Super sad to see. Nowhere is safe from the realities of nature. And climate change is just kicking everything up several notches faster than most places are prepared for. Are hurricanes new to Hawaii? No. But will they become more frequent? Absolutely.
You have no basis for the assertion that typhoons in the Pacific will become more frequent. Firstly, we have no reliable way of predicting the number of typhoons or hurricanes per season, even one season in advance. We certainly don't have the ability to predict them decades in advance.
In the Western Pacific, the top recent years (as in late 20th century to present) for tropical cyclones were 1964, 1985, and 1971.
In the Eastern Pacific, the top recent years for tropical cyclones were 2015, 1982, and 1992.
In the Atlantic, top years were 2005, 2020, and 1973.
There is no trend, there are periodic spikes in the various regions of the ocean. Hurricanes are strongly influenced by the ENSO (El Niño) cycle and multidecadal oscillations in the heat content of the Atlantic (AMO) and the Pacific (PDO), which humans don't control or influence.
If you put more energy into the system one's expectation would be that the expressions of that energy will grow stronger. You don't have to be able to predict where all the bubbles in a pot of boiling water will appear to know that turning up the heat will produce more of them.
As OP’s numbers show, when it comes to typhoons/cyclones the “expressions of that energy” didn’t get stronger in the last ~50 years, even though measured average temperatures have grown in that time interval.
Showing only half of the truth (which I guess that's what cherrypicking means, no?) means you're not telling the truth, meaning you're not correct, meaning you're telling OP's numbers were not correct. Come on, gaslighting is not for HN. The quality in here has indeed come down in the last few years, but I had hoped that not by that much.
Earth is not an isolated system at all. Much of the solar energy that falls on it is reflected back out into space. It's that fraction of reflected energy dropping (because more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere holds it in) that is causing climate change.
This hurricane is very unusual. Hurricanes coming from the east normally die out before they get to Hawaii because the water there is cooler. This one plowed right past the islands (to the south) and is still going strong (130 mph winds).
Is that evidence for or against climate change as the cause? As far as I know global warming has been happening for 100 years, it didn't exactly sneak up on us
I think one can draw a connection between the behavior of the hurricane and current ocean temperatures. Extending that causal chain further seems more dubious to me.
Here are current sea surface temperatures. You can see the hurricane track took it down a line of maybe 26-27 C SSTs, enough to keep it a hurricane.
You're citing individual pixels on a low resolution screen and saying it's not possible the image on screen is {thing} because pixels x, y, z are wrong.
For decades, when climate scientists said "We don't know what will happen," people naively assumed "Well, they don't know what will happen, we'll probably be fine."
Turns out they literally meant they didn't know what will happen.
As in, we don't know how many hurricanes we'll get in 20 years. Or how strong they will be. If this does not sound absolutely terrifying, I don't know what to say.
Yeah, but Maui is also only 735 sq miles. I guess 0.2% of it being on fire also doesn't seem like much, but it's still relatively severe, especially if it's one of the developed parts of the island.
The problem is there is really only one road connecting the two halves of the island. A small fire (or in the past flooding) in a small section can have an enormous impact of the island as a whole. We have short-term rentals in Maui and the west side and had guests stuck on the eastside sleep in the Walmart parking last. Our guests on the west side are without power for over 24 hours now I believe.
That's correct and while it is actually quite common for that road to become inaccessible and trapped on the west side, it is not common for closures to last as long as this has/is lasting and usually the closure isn't accompanied with a multi-day power outage as well.
That thousand acres is next to a medium-sized town (Lahaina) that is the major hub of all the western island's resorts and the major road into and out of the touristy northwestern part of the island.
It might sound crazy but living near an ocean I keep an emergency inflatable raft for precisely this kind of situation with my larger emergency kit / go bag. Even a life preserver though is a lifesaver for this type of random natural disaster scenario.
Another option is an airtight backpack like those used by packrafters. Good for waterproof in a rainstorm but also good as improvised life preserver if it has an air purge/inflation valve like Watershed dry bag backpacks (if you're willing to pay more you can get them in black btw) have as an option.
You do have to deal with the flipside of having an airtight backpack though which is moisture management on the inside, if you put anything that condensates like a cold drink or has moisture like dirty gym clothes you'll need to make sure to keep the top opening opened to air out. Attaching a mesh bag to the outside though provides a mechanism for drying out items that retain moisture.
Beyond Watershed, another decent option is Patagonia Guidewater, Fishpond Thunderhead, or Simms Dry Creek. Have heard of waterproofness failures though with any given zipper based airtight bag whereas haven't really heard of any with Watershed's ziplock style closure. You don't get any internal organization or padding though. Though I've found that throwing a picnic blanket and spare jacket / insulation layer at the bottom provides some padding for a laptop and has a dual use.
I was working on the island of Saint Martin during hurricane Gonzalo, we drove around the island the morning after. We probably drove past a hundred million dollars or more worth of pleasure craft that were just dashed against the shoreline and destroyed. Pretty much anything in the water was reduced to kindling. The locals mostly had small boats that a single person could drag up the beach, which they did, and those survived just fine
The roads are small in Hawaii and take it from a Californian, don't get stuck on them trying to leave before a fire. This is 100% a good idea.
Just make sure your fuel doesn't go bad and engine can sustain you in adverse winds (associated with fires that are out of control). Test it at least once a month. And keep a VHF radio.
That is always sound advice. Undersized engines are as good as 'no engine' in some situations and you may end up having to assist someone else. Especially on craft that are not particularly streamlined.
Except oversized engines weigh more, which can pose different problems - especially if you're taking on water. You might find yourself jettisoning the engine altogether just to stay afloat.
I have a Rapid Raft 2. 3lbs so portable enough for a cargo bicycle escape or to throw in car, or put in a hiking backpack if you know in advance you are going to need it without it being the end of the world in terms of weight, but yeah not the ideal boat and hand paddles are the best you can do for controlled movement. And sort of an awkward weight bc it's not really light enough for EDC but also sort of a shitty as it gets for an emergency craft.
Yeah... I'm very worried you'd get blown out to sea. Paddling in high winds like that isn't really going to work and with winds come swells. You'll be in poor visibility due to smoke and a small craft is hard to see as it is. On top of that, emergency services will be busy. It might be a long time before anybody notices you've been at sea for days and little chance of being found.
You can stand in the water for approx 200 meters from shore at waist depth for a big chunk of that Lahaina coast. Lahaina Roads (the water between Maui, Molokai, and Lanai) has LTE coverage cause the space is close enough to the coasts of all 3 islands.
Hawaii might be nice because an ELT is going to be heard by every passing airliner (line of sight, which is super far on the ocean). If you’ve got an ELT, PLB, and a flare gun or two, I’d guess someone will get you before you die.
I was there. In Kaanapali village. Was evacuated and currently at an airport waiting to leave the island. While at the village, there was a small sailboat anchored about 100m from the shore, just bobbling from all the wind. It seemed perfectly fine and if someone had been there, they’d be able to just ride it out.
Sure, if you have a planing hull but that usually requires rigid structures that a life raft lacks. Very few inflatables can usefully use even 0.5hp or so because of the short waterline, displacement hull, and flopiness, yet the smallest gasoline outboards are 2hp- already heavy and oversized.
Mine's inflatable and supports up to a 6 hp engine. It's mostly about the strength of the transom.
Speed isn't the goal so planing isn't what I was getting at. If the a wind driven fire is pushing down on you so fast that evacuating on a road isn't feasible, then fighting against that wind blowing you all the way to Japan is going to take an engine.
It seems like a paddle and anchor would accomplish roughly the same thing with a lot fewer potential failures. The anchor might be heavier than the engine, though. I have no idea how heavy of an anchor you would need.
Anchor is going to be a problem quick... it can get deep very fast. Drag anchor and some kind of communications go get ahold of coast guard might be your best bet.
Because of the physics of hull speed, there is no benefit to a motor over 2hp unless you are trying to get up on a plane. Your costco dinghy is a planing boat, and is designed to take a ton of power so it can still get up on a plane with a few people aboard.
The smallest 2hp outboard is equal to about four strong men rowing constantly that never get tired... any boat under about 18 feet long will be able to do hull speed upwind in any wind that wouldn't immediately sink or flip it with just 2hp (or really, even with just 0.5hp if this existed). In a small raft that isn't planing, more than 2hp won't get you anywhere faster, under any conditions.
There is a lot of benefit to the smaller motor- it will use a lot less fuel, and can weigh under 20lbs. Especially if you go air cooled and/or 2-stroke... combine the two and it could be as light as ~10lbs. Less weight on the transom makes a small boat substantially more stable and controllable in rough seas.
Right now the gusts are apparently around 50 mph. Hanging out in the ocean, away from a sheltered bay, in a small craft, will not be fun. Getting a small craft into the water will not be fun.
From memory, much of Lahaina’s shore, and the surrounding coast for several miles, lacks the kind of shelter you would want.
I was stuck in a wildfire in Maui years ago, I was driving to Lahaina. It was insane because for a very long stretch, I couldn’t turn back while fire raged on both sides of the highway pushing visibility to near 0, until a police vehicle came along and cleared a path for all of us to drive on the wrong side of the road. I would have gladly left my car and jumped on a raft.
>It might sound crazy but living near an ocean I keep an emergency inflatable raft for precisely this kind of situation
Not crazy at all. I also live on an island part of the year, and for similar reasons I maintain a small airstrip on my property with a 2-seater plane and large emergency kit / go bag parked at the end of it
I'd also have a plan for anchoring the inflatable raft in a safe spot, when there are strong winds or water-currents that you simply can't fight against. (Perhaps even ones caused by the disaster.)
It won't be safe too close to the shore, because the heat/embers/lava/zombies will get you. Drifting along the coast might lead you into some sharp rocks. Going too far out and you get lost at sea. (Which may not be survivable during a disaster where nobody has any clue where you are, and there are no resources to mount the rescue anyway.)
Obviously that varies hugely by where you live. In some places with shallow water maybe you could just pack an anchor, or stash one in a secure spot down by the beach/dock.
Yeah, it's more important for people living on houseboats to have a "take shelter on land" plan than for people on land to have a "take shelter on water" plan. :P
We visited Maui last year, and I was kind of shocked how desertified it is. When HC&S (I think) pulled out in 2016, they left behind untended sugarcane plantations and a row of huge trees to die by the highway, I think they are Moneypods:
The tragedy of it is that I saw that exploitation everywhere we went. Outside of Nicaragua and Guatemala, I don't think I've ever been somewhere where the locals were as suspicious of tourists. The pandemic gutted their economy so the feeling of hopelessness hung around even relatively remote places we visited along the Road to Hana.
I just want to add that the Hawaiian islands have (I think) all climates represented and are dryer than expected, especially the lower islands which don't have trees on the mountains to catch rainwater. Which may even add a familiar appeal for mainlanders traveling there. But it was apparent that large swaths of native vegetation were cleared for colonization. I just don't see how fire management would work when an entire community has had its resources stolen for a century or more.
>I don't think I've ever been somewhere where the locals were as suspicious of tourists. The pandemic gutted their economy so the feeling of hopelessness hung around even relatively remote places we visited along the Road to Hana.
I went to Maui last year for the first time. I've visited Kauai in my teens (we had family who lived there) this was the vibe then that they described -- tourists are generally not accepted, esp at the local surf spots. I actually found Maui more welcoming.
Point is this is (unfortunately imo) part of surf culture in general and isn't specific to Hawaii. Hawaii is known for localism, but so are many other places around the world. Santa Cruz CA, for example, is one of the worst.
The gatekeeping makes absolute sense if you hop on YouTube to see the difference in behavior between Waikiki and even the more well known spots on the North Shore.
i always hear this but i surfed all over hawaii (kauai north and south, oahu north shore and bowls, mauis west side and honolua bay) and never had an issue and ppl have been between friendly and neutral to me.
I've had similar experiences (not surfing) where people say "place X hates tourists" or "don't go to Y they don't like Americans" but have never run into any notable issues.
I suspect that for some people "neutral" is "hates my guts" or something, or some people are stereotypically tourists in such a way that it'd piss people off in their hometown.
I have similarly not had the problems others describe. I suspect that many people need a guide or lesson on how to be good tourist/guest. Too many act entitled as tourists.
I push back at home on what I perceive as poor service or behavior from civil servants. Abroad, I try to not expect that everything is done as in my home culture. Just having the right attitude makes others less unfriendly.
As an American, this has been my experience with French people. Everyone tells me how rude they are, and how they dislike Americans. Meanwhile, I've met a ton of French people and they have all been absolutely wonderful, polite, and totally friendly.
Actually, I brought this up the first time I met two Frenchmen when I was 19 in NYC. They were tourists and I was surprised and mentioned that I was under the impression that French people disliked Americans, and they said "No, we love them! Just maybe in Paris, you will not like it, but the rest of France is much better!"
Idk what to take from that, but the point is, French people are great ime.
I've never had any issue with anyone, French or otherwise, in Paris as a tourist, so I'm not sure where it comes from. I can only assume it's people who treat Paris as if it were some funny form of a US Walmart.
Part of it is that many Americans really are obnoxious as tourists and with a big population that can afford to travel we are sending a lot of those obnoxious people around the world.
If you make some effort to learn the basics of the language and blend in to the existing vibe rather than acting like you're on spring break in Daytona Beach, mostly people will realize you're not one of those Americans and you won't have any problem.
This is a good point. I bet it's much more that locals are tired of obnoxious tourists, and not tourists in general or tourists from any particular country.
That's not from colonization or vegetation clearing.
The Hawaiian islands are all produced by volcanos. Especially for the younger islands to the east, that means they are shaped like very tall cones. With prevailing winds from the east, the western side of the islands are in the rain shadow of the mountains and are much drier than the eastern sides.
The effect is very pronounced and visible on satellite photos of the big island. The west side is dry and desert-like, and the east side is a lush tropical jungle. The western sides of these islands would be deserts even if no human ever set foot on them.
I lived near Lahaina for a year. Where the fires are going on now. That part of the island is just a natural desert because it is on the leeward side of the prevailing winds. It's a natural tinder box.
The land directly adjacent to Lahaina is mostly dry grass at this time of the year. It has not been cleared. The actual farms are much greener than what is naturally there.
> But it was apparent that large swaths of native vegetation were cleared for colonization
Complete nonsense. Native Hawaiians were farming that land for centuries before white people showed up.
People will visit Maui then make up a bunch of stuff about it without doing any actual research.
The area on fire is a magnitude larger than all the land the sugar plantations ever took up. There was never any development of that land. Not today. Not ever. It's been designated a natural preserve much like 99.9% of all the jungle areas.
From NYT: “The fire problem,” he added, “is mostly attributable to the vast extents of nonnative grasslands left unmanaged by large landowners.”
That shift away from plantations allowed tropical grasslands to grow untended, which built up the fuels needed for big wildfires to spread. Mr. Trauernicht, a specialist in wildland fire science and management at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, refers to a “grass-fire” cycle.
This happens when the heavy rains that fall across the islands cause the grasses to grow. Then the dry season arrives, and the grasses burn.
“The biomass out there is off the charts,” Mr. Trauernicht said in a 2021 interview.
There are ways that the authorities can limit this destructive cycle, he said. They include building firebreaks, introducing vegetation that is more resistant to fire and allowing livestock to keep grasses at a manageable level. For years, Mr. Trauernicht and other experts have been calling for such moves to mitigate Hawaii’s wildfire risks."
And: "I talked to Clay Trauernicht, one of Hawaii’s top wildfire experts. His assessment: The plantations of sugarcane and pineapple that dominated the state's economy during much of the 19th and 20th centuries are mostly gone. Their disappearance, and Hawaii's heavy rains, allowed tropical grasslands to grow rapidly, replacing them. But then the dry season comes, and the grasses burn, causing destruction like we’re seeing on Maui.
What was there before the sugar plantations? I used to live on Maui. I'm having a hard time imagining a forest there before but maybe there was. I'm curious and you seem to know a lot about it.
> But it was apparent that large swaths of native vegetation were cleared for colonization.
Even before settlers, the land on Maui wasn't just unkempt wilderness. They had enormous Taro and fish farms. They also thinned out forests regularly. Like most agricultural societies, they actively managed their landscape.
But part of the issue (besides global warming) is that nearly all of the land is going derelict for the first time. These areas have been under active management for thousands of years up until 40 years ago. And free-falling Ag revenue means that there is less money to manage it today - either subsidize new agriculture or even properly re-wild it.
It would be easy enough to try to go back to pre-plantation agriculture, but Native Hawaiians today are no more interested to take up subsistence Taro farming than we would be. So there is not much of a solution either than grin and increase tourism, or get more federal subsidies and repeal the Jones Act.
Man do I wish more attention was given to this matter. Virtually all the national security arguments in favor of the Jones Act are either moot or straight up farcical in Current Year.
It’s particularly strange when you consider this should be one of those unicorn “good” bipartisan issues with multiple reasons for right/left wing people to hop on board. Environmentalism, anti-racist (ie: Puerto Rico), huge boost to many local economies (on both the coasts and Midwest), etc.
Maybe the trucking industry/unions are heavily lobbying against a repeal? It’s difficult to come up with a reasonable explanation for why Jones Act bills keep dying before they get a vote.
It boggles my mind. Someone was telling me that the Mississippi River is only using about 1/10th of its potential freight capacity when compared to equivalent European waterways or even the shipping capacity the Army Corp of Engineers maintains.
For all of the attention billionaires get, I think it's a good reminder of how politics are still local. The Koch brothers dumped billions of dollars to try to reform prison sentencing and oppose the ACA and got nowhere with either. Meanwhile, a small handful of multi-generational shipping magnates in the US have had a stranglehold on the economy with the support of congress for over 100 years.
I'm from Maui, and the reports of my family there are pretty bad. It sounds like the small town of Lahaina has had catastrophic damage to front street, which is one of the main tourist economic centres. I know of multiple heritage buildings that are completely lost.
Additionally, apparently around 80 boats in the harbor have burned. I'm trying to fathom how boats, in the harbor, have burned, but.... alas.
As an aside, I now live in a place that regularly sees proximal wildfires, and I've thought to myself, if I ever build my own house, there is zero chance I would build it to current building standards.
Admittedly, I don't know to what standards I would build, but building mostly below ground is one.
Look at commercial zoning fire protections for your zip code and apply those standards to residential.
Additionally, use non-combustible external materials and incorporate an exterior fire suppression system that draws from your own underground water source. You'll need to have your own power source and battery backup to run these pumps. You're looking at $100k for a modest residential structure. Insurance does not give you break for having this in a residential, outside of an insurance rating with -W modifier for the water source.
Even commercial buildings are built "fire-resistant" and often built to contain interior fires (a commercial kitchen fire is a matter of when, not if).
You'd want to go beyond that to specific materials and thought thereof if you want to survive with a usable building in a wildfire - things like working out of the concrete will be stressed by the heat, etc.
There’s a LOT you can do. Look into intumescent paint. Use it over a primer before your top coat and you can retrofit many buildings that would otherwise just torch.
You can use similar stuff for the landscape around a fire applied as it approaches.
Rather unintuitively, the first thing to do isn’t to worry about combustible exterior materials — it’s to worry about vents and anything else that lets embers in.
ya, in socal, many of the homes that burn during an event, that aren't right in the path of a major fire, get embers into an exterior vent or they leave the garage door open, or they have a clay tile roof where embers are able to get under the tiles and ignite the wood underneath.
It sounds like an exaggerated attempt at a British accent to my European ears. CNN being American made this even weirder as she doesn't sound like an American doing that.
Someone linked the Wikipedia article for Rosemary Church (if that's who she is) stating she was born in Northern Ireland, grew up in England and Australia and has since been based in the US. Given this biography, it feels like her accent is not entirely organic.
I've seen people (especially "citizen journalists") adopt chiefly British accents to appear more sophisticated (I guess?) and this does sound a bit like that to me. She likely has a bit of an accent organically but might have learned to lean into it for her credibility as an "international correspondent" (much like people born in the Southern US would hide their drawl).
For comparison, these two are a good example for what I would clearly identify as what an Australian news anchor would sound like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMRdH90MDTY
Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Church lived in London until her family moved to Australia when she was 8 years old. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Australian National University in Canberra and has completed graduate studies in media and law at the University of Canberra.
First, to anyone reading who has family or connections to the area – this is just awful, and there's really no words to offer that can change that.
This summer has been absolute madness in terms of extreme weather. El Niño, combined with the reduction in shipping aerosols, against the background of just way too much human emissions building up in the atmosphere is producing some very dramatic events – many tragic.
From the extreme flooding in Vermont, to the blistering heatwaves across the southwest, China, Europe, to one freakish hail storm after another.
Many will chime in and say "it's just social media amplifying the worst", or "The Earth goes through cycles", or "how come the charts start 100 years ago". But, for anyone who's been paying attention to Climate Change for a long time now it's pretty clear that the future we've been warned about has arrived.
It's very sad that this issue was successfully politicized. We have one planet.
And the data from the last century, where we can see the difference in speed, is also smoothed, so that doesn't change much to the scenario we are in, does it?
Today's data is measured using thermometers, and averaged across the globe. The reconstructed data are composed of many different proxies, across many different studies, which are averaged out. I'm not trying to deny climate change here, I'm just saying that the reconstructed data will not capture the kind of rapid changes we're seeing now, for some time, and anyone reconstructing the 21st century from a vantage point 2000 years in the future using tree rings etc won't see the short term rapid changes we see now. The actually reconstruction methods are fascinating, and many of them contain a lot greater variance than we see in this graphic, and many of them disagree with each other too so you have to smooth things out a bit and have a best guess. That's not a restriction we have now with modern thermometers.
141 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 210 ms ] threadIn the Western Pacific, the top recent years (as in late 20th century to present) for tropical cyclones were 1964, 1985, and 1971.
In the Eastern Pacific, the top recent years for tropical cyclones were 2015, 1982, and 1992.
In the Atlantic, top years were 2005, 2020, and 1973.
There is no trend, there are periodic spikes in the various regions of the ocean. Hurricanes are strongly influenced by the ENSO (El Niño) cycle and multidecadal oscillations in the heat content of the Atlantic (AMO) and the Pacific (PDO), which humans don't control or influence.
See:
Multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity: 1851–2007 https://zenodo.org/record/1231299
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclones_by_year
That is not what cherry picking is.
First law of thermodynamics calling in.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2023/DORA.shtml
Better link:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_cp2+shtml/144521.s...
Here are current sea surface temperatures. You can see the hurricane track took it down a line of maybe 26-27 C SSTs, enough to keep it a hurricane.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tafb/sst_loop/14_pac.png
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34321-6
Even in cases where our temporal resolution is bad (how many data points? Certainly not in the thousands), you can still extrapolate a slope.
> We certainly don't have the ability to predict them decades in advance.
That's an interesting opinion.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
Turns out they literally meant they didn't know what will happen.
As in, we don't know how many hurricanes we'll get in 20 years. Or how strong they will be. If this does not sound absolutely terrifying, I don't know what to say.
I think we have become so disconnected from nature that many people just assume the ugly side doesn't exist, or at least won't happen to them.
Doesn't the reporter on the phone ascribe it to the action of a hurricane that is currently active, with dryness and high winds contributing?
FWIW 1000 acres is less than 2 square miles. 640 acres is 1 square mile.
Depending on where on the island, they probably mean jumping. It's not all beaches.
Another option is an airtight backpack like those used by packrafters. Good for waterproof in a rainstorm but also good as improvised life preserver if it has an air purge/inflation valve like Watershed dry bag backpacks (if you're willing to pay more you can get them in black btw) have as an option.
You do have to deal with the flipside of having an airtight backpack though which is moisture management on the inside, if you put anything that condensates like a cold drink or has moisture like dirty gym clothes you'll need to make sure to keep the top opening opened to air out. Attaching a mesh bag to the outside though provides a mechanism for drying out items that retain moisture.
Beyond Watershed, another decent option is Patagonia Guidewater, Fishpond Thunderhead, or Simms Dry Creek. Have heard of waterproofness failures though with any given zipper based airtight bag whereas haven't really heard of any with Watershed's ziplock style closure. You don't get any internal organization or padding though. Though I've found that throwing a picnic blanket and spare jacket / insulation layer at the bottom provides some padding for a laptop and has a dual use.
Just make sure your fuel doesn't go bad and engine can sustain you in adverse winds (associated with fires that are out of control). Test it at least once a month. And keep a VHF radio.
I'd highly, highly recommend an engine bigger than you think you'll need.
Super easy to inflate though.
Now I'm wondering if Garmin InReach works at sea....
https://www.iridium.com/network/
Speed isn't the goal so planing isn't what I was getting at. If the a wind driven fire is pushing down on you so fast that evacuating on a road isn't feasible, then fighting against that wind blowing you all the way to Japan is going to take an engine.
The smallest 2hp outboard is equal to about four strong men rowing constantly that never get tired... any boat under about 18 feet long will be able to do hull speed upwind in any wind that wouldn't immediately sink or flip it with just 2hp (or really, even with just 0.5hp if this existed). In a small raft that isn't planing, more than 2hp won't get you anywhere faster, under any conditions.
There is a lot of benefit to the smaller motor- it will use a lot less fuel, and can weigh under 20lbs. Especially if you go air cooled and/or 2-stroke... combine the two and it could be as light as ~10lbs. Less weight on the transom makes a small boat substantially more stable and controllable in rough seas.
From memory, much of Lahaina’s shore, and the surrounding coast for several miles, lacks the kind of shelter you would want.
Yes, and have a paddle.
Not crazy at all. I also live on an island part of the year, and for similar reasons I maintain a small airstrip on my property with a 2-seater plane and large emergency kit / go bag parked at the end of it
I'd also have a plan for anchoring the inflatable raft in a safe spot, when there are strong winds or water-currents that you simply can't fight against. (Perhaps even ones caused by the disaster.)
It won't be safe too close to the shore, because the heat/embers/lava/zombies will get you. Drifting along the coast might lead you into some sharp rocks. Going too far out and you get lost at sea. (Which may not be survivable during a disaster where nobody has any clue where you are, and there are no resources to mount the rescue anyway.)
Obviously that varies hugely by where you live. In some places with shallow water maybe you could just pack an anchor, or stash one in a secure spot down by the beach/dock.
Saying the obvious, but conditions that threaten a boat at anchor are much more frequent than threats on land
I grew up by a very safe harbour, it was frequent there
FWIW the fires are being fueled by 60 MPH winds from Hurricane Dora.
A warning: Although it has been edited to remove footage of a person who died, it's still terrifying stuff.
0 - https://old.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/15mf7aj/maui_i...
https://www.photoresourcehawaii.com/image/I0000Bzi9pq4Ok6E
The tragedy of it is that I saw that exploitation everywhere we went. Outside of Nicaragua and Guatemala, I don't think I've ever been somewhere where the locals were as suspicious of tourists. The pandemic gutted their economy so the feeling of hopelessness hung around even relatively remote places we visited along the Road to Hana.
I just want to add that the Hawaiian islands have (I think) all climates represented and are dryer than expected, especially the lower islands which don't have trees on the mountains to catch rainwater. Which may even add a familiar appeal for mainlanders traveling there. But it was apparent that large swaths of native vegetation were cleared for colonization. I just don't see how fire management would work when an entire community has had its resources stolen for a century or more.
I went to Maui last year for the first time. I've visited Kauai in my teens (we had family who lived there) this was the vibe then that they described -- tourists are generally not accepted, esp at the local surf spots. I actually found Maui more welcoming.
"What were your parents like when you were a child?"
"They were fine; they even let us make friends with other children sometimes."
Actually, I guess this really is a "damning with faint praise situation."
I suspect that for some people "neutral" is "hates my guts" or something, or some people are stereotypically tourists in such a way that it'd piss people off in their hometown.
I push back at home on what I perceive as poor service or behavior from civil servants. Abroad, I try to not expect that everything is done as in my home culture. Just having the right attitude makes others less unfriendly.
As an American, this has been my experience with French people. Everyone tells me how rude they are, and how they dislike Americans. Meanwhile, I've met a ton of French people and they have all been absolutely wonderful, polite, and totally friendly.
Actually, I brought this up the first time I met two Frenchmen when I was 19 in NYC. They were tourists and I was surprised and mentioned that I was under the impression that French people disliked Americans, and they said "No, we love them! Just maybe in Paris, you will not like it, but the rest of France is much better!"
Idk what to take from that, but the point is, French people are great ime.
If you make some effort to learn the basics of the language and blend in to the existing vibe rather than acting like you're on spring break in Daytona Beach, mostly people will realize you're not one of those Americans and you won't have any problem.
Hawaiians in the ethnic sense. I believe in Hawaii itself it's customary to only call someone Hawaiian if they have that ethnic background.
Example in recent days, President Biden referred to "residents of Hawaii" as getting assistance, rather than "Hawaiians".
That's not from colonization or vegetation clearing.
The Hawaiian islands are all produced by volcanos. Especially for the younger islands to the east, that means they are shaped like very tall cones. With prevailing winds from the east, the western side of the islands are in the rain shadow of the mountains and are much drier than the eastern sides.
The effect is very pronounced and visible on satellite photos of the big island. The west side is dry and desert-like, and the east side is a lush tropical jungle. The western sides of these islands would be deserts even if no human ever set foot on them.
The land directly adjacent to Lahaina is mostly dry grass at this time of the year. It has not been cleared. The actual farms are much greener than what is naturally there.
> But it was apparent that large swaths of native vegetation were cleared for colonization
Complete nonsense. Native Hawaiians were farming that land for centuries before white people showed up.
People will visit Maui then make up a bunch of stuff about it without doing any actual research.
Monkeypod isn't even native to Hawaii.
https://imgur.com/OCirGip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_plantations_in_Hawaii#En...
2,000 acres burned in the maui fire. In contrast, Alexander and Baldwin sold 41,000 acres of sugar plantation land in 2018.
Here's a map of the Maui fires (red dots) overlayed on sugar lands. https://imgur.com/CysWreb, https://health.hawaii.gov/epo/egis/sugarcane/
From NYT: “The fire problem,” he added, “is mostly attributable to the vast extents of nonnative grasslands left unmanaged by large landowners.”
That shift away from plantations allowed tropical grasslands to grow untended, which built up the fuels needed for big wildfires to spread. Mr. Trauernicht, a specialist in wildland fire science and management at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, refers to a “grass-fire” cycle.
This happens when the heavy rains that fall across the islands cause the grasses to grow. Then the dry season arrives, and the grasses burn.
“The biomass out there is off the charts,” Mr. Trauernicht said in a 2021 interview.
There are ways that the authorities can limit this destructive cycle, he said. They include building firebreaks, introducing vegetation that is more resistant to fire and allowing livestock to keep grasses at a manageable level. For years, Mr. Trauernicht and other experts have been calling for such moves to mitigate Hawaii’s wildfire risks."
And: "I talked to Clay Trauernicht, one of Hawaii’s top wildfire experts. His assessment: The plantations of sugarcane and pineapple that dominated the state's economy during much of the 19th and 20th centuries are mostly gone. Their disappearance, and Hawaii's heavy rains, allowed tropical grasslands to grow rapidly, replacing them. But then the dry season comes, and the grasses burn, causing destruction like we’re seeing on Maui.
Even before settlers, the land on Maui wasn't just unkempt wilderness. They had enormous Taro and fish farms. They also thinned out forests regularly. Like most agricultural societies, they actively managed their landscape.
But part of the issue (besides global warming) is that nearly all of the land is going derelict for the first time. These areas have been under active management for thousands of years up until 40 years ago. And free-falling Ag revenue means that there is less money to manage it today - either subsidize new agriculture or even properly re-wild it.
It would be easy enough to try to go back to pre-plantation agriculture, but Native Hawaiians today are no more interested to take up subsistence Taro farming than we would be. So there is not much of a solution either than grin and increase tourism, or get more federal subsidies and repeal the Jones Act.
Man do I wish more attention was given to this matter. Virtually all the national security arguments in favor of the Jones Act are either moot or straight up farcical in Current Year.
It’s particularly strange when you consider this should be one of those unicorn “good” bipartisan issues with multiple reasons for right/left wing people to hop on board. Environmentalism, anti-racist (ie: Puerto Rico), huge boost to many local economies (on both the coasts and Midwest), etc.
Maybe the trucking industry/unions are heavily lobbying against a repeal? It’s difficult to come up with a reasonable explanation for why Jones Act bills keep dying before they get a vote.
For all of the attention billionaires get, I think it's a good reminder of how politics are still local. The Koch brothers dumped billions of dollars to try to reform prison sentencing and oppose the ACA and got nowhere with either. Meanwhile, a small handful of multi-generational shipping magnates in the US have had a stranglehold on the economy with the support of congress for over 100 years.
Additionally, apparently around 80 boats in the harbor have burned. I'm trying to fathom how boats, in the harbor, have burned, but.... alas.
Admittedly, I don't know to what standards I would build, but building mostly below ground is one.
Additionally, use non-combustible external materials and incorporate an exterior fire suppression system that draws from your own underground water source. You'll need to have your own power source and battery backup to run these pumps. You're looking at $100k for a modest residential structure. Insurance does not give you break for having this in a residential, outside of an insurance rating with -W modifier for the water source.
You'd want to go beyond that to specific materials and thought thereof if you want to survive with a usable building in a wildfire - things like working out of the concrete will be stressed by the heat, etc.
Underground is a good option.
Check out Australian research
You can use similar stuff for the landscape around a fire applied as it approaches.
Rather unintuitively, the first thing to do isn’t to worry about combustible exterior materials — it’s to worry about vents and anything else that lets embers in.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/built-to-burn/
There's defined protection measures for different levels of fire exposure.
Someone linked the Wikipedia article for Rosemary Church (if that's who she is) stating she was born in Northern Ireland, grew up in England and Australia and has since been based in the US. Given this biography, it feels like her accent is not entirely organic.
I've seen people (especially "citizen journalists") adopt chiefly British accents to appear more sophisticated (I guess?) and this does sound a bit like that to me. She likely has a bit of an accent organically but might have learned to lean into it for her credibility as an "international correspondent" (much like people born in the Southern US would hide their drawl).
For comparison, these two are a good example for what I would clearly identify as what an Australian news anchor would sound like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMRdH90MDTY
This is what I would clearly identify as what a more typical British news anchor would sound like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuPNh6NBhQM
That has a long history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent
https://edition.cnn.com/profiles/rosemary-church-profile#abo...
https://edition.cnn.com/profiles/rosemary-church-profile#abo...
https://www.facebook.com/1003045402/videos/989569092271534/
Here's a before/after comparison: https://i.imgur.com/6MyTQmo.png
https://www.ready.gov/kit
https://fiipregatit.ro/
Mostly earthquakes but lately the storms have increased in intensity and violence.
This summer has been absolute madness in terms of extreme weather. El Niño, combined with the reduction in shipping aerosols, against the background of just way too much human emissions building up in the atmosphere is producing some very dramatic events – many tragic.
From the extreme flooding in Vermont, to the blistering heatwaves across the southwest, China, Europe, to one freakish hail storm after another.
Many will chime in and say "it's just social media amplifying the worst", or "The Earth goes through cycles", or "how come the charts start 100 years ago". But, for anyone who's been paying attention to Climate Change for a long time now it's pretty clear that the future we've been warned about has arrived.
It's very sad that this issue was successfully politicized. We have one planet.
Like all good propaganda the statement contains some factual information.
It omits the crucial fact that the current cycle is thousands of times shorter and clearly caused by us humans changing our own biosphere.
https://xkcd.com/1732/