4 ms·
If the theory were true, then why were the two largest fires in recorded North American history in 1919 and 1950 (which MacDonald, a wildfire expert, missed)?
by strebler 9y ago
If the theory were true, then why were the two largest fires in recorded North American history in 1919 and 1950 (which MacDonald, a wildfire expert, missed)? 5 and 4 million acres respectively, significantly larger than 2011 or 2016 Alberta fires.
The data does not support the theory, the fires over the past 70 years have been smaller.
- eesmith 9y agoThere are two scales: intensity and size. The argument is that suppression leads to more intense fires when there are fires, and these are more damaging. Not just to human structures, but also to the forest; eg, high-intensity crown fires instead of just having the scrub catch fire. The NYT article gives more concrete numbers to the sizes over the last 70 years: "reams of evidence suggest the acreage that burned was more than is allowed to burn today — possibly 20 million or 30 million acres in a typical year. Today, closer to four million or five million acres burn every year." They are smaller because of fire suppression. If that fuel isn't being burned now, by regular wildfires, what will happen to it when there finally is a fire.