California fires from space

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-10-28 12:13am

Here is some imagery I borrowed from the RaptureReady site. If it's been posted before....

well, here it is again:

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2003-10-28 12:29am

I know this is a bit insensitive, but does anyone think that the California Wildfires would be a good name for a sports team?

KhyronTheBackstabber · Post by **KhyronTheBackstabber** » 2003-10-28 01:09am

Ya know, with all the forest fires California has, there should be a flammable warning sticker on it.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-28 01:41am

Raxmei wrote:I know this is a bit insensitive, but does anyone think that the California Wildfires would be a good name for a sports team?

No, sounds kinda cool to me. But we also live in wildfire zones, so maybe we should just knock on wood and hope the hotest October in recent memory does not bite us in the backside.

Hehe, maybe a grizzly bear on fire could be the mascot.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-10-28 01:43am

Damn. It already killed some people and destroyed a bunch of homes.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-28 01:49am

neoolong wrote:Damn. It already killed some people and destroyed a bunch of homes.

I heard most of the people who died, were ones that refused to evacuate till it was too late. Let's just hope it is all over sooner than later. All kidding aside about flaming grizzlies and such, this is not a good situation.

It is not as bad as the Oakland Hills fire just yet, at least in terms of homes and property destroyed.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-10-28 02:33am

Raxmei wrote:I know this is a bit insensitive, but does anyone think that the California Wildfires would be a good name for a sports team?

Oh, oh! Band name!! I call band name!

Post by **haas mark** » 2003-10-28 04:56am

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:Ya know, with all the forest fires California has, there should be a flammable warning sticker on it.

California and New Mexico both.

~ver

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-10-28 04:58am

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:Ya know, with all the forest fires California has, there should be a flammable warning sticker on it.

Actually we have road signs that say "Now Entering Hazardous Fire Area" in some parts as well as "Now Leaving Hazardous Fire Area"

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-10-28 10:39pm

We don't have to worry about wildfires in New Jersey, as over a third of the land is developed, and even if there is a forest fire, all the rain the state gets on a regualr basis will help put it out,

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-10-28 10:43pm

Something like 1500 homes destroyed....*sigh* Once this is over, our call center is going to be positively FLOODED (no pun intended) With angry homeowners, fwondering why their loss checks are made out to us and them... next week/month will get quite ugly, methinks.

Oh well....

_____EDIT____________

solar flares, Fires. It will only be a matter of time before Pat Robertson begins spouting manure about how "God" is giving us a taste of what's in store for the world should we stay this course. "The Fires of hell are unleashed upon the U.S.!!!" Pay me, and I will channel the power of the Lord our God to direct the solar flare from your home! Or at least, I will make it so the damage isn't as severe if I hadn't prayed for your home...Same goes for the Wildfires! Repent, Gentiles! Repent or be destroyed!

[Chardok="Ron Popeil"]If you call now, all you pay for this fabulous repentance, is just 5 easy payments, of only twenty-nine...ninety-five[/Ron Popeil] *Audience applauds*

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-28 10:44pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:We don't have to worry about wildfires in New Jersey, as over a third of the land is developed, and even if there is a forest fire, all the rain the state gets on a regualr basis will help put it out,

The fires are made worse cause so many people have moved into the more dangerous wild fire areas in the last 30 years.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-28 11:03pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote: The fires are made worse cause so many people have moved into the more dangerous wild fire areas in the last 30 years.

Well at least they wont be very dangerous once everything's been incinerated. Those areas where all probably desperately in need of controlled burns. Heck parks inside the city of Philadelphia need controlled burns; course that's the other side of the country but it shows how bad things can get.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-10-28 11:41pm

whats that nice green patch towards the bottom right?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-28 11:50pm

kojikun wrote:whats that nice green patch towards the bottom right?

The Salton Sea in the Imperial Valley. The Valley was developed back in the 1920's, using the Colorado River as a water source, in the large version of the picture you can see it clearly. To supply water they knocked a hole in the bank of the river and put in a floodgate to feed a canal. However a huge flood washed away the gate and began flooding the valley, which is below sea level. The flood lasted for two years with the gap growing to several miles before a railway trestle was built across it and countless thousands of tons of rock dumped in. The result was a lake, which shrank considerably but has remained to this day, more recently its expanded at times, and it was named the Salton Sea though I dont know when or why.

The agriculture which was wiped out by the flood has returned as has other development more recently and that's what all the green is from. Among the results of that flood was the decision to dam the Colorado to control its seasonal floods, which lead to the Hover dam project.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-10-29 12:03am

skim: thats AMAZINGLY green .. very few parts of the world are that green from space.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-29 12:59am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote: The fires are made worse cause so many people have moved into the more dangerous wild fire areas in the last 30 years.
Well at least they wont be very dangerous once everything's been incinerated. Those areas where all probably desperately in need of controlled burns. Heck parks inside the city of Philadelphia need controlled burns; course that's the other side of the country but it shows how bad things can get.

Too much undergrowth is what made the Oakland Hills fire so bad. I remember the next day in class my geography teacher told us the same thing happened to the Oakland hills in the 20's or 30's. Nobody wanted to clear out the nice trees and brush next to their homes. So once a century everything now burns to the ground.

I heard on the radio today that the set for Little House on the Prairie burned to a crisp.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-10-29 01:04am

Sea Skimmer wrote: more recently its expanded at times, and it was named the Salton Sea though I dont know when or why.

From what I understand, It is a Salt Lake.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-29 01:06am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Among the results of that flood was the decision to dam the Colorado to control its seasonal floods, which lead to the Hover dam project.

Sweet, a hover dam!!

But doesn't the water just flow underneath?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-10-29 01:39am

Howedar wrote:But doesn't the water just flow underneath?

They use the dams height above the river bed as floodgates. The varying height of the damn off the river floor allows them to reduce the height of the water while simultaneously raising the height required to spill over the top, thus providing an easy way to regulate lake capacity in times of inundation.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-29 01:48am

Howedar wrote:Sweet, a hover dam!!

But doesn't the water just flow underneath?

Assuming you mean the Hover dam, the concrete dam was built on the solid rock below the the river bottom and into the solid rock cliffs sides, its difficult for water to leak through that sort of thing..

Earth fill dams are another story. They generally have a clay core which prevents direct leakage, but water may travel through the surrounding soil (earth fill dams and solid rock surrenders don't often go together) to leak out down stream. Preventing this requires good dam sighting.
But many places will work, water doesn't pass that freely through the ground, it stays in the rivers your damming after all. Though a little short term leakage is often inevitable when the dam begins filling.

But somtimes things get very bad from leaks.

Excessive leakage, first from the surrounding caynon wall and then though the the Teton Dam in 1976 was one of the ignored warning signs of the dams impending collapse. Finnally a whirlpool appeared as a huge hole began opening on the downstream side and the whole center section burst.

But that dam was poorly sited, built of very poor material and was doomed no matter what. Eleven dead came out of that fuckup. But it did get the US Army Corps of engineers focused on building levees and they do an excellent job of that, during the hundred-year flood in the early 90's not a single Corps levee broke.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-10-29 01:51am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Assuming you mean the Hover dam, the concrete dam was built on the solid rock below the the river bottom and into the solid rock cliffs sides, its difficult for water to leak through that sort of thing..

Assuming you mean the HOOVER Dam, then you'd be right.

Useless knowledge: The Hoover Dam was originally named the Boulder Dam, because the nearest city is Boulder, Colorado, but the government changed its name in the 30s to the Hoover Dam, in honour of the president that pushed for the dams construction as an effort to provide jobs to depression-era unemployed.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2003-10-29 01:59am

Boulder is one of the closest cities? Although I moved from Colorado about 5 years ago and my memory might be a little off...I don't remember the dam being that close to Boulder lol Maybe back then Boulder was the closest "big" city or something

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-29 02:05am

kojikun wrote:
Assuming you mean the HOOVER Dam, then you'd be right. Useless knowledge: The Hoover Dam was originally named the Boulder Dam, because the nearest city is Boulder, Colorado, but the government changed its name in the 30s to the Hoover Dam, in honour of the president that pushed for the dams construction as an effort to provide jobs to depression-era unemployed.

Actually the name originally was Hoover Dam but it was then changed to Boulder, and then back to Hoover later as politics shifted about.

But I'm sure we can find a Hover dam somwhere, the US has over a 100,000 of them as I recall, I looked up the number a while back for another thread.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-10-29 03:30am

Butterbean569 wrote:Boulder is one of the closest cities? Although I moved from Colorado about 5 years ago and my memory might be a little off...I don't remember the dam being that close to Boulder lol Maybe back then Boulder was the closest "big" city or something

No, it's nowhere near Boulder, Colorado (it's roughly 1000 km away). It was named the Boulder Dam because it's in Boulder Canyon. The nearest big city is Las Vegas, but it wasn't really a big city when construction began. In fact, much of Las Vegas' initial population settled there because of the construction of the dam.