3 ms·

> The question of human climate change's impact on things like wildfires is an interesting, important, and very difficult one Perhaps it is difficult to prove

by beachy 2y ago

> The question of human climate change's impact on things like wildfires is an interesting, important, and very difficult one Perhaps it is difficult to prove scientifically, but as humans we can operate on common sense if we choose to, and it's common sense to anyone that has interacted with wood and fires a few times that making a forest drier due to warmer temperatures will increase the flammability of it. I personally don't need scientific proof that climate change makes forest fires more likely. It's f***ing obvious.

nullc 2y ago
If you're going to policy reason on gut, that's fine-- most policy is set that way. But we shouldn't disguise gut as "science" and make it unquestionable or just offensive to debate. (Or instantly resorting to personal attacks and accusations of ignorance.) Your gut analysis isn't as obvious to me: Fire can't happen without fuel, drier forests grow less fast. In climates where wildfires are a regular and natural feature, all that grows will eventually burn-- and it's literally impossible for it to burn unless it grew first. On that reasoning one might expect that drier climates might lead to fewer wildfires. At least at the reasoning level of "gut". Not too many wildfires in death valley after all, even though it is very dry and hot there while there are wildfires in Seattle which is usually wetter than a sponge. :) Moreover magnitudes matter a lot-- I'll accept your 'obvious conclusion' but it doesn't set a magnitude. If wildfire activity is modulated only a small amount by dryness but a large amount by where we choose to build, our irrigation practices (e.g. creating pockets of growth in naturally dry places and diverting water from wildlands we don't care about), our forestry practices (aggressively suppressing small inconsequential fires, until they run out of control), and so on-- then that calls for different interventions (and would also be really good news because if existent climate change really were the only cause of recent activity we're screwed because there is no plan to turn back the clock on that, only plans to decrease the rate). There is also a definitional question: What is a wildfire? The things most people care about under that banner aren't just the metaphorical tree burning in a forest with no one there to hear it... they are incidents of out of control vegetation burning leading to mass property damage and loss of life. And by that definition of a wild fire where we build and how is obviously a determinative factor over which we have a lot of influence. And so a premature fixation over factors which we have less ability to influence and may have a much less significant effect in what we actually care about could result in poor decisions that ultimately lead to a lot more damage and loss of life, which we can all agree would be terrible.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by beachy 2y ago

nullc 2y ago

If you're going to policy reason on gut, that's fine-- most policy is set that way. But we shouldn't disguise gut as "science" and make it unquestionable or just offensive to debate. (Or instantly resorting to personal attacks and accusations of ignorance.) Your gut analysis isn't as obvious to me: Fire can't happen without fuel, drier forests grow less fast. In climates where wildfires are a regular and natural feature, all that grows will eventually burn-- and it's literally impossible for it to burn unless it grew first. On that reasoning one might expect that drier climates might lead to fewer wildfires. At least at the reasoning level of "gut". Not too many wildfires in death valley after all, even though it is very dry and hot there while there are wildfires in Seattle which is usually wetter than a sponge. :) Moreover magnitudes matter a lot-- I'll accept your 'obvious conclusion' but it doesn't set a magnitude. If wildfire activity is modulated only a small amount by dryness but a large amount by where we choose to build, our irrigation practices (e.g. creating pockets of growth in naturally dry places and diverting water from wildlands we don't care about), our forestry practices (aggressively suppressing small inconsequential fires, until they run out of control), and so on-- then that calls for different interventions (and would also be really good news because if existent climate change really were the only cause of recent activity we're screwed because there is no plan to turn back the clock on that, only plans to decrease the rate). There is also a definitional question: What is a wildfire? The things most people care about under that banner aren't just the metaphorical tree burning in a forest with no one there to hear it... they are incidents of out of control vegetation burning leading to mass property damage and loss of life. And by that definition of a wild fire where we build and how is obviously a determinative factor over which we have a lot of influence. And so a premature fixation over factors which we have less ability to influence and may have a much less significant effect in what we actually care about could result in poor decisions that ultimately lead to a lot more damage and loss of life, which we can all agree would be terrible.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]