[paranoidrobot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was known well ahead of time that there were going to be severe temperatures and a high risk of bushfire, right?

Given that, who in their right mind decides that this is a good time to go hiking in this area?

[xiainx]

There was a heat wave, yes, but other than that not a particularly high risk of wildfires early this weekend. The wind wasn't terrible and there wasn't a Red Flag Warning issued (that's a fire weather warning). They started their hike on a long weekend, the last long weekend of the summer over here. And late August / early September is one of the best times of year for hiking in the Sierra. The bugs have died off, temperatures remain pleasant, the thunderstorms have usually passed, and after Labor Day (the first Monday in September) the crowds die down. In the high country, wildfire risk is usually low as well, so smoke is really the only thing to worry about. This fire grew remarkably fast, from 0 to 100,000 acres in about 36 hours, and happened to be rather close to the location they chose for their trip. Sure, they should have known that smoke from wildfires was a risk during this trip, but it's pretty reasonable to not expect this kind of impact going into your trip. In general, this time of year is a very good time to head into the mountains.

[ihunter2839]

When you say "there was a heat wave" you are referring to a weather pattern that has shattered temp records around the state. After the last heat wave and following lightnight storms which triggered fires across the state, I don't know how folks could assess that a backpacking trip to an isolated mountain area is a good idea at this point in time.

Saying "September is usually a great time" is a pretty moot point. It's usually not well above 100 across the entire state in September.

Edited to say - I am very glad they made it out safely. If you are considering backpacking anywhere in California this summer, please remember that we are having fires in historically unprecedented locations.

[dredmorbius]

Temperatures fall with elevation, about 3.5 °F (1.2°C) peer 1,000 ft of gain.

Much of this trip was at 8,000 ft. Temperatures would have been about 28°F (9.6°C) lower than at sea level. From a starting base of 100°F (37.7°C), the hikers would have seen 72°F (22.2°C) temperatures --- quite comfortable. Dry air also means sweat evaporates quickly, cooling effectively.

This effect alone is a large element of the High Sierra's appeal during summertime.

https://treelinebackpacker.com/2013/05/06/calculate-temperat...

[wolf550e]

Your arithmetic / unit conversion doesn't work. Change of 3.5°F is same as change of 1.94°C, not 1.2°C. Change of 28°F is 15.5°C. 37.7 - 22.2 != 9.6.

(Water freezing to boiling is 100 degrees in C and 180 degrees in F).

[dredmorbius]

Point. I'd taken values from the linked source, which appears to be in error. The Celsius values don't correspond to F2C conversion, as you note.

Though my final at-elevation result remains unchanged: 72°F / 22.2°C, a 15.5 degC drop.

https://treelinebackpacker.com/2013/05/06/calculate-temperat...

[xiainx]

You're right that we just experienced a heat wave that broke several daily and monthly temperature records. But this was a high pressure ridging event without much accompanying wind or thunderstorm activity. So the wildfire risk wasn't forecasted to be notably extreme, until today when the red flag warning sets in. But before you pick on that, the red flag warning is due to offshore winds, which would blow any fire and smoke away from the area these folks were hiking. The early August heatwave, in contrast, was accompanied by a decaying tropical storm had flung upper-level instability over California, causing the lightning storms you mentioned. On paper, the early August heat wave was much more dangerous. This was just a classic late-season heatwave, which usually makes for very enjoyable conditions in the high country.

On top of that, the area where these folks were planning to hike is in alpine terrain that's relatively light in tree and vegetation cover. The likelihood of the fire consuming them was extremely low. The main hazard would be smoke from a fire nearby, which is what happened. Additionally, wilderness permits for this area are very competitive, so they had to plan this trip 6 months ago and had no ability to change the time or location of the trip.

If it's your goal to assume as little risk as possible, you're right that you probably shouldn't go backpacking (or engage in any other outdoor pursuit). You probably also shouldn't be living in California. But for most people, it's a balancing act of risk versus reward, and there's not really any evidence to suggest that these folks made a foolish or dangerous decision.

Remember, hindsight is always 20/20 and it's very easy to criticize the decisions of others from the comfort of your armchair. If you'd like to do some more of that, there are many hundreds of thousands of Californians (myself included) who also headed up into the Sierra this weekend.

[dvt]

> So the wildfire risk wasn't forecasted to be notably extreme, until today when the red flag warning sets in.

This is absolutely untrue. Sure, the red flag warning set in today, but wildfire risk was considered to be at very high levels for (quite literally) weeks. See Tweets from way before the Creek Fire: [1][2][3] Just mild research would indicate that hiking (for days) deep in the wilderness would be a bad idea. It's just profoundly irresponsible. And, as someone that's done NorCal during this time previously, it's not comparable to prior years (except iirc maybe like 3 years ago when it was also a particularly hot summer).

> there are many hundreds of thousands of Californians (myself included) who also headed up into the Sierra this weekend.

There's a difference between doing some light camping or a day trip to the Sierras as opposed to hiking for several days deep in the wilderness during a heatwave.

> ...there's not really any evidence to suggest that these folks made a foolish or dangerous decision

This is the kind of shit that gets people killed. It was most definitely foolish and dangerous. Sometimes bad things happen to extremely experienced adventurers: flash floods, avalanches, etc. This was not that. It was a bunch of Instagrammers that wanted to "get away" without having any kind of respect for mother nature or what she can throw at you.

[1] https://twitter.com/R5_Fire_News/status/1302311140815298560/...

[2] https://twitter.com/NWSSacramento/status/1301932248313200640

[3] https://twitter.com/NWSLosAngeles/status/1301255674655956992...

[xiainx]

All of the points in my previous post still stand. This was not a notably risky fire-weather watch (which is part of why this fires behavior is so concerning), and the area where these folks were headed did not put them at particularly elevated risk. It's fine if you would have chosen not to go, but I probably would have made the same decision as these folks.

I'm not aware of any wilderness backpacker fatalities caused by wildfires in California. The hazards here are very different than those of avalanches or flash floods, which are actually usually easier to predict. Any experienced outdoors-person knows that. You can pick a bone with them for taking photographs, but I think their decision to continue with their hike (which started before the fire had even ignited!) was much more nuanced than "there was a heat wave." If you cancelled your trip any time there was an increased risk of something, you wouldn't get outdoors very often.

Also, there's only one 's' in the plural of "Sierra." The word "Sierras" is equivalent to "mountainses." ;-)

[ihunter2839]

"If it's your goal to assume as little risk as possible, you're right that you probably shouldn't go backpacking (or engage in any other outdoor pursuit). You probably also shouldn't be living in California." What a load of bollocks. Lived here all my life and certainly understand the risks associated with outdoor lifestyles - what makes you more "Californian" than me (or anyone else), regardless of your hobbies?

Personally, I do not agree with your assertion that this was "a classic late season heatwave". Weather patterns in my neck of the woods were severely disrupted, and we had temperatures for days that would have been unfathomable just 10 years ago. Places in California that have never burned in recorded history are ablaze. California's firefighting forces are at a record high rate of deployment, and response times have been unfortunately diminished due to the scale of their deployments. This is not normal weather. Looking at the situation and assessing that "normally" the trip would not be excessively risky in an incomplete analysis in my opinion.

[xiainx]

I didn't say anyone was more or less "Californian." I was trying to illustrate that every activity in life has some level of risk associated with it and we are all balancing those risks every day.

Temperatures during this heatwave were indeed impressive, but there weren't any other particularly remarkable weather patterns associated (like wind or thunderstorms), that was the point I was trying to make. I never said it was normal, just that it wasn't as extraordinarily risky as many in this thread are claiming.

[njarboe]

Forest fire hazard is always present at the end of the summer going into the fall in California until the first big rains. It is a Mediterranean climate and it does not rain at all from May till Oct/Nov (with much variation). They had this trip planned, would spend most of it in the high country where there are few trees and low fire hazard. People who do 8 day backpacking trips are going to have more risk tolerance than most people, and now they have a story they can blog about that makes it to the front of Hacker News. Seems like a win to me.

[pixl97]

In California pretty much all summer has been a high risk of fire. Something like 24 major fires occurring currently. So if you want to go hiking at all you are taking on some risk.

[derwiki]

If you want to go multi day backpacking you’re taking on some risk. But most hiking is very low risk. I just spent some time in Mammoth and there are dozens of day hikes that are low fire hazard (I’m looking at you, Convict Creek trail).