Messing With Mother Nature Fires

[Big Guy]

Those forest fires in BC and the States continue to make the news;

http://bcwildfire.ca/situation/

These events are portrayed as catastrophic, unexpected and damaging. But they are also expected and natural.

Forest fires are a natural and necessary ecological progression of growth. My understanding that it is natural for a forested area to grow, build up debris and ground cover and eventually become so susceptible to fire that a lightening strike eventually cause a fire. That fire cleans the area, adds nutrients that are needed and the cycle begins once more.

If we go in and stop these fires are we not just temporarily postponing the inevitable?

I would assume that someone building a cabin in the woods would be accepting the perils of building in a forest? Should they not?

[The_Squid]

What isn't natural is clearcutting the forests and then planting a monoculture.

That practice makes fires worse...

Monoculture also made the pine beetle infestation worse, which killed millions of hectares of trees and made it perfect tinder for forest fires. Again, the problem wouldn't have been as bad had we not done that.

Does this change your perception that these fires are "natural events", since they wouldn't have been as severe had we not done what we did?

[Moonlight Graham]

Does this change your perception that these fires are "natural events", since they wouldn't have been as severe had we not done what we did?

That doesn't change the fact that natural forest fires are, in general, natural events and healthy and rejuvenating for the natural environment.

Are all these fires happening in areas you're talking about about? Obviously not.

My view on forest fires is that they should be left to burn in areas out of reach of significant #'s of human settlements, but brought under control if the fires risk fair sized human settlements. I wouldn't waste the resources and health of fire depts. to save a 2 or 3 cottages in the middle of the nowhere, i say let the insurance companies handle it afterwards and let owners assume the risk in those cases.

[The_Squid]

I don't disagree, but there are forestry practices that could reduce the likelihood of wildfires that should also be instituted.

[WIP]

This is another weather topic where unexpected effects of increased global average temps and CO2 increases have made the situation worse than it already was.

There are always forest fires, the difference now...as explained on the most recent episode of RadioEcoshock is that the fires are bigger and burning hotter than was being studied in previous decades. The trend was first noticed in massive Siberian forest fires over 10 years ago, and now the trend is happening big time in our northern boreal forests.

The worst aspect of the "superfires" is that nothing is left after they've burned out a section of forest....no tall trees, no pine cones, nothing is left to rebuild the forest after the fire has burned through as occurred back in the days when we had normal weather: New Age of Superfires.

Up till now, it's been taken as a given that trees and forests are automatic carbon sinks. But in an age where trees can burn and leave debris and soils still emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the forests themselves are becoming a positive forcing effect for increased carbonization of our atmosphere!

[Keepitsimple]

I guess the Law of Unintended Consequences has raised it's ugly head again......

“In our dry forests, where we have suppressed all fires, we have actually removed some fires from the landscape that would have had a positive impact by maintaining forest structures that are more open, with less fuel,” she said.

Before modern firefighting began, those frequent, low-intensity fires burned off needles, branches and small logs on the ground, reducing the fuel load.

“Without those fires, the fuels have been building up and building up and the forests have become more dense,” she said.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/firefighting-strategies-may-be-contributing-to-larger-wildfires/article25348553/

[-1=e^ipi]

But in an age where trees can burn and leave debris and soils still emitting carbon into the atmosphere, the forests themselves are becoming a positive forcing effect for increased carbonization of our atmosphere!

Forest Fires may be a positive feedback, but this is more than offset by the negative feedback of increased photosynthesis under higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

[waldo]

Forest Fires may be a positive feedback, but this is more than offset by the negative feedback of increased photosynthesis under higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

sorry... your 'CO2 is plant food' meme has been busted, several times over! By "higher" is that as high as your pining for 1200ppm, the, as you said, "sooner the better"? But hey now, I'm not aware of any wildfires starting up in your isolated, non-real world, greenhouse enclosures!

.

[overthere]

Parks Canada used to fight every fire in the mountain Parks as a matter of policy.

A couple of decades ago they recognized that they had helped to created an eco- monster, both flora and fauna were not naturally distributed in part because of that intervention.

They had a program of the somewhat oxymoronic 'controlled burns', and changed strategies to fight only those fires that threatened towns or major infrastructure.

Oh, and 'superfires' are not a new phenomenen. Naturally caused wildfires are more or less random, the intensity of the fire is dependent on both an increase in thatch/undergrowth and getting a trigger from lightning. Over time, it is a statistical certainty that every square inch burns.

The source of every fire is known, and there are only two major causes of ignition: people and lightning. All lightning strikes are noted by satellite, so if a fire starts in the abscence of lightning it must have human origin.