3 ms·

I saw this map of roughly the last major fire in California: https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#6/38.58/-121.49 https://projects.capradio.o

I saw this map of roughly the last major fire in California: https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#6/38.58/-121.49 https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#6/38.... Looks like it's missing after 2019, but what sticks out to me is the difference in scale of past fires and current fires. If you imagine where the Dixie fire or last year's August Complex would fit in, they take up relatively huge amounts of the map. I'm sure at some point in the next 10-20 years, we'll have burned through most of the available fuel and wildfires won't be as bad. Of course, that's a pretty sad end state.

SwankyDanky 5y ago
Is it really? We got into this mess because we'd initially assumed that wildfires were "bad" and that we needed to stop ALL of them. However, we later found out just how beneficial small fires can be for the long-term health of a forest. If we can actually allocate funds and people towards this, it won't be an issue anymore.
- pbuzbee 5y ago
  I see it as a concern because (1) a large portion of wild lands are burning within a short span of time. I would guess (no evidence, just a hunch) that burning was more dispersed in time before modern fire prevention. I also feel that (2) climate change makes these fires much worse, and forests will have a much harder time rebounding.
  - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
    Don't hold me to it, but I seem to remember seeing a study showing that prehistoric California had roughly 10x the current burn acreage.
    - ip26 5y ago
      Probably, but megafires sterilize the soil. Low intensity fires recover much more quickly. Ideally we'd be able to gradually reduce the burn backlog without letting it all go in a few really, really big years.
      - greendave 5y ago
        Yes, there’s an assumption by lots of folks that things will ‘recover’ and return to a similar state as the past, but that’s not what usually happens with megafires, especially with a warmer, drier climate.

SwankyDanky 5y ago

Is it really? We got into this mess because we'd initially assumed that wildfires were "bad" and that we needed to stop ALL of them. However, we later found out just how beneficial small fires can be for the long-term health of a forest. If we can actually allocate funds and people towards this, it won't be an issue anymore.

pbuzbee 5y ago
I see it as a concern because (1) a large portion of wild lands are burning within a short span of time. I would guess (no evidence, just a hunch) that burning was more dispersed in time before modern fire prevention. I also feel that (2) climate change makes these fires much worse, and forests will have a much harder time rebounding.
- OneEyedRobot 5y ago
  Don't hold me to it, but I seem to remember seeing a study showing that prehistoric California had roughly 10x the current burn acreage.
  - ip26 5y ago
    Probably, but megafires sterilize the soil. Low intensity fires recover much more quickly. Ideally we'd be able to gradually reduce the burn backlog without letting it all go in a few really, really big years.
    - greendave 5y ago
      Yes, there’s an assumption by lots of folks that things will ‘recover’ and return to a similar state as the past, but that’s not what usually happens with megafires, especially with a warmer, drier climate.