3 ms·

The real question is whether it is enough to stop huge fires from happening: is it enough to counteract global warming?

by xiphias2 6y ago

wtracy 6y ago
If it doesn't, hopefully it will take us one step closer to forcing Republicans to face reality.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  Anyone who cares about global warming should want controlled burns.
wavefunction 6y ago
I don't see the connection between prescribed or wild fires with global warming other than global warming has led to droughts and climate change that make these fires worse to manage.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  That's what I was writing about. I see wildfires around the world getting more serious (Australia had huge fires effecting the whole southern hemisphere's air quality). I'm worried that forrest management is not enough at this point to stop air quality from getting worse.
almost_usual 6y ago
Imagine these two scenarios: 1.) Everyone in California got rid of their gas vehicle in July and drove an electric vehicle. Fires still burned in August-October. 2.) No change, gas drivers kept their vehicles and no fires happened. The emissions in California would have been the _same_. If it were Oregon option 1.) would have been _worse_ than option 2.) That’s how much co2 is being emitted from these fires. Of course we want to do calculated controlled burns to not let them explode uncontrollably. https://qz.com/1903191/western-wildfires-are-producing-a-record-breaking-amount-of-co2/ https://qz.com/1903191/western-wildfires-are-producing-a-rec...
- xiphias2 6y ago
  Of course, I'm not arguing against controlled burns at all. My question was: are they enough to stop the huge emissions from forest fires, or are we as a species already over that point, and even with the best available methods air quality will get worse every year? I'm asking because I have vasomotor rhinitis and I'm extremely scared that I won't have any place on earth to hide from air pollution.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Depends on what emissions you are worried about. Let'ssstarts with pollution, smoke and particals. There will always be emissions from fires. Smaller fires spread the emissions out over several years, while this large fire is many years at once. However smaller fires don't burn as much of their emissions, so the total over a large number of years is greater. However the earth is better able to absorb them when spread out over time. If you live next to the fire it is better to evacuate every 20 years than live next to the smaller fire every year (Small means you don't need to evacuate) for the rest of the world though the small fire means the pollution doesn't reach you and so smaller is better. If you are worried about CO2, then smaller fire leave a bit more unburned charcoal (sequestered carbon) behind every year and contribute to a long term global cooling. (it will take thousands of years to make up for one year of the rest of what we do, so don't get excited).

The real question is whether it is enough to stop huge fires from happening: is it enough to counteract global warming?

wtracy 6y ago

If it doesn't, hopefully it will take us one step closer to forcing Republicans to face reality.

almost_usual 6y ago
Anyone who cares about global warming should want controlled burns.

wavefunction 6y ago

I don't see the connection between prescribed or wild fires with global warming other than global warming has led to droughts and climate change that make these fires worse to manage.

xiphias2 6y ago
That's what I was writing about. I see wildfires around the world getting more serious (Australia had huge fires effecting the whole southern hemisphere's air quality). I'm worried that forrest management is not enough at this point to stop air quality from getting worse.

almost_usual 6y ago

Imagine these two scenarios: 1.) Everyone in California got rid of their gas vehicle in July and drove an electric vehicle. Fires still burned in August-October. 2.) No change, gas drivers kept their vehicles and no fires happened. The emissions in California would have been the _same_. If it were Oregon option 1.) would have been _worse_ than option 2.) That’s how much co2 is being emitted from these fires. Of course we want to do calculated controlled burns to not let them explode uncontrollably. https://qz.com/1903191/western-wildfires-are-producing-a-record-breaking-amount-of-co2/ https://qz.com/1903191/western-wildfires-are-producing-a-rec...

xiphias2 6y ago
Of course, I'm not arguing against controlled burns at all. My question was: are they enough to stop the huge emissions from forest fires, or are we as a species already over that point, and even with the best available methods air quality will get worse every year? I'm asking because I have vasomotor rhinitis and I'm extremely scared that I won't have any place on earth to hide from air pollution.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Depends on what emissions you are worried about. Let'ssstarts with pollution, smoke and particals. There will always be emissions from fires. Smaller fires spread the emissions out over several years, while this large fire is many years at once. However smaller fires don't burn as much of their emissions, so the total over a large number of years is greater. However the earth is better able to absorb them when spread out over time. If you live next to the fire it is better to evacuate every 20 years than live next to the smaller fire every year (Small means you don't need to evacuate) for the rest of the world though the small fire means the pollution doesn't reach you and so smaller is better. If you are worried about CO2, then smaller fire leave a bit more unburned charcoal (sequestered carbon) behind every year and contribute to a long term global cooling. (it will take thousands of years to make up for one year of the rest of what we do, so don't get excited).