1pooh4u Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Seriously I thought these fires were set by scumbag jerk-off pieces of shit? Did that turn out to not be true? Quote
smiradenius Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 28 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Seriously I thought these fires were set by scumbag jerk-off pieces of shit? Did that turn out to not be true? Whenever there's a lot of dried out underbrush, even a cigarette in the wrong place could start a blaze. Quote
1pooh4u Posted January 11 Posted January 11 7 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Whenever there's a lot of dried out underbrush, even a cigarette in the wrong place could start a blaze. Yeah idk all the specifics but there’s blame going around cuz budget cuts led to the inability to do control burns, or to do them as often as necessary. This fire probably wasn’t started by a runaway cigarette butt, but if it was, that person should go to jail. Htf can someone be as stupid as to flick a cigarette butt anywhere in socal especially during the dry seasons 1 Quote
1pooh4u Posted January 11 Posted January 11 They don’t know if it was arson. This article leans towards maybe but not likely https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna186949 1 Quote
1pooh4u Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Was doing some further reading and it seems that despite the 100m budget cut for 2024-2025 more $$ was actually put into preventing and fighting wildfires compared to prior budgets w more $$ 1 Quote
scoobdog Posted January 11 Posted January 11 1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said: Did you make this thread or was this a spin off of another thread Packard fucked up? 😆 I made it specifically so could show his ass. 2 Quote
1pooh4u Posted January 11 Posted January 11 3 minutes ago, scoobdog said: I made it specifically so could show his ass. And boy did he! 😆 2 Quote
scoobdog Posted January 11 Posted January 11 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: You never saw a sagebrush fire? Anyway, there are trees on that foothill. Well, no, there aren’t. If you set foot in LA, you would know that none of the local ranges are forested. As far as sagebrush, it exists not just in the foothills, but also in open areas like river plains in the basin. Presumably you know that it’s flammable by design, but it doesn’t spread embers under normal circumstances. It’s no different than a grassfire, which is what we consider when weeds catch fire. This fire didn’t spread because some dry native plants and weeds caught fire. They do that all the time and our infrastructure can easily douse those fires quickly. This fire spread because the region itself is abnormally dry because of La Niña and the highly unusual placement of the low over the Gulf of California created extremely high winds. like I told you, not in anybody’s lifetime have we seen hurricane force winds at lower elevations and over wide expanses. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said: Yeah idk all the specifics but there’s blame going around cuz budget cuts led to the inability to do control burns, or to do them as often as necessary. This fire probably wasn’t started by a runaway cigarette butt, but if it was, that person should go to jail. Htf can someone be as stupid as to flick a cigarette butt anywhere in socal especially during the dry seasons Agreed. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 2 hours ago, scoobdog said: Well, no, there aren’t. If you set foot in LA, you would know that none of the local ranges are forested. As far as sagebrush, it exists not just in the foothills, but also in open areas like river plains in the basin. Presumably you know that it’s flammable by design, but it doesn’t spread embers under normal circumstances. It’s no different than a grassfire, which is what we consider when weeds catch fire. This fire didn’t spread because some dry native plants and weeds caught fire. They do that all the time and our infrastructure can easily douse those fires quickly. This fire spread because the region itself is abnormally dry because of La Niña and the highly unusual placement of the low over the Gulf of California created extremely high winds. like I told you, not in anybody’s lifetime have we seen hurricane force winds at lower elevations and over wide expanses. Do you see trees in the inhabited area? Notice they look the same as what's on the foothill? Quote
scoobdog Posted January 11 Posted January 11 24 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Do you see trees in the inhabited area? Notice they look the same as what's on the foothill? I do not see the non-existent trees in the foothill. Quote
scoobdog Posted January 11 Posted January 11 4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said: Yeah idk all the specifics but there’s blame going around cuz budget cuts led to the inability to do control burns, or to do them as often as necessary. This fire probably wasn’t started by a runaway cigarette butt, but if it was, that person should go to jail. Htf can someone be as stupid as to flick a cigarette butt anywhere in socal especially during the dry seasons That's the thing... this isn't technically the dry season. Naturally flicking cigarettes anywhere at any time is bad form, and the liklihood that anyone was standing out in a hurricane smoking a cigarette to begin with seems low, but... this isn't the time of year when we're supposed to have fire danger. In fact January and February are technically our wettest months, except when climate change triggers a strong La Nina. That's not so much an excuse as a stark reminder that we have to do things way differently to prepare for wild fires than we did even five years ago. Quote
katt_goddess Posted January 12 Posted January 12 5 hours ago, 1pooh4u said: And boy did he! 😆 2 Quote
smiradenius Posted January 12 Author Posted January 12 1 hour ago, scoobdog said: I do not see the non-existent trees in the foothill. Then, you're legally blind. There's no difference whatsoever between the trees in the occupied area and the trees on the foothill. Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 19 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Then, you're legally blind. There's no difference whatsoever between the trees in the occupied area and the trees on the foothill. I live here. I already told you I've regularly go to Altadena and Pacific Palisades (sometimes on a weekly basis). I know what's on the hills behind both places. 1 1 Quote
1pooh4u Posted January 12 Posted January 12 Idek what the argument is about anymore it’s been going on for so long 😆😆 1 Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 1 minute ago, 1pooh4u said: Idek what the argument is about anymore it’s been going on for so long 😆😆 I think this thread has been a massive turd of success. 3 Quote
katt_goddess Posted January 12 Posted January 12 8 minutes ago, scoobdog said: I live here. I already told you I've regularly go to Altadena and Pacific Palisades (sometimes on a weekly basis). I know what's on the hills behind both places. You apparently do not know what's on those hills because you haven't seen them through Google Earth with the eyes of a 'retired' casino janitor from New Jersey. 2 Quote
smiradenius Posted January 12 Author Posted January 12 24 minutes ago, katt_goddess said: You apparently do not know what's on those hills because you haven't seen them through Google Earth with the eyes of a 'retired' casino janitor from New Jersey. Do you see the trees in the inhabited area? Where's the difference between that vegetation and what's on the foothill? 1 Quote
smiradenius Posted January 12 Author Posted January 12 (edited) 3 hours ago, scoobdog said: I do not see the non-existent trees in the foothill. Tadaaaa... Edited January 12 by smiradenius Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 26 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Tadaaaa... Congratulations, you took pictures of a fucking park. Now all you have to explain how pictures of a fucking park are relevant. You can start by telling all of us where those parks are located. Quote
molarbear Posted January 12 Posted January 12 On 1/10/2025 at 1:42 PM, scoobdog said: Alright @smiradenius - let's discuss all the reasons you have no idea what you're talking about. The winds that generated and propelled this fire are the result of shifting global weather patterns. When the atmosphere heats up, so do the oceans. When the oceans heat up, they impact how and where energy in atmosphere distributes. The fires in LA did not happen in an area with there was brush, they happened in suburban tracts. This is a result of extreme winds, irrespective of the source. Water infrastructure is one of the first things impacted by a wildfire. It doesn't matter how much water is stored in reserve. When a wild fire is spread rapidly, no water system ever conceived could provide enough water fast enough to properly address a raging fire on multiple fronts. This is why water and repellant drops by aircraft are usually the first and best means of stopping a wild fire spread. Is that who that is? You peeps need to make a cheat sheet for me on everybody's alts Or just have @André Toulon make a thread with a scooby doo reveal image and the person's name in the bad guy's face I was wondering why threads kept getting heavily edited. I figured nabs was back though 4 Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, molarbear said: Is that who that is? You peeps need to make a cheat sheet for me on everybody's alts Or just have @André Toulon make a thread with a scooby doo reveal image and the person's name in the bad guy's face I was wondering why threads kept getting heavily edited. I figured nabs was back though Lol. I think Nabs was even stunning for Kenny toward the end. Quote
molarbear Posted January 12 Posted January 12 4 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Lol. I think Nabs was even stunning for Kenny toward the end. I don't know what any of this means, homie Is this "Rizz"? 1 Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, molarbear said: I don't know what any of this means, homie Is this "Rizz"? Depends... you feeling the sparks? Quote
naraku360 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 (edited) 19 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Lol. I think Nabs was even stunning for Kenny toward the end. Nabs would need Packard to make himself look stunning. Edited January 12 by naraku360 1 Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 54 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Nabs would need Packard to make himself look stunning. He wasn’t that ugly… just kind of dirty and strangely colorless. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 12 Author Posted January 12 9 hours ago, scoobdog said: Congratulations, you took pictures of a fucking park. Now all you have to explain how pictures of a fucking park are relevant. You can start by telling all of us where those parks are located. Where is that tree lined park? Quote
scoobdog Posted January 12 Posted January 12 4 hours ago, smiradenius said: Where is that tree lined park? Yes. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 On 1/11/2025 at 9:36 PM, scoobdog said: Congratulations, you took pictures of a fucking park. Now all you have to explain how pictures of a fucking park are relevant. You can start by telling all of us where those parks are located. Pacific Palisades, according to the web page. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 On 1/10/2025 at 7:52 PM, scoobdog said: Are you saying 80MPH gusts are nothing new? They had that in 2011. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_winds#:~:text=The strongest Santa Ana winds,(269 km%2Fh). Quote
stilgar Posted January 13 Posted January 13 28 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Pacific Palisades, according to the web page. Where in Pacific palisades you dumb mother fucker? 2 Quote
PenguinBoss Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: They had that in 2011. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_winds#:~:text=The strongest Santa Ana winds,(269 km%2Fh). And everyone knows climate change wasn't a thing in 2011. This is a very good argument you're making. 1 1 Quote
smiradenius Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 1 hour ago, stilgar said: Where in Pacific palisades you dumb mother fucker? Apparently where the trees are. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 46 minutes ago, PenguinBoss said: And everyone knows climate change wasn't a thing in 2011. This is a very good argument you're making. And how long have there been records kept? Quote
discolé monade Posted January 13 Posted January 13 1 hour ago, stilgar said: Where in Pacific palisades you dumb mother fucker? now now friend, she's not been to palisades, she wouldn't know anything about the west coast. 1 Quote
smiradenius Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 1 minute ago, discolé monade said: now now friend, she's not been to palisades, she wouldn't know anything about the west coast. Let's just assume for minute that there aren't any trees. Do you think an eighty mph wind can't kick up and spread all the burning sage brush? It's not like the brush is a dense heavy plant. It burns like cardboard with kerosene on it. Quote
scoobdog Posted January 13 Posted January 13 2 hours ago, smiradenius said: They had that in 2011. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana_winds#:~:text=The strongest Santa Ana winds,(269 km%2Fh). Cool. At any rate, they’re not anywhere close to the mean, and, yes, those winds were all climate change generated as well. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 Just now, scoobdog said: Cool. At any rate, they’re not anywhere close to the mean, and, yes, those winds were all climate change generated as well. How long have there been records kept? Also, remember that we're talking about the "highest recorded". What's running a close second or third and so not considered newsworthy enough to mention on the internet. Not much difference between 80 and 75. Quote
scoobdog Posted January 13 Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, smiradenius said: And how long have there been records kept? Since the 1880’s, I believe. The majority of the heat and wind records have been in the past 30 years. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 Just now, scoobdog said: Since the 1880’s, I believe. The majority of the heat and wind records have been in the past 30 years. So, we hear all about the "highest on record". What's running a close second or third? Quote
scoobdog Posted January 14 Posted January 14 1 minute ago, smiradenius said: So, we hear all about the "highest on record". What's running a close second or third? Look it up, sister. You’re the wikimistress. 1 Quote
discolé monade Posted January 14 Posted January 14 (edited) if she looks anything else up, it might go back to 2007 reports? lol. she brings 2011 to a 2025 discussion. good job mrs left behind. Edited January 14 by discolé monade 1 Quote
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 Just now, discolé monade said: if she looks anything else up, it might go back to 2007 reports? lol. she brings 2011 to a 2025 discussion. could job mrs left behind. Like I said, it's nothing new. It has all happened before. Quote
smiradenius Posted January 14 Author Posted January 14 3 minutes ago, scoobdog said: Look it up, sister. You’re the wikimistress. I don't see much difference between 80 and 75mph. You talk about the "mean" like it's the only thing possible there. Quote
discolé monade Posted January 14 Posted January 14 @scoobdog is she replying to me? also i saw this. drumpf proofing. lol 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.