[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

It just boggles my mind that temperatures can get so high to cause roofs to burn, glass to melt, and concrete to crumble, but the trees are left intact (see previously posted photo)

Living trees do have a water uptake system under their bark. Houses do not have anything similar.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Cuervo

Maybe it's me but, there are places that are known for potential problems, yet people flock there.
Now I'm not saying they shouldn't, what I'm suggesting is the homes they build even if does not conform what we expect a home to look like should be designed to deal with the environment. You live in the Midwest where hurricanes are common build a home with the majority of the home is below ground and what is above maybe 3D printed. You live in a flood zone build a home that is high enough to withstand any flooding. You live in a fire zone build something that is totally fire resistant. We all want the house with the white picket fence, but nature is not going to change for us, so we are going to have to change if we want to survive

"People flocking there" may be the EXACT problem, as in excessive population density. Also, a changing, warming climate could encourage higher winds than in the past.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by mraines

But people refuse to believe in climate change.

Mostly the over age 50 ones.

[courtyard]

I lived in SoCal for many years and I don't remember any fires starting in January which is the rainy month. I remember one year it rained 40 days in a row. Our fire usually started in October and November.

[TomSpasm]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

I also lived in California (Montecito Santa Barbara area) and our house was burned down with 230 others back in 1977 due to Santa Ana winds. 1977 Sycamore Fire - Santa Barbara Bucket Brigade
Back then we had cedar shingle roofs, Beauty brick, wood siding. We lived in a canyon and while packing up the van, fire jumped over the hill, over half a mile were the fire was burning and now it was directly on the other side of the road from us. Winds were almost 100mph. We left down the road and parked about a mile away. We had the same issue with no water pressure. We saw a fire truck try to hook up to a hydrant near us and got nothing so they kept going. My neighbor stayed with his house so I tried to walk back to the house in the dry creek along the road but the embers were flying all around me so I went back to the car.
According to my neighbor, the houses with storage sheds started burning and embers were landing on the cedar shingles and that’s all it took. My neighbor with little water pressure put as many sheets and bed covers in the bathtub to get them soaked and laid them on his roof and this saved his house. He was lucky.

We were in another 20,000 acre fire some 15 years later and had to be evacuated. This time, we all had asphalt shingles but with high winds, burning tree branches falling on the houses, and cedar wood siding, it didn’t take much to start the houses on fire.
Fires create an inferno and embers fly blocks if not miles from the existing fire to start new fires.

I was going to UCSB and living in Goleta that night. As I recall, with the Santa Ana's it was 98 degrees around midnight (unheard of in that area) and when the winds shifted, it dropped to 74 in about 15 minutes.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

"People flocking there" may be the EXACT problem, as in excessive population density. Also, a changing, warming climate could encourage higher winds than in the past.

The only problem with that theory is that California’s population has DECREASED three out of the last four years.

[Ptmcbriz]

I lived in California for 30 years. I’ve been through fire storms. One issue unique to CA are the types of oil based trees native to CA. They are the eucalyptus, pines, and manzanita trees. Manzanita is everywhere and is extremely dense being 20x stronger than oak and is extremely oily. Its roots can burn underground for weeks and pop back up as a blaze. Our water lines that came in from the street melted 15” underground it burned so hot.


What happens is a bush or tree near your house catches fire from embers and that catches the trim on your house on fire. It usually gets in the air vents in your eaves or can melt the frames of your windows and the glass breaks or falls out. Another issue is potted plants on porches that catch fire.

Our house survived a fire storms up in the sierras but there was a fire engine unit stationed there keeping the fire burning through the forest away from the house. The house had no vegetation within 30’ and had stucco walls, metal trim and metal roof. It was made to resist fire but most likely wouldn’t have survived without the firefighters there. The forest as far as you could see burned 360 degrees around us.

[Beats]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I lived in Southern California for over 40 years. My house, and most houses there are stucco over wood frame with Class A roofing shingles made of fiberglass/asphalt or clay.

Stucco is not a flammable material. It is composed of Portland cement and sand, neither of which are flammable. Class A roofing shingles are fire-resistant and can withstand exposure to direct flames without catching fire, according to numerous online sources. You’ll find inside most of these upscale houses lots of tiling, stainless steel, mirrors, glass, and other non-flammable materials.

So how do embers get to the wood frame leading to the burning down of the entire house? And how do the fires spread so quickly from house to house (one report says “length of a football field in 90 seconds”). Yes, wind is an accelerant, but fire needs flammable fuel.

I don’t disbelieve the pictures I’m seeing, just trying to understand how this happens.

Maybe try thinking about temps reaching 500 to 600 degrees and incinerating everything in it's path. Nothing in it's path survived and was burnt to the ground, how is that hard to understand?

[Metatus]

I live in RMNP where fires are the biggest threat.

A few years ago, a giant fire came within 1/4 mile of our house. When you have this kind of fire, houses literally explode due to the heat. Doesn’t matter what the yard is like, what the roof is like, what the siding is like, etc. Fires create their own weather. The best you can do is create fire breaks and try to defend the break so that the fire has no where to go. This is impossible on steep slope.

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I lived in Southern California for over 40 years. My house, and most houses there are stucco over wood frame with Class A roofing shingles made of fiberglass/asphalt or clay.

Stucco is not a flammable material. It is composed of Portland cement and sand, neither of which are flammable. Class A roofing shingles are fire-resistant and can withstand exposure to direct flames without catching fire, according to numerous online sources. You’ll find inside most of these upscale houses lots of tiling, stainless steel, mirrors, glass, and other non-flammable materials.

So how do embers get to the wood frame leading to the burning down of the entire house? And how do the fires spread so quickly from house to house (one report says “length of a football field in 90 seconds”). Yes, wind is an accelerant, but fire needs flammable fuel.

I don’t disbelieve the pictures I’m seeing, just trying to understand how this happens.

[Birdrm]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I lived in Southern California for over 40 years. My house, and most houses there are stucco over wood frame with Class A roofing shingles made of fiberglass/asphalt or clay.

Stucco is not a flammable material. It is composed of Portland cement and sand, neither of which are flammable. Class A roofing shingles are fire-resistant and can withstand exposure to direct flames without catching fire, according to numerous online sources. You’ll find inside most of these upscale houses lots of tiling, stainless steel, mirrors, glass, and other non-flammable materials.

So how do embers get to the wood frame leading to the burning down of the entire house? And how do the fires spread so quickly from house to house (one report says “length of a football field in 90 seconds”). Yes, wind is an accelerant, but fire needs flammable fuel.

I don’t disbelieve the pictures I’m seeing, just trying to understand how this happens.

I was reading an article about how the building codes changed I believe in 2008 and showed that homes built after than date were still standing in the middle of all the other older homes burnt to the ground. I would assume that the rebuild will be built to withstand the wildfires!

[jimjamuser]

Certifiable non-smokers should get a $500 tax credit on their Federal Tax every year. Smokers actually hurt society. They stunt the physical and mental growth of their young children by hurting their indoor breathing air. I would bet that if you compared the IQs of children from homes where their parents were SMOKERS with the IQs of the children from non-smoking households that a difference could be seen - with the non-smokers children having higher IQs. Also, with the country trying to find the CAUSE of the Ca. fires - one likely cause would be a careless throwing of a cigarette butt. Which, if not in this particular Ca. case, must be the cause of many burned down homes all over the US over the years and many lives lost. Here in The Villages, before a home owner signs a contract for a repair, they should get the manager to guarantee that their workers do not smoke on YOUR job in your house.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I lived in Southern California for over 40 years. My house, and most houses there are stucco over wood frame with Class A roofing shingles made of fiberglass/asphalt or clay.

Stucco is not a flammable material. It is composed of Portland cement and sand, neither of which are flammable. Class A roofing shingles are fire-resistant and can withstand exposure to direct flames without catching fire, according to numerous online sources. You’ll find inside most of these upscale houses lots of tiling, stainless steel, mirrors, glass, and other non-flammable materials.

So how do embers get to the wood frame leading to the burning down of the entire house? And how do the fires spread so quickly from house to house (one report says “length of a football field in 90 seconds”). Yes, wind is an accelerant, but fire needs flammable fuel.

I don’t disbelieve the pictures I’m seeing, just trying to understand how this happens.

This is a really good thread starter. Response # 44 has the best answer to the question of how the fire gets through the fairly fireproof stucco exterior walls. I noticed that the houses that are standing (with neighboring houses totally destroyed) have small or no soffits. The purpose of soffits is to allow air to circulate inside the attic. The problem is that small spark embers during a FIRESTORM can enter the attic through those soffits. The house then burns down from the INSIDE OUT. The fire proof stucco walls get BYPASSED by the HOT RISING air which contains the SPARK embers. This was explained by response #44. I just wanted to add a little.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by donfey

I also lived in California - LOOOOONG ago when they had a responsible government and government "services," for which we paid. Yes, stucco is a cement product, BUT: if you hold a blow torch against an outside wall for a minute or two and the heat/fire will reach the inside. Then, as the wind continues at 80 to 100 mph, the effect will be similar to that in a blast furnace.

How SAD, what has happened to the (once) golden state!

To answer your last question. Overpopulation! ........Ca. has 40 million people. That is probably 10 million too many. I hope that AFTER these fires stop and the debris is cleared, that rebuilding is NOT done to the extent of 100% of ALL the previous homes. Also, insurance is NOT going to help at a 100% rate. And don't forget these Santa Anna winds could return this time next year. I would HOPE that the extra 10 million people would relocate to Oregon and other states. Mother Nature is a MOTHER and she is suggesting (hinting) that parts of Ca. are TOO DENSELY populated.

[Bjeanj]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Speaking of designing houses that would resist burning. I wonder if DOME houses are more fireproof than flat sided houses. I also wonder why there seemed to be a GREATER interest in DOME houses 20 or 30 years ago? Maybe I should just Google this question, but maybe I will get some answers here.

That’s an interesting question. So much so (for me) that I did some research. Here are some points I found.

1. Monolithic dome structures drown out fires unlike conventional homes and businesses allowing for them to stand as other structures around them fall. The natural design of a dome starves uncontrolled flames of oxygen, but the actual materials of a dome structure also play a role in fire proofing. Dome homes are energy-efficient, easy to build and are able to better withstand hurricanes and tornadoes due to its round, aerodynamic shape.

1. Domes are difficult to roof. And if not roofed exceptionally well, they will leak like a sieve. Domes are more difficult to roof and it takes longer than a conventional house.
   

Why are dome houses not popular?
Since the building envelope is so tight, some people are concerned that domes can become stuffy, moldy, or dangerous to live in

1. Weaknesses are as follows: non-standard windows and doors installed in frame dome houses, complicated calculations for construction. Building materials are designed for rectangular houses, not for domes made of triangles

1. Sound and activity from one part of the house can easily carry to other parts, making privacy a concern for families or individuals who prefer more separated living spaces. The curved walls and lack of corners in dome homes make traditional furniture placement and storage solutions difficult.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

To answer your last question. Overpopulation! ........Ca. has 40 million people. That is probably 10 million too many. I hope that AFTER these fires stop and the debris is cleared, that rebuilding is NOT done to the extent of 100% of ALL the previous homes. Also, insurance is NOT going to help at a 100% rate. And don't forget these Santa Anna winds could return this time next year. I would HOPE that the extra 10 million people would relocate to Oregon and other states. Mother Nature is a MOTHER and she is suggesting (hinting) that parts of Ca. are TOO DENSELY populated.

Lot to say, with no knowledge to back it up. Kinda like golf carts. When did you live in CA?
1. How many do you think arrived in CA without authorization?
2. The Santa Ana winds WILL return next year. They return EVERY year, usually in the Spring (milder) and then more powerfully in October-ish.
3. Oregon is not interested in taking 10M Californians. They already are perceptively hostile to Californians moving to ORE as it is.
4. So what is she saying about Florida? Or NY, or NOLA? You are reading far too much into what "Mother Nature" is saying in order to shoehorn it into your misguided agenda.