3 ms·

No it's not a function of those two things, that's bullshit talking points from fossil fuel interests to deny climate change as being the dominant factor. The

by Siddarth1977 4y ago

No it's not a function of those two things, that's bullshit talking points from fossil fuel interests to deny climate change as being the dominant factor. The value in regular small fires was understood science 80 years ago and has been a part of forest management for decades. Only in very limited places, generally wooded suburbs, has accumulation of fuels been a meaningful factor. Talking about fire suppression in the current context is absurd. It's pointing the finger at the 0.01% cause and ignoring the 99.9% cause, which is climate change due to carbon emissions.

simonsarris 4y ago
Climate change is not the dominant factor. Pre-1800, about 1.8 million hectare burned each year in CA: https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory-Stephens07.pdf https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi... > The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective. Skies were likely smoky much of the summer and fall in California during the prehistoric period. And from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345#d3e1427 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201... > Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. We have simply been lucky, so far, that mass settlement in an area of the US that experiences very regular fires and 200-year droughts has happened to affect us so little. In the past other civilizations have had to leave the area completely.
- julienchastang 4y ago
  You basically have three components to the present wildfire situation: 1. climate change / mega-droughts, 2. fire suppression especially in contrast to Indigenous Peoples of the past who would burn forests according to agricultural practices, 3. land use change, i.e., much greater amount of urban / wild land mingling. (Edited: grammar / clarification).
nomel 4y ago
I don’t believe this is correct, for California. Needed legislation was recently passed [1] to decrease liability and relax environmental restrictions, of the controlled burns, which both were largely responsible for preventing them [2], beyond people just not wanting them near their homes. Here’s some history [3]. 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-signs-fire-law-paving-way-for-more-prescribed-burns https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-s... 2. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/09/18/california-may-need-more-fire-to-fix-its-wildfire-problem https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... 3. https://massivesci.com/articles/megafire-california-climate-change-wildfire-controlled-burns-fire-management/ https://massivesci.com/articles/megafire-california-climate-...
jonnycomputer 4y ago
I'm not sure why you are taking so churlish a tone. Does you no favors. I don't think anyone here is trying to deny that climate change is an aggravating factor in the increasing frequency of large very destructive fires. But if the reaction to this is to stop including fire in our land management practices--as it well could--then that is bad. Of course the frequency of forest fires is a function of drought conditions. Fuel aridity is the number 1 driver of wildland fire activity, particularly in the fire season. Fuel aridity in turn is a function of drought conditions, but also temperature. Increasing temperature (due to climate change, for example) increases the aridity, yes, but increasing temperature does not itself lead to drought. Warmer air can carry more moisture. Expected rainfall on the East Coast is expected to increase with climate change, and that would in turn decrease fuel aridity and the chance of fire. The western US had gone through centuries long periods of drought before, and it will again, with or without gw climate change (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911197107 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911197107). It's not even clear that you can say we'd not be having so severe a drought were anthropogenic gw were not happening. And yes, the frequency, and more importantly, the extent and heat of wildfires, is a function of fuel availability. You are correct that controlled burns have been part of forest management practice for decades, but controlled burns are much too infrequent, and are frequently opposed for a variety of reasons (limited time of year, becoming more dangerous due to drought, local opposition, air quality concerns, budget issues, etc.). Can you show, with data, that there has been a decrease in fuel availability? I doubt it. Though increased fuel density is in turn a function of other things besides fire suppression. Droughts happen with and without the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. The western US has gone through very prolonged droughts before, and it will again, with or without increases in temperature.
anonAndOn 4y ago
Compare Yosemite valley from 1913 to 2021.[0] The valley meadows are mostly gone and types of trees have become a monoculture because of fire suppression. The NPS estimates 16,000 acres/year would burn in Yosemite before the fire suppression policy stopped the natural process.[1] [0]https://i.redd.it/czk2mupwpaa81.png https://i.redd.it/czk2mupwpaa81.png [1]https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm

simonsarris 4y ago

Climate change is not the dominant factor. Pre-1800, about 1.8 million hectare burned each year in CA: https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory-Stephens07.pdf https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi... > The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective. Skies were likely smoky much of the summer and fall in California during the prehistoric period. And from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345#d3e1427 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201... > Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. We have simply been lucky, so far, that mass settlement in an area of the US that experiences very regular fires and 200-year droughts has happened to affect us so little. In the past other civilizations have had to leave the area completely.

julienchastang 4y ago
You basically have three components to the present wildfire situation: 1. climate change / mega-droughts, 2. fire suppression especially in contrast to Indigenous Peoples of the past who would burn forests according to agricultural practices, 3. land use change, i.e., much greater amount of urban / wild land mingling. (Edited: grammar / clarification).

nomel 4y ago

I don’t believe this is correct, for California. Needed legislation was recently passed [1] to decrease liability and relax environmental restrictions, of the controlled burns, which both were largely responsible for preventing them [2], beyond people just not wanting them near their homes. Here’s some history [3]. 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-signs-fire-law-paving-way-for-more-prescribed-burns https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-s... 2. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/09/18/california-may-need-more-fire-to-fix-its-wildfire-problem https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... 3. https://massivesci.com/articles/megafire-california-climate-change-wildfire-controlled-burns-fire-management/ https://massivesci.com/articles/megafire-california-climate-...

jonnycomputer 4y ago

I'm not sure why you are taking so churlish a tone. Does you no favors. I don't think anyone here is trying to deny that climate change is an aggravating factor in the increasing frequency of large very destructive fires. But if the reaction to this is to stop including fire in our land management practices--as it well could--then that is bad. Of course the frequency of forest fires is a function of drought conditions. Fuel aridity is the number 1 driver of wildland fire activity, particularly in the fire season. Fuel aridity in turn is a function of drought conditions, but also temperature. Increasing temperature (due to climate change, for example) increases the aridity, yes, but increasing temperature does not itself lead to drought. Warmer air can carry more moisture. Expected rainfall on the East Coast is expected to increase with climate change, and that would in turn decrease fuel aridity and the chance of fire. The western US had gone through centuries long periods of drought before, and it will again, with or without gw climate change (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911197107 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0911197107). It's not even clear that you can say we'd not be having so severe a drought were anthropogenic gw were not happening. And yes, the frequency, and more importantly, the extent and heat of wildfires, is a function of fuel availability. You are correct that controlled burns have been part of forest management practice for decades, but controlled burns are much too infrequent, and are frequently opposed for a variety of reasons (limited time of year, becoming more dangerous due to drought, local opposition, air quality concerns, budget issues, etc.). Can you show, with data, that there has been a decrease in fuel availability? I doubt it. Though increased fuel density is in turn a function of other things besides fire suppression. Droughts happen with and without the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere. The western US has gone through very prolonged droughts before, and it will again, with or without increases in temperature.

anonAndOn 4y ago

Compare Yosemite valley from 1913 to 2021.[0] The valley meadows are mostly gone and types of trees have become a monoculture because of fire suppression. The NPS estimates 16,000 acres/year would burn in Yosemite before the fire suppression policy stopped the natural process.[1] [0]https://i.redd.it/czk2mupwpaa81.png https://i.redd.it/czk2mupwpaa81.png [1]https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm