.
> > The small fires
> > cleaned up the trash and left the mature trees.
> Well, yeah; the life cycle of pines, redwoods, and the like is about
> surviving multiple small fires.

and some trees like giant sequoia needs fire to reproduce

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 13:41:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:34:22 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> In past millenia, each patch of central California burned about every
>> 10 years. Some was controlled burns by the natives.
>Cute story.
>> The small fires
>> cleaned up the trash and left the mature trees.
>
>Well, yeah; the life cycle of pines, redwoods, and the like is about
>surviving multiple small fires.
>
>>Now we put them out
>> with trucks and airplanes, until the fuel loads build up to 10x the
>> natural levels. The giant firestorms kill everything.
>
>Nonsense. First problem: we have trucks and airplanes, that technology is
>used largely to contain or limit 'giant firestorms' not small burns.

Small fires are extinguished immediately on the absurd premise that
putting them out prevents big fires.

And the equally silly idea that putting them out saves houses.

>
>Second problem: 'the fuel loads' were always building up, and when they
>got above average, that's when the 'natural levels' were reestablished by
>fire. It wouldn't always have been small burns, of course. Why would you
>assume otherwise?

Because small fires prevent big fires.

> Why would the natives have done controlled burns,
>if they weren't seeing devastating wildfires?

Because controlled burns made the fires smaller. But there were some
biggish fires; the natives warned the Spanish explorers about them.
But we have hundred square mile firestorms now.

>
>Third problem: the giant firestorms might not kill an old-growth tree, IF WE
>STILL HAD THOSE. Harvesting the last big 'uns is part of why the ground-level
>fuel is so abundant, unlike a century ago.

How do a few big trees prevent small stuff from growing?

They don't. The small stuff has to be cleared, or it burns.

>
>Controlled burning is always a judgment call, and (like all city-dwellers) you're
>in no position to criticize those judgments.

We have a cabin in the mountains, near where there are big fires
burning right now. Our cabin won't burn because we keep the area
properly managed, which is expensive to do. Small fires used to do the
cleanup naturally.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:01:13 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2021 13:41:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >Third problem: the giant firestorms might not kill an old-growth tree, IF WE
> >STILL HAD THOSE. Harvesting the last big 'uns is part of why the ground-level
> >fuel is so abundant, unlike a century ago.

> How do a few big trees prevent small stuff from growing?
>
> They don't. The small stuff has to be cleared, or it burns.

Shade. Big trees DO slow the growth under a big canopy.

On 8/28/2021 1:41 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> Controlled burning is always a judgment call, and (like all city-dwellers) you're
> in no position to criticize those judgments.

Regardless of "controlled burns" or not, one can still take
actions to minimize the exposure to loss that a fire presents.

We've had several, here. Often placing "costly resources"
(e.g., observatories) at risk.

A program to keep the areas around those resources free of fuel
would minimize the URGENCY of trying to do that while a fire
was approaching!

Likewise, these folks with homes in heavily wooded areas...
they want the trees around them -- until those same trees
bring the fire onto their property!

Take your pick: if you want to engage in risky behavior,
then why should others subsidize your indulgences?