A real-life drama is unfolding just outside Hollywood. Ferocious wildfires have ballooned at an “alarming speed”, in just a matter of hours. Why?

What caused the California wildfires?

There are currently three wildfires torching southern California. The causes of all three are still being investigated.

The majority (85%) of all forest fires across the United States are started by humans, either deliberately or accidentally, according to the US Forest Service.

But there is a difference between what ignites a wildfire and what allows it to spread.

However these fires were sparked, other factors have fuelled them, making them spread quickly and leaving people less time to prepare or flee.

The main culprit so far is the Santa Ana winds.

Follow live: Malibu residents told to get ready to flee

What are Santa Ana winds?

So-called Santa Ana winds are extreme, dry winds that are common in LA in colder winter months.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection warned strong Santa Ana winds and low humidity are whipping up “extreme wildfire risks”.

Winds have already topped 60mph and could reach 100mph in mountains and foothills – including in areas that have barely had any rain for months.

It has been too windy to launch firefighting aircraft, further hampering efforts to tackle the blazes.

These north-easterly winds blow from the interior of Southern California towards the coast, picking up speed as they squeeze through mountain ranges that border the urban area around the coast.

They blow in the opposite direction to the normal onshore flow that carries moist air from the Pacific Ocean into the area.

The lack of humidity in the air parches vegetation, making it more flammable once a fire is started.

The ‘atmospheric blow-dryer’ effect

The winds create an “atmospheric blow-dryer” effect that will “dry things out even further”, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

The longer the extreme wind persists, the drier the vegetation will become, he said.

“So some of the strongest winds will be at the beginning of the event, but some of the driest vegetation will actually come at the end, and so the reality is that there’s going to be a very long period of high fire risk.”

What role has climate change played?

California governor Gavin Newsom said fire season has become “year-round in the state of California” despite the state not “traditionally” seeing fires at this time of year – apparently alluding to the impact of climate change.

Scientists will need time to assess the role of climate change in these fires, which could range from drying out the land to actually decreasing wind speeds.

But broadly we know that climate change is increasing the hot, dry weather in the US that parches vegetation, thereby creating the fuel for wildfires – that’s according to scientists at World Weather Attribution.

But human activities, such as forest management and ignition sources, are also important factors that dictate how a fire spreads, WWA said.

Read more:
Terrifying firestorm tears through home of film stars
State of emergency as wildfires sweep through LA celebrity suburb

Southern California has experienced a particularly hot summer, followed by almost no rain during what should be the wet season, said Professor Alex Hall, also from UCLA.

“And all of this comes on the heels of two very rainy years, which means there is plenty of fuel for potential wildfires.

“These intense winds have the potential to turn a small spark into a conflagration that eats up thousands of acres with alarming speed – a dynamic that is only intensifying with the warmer temperatures of a changing climate.”

The flames from a fire that broke out yesterday evening near a nature reserve in the inland foothills northeast of LA spread so quickly that staff at a care home had to push residents in wheelchairs and hospital beds down the street to a car park.

Pacific Palisades is one of Los Angeles’s most expensive and exclusive suburbs, home to film stars and billionaires.

The broad boulevards are framed by palm trees and gated mansions with swimming pools.

But it’s in the grips of one of mother nature’s terrifying levellers, a firestorm which is ripping through community after community, raging and unremitting.

Follow live: 30,000 told to flee

A billowing cloud of black smoke loomed over the main shopping street with its fancy restaurants and designer shops, threatening to destroy what many here consider to be their slice of paradise.

It is a reminder of the destructive power of this sort of weather.

Reza, a lifelong resident of Pacific Palisades, was evacuating with what belongings he could fit in his SUV.

“This is surreal, this is unbelievable,” he said.

“I’ve lived here all my life but this is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. This is the worst of the worst.

“I’ve never seen it with these winds, we just keep praying that the direction changes. But if the direction changes it’s to the detriment of somebody else, that’s the horrible part about it all.”

January is not normally wildfire season, but these are not ordinary circumstances, the blazes being propelled by the strongest winds in southern California for more than a decade, fuelled by drought conditions.

Authorities are warning that the winds will grow stronger overnight, meaning that conditions will likely worsen before they get better.

Police and the fire department went door to door, urging people to evacuate or risk losing their lives.

On the main road out of town, there was gridlock traffic, with some abandoning their cars to flee on foot.

On Mount Holyoake Avenue, Liz Lerner, an 84-year-old with congestive heart failure, was on her driveway and visibly panicked.

“I don’t drive, and I’m by myself,” she said.

“I have no relatives, I’m 100% alone and I don’t know what to do. My father built this house in 1949, this is my family home and this is the end. I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Read more from Sky News:
Trump refuses to rule out force over Panama Canal and Greenland
Trump asks court to dismiss hush money conviction

Around the corner, another man was hosing down his multi-million dollar home in a bid to save his property from the fire bounding towards it from a nearby canyon.

“I can’t decide whether to evacuate or stay and carry on hosing down my house,” he said.

“It’s hard to know which way the flames are heading.”

Other blazes were breaking out across LA with firefighting planes grounded because of winds which are growing stronger by the hour.

More homes, neighbourhoods and lives are under threat from this perfect and petrifying storm.

Since winning re-election, president-elect Donald Trump has expressed an interest in acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Mr Trump said he could not assure reporters that military or economic coercion would not be used to try and gain control of both areas.

“I can say this, we need them for economic security,” he said.

The two locations, which are nowhere near each other geographically, pose different interests to the incoming president.

But his desire to seize them both has caused immense backlash.

Why does Trump want Greenland?

Greenland is the world’s largest island and a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. With a population of 57,000, it has been part of Denmark for 600 years.

It is also a founding member of NATO and is home to a large US military base.

Straddling the Arctic circle between the US, Russia and Europe, the island offers a unique geopolitical advantage, that America has eyed for more than 150 years.

It’s even more valuable as the Arctic opens up more to shipping and trade.

The idea of purchasing Greenland is not a new idea for Mr Trump, as it came up during his first term in office. But he has since reiterated the benefit it could have for America’s national security.

“We need greater national security purposes,” Mr Trump said. “I’ve been told that for a long time, long before I even ran.

“People really don’t even know that Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security.”

Mr Trump’s claim to the island coincided with a visit by his son, Donald Trump Jr, who was in Greenland filming for a documentary, Sky News US partner network, NBC News said.

Analysis: Trump’s threats could be a make-or-break test for NATO

Rich in natural resources

As well as its location, Greenland holds rich deposits of various natural resources.

Locked inside the island are valuable rare earth minerals needed for telecommunications, as well as uranium, billions of untapped barrels of oil and a vast supply of natural gas that used to be inaccessible but is becoming less so.

Many of the same minerals are currently mostly supplied by China, so other countries such as the US are interested in tapping into available resources closer to home.

A front-row seat to the climate crisis

More than the oil, gas or minerals, Greenland has a lot of ice – and provides a front-row seat to the globe’s climate crisis.

If that ice melts, it would reshape coastlines across the globe and has the potential to dramatically shift weather patterns.

In fact, Greenland holds enough ice that if it all melts, the world’s seas would rise by 24ft (7.4m).

Greenland also influences hurricane and winter storm activity. Because of its mountains of ice, it has the power to change patterns in the jet stream, which brings storms across the globe and dictates daily weather.

Often, especially in winter, a blocking system of high pressure off Greenland causes Arctic air to plunge to the west and east, sweeping across North America and Europe, winter weather expert Judah Cohen told the Associated Press.

What effect could this have on the UK?

British politician and security expert, Mike Martin, explained on X that the seas between Greenland and the UK – which has Iceland in the middle – are “utterly vital” for NATO.

He explained that during the Cold War, the UK would often have 50 ships stationed in the area to look after the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap – which is the “only sensible route” that the Russian northern fleet has to get into the Atlantic Ocean.

Both the UK and Denmark continue to have a shared security interest in the gap.

The UK government website states that as part of the UK’s Arctic Policy Framework, it will continue to develop military capability in collaboration with Denmark, to allow it to operate in the region and in order to safeguard UK interests and those of its allies.

However, if overtaken by the US, this collaboration could be affected.

‘Greenland is not for sale’

Addressing Mr Trump’s comments in an interview with Danish broadcaster TV2, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she did not believe the US would use military or economic power to secure control over Greenland.

“Greenland is not for sale,” Ms Frederiksen said, adding: “We need to stay calm and stick to our principles.”

Referring to the US as Denmark’s “most important and closest ally” she said she welcomed the US taking a greater interest in the Arctic region, but said it would have to be done in a way that is “respectful of the Greenlandic people”.

In the past, Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede has called for independence from Denmark, but said he has no interest in the island nation becoming part of the US.

While Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, added: “Most people don’t want it.

“I think some people find it quite disrespectful. And the way it has been done, and just the fact that you’re saying that you can buy another country.”

French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot also weighed in on the matter, saying on Wednesday that the European Union would not let “other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders, whoever they are”.

“If you’re asking me whether I think the United States will invade Greenland, my answer is no. But have we entered into
a period of time when it is survival of the fittest? Then my answer is yes,” Mr Barrot said.

Why does Trump want the Panama Canal?

The Panama Canal is a waterway that connects the Caribbean Sea with the Pacific Ocean. It acts as a shortcut route, saving time and costs for transporting goods, according to the Embassy of Panama website.

Under the Jimmy Carter administration, control of the canal was handed from the US to Panama in 1979, with the US ending its joint partnership in controlling the strategic waterway in 1999.

It is now administered by the Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous government entity, although a Hong Kong-based contractor operates two ports connected to it, NBC reported.

Mr Trump has claimed that the US is being treated unfairly when it is “overcharged” higher rates for its ships to sail the canal than those of other countries.

He claimed that Panama is in “violation” of a deal with the US and that “China is basically taking it over”.

“We gave the Panama Canal to Panama. We didn’t give it to China,” Mr Trump said on Tuesday. “They’ve abused that gift.”

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino denied in a video statement last month that China has influence over the canal and shot down the idea of the US taking back authority over it.

“Every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to be so,” he said.

Could Trump actually do it?

The incoming president has offered few details on how he might carry out his plans to grow the US footprint, even as he promised throughout the news conference to return the country to a “golden age” of improved national security and “common sense”.

If Greenland becomes independent, it could choose to become associated with the US.

One option could be to form a so-called “free association” pact with America, similar to the status of Pacific island nations Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Mr Trump has also suggested he would impose tariffs on Denmark if it resists his offer to purchase the island.

This could make things difficult for Danish companies, particularly drugmakers like Novo Nordisk, which sells the weight loss drug Wegovy and the type 2 diabetes medicine Ozempic, according to investment magazine Barron’s.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University, told the magazine that the Trump administration could tailor specific tariffs to target products made by Danish companies regardless of where they are manufactured.