3 ms·

I'm interested if anyone can compare this to fires in CA / PNW, specifically the claim that forest mismanagement (eg "putting out every fire", logging restricti

I'm interested if anyone can compare this to fires in CA / PNW, specifically the claim that forest mismanagement (eg "putting out every fire", logging restrictions allowing fuel buildup, etc) is a primary contributing factor to forest fires. Is Siberia a useful counterfactual, where the typical criticisms are more along the lines of too much logging (deforestation) and not fighting fires in the wilderness? Or are these environments just too different?

trhway 5y ago
>Or are these environments just too different? the most important factor in public perception of those events - domestic politics (and thus resulting media propaganda spin in particular) - are very different. The main real factor is the same in both cases though - it is climate change, and whether too much or too little of logging, whether active fire suppression is practiced or not is just a noise compare to the ground-shifting effects of the climate change. In either case giving current climate there should be different type forest than what is there now - the forest just hasn't been able to adjust naturally that fast. Thus the various ways of catastrophic adjustment including by fires and die-offs.
Someone 5y ago
I would guess the difference in population density (Wikipedia gives me 3/km² for Siberia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Siberia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Siberia) and 33/km² for the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...)) makes a difference. That means natural fires will be about three times as far away from firefighters in Siberia. Siberia likely also has fewer roads/km², making it even harder for on the ground firefighters to reach fires. Also, warmer summers have increased the number of thunderstorms in the Arctic. https://wtop.com/weather-news/2021/03/as-the-arctic-warms-lightning-strikes-are-more-frequent-even-near-the-north-pole/ https://wtop.com/weather-news/2021/03/as-the-arctic-warms-li...: “Arctic lightning has tripled in just the last decade […] In the Arctic Circle there was an even greater increase in lightning strikes in the Eastern Hemisphere, specifically over Siberia“ (I think I’m not misquoting this by cutting out text, but corrections welcome) Even though that text plays it down, I think that seems a likely explanation for an increase in forest fires.
state_less 5y ago
I thought fire danger was primarily related to the weather conditions. Despite there being no forest management in many forests, they aren’t in danger of forest fire (e.g. because it’s too wet). Or you could have a managed forest that is bone dry, which still has enough fuel to go up in flames. This fire danger page from the park service seems helpful. https://www.nps.gov/articles/understanding-fire-danger.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/understanding-fire-danger.htm
dredmorbius 5y ago
It's a strong counterargument, yes, and I'd argued that a few days ago on HN.[1] I'm strongly sympathetic to the argument that the US and Canada have mismanaged their forests in a way that increases fire risk. However it's also clear that climate itself is playing a major role, with forsts burning earlier and later in the year, hotter, and more frequently, than in the past, as well as in places where forest-management practices really don't much come into play. The fact that wildfire prevalence is increasing worldwide, including where total fire suppression has NOT been practiced seems to be the fatal blow to forest mismanagement as a principle cause. Again, I don't at all doubt it contributes. But the global trends suggest something more at hand. ________________________________ Notes: 1. See e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28083657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28083657
akiselev 5y ago
The situations aren't really comparable. The core issue in Siberia is that the cold slows decomposition and builds up a layer of peat [1]. As the ecosystem experiences higher average temperatures and droughts, the peat not only dries out and combusts, it smolders underground for months or years at a time, sparking wildfires every time the humidity drops long enough to dry everything out again. At one point, more than a third of the USSR's electricity (if not power) came from peat fueled generators so we're talking millions of square miles of almost completely inaccessible forest floor covered with a meters thick layer of material that is literally a precursor to coal deposits and dirtier to boot. The only feasible way of mitigating these fires (burning the peat for power) accelerates the very environmental effects causing them! By comparison, California's ecology doesn't support peat formation and the PNW's access to the coast dampens the extreme weather that causes such extreme buildup (though it's becoming more and more of a problem). However, as you get deeper inland into Canada, Idaho, and Montana, the more the land starts to resemble Siberia so it's only a matter of time before we get similar wildfires. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat

trhway 5y ago

>Or are these environments just too different? the most important factor in public perception of those events - domestic politics (and thus resulting media propaganda spin in particular) - are very different. The main real factor is the same in both cases though - it is climate change, and whether too much or too little of logging, whether active fire suppression is practiced or not is just a noise compare to the ground-shifting effects of the climate change. In either case giving current climate there should be different type forest than what is there now - the forest just hasn't been able to adjust naturally that fast. Thus the various ways of catastrophic adjustment including by fires and die-offs.

Someone 5y ago

I would guess the difference in population density (Wikipedia gives me 3/km² for Siberia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Siberia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Siberia) and 33/km² for the USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...)) makes a difference. That means natural fires will be about three times as far away from firefighters in Siberia. Siberia likely also has fewer roads/km², making it even harder for on the ground firefighters to reach fires. Also, warmer summers have increased the number of thunderstorms in the Arctic. https://wtop.com/weather-news/2021/03/as-the-arctic-warms-lightning-strikes-are-more-frequent-even-near-the-north-pole/ https://wtop.com/weather-news/2021/03/as-the-arctic-warms-li...: “Arctic lightning has tripled in just the last decade […] In the Arctic Circle there was an even greater increase in lightning strikes in the Eastern Hemisphere, specifically over Siberia“ (I think I’m not misquoting this by cutting out text, but corrections welcome) Even though that text plays it down, I think that seems a likely explanation for an increase in forest fires.

state_less 5y ago

I thought fire danger was primarily related to the weather conditions. Despite there being no forest management in many forests, they aren’t in danger of forest fire (e.g. because it’s too wet). Or you could have a managed forest that is bone dry, which still has enough fuel to go up in flames. This fire danger page from the park service seems helpful. https://www.nps.gov/articles/understanding-fire-danger.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/understanding-fire-danger.htm

dredmorbius 5y ago

It's a strong counterargument, yes, and I'd argued that a few days ago on HN.[1] I'm strongly sympathetic to the argument that the US and Canada have mismanaged their forests in a way that increases fire risk. However it's also clear that climate itself is playing a major role, with forsts burning earlier and later in the year, hotter, and more frequently, than in the past, as well as in places where forest-management practices really don't much come into play. The fact that wildfire prevalence is increasing worldwide, including where total fire suppression has NOT been practiced seems to be the fatal blow to forest mismanagement as a principle cause. Again, I don't at all doubt it contributes. But the global trends suggest something more at hand. ________________________________ Notes: 1. See e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28083657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28083657

akiselev 5y ago

The situations aren't really comparable. The core issue in Siberia is that the cold slows decomposition and builds up a layer of peat [1]. As the ecosystem experiences higher average temperatures and droughts, the peat not only dries out and combusts, it smolders underground for months or years at a time, sparking wildfires every time the humidity drops long enough to dry everything out again. At one point, more than a third of the USSR's electricity (if not power) came from peat fueled generators so we're talking millions of square miles of almost completely inaccessible forest floor covered with a meters thick layer of material that is literally a precursor to coal deposits and dirtier to boot. The only feasible way of mitigating these fires (burning the peat for power) accelerates the very environmental effects causing them! By comparison, California's ecology doesn't support peat formation and the PNW's access to the coast dampens the extreme weather that causes such extreme buildup (though it's becoming more and more of a problem). However, as you get deeper inland into Canada, Idaho, and Montana, the more the land starts to resemble Siberia so it's only a matter of time before we get similar wildfires. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat