4 ms·

20-25% is an awful lot of influence though. 6 of the last 7 largest fires in recorded California history have been in the last 2 years. That wouldn't be the cas

20-25% is an awful lot of influence though. 6 of the last 7 largest fires in recorded California history have been in the last 2 years. That wouldn't be the case if fires were 20-25% smaller and less frequent.

nutellatoast 5y ago
The policy of aggressive suppression and few prescribed burns started around a century ago in CA, allowing fuel to build up and fires to become that much less controllable. Addressed in more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...
- biswaroop 5y ago
  Thanks for linking this article! I loved reading it. I'm curious to hear any counterpoints from experts to the main ideas presented here.
- taurath 5y ago
  This is definitely a narrative I hear a lot, but the question is if it’s so clear why haven’t they started doing more prescribed burns?
  - mitchbob 5y ago
    Because people hate the smoke they cause, particularly in parks during peak vacation season.
    - hokumguru 5y ago
      Also because environmentalists in CA see any destruction of the environment as a bad thing, even if it is an overall net gain for the system.
ummonk 5y ago
That’s not very meaningful. We had an unusually wet last century, and now that we have major droughts for the first time in a while, our practice of suppressing fires has caught up to us. Recorded history doesn’t go back very far.
eigen 5y ago
> That wouldn't be the case if fires were 20-25% smaller and less frequent. until the small fire grows out of control [1]. Then it should have been put out earlier [2][3]. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/us/california-tamarack-fire-burn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/us/california-tamarack-fire-b... [2] https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-mcclintock-requests-information-about-the-lack-of-initial-suppression https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-mcc... [3] https://twitter.com/Wheeler4Nevada/status/1418313831223218177 https://twitter.com/Wheeler4Nevada/status/141831383122321817...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
not everything in nature is linear. that 20% can be enough to push something into an exponential portion of the curve. Markedly if their proposal is true then there is far more underbrush and detritus than there was when there wasn't thousands of firefighters rushing out to stop the fires. Some people like to attribute everything to global warming because they're freaked out, but this article is describing why that -might- not be the case and this is a hybrid problem of global warming and over protection of the forests.

nutellatoast 5y ago

The policy of aggressive suppression and few prescribed burns started around a century ago in CA, allowing fuel to build up and fires to become that much less controllable. Addressed in more detail here: https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...

biswaroop 5y ago
Thanks for linking this article! I loved reading it. I'm curious to hear any counterpoints from experts to the main ideas presented here.
taurath 5y ago
This is definitely a narrative I hear a lot, but the question is if it’s so clear why haven’t they started doing more prescribed burns?
- mitchbob 5y ago
  Because people hate the smoke they cause, particularly in parks during peak vacation season.
  - hokumguru 5y ago
    Also because environmentalists in CA see any destruction of the environment as a bad thing, even if it is an overall net gain for the system.

ummonk 5y ago

That’s not very meaningful. We had an unusually wet last century, and now that we have major droughts for the first time in a while, our practice of suppressing fires has caught up to us. Recorded history doesn’t go back very far.

eigen 5y ago

> That wouldn't be the case if fires were 20-25% smaller and less frequent. until the small fire grows out of control [1]. Then it should have been put out earlier [2][3]. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/us/california-tamarack-fire-burn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/us/california-tamarack-fire-b... [2] https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-mcclintock-requests-information-about-the-lack-of-initial-suppression https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-mcc... [3] https://twitter.com/Wheeler4Nevada/status/1418313831223218177 https://twitter.com/Wheeler4Nevada/status/141831383122321817...

stjohnswarts 5y ago

not everything in nature is linear. that 20% can be enough to push something into an exponential portion of the curve. Markedly if their proposal is true then there is far more underbrush and detritus than there was when there wasn't thousands of firefighters rushing out to stop the fires. Some people like to attribute everything to global warming because they're freaked out, but this article is describing why that -might- not be the case and this is a hybrid problem of global warming and over protection of the forests.