4 ms·

Agreed. Also, these trees must now survive a hundred years of aggressive fire suppression, which (ironically) allows fuel to build up to dangerous levels. Eit

Agreed. Also, these trees must now survive a hundred years of aggressive fire suppression, which (ironically) allows fuel to build up to dangerous levels. Either way, these trees are a lot safer after surviving a fire.

pvaldes 6y ago
Again, the forest does not burn each summer. Is the job of arsonists in the majority of the times. This is a criminal problem. Is domestic terrorism Claiming that fuel is increasing and somebody should burn the forest attract lunatics and does not help to have a future with water, or to decrease the levels of CO2 in the air. We desperately require the CO2 stored in plants and in soil and this is not compatible with the old "time to burn" parties and traditions. Brazil and half of Africa is burning today and this is not acceptable. We must change our speech. Now.
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  Not sure about California in particular, but I think a pretty solid case can be made for controlled burning of environments that have evolved around regular wildfires. It's how these ecosystems work, and have worked well for a long, long time, and we risk damaging or collapsing those ecosystems if we take fire suppression too far. Besides, while having lunatics torch forests is not desirable at all, fuel accumulation isn't fictional. Again, no idea about California in particular, but it's definitely a problem in parts of Spain, and controlled burns are already a thing there, I believe that's being done in the US, too, with good success so far. I get that it's no fun having wildfires, even controlled ones, behind one's backyard, but it's probably not sustainable to not have any at all, forever. Even if fires can be suppressed effectively for a long time, when a fire eventually escapes suppression, and one probably will, it'll find many years of bone-dry plant matter to consume; that'll release all of the CO2 at once, and it would make for a very destructive firestorm. At least that's my layperson's understanding. The criminal burning of the Amazon, way beyond what any wildfires would do, that absolutely must stop.
  - jupp0r 6y ago
    In California, controlled burns are now happening all the time (although not enough).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    Of course those ecosystems will collapse, at least in part, they are a transition point towards the ecosystem climax. In the same way as the first week of an artistic work will disappear forever under new layers of paint.
    - dividedbyzero 6y ago
      That's not an apt comparison. Painting over an artwork doesn't usually cause wide-ranging consequences apart from some human drama, destroying ecosystems frequently does. Ecosystems influence everything from erosion and flooding, micro/macroclimate, occurrence of disease vectors and pests or lack thereof, wildfire occurrence and severity, avalanche risk, and food production on a large scale. We're putting on totally artificial pressure in a very short timeframe. Will we keep things like this for millennia? Probably not. We need stable environments to thrive, this is a recipe for severe instability. Plus, whatever comes after a collapse may be really bad for us – maybe you get a desert, maybe you get a really bad avalanche situation, maybe you get new pests and disease vectors. This isn't a question of aesthetics, it's about the functioning of the environment we are deeply dependent on to exist.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Well, the thread is about fires in northern California. These particular fires were not at all started by arsonists, but by a lighting storm.
- outworlder 6y ago
  No. The majority of fires are not started by arsonists. This time it was lightning. Two years ago, it was strong winds and power lines. There are the occasional accidents, like the case where a hot car pulled over and ignited some dry leaves. Also, a lot of California is a chaparral. It's an ecosystem shaped by wildfires. They are expected. Those locations must burn regularly, as they have been doing for thousands of years. This is completely unrelated to, say, a tropical forest. Which is not expected to have more than isolated, occasional fires.

pvaldes 6y ago

Again, the forest does not burn each summer. Is the job of arsonists in the majority of the times. This is a criminal problem. Is domestic terrorism Claiming that fuel is increasing and somebody should burn the forest attract lunatics and does not help to have a future with water, or to decrease the levels of CO2 in the air. We desperately require the CO2 stored in plants and in soil and this is not compatible with the old "time to burn" parties and traditions. Brazil and half of Africa is burning today and this is not acceptable. We must change our speech. Now.

dividedbyzero 6y ago
Not sure about California in particular, but I think a pretty solid case can be made for controlled burning of environments that have evolved around regular wildfires. It's how these ecosystems work, and have worked well for a long, long time, and we risk damaging or collapsing those ecosystems if we take fire suppression too far. Besides, while having lunatics torch forests is not desirable at all, fuel accumulation isn't fictional. Again, no idea about California in particular, but it's definitely a problem in parts of Spain, and controlled burns are already a thing there, I believe that's being done in the US, too, with good success so far. I get that it's no fun having wildfires, even controlled ones, behind one's backyard, but it's probably not sustainable to not have any at all, forever. Even if fires can be suppressed effectively for a long time, when a fire eventually escapes suppression, and one probably will, it'll find many years of bone-dry plant matter to consume; that'll release all of the CO2 at once, and it would make for a very destructive firestorm. At least that's my layperson's understanding. The criminal burning of the Amazon, way beyond what any wildfires would do, that absolutely must stop.
- jupp0r 6y ago
  In California, controlled burns are now happening all the time (although not enough).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Of course those ecosystems will collapse, at least in part, they are a transition point towards the ecosystem climax. In the same way as the first week of an artistic work will disappear forever under new layers of paint.
  - dividedbyzero 6y ago
    That's not an apt comparison. Painting over an artwork doesn't usually cause wide-ranging consequences apart from some human drama, destroying ecosystems frequently does. Ecosystems influence everything from erosion and flooding, micro/macroclimate, occurrence of disease vectors and pests or lack thereof, wildfire occurrence and severity, avalanche risk, and food production on a large scale. We're putting on totally artificial pressure in a very short timeframe. Will we keep things like this for millennia? Probably not. We need stable environments to thrive, this is a recipe for severe instability. Plus, whatever comes after a collapse may be really bad for us – maybe you get a desert, maybe you get a really bad avalanche situation, maybe you get new pests and disease vectors. This isn't a question of aesthetics, it's about the functioning of the environment we are deeply dependent on to exist.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Well, the thread is about fires in northern California. These particular fires were not at all started by arsonists, but by a lighting storm.
outworlder 6y ago
No. The majority of fires are not started by arsonists. This time it was lightning. Two years ago, it was strong winds and power lines. There are the occasional accidents, like the case where a hot car pulled over and ignited some dry leaves. Also, a lot of California is a chaparral. It's an ecosystem shaped by wildfires. They are expected. Those locations must burn regularly, as they have been doing for thousands of years. This is completely unrelated to, say, a tropical forest. Which is not expected to have more than isolated, occasional fires.