APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
We're deep in the smoke of the Royal Gorge fire, about 25 miles south. We don't have smoke from Black Forest, 50 miles to the east, but we did evacuate my mom, who lives on the south edge of Black Forest, less than a mile from the mandatory evacuation zone. Looks like we're in for a long summer.orin stepanek wrote:Wild fires in Colorado were reported on the news tonight! Some are near Colorado Springs! Made me think of Chris! Chris I hope you aren't having any near you!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 24165.html
Yeah, and this just a year after Waldo Canyon, which didn't hold the record long as the most destructive fire in the state.geckzilla wrote:I just read an update on these. 360 homes burned now by the Black Forest fire and 0% containment. More wind and lightning in the forecast. Wow, that sound really grim.
Beautiful read; thanks for posting it, geckzilla.By Thursday morning the small farm was teeming with volunteers willing to muck stalls and strangers laden with animal feed. Grocery and pet stores along with area restaurants wanted to donate or help. Notes were posted on a board about calls coming in from ranches and farms willing to shelter animals.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=81396 wrote: <<When the National Interagency Fire Center released its 2013 wildfire outlook in early June, it did not forecast unusually high fire risk for Colorado. Most of the Rockies received some relief from drought during the spring, so there was hope that this year’s fire season would be more manageable than the last.
But then the heat arrived. Temperatures soared above 100°F in Denver on June 11, the earliest it has ever reached triple digits. That heat, along with gusty winds and drought-parched forests, came together to produce the Black Forest fire, the most destructive the state has ever seen. By the afternoon of June 13, the fire had destroyed 360 homes and damaged 14 others. The Waldo Canyon fire, Colorado’s most destructive prior to the Black Forest fire, destroyed 346 homes.
The Black Forest fire began on June 11 in a densely-wooded area north of Colorado Springs, Colorado. On June 12, 2013 at 12:05 p.m. MDT, the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured these images of the fire about 20 miles northeast of Colorado Springs. Red outlines indicate hot spots where MODIS detected the unusually warm surface temperatures associated with fires.
According to firefighting agencies in Colorado, the Black Forest fire had spread through 15,000 acres by the afternoon of June 13. Hundreds of people on the ground and numerous water-dropping helicopters and planes were fighting the blaze, but it remained zero percent contained on the afternoon of June 13. More than 38,000 people had been forced to evacuate their homes. Tens of thousands more people coped with elevated air pollution levels because of the fires.>>
No, you're absolutely right. People are living in places they shouldn't be, at far too high a density. Both last year's Waldo Canyon fire (which destroyed an urban subdivision that should never have been zoned in the first place), and now the Black Forest fire, demonstrate this. And it's not just an issue with fires. People build (and rebuild) in flood plains and on hurricane prone beaches.BMAONE23 wrote:Don't get me wrong, This fire is a tragedy especially for the local residents. But this can happen when people move into forested areas and try to tame the wilds. Just 10 years ago the area was growing so fast that the Electrical Grid couldn't handle the demand and a new Electric Distribution Substation was constructed along Goodson Rd to ensure adequate supply for the increased demand. 30 years ago, a fire in the same location wouldn't have destroyed even 1/2 the number of structures and likely less than 1/4. Forests burn during lightning storms and when people move to forested areas, their structures are susceptible to wild fire destruction.
Don't want to make that political! Don't get me wrong; overpopulation may get to be a problem; but I don't think it is yet! I agree we build out cities in some of the wrong places! We also keep urbanizing into valuable farm land!Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote:The Laws of Nature are just, but terrible. There is no weak mercy in them. Cause and consequence are inseparable and inevitable. The elements have no forbearance. The fire burns, the water drowns, the air consumes, the earth buries. And perhaps it would be well for our race if the punishment of crimes against the Laws of Man were as inevitable as the punishment of crimes against the Laws of Nature, — were Man as unerring in his judgments as Nature.
Consider that we are resource limited. Double the number of people and you halve the resources available to each (of course, it doesn't really work that way...) Why do we have global warming? Because when you multiply the individual carbon footprint by the number of people, the carbon cycle is disrupted. As we add people, we reduce the amount of carbon each can be responsible for producing. Of course, that get's harder and harder. As we add people, it gets harder (and more energy expensive) to provide water. Same for food. Same for a lot of rare but useful materials.orin stepanek wrote:Oops; too many people? How should that be taken?
Say, we could build all our homes in forests, flood plains, and hurricane prone areas in order to create a constant need for rebuilding which could replace the need for constant growth.Chris Peterson wrote:. . . learning how to make our economies work without demanding constant growth . . .
The Geckzilla School of Economics. Maybe you shouldn't be looking at studying biology at all...geckzilla wrote:Say, we could build all our homes in forests, flood plains, and hurricane prone areas in order to create a constant need for rebuilding which could replace the need for constant growth. :wink:
Sorry! I erased a lot of what I started to say! Because of the situation; I sometimes am glad I'm in my rusty (golden?) years! But there is so much to want to see; So much in space to find out about! Hopefully the dawn of space age isn't the dusk of mankind!geckzilla wrote:
edit: Look what you did, Orin. Now I'm doing that thing where I type too many words again.
I can think of only three ways that has ever happened, alas.Chris Peterson wrote:... Bottom line, the easiest way to resolve a lot of our resource issues would simply be to have fewer people drawing on them. ...
It did the job in the past, but at the rate medical knowledge is advancing, there's a good chance that technology will keep this one at bay before it can rear its head in a serious way again.rstevenson wrote:I can think of only three ways that has ever happened, alas.
1. Plague
There are more ethically acceptable ways of approaching this, however. For instance, in the U.S. the tax system is set up so that people are effectively rewarded for having more kids. Rewarding people for having no kids or just one doesn't seem objectionable (other than politically, perhaps). Financial incentives, as opposed to legal or financial disincentives could be very effective, and at the same time avoid the ethically questionable approaches of the Chinese.2. Suasion, moral or otherwise
As you say, probably getting a bit late to expect that one to do the trick, especially when we take a global view.3. Prosperity
Localities like issuing building permits, because the "growth is good" mentality pervades government, and because more people means more taxes, means more power for those in control. But insurance companies could charge something that reflected the actual risk better, instead of relying on those of us in low risk areas to subsidize others. Also, after a major disaster, federal funds used to help people rebuild could be used instead to buy them out, turning areas dangerous for habitation into federally owned parks or agriculture zones.As for the subject of this thread, I've long been bemused by people's propensity to insist on living in risky circumstances, and then demanding "help" -- that is, public money -- when the risk is realized. Flood plains look like a great place to build, but they call them flood plains for a reason. Similarly with hurricane/tornado zones, or bush/forested areas. Perhaps it's time to stop granting building permits in those areas, or at least to stop insuring new buildings in such areas. We can all have a say in this, because like it or not, we all pay for it.
I understand, but the fact remains that those of us who live in low risk areas are subsidizing those who build in tornado alley (or flood plains, or on beach-front lots, or... ). We do that by paying higher insurance premiums than we would otherwise have to pay. I don't suggest emptying out the US from the Rockies to the Appalachians, but I would definitely like to see higher construction standards and more sensible community planning, a program of renovation or replacement for all older buildings, and most definitely insurance premiums that reflect the local risks. That last point should apply everywhere of course. I really should not be paying more for my insurance just because eejits built their homes on sand bars along the Jersey shore.geckzilla wrote:Hey, careful about lumping tornadoes with hurricanes. If we stopped building in tornado alley we'd have to clear out the entire center of the US. Tornadoes aren't nearly as predictable as hurricanes and the general tendency for things built along the coast to erode away with the sand.
That myth is beginning to take on the status of a truth, and it must be squashed at all opportunities. The oldest boomer alive is only now 67 years old, hardly the age at which you yout's will begin to feel the pain of caring for us. The majority of boomers, more so than previous generations, will be taking care of themselves for a long time to come.geckzilla wrote:Otherwise you'll end up with terrible burdens like we have now that the baby boomers are becoming geriatric.
Visit a hospital lately? Was it crowded? There's already not enough doctors. There's a lot of problems with the social security system due to the increasing disparity between retirees and workers. I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine this.rstevenson wrote:That myth is beginning to take on the status of a truth, and it must be squashed at all opportunities. The oldest boomer alive is only now 67 years old, hardly the age at which you yout's will begin to feel the pain of caring for us. The majority of boomers, more so than previous generations, will be taking care of themselves for a long time to come.geckzilla wrote:Otherwise you'll end up with terrible burdens like we have now that the baby boomers are becoming geriatric.
At least the fires are getting under control in Colorado. 