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.
Maybe because FIRMS uses data from satellites in polar orbits, which only pass over the area once every few hours? With choosing near-Earth polar vs. farther geostationary orbits there's a tradeoff between space and time resolution.
A sibling comment mentioned that it can detect smoke, so my guess is waste disposal, aka burning trash in your backyard. Some can produce quite a lot of smoke.
I did a private pilot license in Africa, the biggest "plus" was that I always knew the direction of the wind on the ground by looking at all these fires. There was never a time when I didn't see smoke unless I was flying in very remote areas.
If you look at all the green, you'll notice the fires are in the equatorial rainforest that runs along the equator. Fire is a quick, non-mechanical way to clear land of vegetation for farming or other uses.
Additionally, in a rainforest, wood is a cheap and easily available source of fuel for day to day household energy needs in areas that are rural, remote and with no electrical services.
Another fire project idea: show, based on some kind of prediction model that gives 50th, 90th, 99th percentiles (from historical data, perhaps, or perhaps just from wind/fire speeds), how fast a given fire could reach a specific location.
Whenever I've opened watch duty, that's always the question I'm asking. How long might it take to reach [here/there]?
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.
Right, they seem highly volatile/variable. The thinking is that showing the 99th percentile / range of possibilities would cover that, if it's based on historical data - does that seem right to you or no, and if not why not?
> We download the reprojected data from UW SSEC's RealEarth program
I really wish GOES's official images would provide the high resolution imagery directly. We shouldn't have to go through RealEarth to get it. However I've noticed that only RealEarth has the highest resolution images.
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?
They integrate a number of sources. Satellite, cameras, weather, CalFire, etc. Check out their app, it’s free. They are a non-profit Startup, which is an interesting approach.
I really don't understand why something that is presumed preventable with little investment is allowed to continue happening. What's worse is the water shortage is what I don't understand. It's a state literally bordering the ocean.
That graph is impressive, and really shocking how much land these fires are just taking.
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.
> manpower necessary to perform 100+ years of backlogged forest maintenance spanning the entire west coast
Curious what is involved with this. If indigenous people could do it, why couldn't a larger population with superior tech do it? Sounds like a worthwhile venture. Even if it costs a fortune it might be better than rebuilding LA every 30-50 years.
You missed the third issue which was utterly incompetent management from the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, and the governer of California, Gavin Newsom.
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 previous inhabitants knew all about these firestorms and used controlled burning to minimize their impact. Its probably going to be wise for future governors to consider re-learning this knowledge....
You make it sound unidimensional but there is probably not 1 type of wildfire in California. Coastal residentially dense fires in chaperal are not the same things as massive fires burning in remote areas of national forrests in the sierras. There is no single cause or solution because they are totally different things, with different drivers and requiring different solutions.
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 ?
This might seem far-fetched, but I wonder if all the money used for reactive actions to the fires and the billions lost during those, couldn't instead heavily subsidize a goat grazing industry at large scale.
Keeping the forest clean of combustible materials is the only real preventive solution, but that's almost impossible to do by humans (besides lots of issues with depletion of soils if done incorrectly). The old way of doing that (and raise meat for human consumption) in Southern Europe, was to have goats, lots of goats, eating up all that combustible mass and transforming it into meat and "natural fertilizer".
I cannot answer the "who" but here in a region with similar vegetation and fire risk we don't cool burn the entirety, we stagger mosaic burns that break up the fire risk area into patches.
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?
Readit News
https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:24hrs;@-117.8,34...
I did a private pilot license in Africa, the biggest "plus" was that I always knew the direction of the wind on the ground by looking at all these fires. There was never a time when I didn't see smoke unless I was flying in very remote areas.
Additionally, in a rainforest, wood is a cheap and easily available source of fuel for day to day household energy needs in areas that are rural, remote and with no electrical services.
Whenever I've opened watch duty, that's always the question I'm asking. How long might it take to reach [here/there]?
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.
Deleted Comment
I really wish GOES's official images would provide the high resolution imagery directly. We shouldn't have to go through RealEarth to get it. However I've noticed that only RealEarth has the highest resolution images.
Deleted Comment
That graph is impressive, and really shocking how much land these fires are just taking.
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.
Curious what is involved with this. If indigenous people could do it, why couldn't a larger population with superior tech do it? Sounds like a worthwhile venture. Even if it costs a fortune it might be better than rebuilding LA every 30-50 years.
Connect the sewage / storm water system to a few massive pumps and back flush everything.
Set off a few nukes in the bay to cause a tidal wave.
I’m no civil engineer / hydrologished, so there’s probably issues with my drive-by dismissal of a serious issue.
https://x.com/tahrajirari/status/1877110097790312519
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.
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 ?
Keeping the forest clean of combustible materials is the only real preventive solution, but that's almost impossible to do by humans (besides lots of issues with depletion of soils if done incorrectly). The old way of doing that (and raise meat for human consumption) in Southern Europe, was to have goats, lots of goats, eating up all that combustible mass and transforming it into meat and "natural fertilizer".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKsLRNbczJY
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?