Environmentalists have argued that the rise in deadly forest fires is evidence of global warming. Others have argued to the contrary saying that we have caused deadly forest fires because of supression efforts over the past 50 or so years, thus disturbing the natural cycle of fire. What are your thoughts?
Recklessness or misfortune, I'd rather say. Reckless people set tiny fire to burn the whole forest, while too many dry leaves combined with sunheat produces red carpet....
When humans try to "manage" the trees they really don't know that much about what it is they are trying to do.
Forest fires aren't "good," but they are natural and inevitable. What "global warming?" There isn't a shred of conclusive evidence of global warming. And if there was, so what? It's too cold anyways. It would reduce people's heating bills. When has forest fires not been part of natural forest ecology? When the inevitable droughts come, forest fires naturally grow. I think forest fires are made worse, by enviro-radicals decimating the logging industry, and the excessive suppression of forest wildfires, leading to overgrown and unhealthy forests, and we could do better to thin or cut buffer zones to better protect communities from the wildness of nature. In unpopulated wilderness we could save money on huge forest fire suppression costs, and let more forest fires burn themselves out.
Curioucity, they can indeed. The following link is an abstract about a paper written about the Indonesia forest fires in 1997 that basically took place in a peat bog. Abstract: http://www.ambio.kva.se/1999/Nr6_99/Sep99_12.html Here is another general link: http://forests.org/archive/indomalay/indfirha.htm
i heard a theory that global warming would actualy cause westurn europe to become colder. the global warming would aperantly somehow make the gulfstreem change direction and stop bringing warm water up to uerope. i think it had somthign to do with the rising ocean levels. im not sure, it was a while ago.
Indeed, that is the basis of the new film 'The Day After Tomorrow'; Global warming causes New York to freeze because of disruption to the North Atlantic circulation of warm water. I am not at all sure that this is accurate, but my last climatology course was twenty five years ago at least; must have a look into this in a bit more detail. -------------- SF worldbuilding at http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
there have been some topics on this here before. In general, most of the plains fires in the US are due to someting I found surprising - beer bottles. My Uncle is the head of the the fisheries dept in Michigan, and he and I have discussed similar things with some co-workers of his in the forestry dept. That and having spent time in the deep forests of three different continants, it is my expirience that forest fires are natural. what isn't natural is the rate of clearing of the forest trees. This opens up large ares of ground, which in turn is covered in primary understory growth. This growth is a main fire fuel, and in many cases in the West, nearly the sole fuel of the firestorms that have been plauging the country. The most powerful force driving the increase of forest fires, IMO, is the last 200 years of preventing them. As the forest fires have not been allowed to annualy (or semi-annualy) clear out the understory brush, it has built up and built up. Finally, when a fire does rip through the area, there is so much fuel that it isn't just a plains fire, but a wall of fire, hot enough to burst even old trees into flames, and travel for hundreds of miles destroying everything in it's path. Also, part of the increased awareness of forest fire plays a lrge roll in the public idea that things are getting worse as of late. People building lots of expensive houses with (as was poinjted out in the last thread on this topic) wooden roofs in the middle of dry brush desert is simply begging for a front-page headline "homeowner get ass handed to him by large wildfire!" OMG! I don't see global warming as having anything to do with the increase in widlfires as of late- the increase in temperature worldwide is estimated at around .6 degrees F. While certain ares have seen a much larger increase in tempurature (Glacier National park has seen around a 30 degree F increase in annual mean temp - it's so bad that they are most likely going to change the name of the park due to the severe retreat of the glaciers the park was named after.) However, for this temp increase to be in any way 'causing' forest fires directlyl, you'd need a spot temp increase to the mid-200 degree F range, where the dry brush might combust on its own. For now the forrestry service has bottles as magnifying glasses as their #1 cause, and I trust them.
Cigareetes a cause too. In that case, they are semi-preventable, if alcoholics would just stop littering or drinking alcohol. I say semi-preventable because when forests are prone to burn, we can't stop lightning, nor every possible ignition source, such as sparks from train wheels. "Natural" doesn't mean "good," but rather that some effort (too many taxpayer $s) would be needed to alter "nature," which in wilderness areas, may not be worth the effort. That there is too much fuel, is part of the reason why I think remote wilderness wildfires often aren't even worth fighting. I mean if it supposedly will burn sooner or later anways? A "wall of fire" when weather conditions permit, in some areas. Too much fuel doesn't = "firestorm," but rather makes intense fires more likely, or burns more acres before the fire falters due to fickle changing weather. I don't think crown fires burn everywhere, but even they calm down, perhaps at night, and burn off ground litter throughout much of the acres that burn, that they count in their tallies. But of course the "walls of fire" tend to make the news more. 100s of miles? No, I don't think so. Weren't the Biscuit and Rodeo wildfires around 50 miles across? Most never travel for "hundreds of miles." Even "running out of forests" to burn would be a factor then? Due to a lack of logging, and poor forest management, we end up with continous forests, without even natural "firebreaks" of previous burned areas, that slow the spread of wildfires. I don't think the method of forest management would even matter much, if it was all remote wilderness where nobody lives, and if we weren't wasting money on improper management for factors other than benefitting people. Such as enviro-wacko lawsuits rather than logging, thinning in areas near property, etc. Yeah, good point. We should be alert to that factor. Sometimes it is just too much news that makes things sound bad. "News" used to be more local. Now, thanks to all those satelites and stuff, news is more global these days. So we hear every negative headline from across the world. Thinking "locally," I can't think when there has ever been any bad forest fire. We say evidence of some forest fire on a hike, of some charred bark on a tree, but it was hardly noticable, as if it mainly burned off forest litter or something. I have no idea when it happened, or if it was even fought, as I never heard anything of it. But I have heard that forest fires have become worse under the Clinton-ista regime's pandering to enviro-wacko groups and decimating the logging industry or other sensible forest management, but still not as bad as a century ago, when forest fires were thought to be unmanagable and so were not fought. Of course there was less property in harm's way back then, so they didn't have as much reason to fight forest fires or alter nature back then. I heard that NASA data shows a slight cooling trend over the last several decades. I don't think there is any warming trend. I sure can't feel any. Any "warming" wouldn't be detectable anyways, being buried in the "noise" of daily and seasonal fluctuations, which are far more "extreme" but are "natural" so they supposedly are "okay," if having to wear winter coats and scarves is "okay." I know I like the heat of summer better than that frigid cold. And what if there was "global warming," but it was caused by volcanos, or the sun, or whatever? Would the enviro-wackos be alarmed about it then, because it is "natural?" No, probably not, because they really are pantheists or communists who want to blame it on man, so they can shut down industry and prosperity, to appease their false-religion guilt. Why would "nature" even care if man caused it or not? Like how would nature "know" the cause? Does the cause really matter? It's not "global warming" that would be terrible, but rather that people would be willing to base policy based on junk-science and trying to "solve" a problem that isn't a problem or real to begin with. If there is any "global warming," the evidence is far less than conclusive. And it must be insignificantly minor. Therefore any "cure" must be far worse than the "disease." The improper meddling, is not in burning fossil fuels, but meddling with people's freedom trying to ban things without just cause. Actually, isn't the combustion temperature for wood some 400-something degrees F? Don't they use wood in saunas? The problem with the heat, is that it dries out the fuel, such that any fire that does occur tends to spread rather than fizzle. And more heat from "global warming" may even have the opposite effect, by evaporating more ocean water and bringing more rain. So maybe they had the right idea with Prohibition after all? Enviro-wackos thinks they can cram Recycling down our throats, and yet we can't get idiots to stop littering? And what of all those nasty cigarette butts tossed out of car windows? Besides lightning, I think they could be a common cause. What a nast habit--smoking. Who would want to kiss an ashtray? (a smoker)
according to this page: http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt8405.html wood combusts around 500 degrees, so 400 degrees for brush sounds about right. I'm not sure where my brain confused the 200 degree F number from. Water doesn't even boil at 200 degrees F, so things would most likely not be spontainiously combusting that that point. You are correct, my mistake.
It's too expensive to tame nature everywhere. Most of the time, forests won't even naturally burn. They are too damp, and most forest fires soon fizzle, especially at night. But if forests were never cleared by the occasional weather-promoted forest fire, or by man's management or logging, wouldn't they eventually become inpenetratable jungle? And whatever happened to calling things mosquito-infested swamps and jungle? What is with this trendy, politically-correct term of "rain forest" that has mysteriously replaced the word "jungle," perhaps due to the pervasiveness of the media, and the influence of the tree-huggers? I have had experiences with hiking and camping in the woods, and of course I think forests are beatiful. But I hardly think that forests need a lot of help to be "natural" or "pristine," but rather should be managed or neglected, to better meet human needs. We simply can't afford to do much at all to manage remote wilderness areas, that can, although perhaps not quite as well, manage themselves. I think that Smokey Bear over-villianized forest fires. Sure they should be prevented, but that isn't always possible, and I am not so sure there is as much benefit as previously thought, to keep forests from periodically burning. It's just what forests do, and I don't think we should throw every last taxpayer dollar into "conquering" nature in places where it isn't even necessary. Unpopulated areas, probably don't need much wildfire suppression. As wildfires left to themselves, will inevitably burn themselves out, as the fickle weather changes, without the huge costs of firefighting. So I do think that "let burn" is a sensible wildfire policy, in many areas of inaccessable wilderness. As "doing nothing" often does cost less than "doing something." After all, how did forests manage without human intervention when forest fires were thought to be unmanagable? We can't very well stop the weather or droughts, but we can clear out some areas we want to protect. And of course forests should be accessible to humans with roads to campgrounds or logging areas, and maintained hiking trails in some places, where there are plenty of people to use them. Forests should be for people, not to be "protected" from people.
forest fires are set by wiered psychos who are dumbasses Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats not the contrary! Fires CAUSING global warming is the contrary!!! And this too is very true. Forest fires release quite a bit of CO2 and methane around the (sub)tropical regions of the world. Anyway, isn't the earth supposed to be getting wetter???!
Yeah, forest fires release lots of CO2, but that is nothing new, nor do I think forest fires much any threat to the climate. Forests are not stable storage of carbon, as they release it during whatever drought when so many trees and overgrowth can't be supported anymore, and grow back when the rains come again. CO2 is hardly harmful, as plants need it to grow, and I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that the world has too much CO2, nor that CO2 even causes "global warming." If it did, so what? It is too cold anyways. I would like the world to be warmer, and for my heating bill to be lower. I can't imagine why it is just assumed that it would be "bad," for the world to warm, and become more like a tropical Garden-of-Eden paradise like where the first humans seemed to be unaware that they weren't wearing clothes. Sounds like the Garden of Eden must have been fairly warm, according to the Biblical account. Why do humans think they have to "fix" or "control" all of nature? Rather, I have always believed that humans should alter and tame nature for our benefit, and to accomodate our growing population numbers, but there is no need to view nature as "sacred" and untouchable, to be left "pristine," nor to "conquer" all of nature either. Besides, I think the human population is far too large for the idea of much of nature being left "pristine" or "untouched" to be practical. Rather, human population growth should be considered very "natural" and desirable as it benefits humans. I think it would be cheaper and more practical, for people to be more willing to let forest fires rage and spread deeper into the forest, and run their natural course until the weather improves when they can fizzle on their own, without trying to challenge them, in unpopulated wilderness or where they are unlikely to threaten human interests, to save the taxpayers money and make things easier for firefighters, and leave more wildfires for nature to manage. Wouldn't it, along with logging and other thinning and trimming, reduce hazardous forest fuels accumulation? We don't have to show forest fires "who is boss," because they aren't "evil," but merely a process of physics often triggered by weather or lightning. I think many forest fires may be more cheaply managed for wildland use, or whatever they call it, than outright, warlike suppression. Cut a few firebreaks and light a few backburns, to help confine the forest fire in the forest where it belongs, without having to fully contain or stop it, and let it grow unchallenged into unpopulated wilderness areas until it stalls on its own. I think leaving things "natural" is often easier and more elegant. It's natural for forest fires to grow in drought conditions and that is to be expected. We should be careful to prevent them, but it is often far cheaper to let remote wilderness fires rage than to fight them. We don't try to control the hurricanes and storms do we? There are parts of the forests that should be more managed by humans for human benefit, and areas too remote such that neglect of the forests in those places is more appropriate. Not all areas of forest are worthy of expensive fire suppression resources. Fire risk reduction should be cost-effective and targeted mainly for populated areas. I do not think forests need much "protection" from either forest fires nor humans, but rather they grow pretty well on their own, and should be managed for human benefit, not for "nature" worship. And areas that humans could not yet much tame, wildlands can be left "wild," places where forest wildfires aren't considered worth fighting, perhaps because the terrain is too inacessable or the area too remote or because we just don't have to. Forests have survived their "natural" forest fires for thousands of years without human intervention, so why should they need it now? We have other more important things to do, sometimes. Let nature fend for nature.
