Wildfire Acreage up 25% Nationally

[Into the Night]

It does. But it bears repeating that many of the aspects -- less snow pack, more droughts, higher initial temperatures, drier fuels -- are the result of climate change.

Snow pack is about normal. California wastes a lot of water.

Much of California is a desert. The sooner you realize that fact, the sooner you'll realize that 'droughts' are normal in California.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. A couple of degrees is not going to start more wildfires.

Fuels EXIST, largely because of poor land and forestry management and the cool wet springs California has enjoyed the last few years.

Define 'climate change'. Meaingless buzzwords don't start wildfires.

 

[mike2810]

It does. But it bears repeating that many of the aspects -- less snow pack, more droughts, higher initial temperatures, drier fuels -- are the result of climate change.

When it comes to wildfires it only takes a year or two for dead large fuels (100 hour) to recover moisture content. 100 hr, 10 hr, 1 hr can come into equilibrium during the same fire season, depending on moisture received and relative humidity.

Climate changes over time. The question is will the change be permanent or will it be cyclic with up and down swings? My bet is the US climate will have its ups and downs.

I will take AZ for example. AZ came into the 2018 fire season from a very dry winter, warm temps and low RH%. AZ is still having hot days. But, the monsoon rains did come and provided moisture to the forest fuels. Now in August fire danger is actually below what many would consider "normal" for this time of the fire season. When the monsoons quit, it will take a few weeks and the fire danger will rise again. Fire danger is cyclic and responds to short term weather inputs.

Here is an older paper written in 2002 which studied fire and snowpack. What the study shows is they could find no correlations between the amount of snowpack and acres burned. The paper does say further studies and deeper analysis would be beneficial.

https://climate.rutgers.edu/statecl...fereed/Medler_Montesano_and_Robinson_2002.pdf

 

[Media_Truth]

There is no such thing as a 'fire season'. Wildfire can and does happen in any season.

A government naming some set of days 'fire season' is purely a government assignment. It does not reflect on anything actually being a longer season. Wildfires have not increased in number, intensity, or frequency. All areas are vulnerable to wildfire.

Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords don't cause wildfire.

With experts like you, who needs real scientists?

 

[Media_Truth]

This is a good summary of wildfires that occur today. Note the point that I bolded.

"Globally, wildfire size, severity, and frequency have been increasing, as have related fatalities and taxpayer-funded firefighting costs (1). In most accessible forests, wildfire response prioritizes suppression because fires are easier and cheaper to contain when small (2). In the United States, for example, 98% of wildfires are suppressed before reaching 120 ha in size (3). But the 2% of wildfires that escape containment often burn under extreme weather conditions in fuel-loaded forests and account for 97% of fire-fighting costs and total area burned (3). Changing climate and decades of fuel accumulation make efforts to suppress every fire dangerous, expensive, and ill advised (4). These trends are attracting congressional scrutiny for a new approach to wildfire management (5). The recent release of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (NCWFMS) (6) and the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS's) current effort to revise national forest (NF) plans provide openings to incentivize change. Although we largely focus on the USFS, which incurs 70% of national firefighting costs (7), similar wildfire policies and needed management reforms are relevant throughout the United States and fire-prone areas worldwide."

Reform forest fire management | Science

There are fire independent ecosystems and fire dependent ecosystems. Fire (wildfire or prescribed) can be beneficial or harmful to the ecosystem depending on the fires intensity, duration and frequency.

The deserts of the SW are not a fire dependent ecosystem. The ecosystem has been changed with the introduction of exotics like cheat grass and red brome. The exotics are fire dependent and invade burned areas out competing in some cases the native vegetation. This spread makes the desert ecosystem more prone to large fires.

Lodgepole pine forests are fire dependent. The forest needs a hot enough fire to open up the serotinous cones so the seeds can spread. Fires are generally a stand replacement event.

Ponderosa Pine forest are fire dependent and historically fires were low intensity. Fire prepared the forest floor by reducing the duff layer and thinning the forest. The pine stand was mostly open and park like.

Bottom line, when we have years of below normal snow pack, lack of rain during the summer what dead and live fuels that exist on the landscape will be more prone to burn when ignited. Exotic species and humans building homes into fire prone areas adds to the problem.

I don't disagree with your articles, but like Visbek, I believe the hotter/dryer climate and subsequent extended dry season exacerbates the risk and the extremity of the 2% of out-of-control fires that your article cites. I witnessed an incredible wildfire in 2012, when the Colorado Springs area was declared a Federal Disaster area. Looking up at the foothills, from Colorado Springs, it looked like one match after another being ignited. The winds were so ferocious, and everything was so dry, including the live trees, from 2-3 straight weeks of unusual 100+ deg F weather, that the fire was totally uncontrollable. The apparent matchsticks were pine trees flaring up, one after another.

It would have made no difference if there was undergrowth or not. The winds moved the flames from one tree to another.

 

[Visbek]

When it comes to wildfires it only takes a year or two for dead large fuels (100 hour) to recover moisture content. 100 hr, 10 hr, 1 hr can come into equilibrium during the same fire season, depending on moisture received and relative humidity.

Higher average temperatures tends to mean less moisture at the surface (due to evaporation), and this can dry out the fuels, leading to longer fire seasons, more damaging fires, and so on.

Climate changes over time. The question is will the change be permanent or will it be cyclic with up and down swings? My bet is the US climate will have its ups and downs.

I'm afraid you are already losing your bet. Temperatures are going up, and show no sign of stopping. There are no cycles which explain over a century of rapidly rising temperatures (by normal climate terms), which just happens to be explained by the rapid rise in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, due to human activity.

Fire danger is cyclic and responds to short term weather inputs.

So are global temperatures, precipitation, ocean levels, CO2 levels, and many other aspects of climate. That doesn't mean we cannot detect long-term trends.

Here is an older paper written in 2002 which studied fire and snowpack....

Uh huh. Would you like me to find you some papers on how wildfires are made worse by climate change? I assure you, it won't take long.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Higher average temperatures tends to mean less moisture at the surface (due to evaporation), and this can dry out the fuels, leading to longer fire seasons, more damaging fires, and so on.

In some regions yes, others no. It depends on the availability of moisture. Besides, my understanding of this is natural fires do have a small increase when dryer, but human cause fires are around 70% of the fires. Either way, the greater the annual precipitation, the greater the growth of potential fuel for fires. Once a fire is started, it cares little about a plant's moisture content. The fire evaporates the moisture, then it burns as easily as if it were dry.

I'm afraid you are already losing your bet. Temperatures are going up, and show no sign of stopping. There are no cycles which explain over a century of rapidly rising temperatures (by normal climate terms), which just happens to be explained by the rapid rise in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, due to human activity.

Sure there are. You are just a denier of possibilities that don't fit comfortably within your confirmation bias.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I found this, quite by accident, but it appears to fit:

 

[mike2810]

I don't disagree with your articles, but like Visbek, I believe the hotter/dryer climate and subsequent extended dry season exacerbates the risk and the extremity of the 2% of out-of-control fires that your article cites. I witnessed an incredible wildfire in 2012, when the Colorado Springs area was declared a Federal Disaster area. Looking up at the foothills, from Colorado Springs, it looked like one match after another being ignited. The winds were so ferocious, and everything was so dry, including the live trees, from 2-3 straight weeks of unusual 100+ deg F weather, that the fire was totally uncontrollable. The apparent matchsticks were pine trees flaring up, one after another.

It would have made no difference if there was undergrowth or not. The winds moved the flames from one tree to another.

I retired 14 years ago from a career in wildland fire. I don't disagree that some of todays fires are larger and more intense. A hotter dryer climate is just a couple of the factors that lead to the fire behavior we are seeing today. If the world continues to rise in temperature and moisture remains below normal the trend of having large intense fires could continue. When normal to above normal precipitation occurs during a year, you can expect a downward dip in the size and intensity of fires.

Somewhere in your Colorado example the fire had to start at the ground. The fire eventually got into the crowns and the winds perpetuated the crown fire. If the forest was more like it was in the 17-1800's of a more open parklike stand the trees would be spaced far enough apart to make a crown fire unlikely.

 

[mike2810]

Uh huh. Would you like me to find you some papers on how wildfires are made worse by climate change? I assure you, it won't take long.

I am not saying the climate is not changing. It is quite evident it is. I am also not debating that humans have not had an influence of what we are seeing. What I am saying is even with increased temps, one can expect a dip in fire behavior when normal to above normal precipitation occurs.

Do you agree the earth has gone through climatic cycles of highs and lows?

As far as the article on wildfires. Go ahead. I probably have read what you will find. Spent 30 years in wildland fire management for a federal agency. Have a BS in Forestry and a Masters in Wildland Fire Science.
(yeah I know I am an unknown poster who cannot prove his work experience or education without revealing my identity. That is not going to happen. ):mrgreen:

 

[Visbek]

In some regions yes, others no. It depends on the availability of moisture.

Uh huh. Aren't you usually the maestro of evapotranspiration...?

By the way, even deserts have at least some moisture. Death Valley has almost no precipitation, and well below average humidity; but even in the summer, humidity is around 25% at night and 10% during the day.

There's moisture pretty much everywhere, especially the parts of "everywhere" that have forests which can catch on fire. There should be little question that forested areas can lose humidity at the surface as temperatures rise.

Besides, my understanding of this is natural fires do have a small increase when dryer, but human cause fires are around 70% of the fires.

Yeah, the thing is? That doesn't explain factors like wildfires increasing in acreage, year after year. Unless you also have proof that the number of human-caused fires is steadily increasing.

Either way, the greater the annual precipitation, the greater the growth of potential fuel for fires. Once a fire is started, it cares little about a plant's moisture content. The fire evaporates the moisture, then it burns as easily as if it were dry.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Wetter forests do not burn as widely as drier ones. Drier fuels mean hotter fires, which means they can spread further. We see this in the Amazon, for example; it is more prone to fires in hotter years, which reduces the moisture content of the rainforest. And yes, we can measure how much moisture forests are storing, this is one of the jobs of the GRACE satellites.

C'mon, man. This is basic stuff.

Sure there are. You are just a denier of possibilities that don't fit comfortably within your confirmation bias.

It is really tiresome to see you ascribe your own flaws to someone else.

But hey, I've got an idea. Prove me wrong. Tell us the following:
• Which natural cycles explain the 100+ years of rising average, maximum and minimum temperatures we've seen
• What's the causal mechanism of those cycles
• How you know about those cycles
• When have we observed them in the past
• How long do they last
• If anyone has published any papers on those cycles, or are you the only person on the planet who knows about them

And as usual, you've numerous reasons why scientific claims should not be accepted, including but not limited to:
• Lab experiments (too many variables)
• Observations of the atmosphere (also, too many variables)
• Any proxies except for ice cores
• Any contemporary temperature measurements (which are thrown off by urban heat effects, even though pretty much all of the indexes adjust for or exclude urban sites)
• Any papers that do not sufficiently account for the "Unknown Unknowns"
• It has to be actual papers written by actual scientists, because "pundits" cannot be believed

So, any papers that use any of the above? Yep, they're out.

And no, a vague assertion is not going to cut it, because... wait for it... we have tons of evidence that rising GHGs is what's causing the rise in temperatures. If you're going to even remotely refute that work, you're going to need lots of specific evidence to back up your claims.

Have fun with that.

 

[Jack Hays]

we have tons of evidence that rising GHGs is what's causing the rise in temperatures.

No, we do not. Your claim is false.

 

[Visbek]

I am not saying the climate is not changing. It is quite evident it is. I am also not debating that humans have not had an influence of what we are seeing. What I am saying is even with increased temps, one can expect a dip in fire behavior when normal to above normal precipitation occurs.

Yes, and the problem is that since it gets warmer each year, the surface has less humidity, and thus drier fuels, during those cycles.

For example, CO2 rises and falls in an annual cycle -- but because humans are emitting so much CO2, it keeps going up anyway:

I.e. the existence of annual or seasonal cycles does not change the fact that human activities can result in longer-term changes.

Do you agree the earth has gone through climatic cycles of highs and lows?

Yes, climate changes, and there are plenty of natural cycles. Climate scientists are well aware of them. Again, that is not mutually exclusive with human activities being the primary driver of climate change over the past ~250 years. Our activities (primarily emissions of GHGs) is simply overwhelming those natural cycles.

As far as the article on wildfires. Go ahead. I probably have read what you will find. Spent 30 years in wildland fire management for a federal agency. Have a BS in Forestry and a Masters in Wildland Fire Science.
(yeah I know I am an unknown poster who cannot prove his work experience or education without revealing my identity. That is not going to happen. ) :mrgreen:

That's fine, but... If you've read them, then what is your dispute with them?

Let's try....
Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests | PNAS

This one's a little older, but fairly widely cited
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/51/9/723/288247

Speaking of federal agencies.... On the top level, it looks like the Trump administration has scrubbed any mention of anthropogenic impacts from their pages on climate change (surprise!). However, an older and much more thoroughly documented page is still up. It looks like it was written in 2012 (there are no papers later than 2012 cited); since then, most climate scientists have changed their views from "we'll see the effects real soon now" to "we're starting to see the effects now. Anyway, they have their own synthesis, along with a list of papers they used as sources.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildland-fire

 

[mike2810]

Yes, and the problem is that since it gets warmer each year, the surface has less humidity, and thus drier fuels, during those cycles.

For example, CO2 rises and falls in an annual cycle -- but because humans are emitting so much CO2, it keeps going up anyway:

I.e. the existence of annual or seasonal cycles does not change the fact that human activities can result in longer-term changes.



Yes, climate changes, and there are plenty of natural cycles. Climate scientists are well aware of them. Again, that is not mutually exclusive with human activities being the primary driver of climate change over the past ~250 years. Our activities (primarily emissions of GHGs) is simply overwhelming those natural cycles.



That's fine, but... If you've read them, then what is your dispute with them?

Let's try....
Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests | PNAS

This one's a little older, but fairly widely cited
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/51/9/723/288247

Speaking of federal agencies.... On the top level, it looks like the Trump administration has scrubbed any mention of anthropogenic impacts from their pages on climate change (surprise!). However, an older and much more thoroughly documented page is still up. It looks like it was written in 2012 (there are no papers later than 2012 cited); since then, most climate scientists have changed their views from "we'll see the effects real soon now" to "we're starting to see the effects now. Anyway, they have their own synthesis, along with a list of papers they used as sources.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildland-fire

If you can believe the fire records it seems the 1920 - 1940 had a greater number of fires and acres burned than the year 2000 - 2017 fire seasons.
Hence it is not an upward trend over time, but a wide fluctuation of fires and acres. The papers really don't explain the trend.

Human caused fires outnumber lightning caused fires by a great percentage in the US. https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html


Climate change is one of many factors that influence fires and how large a fire will get. I suspect we agree on more things than we disagree.

I don't like how Trump has put politics into fire management and climate change. It is sad.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I found this, quite by accident, but it appears to fit:

View attachment 67238245

Just think if we had logged more over the last 20 years.... we would have more money and less fires.

Seams like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Into the Night]

With experts like you, who needs real scientists?

True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't disagree with your articles, but like Visbek, I believe the hotter/dryer climate and subsequent extended dry season exacerbates the risk and the extremity of the 2% of out-of-control fires that your article cites. I witnessed an incredible wildfire in 2012, when the Colorado Springs area was declared a Federal Disaster area. Looking up at the foothills, from Colorado Springs, it looked like one match after another being ignited. The winds were so ferocious, and everything was so dry, including the live trees, from 2-3 straight weeks of unusual 100+ deg F weather, that the fire was totally uncontrollable. The apparent matchsticks were pine trees flaring up, one after another.

It would have made no difference if there was undergrowth or not. The winds moved the flames from one tree to another.

The claimed temperature increase is 2 deg F. That isn't going to cause any change in wildfires. Even that claim is a random number. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Undergrowth makes a difference. It's what allows the fire to climb into the upper canopy. Pine trees are especially susceptible to fire since they contain a rather flammable sap...more than other trees.

 

[Into the Night]

Higher average temperatures tends to mean less moisture at the surface (due to evaporation), and this can dry out the fuels, leading to longer fire seasons, more damaging fires, and so on.

The claimed temperature rise is 2 deg F. That isn't going to make any difference to wildfires.

I'm afraid you are already losing your bet. Temperatures are going up, and show no sign of stopping.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

There are no cycles which explain over a century of rapidly rising temperatures

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

(by normal climate terms),

Define 'normal' climate.

which just happens to be explained by the rapid rise in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, due to human activity.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

So are global temperatures,

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

precipitation,

It is not possible to measure the precipitation of the Earth.

ocean levels,

It is not possible to measure a global sea level.

CO2 levels,

It is not possible to measure a global CO2 level.

and many other aspects of climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.

That doesn't mean we cannot detect long-term trends.

Yes it does.

Uh huh. Would you like me to find you some papers on how wildfires are made worse by climate change? I assure you, it won't take long.

Nah. You can keep your propaganda. We already know what it says.

 

[Into the Night]

Uh huh. Aren't you usually the maestro of evapotranspiration...?

By the way, even deserts have at least some moisture. Death Valley has almost no precipitation, and well below average humidity; but even in the summer, humidity is around 25% at night and 10% during the day.

There's moisture pretty much everywhere, especially the parts of "everywhere" that have forests which can catch on fire. There should be little question that forested areas can lose humidity at the surface as temperatures rise.



Yeah, the thing is? That doesn't explain factors like wildfires increasing in acreage, year after year. Unless you also have proof that the number of human-caused fires is steadily increasing.



Sorry, but that is incorrect. Wetter forests do not burn as widely as drier ones. Drier fuels mean hotter fires, which means they can spread further. We see this in the Amazon, for example; it is more prone to fires in hotter years, which reduces the moisture content of the rainforest. And yes, we can measure how much moisture forests are storing, this is one of the jobs of the GRACE satellites.

C'mon, man. This is basic stuff.



It is really tiresome to see you ascribe your own flaws to someone else.

But hey, I've got an idea. Prove me wrong. Tell us the following:

Attempted force of a negative proof. A fallacy.

• Which natural cycles explain the 100+ years of rising average, maximum and minimum temperatures we've seen
• What's the causal mechanism of those cycles
• How you know about those cycles
• When have we observed them in the past
• How long do they last
• If anyone has published any papers on those cycles, or are you the only person on the planet who knows about them

Attempted force of negative proofs.

And as usual, you've numerous reasons why scientific claims should not be accepted, including but not limited to:

These are not science.

• Lab experiments (too many variables)

Vague.

• Observations of the atmosphere (also, too many variables)

Vague.

• Any proxies except for ice cores

Vague.

• Any contemporary temperature measurements (which are thrown off by urban heat effects, even though pretty much all of the indexes adjust for or exclude urban sites)

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You cannot adjust temperatures for 'heat island effects' in a statistical analysis. Raw data must be used, not cooked data.

• Any papers that do not sufficiently account for the "Unknown Unknowns"

Science isn't papers. Vague.

• It has to be actual papers written by actual scientists, because "pundits" cannot be believed

True Scotsman fallacy.

So, any papers that use any of the above? Yep, they're out.

Science isn't papers. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

And no, a vague assertion is not going to cut it,

The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you continue to ignore, is not a vague assertion.

because... wait for it... we have tons of evidence that rising GHGs is what's causing the rise in temperatures.

No, you don't. You have none. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth, and it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

If you're going to even remotely refute that work, you're going to need lots of specific evidence to back up your claims.

Attempted force of a negative proof. He doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is ON YOU.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, and the problem is that since it gets warmer each year, the surface has less humidity, and thus drier fuels, during those cycles.

For example, CO2 rises and falls in an annual cycle -- but because humans are emitting so much CO2, it keeps going up anyway:

I.e. the existence of annual or seasonal cycles does not change the fact that human activities can result in longer-term changes.



Yes, climate changes, and there are plenty of natural cycles. Climate scientists are well aware of them. Again, that is not mutually exclusive with human activities being the primary driver of climate change over the past ~250 years. Our activities (primarily emissions of GHGs) is simply overwhelming those natural cycles.



That's fine, but... If you've read them, then what is your dispute with them?

Let's try....
Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests | PNAS

This one's a little older, but fairly widely cited
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/51/9/723/288247

Speaking of federal agencies.... On the top level, it looks like the Trump administration has scrubbed any mention of anthropogenic impacts from their pages on climate change (surprise!). However, an older and much more thoroughly documented page is still up. It looks like it was written in 2012 (there are no papers later than 2012 cited); since then, most climate scientists have changed their views from "we'll see the effects real soon now" to "we're starting to see the effects now. Anyway, they have their own synthesis, along with a list of papers they used as sources.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildland-fire

The Mauna Loa observatory is publishing cooked data. It's useless. The effects of the recent volcanic eruption in the area is not showing in the data.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are making **** up.

 

[Media_Truth]

The Mauna Loa observatory is publishing cooked data. It's useless. The effects of the recent volcanic eruption in the area is not showing in the data.

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are making **** up.

With experts like you, who needs real scientists.

 

[Visbek]

If you can believe the fire records it seems the 1920 - 1940 had a greater number of fires and acres burned than the year 2000 - 2017 fire seasons.
Hence it is not an upward trend over time, but a wide fluctuation of fires and acres. The papers really don't explain the trend.

...unless there were dramatic changes in, say, firefighting methods, techniques and policies after WWII. E.g. wider use of vehicles, implementation of fire roads

I can't think of many natural cycles that would cause fire acreage to be cut in half between 1943 and 1949, then cut in half again by 1956, then stay in the same general range for decades, and start an upward trend in the mid-80s.

Human caused fires outnumber lightning caused fires by a great percentage in the US.

And as with many other aspects, climate change is not necessarily the initial cause of an event.

For example, climate change does not result in a higher number of hurricanes per year (let alone the numbers hitting US shores). However, it makes the storms more intense and more damaging. The increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more precipitation; the precipitation and higher sea levels both increase flood damage; changes to pressure systems can result in hurricanes parking over land for days longer than in the past. We saw all of this with Hurricane Harvey.

Climate change is one of many factors that influence fires and how large a fire will get. I suspect we agree on more things than we disagree.

Yes, I'm definitely not saying it is the only factor that causes all wildfires, or can make them worse. Changes in fire policies and funding will have a big impact on future fires. I also believe that wildfire management is one area where human efforts may be more capable of mitigating the impact of climate change. It's certainly not easy or cheap, but it's a cakewalk compared to, say, preparing every coastal city for increased flooding due to climate change.

That said, we are just starting to see some of the impacts of climate change, and unfortunately it's going to get worse.

 

[Jack Hays]

...unless there were dramatic changes in, say, firefighting methods, techniques and policies after WWII. E.g. wider use of vehicles, implementation of fire roads

I can't think of many natural cycles that would cause fire acreage to be cut in half between 1943 and 1949, then cut in half again by 1956, then stay in the same general range for decades, and start an upward trend in the mid-80s.

The upward trend results from decades of misguided forest management.

 

[Jack Hays]

.

For example, climate change does not result in a higher number of hurricanes per year (let alone the numbers hitting US shores). However, it makes the storms more intense and more damaging.

No, it does not. Increased damage is almost entirely attributable to increased coastal development.

 

[Visbek]

Just think if we had logged more over the last 20 years.... we would have more money and less fires.

Seams like a no-brainer to me.

It's not that simple.

For example, the smaller and thinner trees that are replanted in logged areas are actually more flammable, while the remains from logging acts as kindling.

Another factor is that not all fires are bad. In fact, many forests need occasional burns, it's part of their lifecycle. Poor policies, like attempts at total fire suppression, is unhealthy for those forests. In addition to interrupting needed fires, it winds up generating more fuel, and the resulting fires can be too hot to benefit the forests.

And of course, logging has secondary effects, such as destroying animal habitats.

 

[mike2810]

It's not that simple.

For example, the smaller and thinner trees that are replanted in logged areas are actually more flammable, while the remains from logging acts as kindling.

Another factor is that not all fires are bad. In fact, many forests need occasional burns, it's part of their lifecycle. Poor policies, like attempts at total fire suppression, is unhealthy for those forests. In addition to interrupting needed fires, it winds up generating more fuel, and the resulting fires can be too hot to benefit the forests.

And of course, logging has secondary effects, such as destroying animal habitats.

Your last statement reminds me of an old logger I saw on tv when the spotted owl issue in Oregon was just hitting the news years ago. Environmental groups were stating the old growth forest had to be protected for spotted owl habitat. The old logger asked the question, "where did the spotted owl live before there was old growth trees?"
Pretty insightful question. :mrgreen: