Crazy fires in Los Angeles

Minusorange said:
They don't have enough pressure to pump the water up to higher elevations because they rely on gravity in their towers to create the pressure, so yes they are having problems with gravity
Click to expand...
Why don't they just turn it up then?!
 
I'm not sure if I'm the idiot or not* but those who are insured will have cover and those who chose not to have insurance will not be. Trump may choose to spend government money** on rebuilding, but this is not the insurers problem.

* I am
** He will not.
 
platinum87 said:
rhetoric
/ˈrɛtərɪk/
noun
the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

If we blame climate change on this, it means equally so, a person who leaves his tap on, which floods his apartment, can blame rising sea levels for flooding his flat.

Local climate is not global climate, in that region of the world, this problem has been there since the start.

Small fires have consumed material, preventing larger fires, the introduction of a zero fire policy has meant, no controlled fires are being done, neither are dry/dead flammable material is being removed in compensation.

So eventually, the odds of this happening (a big fire enough to be on global news for a long time), is 100%.

The only real question is why on earth did any insurance company sell fire insurance for the last 3 decades in that area? Thats what i want to know. My only explanation is, were such a thing to happen they would declare bankruptcy as they limited their liability in such a way via the use of multiple companies.

I have already told you, this has been massively written about last 30 years, i studied this nonsense in university. You have fallen prey to climate change rhetoric and cannot do anything except point to "facts".
Click to expand...

I've read some utter nonsense on this forum but this drunk, nonsensical drivel probably tops it all.

I did actually study climate change at university as part of my Ocean Science degree - and because I have been bestowed with really basic scientific training, I can assure you, what you're writing is absurd.

Yes global climate change causes local disasters, Christ on a bike.

The thing is, science doesn't care if you believe it or not, its true, whether a random human being accepts it or not.

I don't even know how you pseudo - logic your way into a conspiracy theory about the insurance industry either.......what happened really is - science predicted an ever increasing likelyhood of this happening in LA, so the insurance companies decided it would burn sooner rather than later, so 6 months ago bailed on their customers......and now they won't pay out.

Not hard to understand - and as much as these insurance companies are vile, immoral blood sucking leeches on society - they dont have issues dealing with reality, especially when it comes to risk assessment, accepting that knowledge has saved them hundreds of billions and they remain rich.
 
koolpc said:
They used to cover for fire. They should be made to include that cover for anyone living in those areas that pay for insurance.
Click to expand...

At a price that covers their risk. Like floods risk is not provided in some areas of the UK. Making companies provide cover at rates that will likely bankrupt them only leads to companies withdrawing from the market entirely.
 
koolpc said:
The government should step in and make all the insurance companies pay for the rebuilds etc....
Click to expand...

It's probably far more likely the idiots about to take over blame it on the Russians or some other group that fits into the current narrative. The chance they go after any big company in America is zero imo :(
 
koolpc said:
Because, they withdrew insurance against fire!!

They cant force people to live elsewhere.

They used to cover for fire. They should be made to include that cover for anyone living in those areas that pay for insurance.
Click to expand...
Insurers don't have a magic money tree, if you force them to insure an uninhabitable area then everyone else pays for it with higher premiums.
 
koolpc said:
The government should step in and make all the insurance companies pay for the rebuilds etc....
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how this world works.......you see, the gov is run by the owners of insurance companies, and orange clowns are put in gov to support keeping the rich, rich, and indeed work to remove power from the work force to keep the rich rich & in power.

So, why would you think the political arm of the worlds rich would step in, to take money away from the rich and give it back to the middle class and poor people - the answer is they will not do a damn thing.

They'll probably do some other thing to make it appear as if they are "helping the people" like distract you by renaming oceans or at a push they may bring in 'ideas' along the lines of the disaster to make it appear like they are helping, perhaps make it law to FORCE people to have house insurance - yes that would appear to help the people.....on the face of it, when you're just forcing people to hand over money to the rich insurance company that won't pay out.

The last paragraph was just a vague example of course, but its roughly along the lines of what governments do.
 
Combat squirrel said:
I've read some utter nonsense on this forum but this drunk, nonsensical drivel probably tops it all.

I did actually study climate change at university as part of my Ocean Science degree - and because I have been bestowed with really basic scientific training, I can assure you, what you're writing is absurd.

Yes global climate change causes local disasters, Christ on a bike.

The thing is, science doesn't care if you believe it or not, its true, whether a random human being accepts it or not.

I don't even know how you pseudo - logic your way into a conspiracy theory about the insurance industry either.......what happened really is - science predicted an ever increasing likelyhood of this happening in LA, so the insurance companies decided it would burn sooner rather than later, so 6 months ago bailed on their customers......and now they won't pay out.

Not hard to understand - and as much as these insurance companies are vile, immoral blood sucking leeches on society - they dont have issues dealing with reality, especially when it comes to risk assessment, accepting that knowledge has saved them hundreds of billions and they remain rich.
Click to expand...

You cannot understand that while climate change is real, it is not the cause of the fires here, this is where you have succumb to the rhetoric and are unable to think rationally.
 
Rroff said:
Sounds like these fires are still very much not in control.
Click to expand...
Yes looks a impossible task currently. More about preventing it getting to neighborhoods as opposed to putting them out. Just so dry everywhere and with the wind any embers just start new ones. Watched some vids of that mustard plant going up in flames, crazy how quick it burns. Trouble is once these fires are out the mustard plant grows back quicker than any other vegetation as it grows freely in burnt ground.
Its not the main problem but certainly isn't helping.
 
We know this occurs every 50-100 years in CA, let's see if they rebuild using the same materials, ultimately guaranteeing the same thing will again or do they rebuild with some kind of fire resistant design. Building a house on a flood plain and being surprised your house flooded is dumb.

I've seen some house designs where the house is half underground and made of concrete and glass with 50cm of earth on top that would survive anything.

"Private forecaster AccuWeather estimated the damage and economic loss at $135 billion to $150 billion, portending an arduous recovery and a surge in homeowners' insurance costs." I charge 1% for my house design consultation fee so they owe me $1.5 billion.

Another crazy video, sorry if already posted.

 
Last edited:
A little bit more on the house that @bingham67 posted up.

7irFk5c.jpeg



I'd need to have a look further into the house construction itself but a lot of houses that are classed as passive house would still have a predominantly timber construction. Metal clad roof by the looks of things and if the regulations over there are anything like here then the amount of timber cladding on the walls that close to the boundary they'd have had to put some sort of intumescent coating on it to give some additional fire resistance but it looks like it was enough to reduce the risk of anything going up by any embers hitting it.
 
using the post 2019 std's ?

jpaul said:
or some facts california seemed to have 'class A roofs post 2019'

www.construction-physics.com

Wood Construction and The Risk of Fire

Whenever the topic of wildfires comes up, someone always mentions [1] that US homes are built almost entirely made from wood, that it’s senselessly risky to build homes out of a material that burns, and homes should be built from some non-combustible material like steel or concrete like they do...
www.construction-physics.com www.construction-physics.com

The design requirements for a wildfire resistant building are distinct from normal fire resistant construction, and there’s a variety of building codes and design guides for construction in wildfire prone areas. The ICC has the WUI building code, which California adopted as chapter 7A in their residential construction code. Colorado and Montana (and perhaps other states) have standards based on the “Ignition Resistant Construction Guide”. FEMA has a Homebuilders Guide to Construction in Wildfire Zones. NFPA has Standard 1144, Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards From Wildfire.

Unlike normal building codes (which focus on evacuation), these codes are much more focused on preventing the buildings from catching fire in the first place. They all make relatively similar recommendations:

Fire-resistant (Class A) Roofs: The roof is the most vulnerable portion of the house in a wildfire, and the roofing should be an assembly that will resist the spread of flame. This can be materials like tile, concrete, or metal, but asphalt or even wood shingles can be made class A as well. Anything combustible should be either fire-retardant treated or protected with a layer of gypsum.

Non-combustible or fire resistant exterior elements: Things like exterior siding, windows, doors, and decks should all be of noncombustible construction, and designed to be fire resistant. Brick or cement siding instead of cedar siding, double-paned windows, etc. If there’s a deck, it should be either noncombustible or covered with protective gypboard or fire retardant
....
For wildfires specifically, we see something similar - construction details such as fire protected eaves and class A roofs, along with things like community density, matter far more than whether your home is wood or steel.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom