General reminder that fires are a part of the natural order of things, and if anything we've put too much effort into suppressing them.
Fire allows new growth, cuts down on disease, and gives the soil access to nutrients.
It also consumes fuel, meaning subsequent burns won't be as large. When you tamp down all naturally occurring fires, you set yourself up for an out of control blaze later on.
> General reminder that fires are a part of the natural order of things, and if anything we've put too much effort into suppressing them.
This appears to be a case of the naturalistic fallacy. Additionally, the article cites that the predicted cause of the fires is decreased moisture content in the fuel, not abundance of the fuel due to firefighting efforts.
It's also relatively accepted in US forestry research, as far as I'm aware. The policy (starting almost a century ago) of "put out every fire asap" worked for a few decades with increasing difficulty, but now many fires are simply uncontrollable and much more intense due to the increase in ground debris that would have normally been burned off far earlier. Oh, and that means that now we get crown fires instead of ground fires, killing trees that would have survived a smaller fire. Hooray?
This page [0] gives a decent overview of the US history in my opinion.
In short - no fires may be better than some weak fires, for certain utility functions. Unfortunately, no fires + time + not cleaning forests = huge fires, which are far worse than either.
I don't know how well we could generalize this - but IIRC that's likely the case with this summer's fires in Siberia too; couldn't find much about wildfire causes in the US though.
That sounds sensible, but what would a natural fire be caused by?
A droplet of water focusing the sunlight onto a point below it is the only thing I can think of, but then there is cooling water right on top of it, and as soon as that begins to evaporate the focus also disappears.
Edit: ah yes of course, lightning. Thanks everyone.
Also, statistically, it's likely that in any given year, there will be some place in the world that is anomalous. You can't just pick and choose certain areas, going to a different spot each year, as evidence of a problem, you need to look at things globally.
There is a glitch in both charts on mobile (FF and chrome). For example, the first chart shows >2100 cumulative forest fires (contrary to ~1650 in the text). The value in the chart that appears if you click the data point is correct.
I agree that this headline (data from a single year presented as a new trend) is useless at best or maybe even misleading (I haven't upvoted it), but from your comment, it sounds a bit like you are not convinced we are causing the climate to be changed. Not sure if that is the message you mean to convey.
I am not an idiot. Of course we are causing climate to change for the worse.
I don't trust everyone out there though. Most scientist and media people have a self serving attitude. They just want clicks
I think the point is "extreme weather" rather than just "it's hotter now". The 1° average warming that we're currently at (or whatever the latest estimate is) won't suddenly set forests ablaze.
I would to start seeing data analysis which charts how increases in temperature center (or don't) on certain extreme periods each year. 3-10 day stretches of extreme heat, cold, flooding, etc are devastating to many living organisms, and, as global warming kicks into gear, we should be tracking and publicly discussing biologically significant weather events and their trends and directly - rather than just hottest day, month, year. It's a good cross discipline area for biologists, geologists, and meteorologists to cooperate. When there is a major heat wave, the biological impact to the ecosystem, beyond the immediate impacts on humans in the moment, should be front page news.
I wouldn't call that the rainiest August in years. I live in Central Europe and here it is the worst drought in years. More than half of the country has the highest level of wild-fire possibility..
Readit News
Fire allows new growth, cuts down on disease, and gives the soil access to nutrients.
It also consumes fuel, meaning subsequent burns won't be as large. When you tamp down all naturally occurring fires, you set yourself up for an out of control blaze later on.
This appears to be a case of the naturalistic fallacy. Additionally, the article cites that the predicted cause of the fires is decreased moisture content in the fuel, not abundance of the fuel due to firefighting efforts.
This page [0] gives a decent overview of the US history in my opinion.
In short - no fires may be better than some weak fires, for certain utility functions. Unfortunately, no fires + time + not cleaning forests = huge fires, which are far worse than either.
0: https://foresthistory.org/research-explore/us-forest-service...
https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/05/human-activity-responsib...
I don't know how well we could generalize this - but IIRC that's likely the case with this summer's fires in Siberia too; couldn't find much about wildfire causes in the US though.
a very small amount of fire is bad, because it also isn't possible, it leads to large fire later which is bad
too much fire is bad because obviously fire is bad
Goldilocks just right fire is good
A droplet of water focusing the sunlight onto a point below it is the only thing I can think of, but then there is cooling water right on top of it, and as soon as that begins to evaporate the focus also disappears.
Edit: ah yes of course, lightning. Thanks everyone.
Maybe years are either very calm or have lots of fires? That would result in some years being much worse than the average.
There were 13832 forest fires in Portugal alone in 2008. The avg in this chart seems far less than that...
Maybe I'm reading this wrong?
[0] https://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/media/cms_page_media/40/fores...
(Talking about Poland here)