3 ms·

Wasn’t the LA fire caused by an arsonist? He was the main factor.

by mc32 1y ago

oasisbob 1y ago
Even if so, that's a rather unsatisfying explanation, isn't it? It would be like trying to explain an increase in automotive fatalities by attributing the problem to all those people getting in accidents. As the world's population grows, would you expect the threat of individual arsonists to decrease, or increase? What's the root cause on that?
- mc32 1y ago
  If the accidents were caused by a bad OTA update or caused by a hacker… that’s different from the normal course of things.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Explanations have no obligation to be satisfying (and the more satisfying an explanation is, the more you should question its accuracy). This is a great illustration of the problem. As the population of LA increases: 1. The number of arsonists will increase 2. The probability of a given lightning strike causing a house fire will increase (as the built up area increases) 3. The probability that a wildfire in an unpopulated area will spread to a populated area will increase 4. The potential number of houses destroyed by a single fire increases 5. The dollar value per house destroyed increases So if there were no change at all in the weather patterns, we would still expect to see an increase in fire damage over time when the population of LA increases. That's why you can't just scream "it's global warming!" when the chart goes up and to the right and weather is a contributing factor.
owisd 1y ago
In a legal sense probably, but in a statistical cost sense you’re estimating whether the same arson would have spread to the same extent in a pre-industrial climate.
- mc32 1y ago
  Even in tropical climates with wet rainy season you can have forest fires now and centuries ago. If people set fire to things fire will happen. That’s a separate issue from climate change. Climate change can increase or decrease propensity of climate related phenomena compared to a reference point. Does climate suppress or exacerbate climate related phenomena? Yes. Still this was a fire set by someone. Like you know the Chicago fire happened.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    Most fires aren't arson, but instead downed power lines. But even that isn't a good measure of people setting fires because humans put out so many fires of all different causes it's nearly impossible to figure out what the pre and post human era damage would be. For example if we put out 10 dry lightning caused fires when they are a few acres in size was that more or less than would have happened prehistorically. Nearly impossible to tell. What we can tell is the number of fires of all causes, natural or human is rapidly accelerating in the past few decades and the fires are burning faster, hotter, and longer than in previous record keeping.
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      >> Most fires aren't arson, but instead downed power lines. Is this true? maybe for specific regions, or compared to say arson, but Canada has thousands of forest fires every year and the vast majority are lightning strikes. We also don't put usually them out, so I don't think that's a great measure. The thing that's changed in the US and Canada is how much prevention and suppression we do. You'd expect this to result in fewer fires but bigger outliers, at least near people.
      - pixl97 1y ago
        I can't tell you about Canada, but in the US we compile statistics around it. https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.... >Nearly 85 percent* of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson. *Source: 2000-2017 data based on Wildland Fire Management Information (WFMI) and U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive Note that conditions like powerline failures are considered human caused in the above information.
marcosdumay 1y ago
If it was cold and raining, the fire wouldn't spread. If the city wasn't made in a way that spreads fire, the fire wouldn't spread. If the arsonist wasn't there, the odds that some wildfire could start a city fire were still good. They always get plenty of those. Those are all contributing factors, and acting upon them will give you differing (but composing) kinds of resiliency. There is one that people can change and makes city fires basically impossible; it's not the one on the news.
magicalhippo 1y ago
Sure, in the same way that the main factor of car accidents is people getting in cars. If people would just stop getting in cars, we would hardly have any car accidents.

Wasn’t the LA fire caused by an arsonist? He was the main factor.

by mc32 1y ago

Wasn’t the LA fire caused by an arsonist? He was the main factor.

Even if so, that's a rather unsatisfying explanation, isn't it? It would be like trying to explain an increase in automotive fatalities by attributing the problem to all those people getting in accidents. As the world's population grows, would you expect the threat of individual arsonists to decrease, or increase? What's the root cause on that?

mc32 1y ago
If the accidents were caused by a bad OTA update or caused by a hacker… that’s different from the normal course of things.
terminalshort 1y ago
Explanations have no obligation to be satisfying (and the more satisfying an explanation is, the more you should question its accuracy). This is a great illustration of the problem. As the population of LA increases: 1. The number of arsonists will increase 2. The probability of a given lightning strike causing a house fire will increase (as the built up area increases) 3. The probability that a wildfire in an unpopulated area will spread to a populated area will increase 4. The potential number of houses destroyed by a single fire increases 5. The dollar value per house destroyed increases So if there were no change at all in the weather patterns, we would still expect to see an increase in fire damage over time when the population of LA increases. That's why you can't just scream "it's global warming!" when the chart goes up and to the right and weather is a contributing factor.

owisd 1y ago

In a legal sense probably, but in a statistical cost sense you’re estimating whether the same arson would have spread to the same extent in a pre-industrial climate.

mc32 1y ago
Even in tropical climates with wet rainy season you can have forest fires now and centuries ago. If people set fire to things fire will happen. That’s a separate issue from climate change. Climate change can increase or decrease propensity of climate related phenomena compared to a reference point. Does climate suppress or exacerbate climate related phenomena? Yes. Still this was a fire set by someone. Like you know the Chicago fire happened.
- pixl97 1y ago
  Most fires aren't arson, but instead downed power lines. But even that isn't a good measure of people setting fires because humans put out so many fires of all different causes it's nearly impossible to figure out what the pre and post human era damage would be. For example if we put out 10 dry lightning caused fires when they are a few acres in size was that more or less than would have happened prehistorically. Nearly impossible to tell. What we can tell is the number of fires of all causes, natural or human is rapidly accelerating in the past few decades and the fires are burning faster, hotter, and longer than in previous record keeping.
  - skeeter2020 1y ago
    >> Most fires aren't arson, but instead downed power lines. Is this true? maybe for specific regions, or compared to say arson, but Canada has thousands of forest fires every year and the vast majority are lightning strikes. We also don't put usually them out, so I don't think that's a great measure. The thing that's changed in the US and Canada is how much prevention and suppression we do. You'd expect this to result in fewer fires but bigger outliers, at least near people.
    - pixl97 1y ago
      I can't tell you about Canada, but in the US we compile statistics around it. https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.... >Nearly 85 percent* of wildland fires in the United States are caused by humans. Human-caused fires result from campfires left unattended, the burning of debris, equipment use and malfunctions, negligently discarded cigarettes, and intentional acts of arson. *Source: 2000-2017 data based on Wildland Fire Management Information (WFMI) and U.S. Forest Service Research Data Archive Note that conditions like powerline failures are considered human caused in the above information.

marcosdumay 1y ago

If it was cold and raining, the fire wouldn't spread. If the city wasn't made in a way that spreads fire, the fire wouldn't spread. If the arsonist wasn't there, the odds that some wildfire could start a city fire were still good. They always get plenty of those. Those are all contributing factors, and acting upon them will give you differing (but composing) kinds of resiliency. There is one that people can change and makes city fires basically impossible; it's not the one on the news.

magicalhippo 1y ago

Sure, in the same way that the main factor of car accidents is people getting in cars. If people would just stop getting in cars, we would hardly have any car accidents.