4 ms·

The fires are nothing new; > Before Europeans arrived (pre-1800), when the area was much more forested and the ecology much more resilient, 4.4 million acres (

The fires are nothing new; > Before Europeans arrived (pre-1800), when the area was much more forested and the ecology much more resilient, 4.4 million acres (1.8 million hectares) of forest and shrubland burned annually.[1] > During the 2020 wildfire season alone, over 8,100 fires have contributed to the burning of nearly 4.5 million acres of land, making it the largest fire season in California's modern history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Acreage isn't the only measure of a forest fire. 4.4 million acres of burn in an already historically thinned forest is going to be entirely different than the same area of burn in a mostly un-thinned forest. The damage to the forest, the CO2 produced, the smoke levels ... all could be at least an order of magnitude different.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Well California is not yet as dry as it once was a few centuries ago, so you should expect things to get even worse. You think it's bad now, but some day you'll look back on present conditions fondly. If that's not your cup of tea then I suggest getting out of the state because there are no political solutions to this. Even if by some miracle AGW were stopped dead and reversed, California would still be getting hotter and dryer. That's what the pre-industrial climate of California was typically like.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I don't live in California. I live in a place that is likely to be even adversely affected (in terms of human living conditions) by the move out of the last several thousand years of relatively wet weather in the American southwest. Note that this change isn't expected to involve increasing temperatures of much note all by itself, just increasing dryness. AGW will likely do that, however. I'd also note that talking about the climate of "California" doesn't make a lot of sense. If state boundaries were based on biomes/climatic zones, CA would likely be at least 3 different states. The coastal zone of Northern CA is essentially unrelated, climate-wise or ecologically, to either Central Valley, the high Sierras or the start of the great basin to the east.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      This discussion about fire in California is specifically about the regions of California which are prone to fires, in case that somehow was unclear to you. If you're trying to make a point, it's not clear what that point is. My point is this: Fires in California will get worse and this shouldn't be news to anybody who cares. Both AGW and California's history point to fires becoming increasingly common. One without the other would be bad enough, but California has both.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        When I reply to people on HN (or anywhere else) I assume I am talking to that person. You noted that "you" (meaning me) should consider taking certain steps. I noted that I don't live in CA. I then pointed out that the concerns you raised about CA apply to the entire US southwest. I then noted that CA has several different climate zones and biomes and that these concerns do not apply to all of them. What is so hard to understand about this?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Acreage isn't the only measure of a forest fire. 4.4 million acres of burn in an already historically thinned forest is going to be entirely different than the same area of burn in a mostly un-thinned forest. The damage to the forest, the CO2 produced, the smoke levels ... all could be at least an order of magnitude different.

bigbubba 6y ago
Well California is not yet as dry as it once was a few centuries ago, so you should expect things to get even worse. You think it's bad now, but some day you'll look back on present conditions fondly. If that's not your cup of tea then I suggest getting out of the state because there are no political solutions to this. Even if by some miracle AGW were stopped dead and reversed, California would still be getting hotter and dryer. That's what the pre-industrial climate of California was typically like.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I don't live in California. I live in a place that is likely to be even adversely affected (in terms of human living conditions) by the move out of the last several thousand years of relatively wet weather in the American southwest. Note that this change isn't expected to involve increasing temperatures of much note all by itself, just increasing dryness. AGW will likely do that, however. I'd also note that talking about the climate of "California" doesn't make a lot of sense. If state boundaries were based on biomes/climatic zones, CA would likely be at least 3 different states. The coastal zone of Northern CA is essentially unrelated, climate-wise or ecologically, to either Central Valley, the high Sierras or the start of the great basin to the east.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    This discussion about fire in California is specifically about the regions of California which are prone to fires, in case that somehow was unclear to you. If you're trying to make a point, it's not clear what that point is. My point is this: Fires in California will get worse and this shouldn't be news to anybody who cares. Both AGW and California's history point to fires becoming increasingly common. One without the other would be bad enough, but California has both.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      When I reply to people on HN (or anywhere else) I assume I am talking to that person. You noted that "you" (meaning me) should consider taking certain steps. I noted that I don't live in CA. I then pointed out that the concerns you raised about CA apply to the entire US southwest. I then noted that CA has several different climate zones and biomes and that these concerns do not apply to all of them. What is so hard to understand about this?