Global warming and the California wildfires 8

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   infp Posted 6:35 am
   24 Oct 2007

   Note to George WillWhen the developed world has to spend billions/trillions of dollars to fight brush fires, droughts and flooding in their own countries, they probably won't be spending a lot of money to fights AIDS and malaria in the developing world.  

   Permalink

2. 

   Judith Lewis Posted 8:12 am
   24 Oct 2007

   It's almost axiomaticFrom where I sit in Venice, California, 20 miles down the coast from the nearest fire, there's hardly a human missing the climate-wildfire link. Sure, we get fires out here, but not fires like these, and we get drought, but this is off the hook. If you eavesdrop in restaurants, listen to the radio (even mainstream news radio, KFWB) or walk on the beach (where the air sucks, by the way), you hear, "this is climate change, isn't it?"
   The fire season started dreadfully early -- this is the third major incident since last May; half the Los Padres National Forest seems to have gone up in flams (that fire, the Zaca Fire, burned for well over month). Plus, there've been fires happening all over the world, all summer -- Greece, Croatia, the Canary Islands, Australia.) It's pretty hard to miss the fact that this is beyond the usual stuff.
   Now we got to figure out how we can get these people to actually do something about it . . .
   Hope your San Diegans are okay.

   Permalink

3. 

   elbarto Posted 9:34 am
   24 Oct 2007

   Amazon burns, tooThe elephant in the room is the burning of the Amazon, although I'm not at all trivialising the CA fires...
   http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-amazon.html
   
   http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1021-amazon.html

   Permalink

4. 

   Backcut Posted 10:27 am
   24 Oct 2007

   AGAIN!!People are in total denial about forest fuels, both live and dead. They'll keep placing 100% of the blame on global warming because that's "the party line". Go ahead and toss out valid solutions based on forest thinning, preferring the wildfires that are "natural and beneficial", like what we're seeing now. <sarcasm>
   
   Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

   Permalink

5. 

   blueberrysushi Posted 2:42 pm
   24 Oct 2007

   ThinningBackcut has a good point: thinning is an option for decreasing wildfire severity, intensity, and extent in many forest types. However, s/he doesn't mention that thinning alone doesn't do much; rather, it is the combination of thinning and prescribed burning (to reduce ground fuels) that is most effective. Site specificity is always something to keep in mind, though. Stands with historically low-intensity fires (low-elevation ponderosa pine) respond well to treatments. Stands with historically high-intensity fires (mid-elevation mixed conifer with a lot of fir) do not do as well. It all comes down to finding the right combination of treatments for the place and the conditions that exist now.
   All this is beside the point, to a certain extent. Why thin chaparral? It is not a system that responds well to thinning. What would you thin? Scrub oak?

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 4:54 pm
   24 Oct 2007

   Burn, Baby, Burn
   
   Is it me?  I really could not care less about these richie-riches getting burned out of their homes.
   I have to laugh the news, they keep saying this like "and here, over 1500 square miles were completely burned...and 200 homes are gone!"
   Right, like these peoples swimming pools are as big as the building that houses my one bedroom apartment in Kent, WA.
   And now we see it's arson.  Sure, these guys are just greedy...they're greedy bastards!  Realizing that home prices were falling in overpriced markets like San Diego, they burned their homes and now hope to collect 100% of value from the American taxpayer!
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   Sutext:

   Permalink

7. 

   Backcut Posted 10:50 pm
   24 Oct 2007

   Correct!Thanks BBS. Of course, you can't thin chapparal, other than installing fuel breaks. There's plenty more blame to go around, though. For example, the LA Times has taken EVERY opportunity to oppose Forest Service projects in National Forests around SoCal, (and beyond). The San Bernardino National Forest alone had more than 12 MILLION dead trees in 2004 with a small percentage of those removed or salvaged. A vast amount of snags and fallen trees still await future fires. The Bush Administration, after dumping tons of money into that "hole", have now discovered that it is cheaper to let it all burn. Firefighters rarely directly attack fires anymore, preferring to back off and set backfires.
   Remember, global warming is NOT a part of the "fire triangle". (Although it DOES have a major effect, as the scientists say.) If you remove or lessen the fuels, the fires diminish. These wildfires are less of a global warming problem than a fuels problem.
   Too bad so many, MANY people blame global warming when the problem lies in the fuels. Everyone knows about the Santa Ana's returning every year so why not deal with the fuels problem? I also don't have a lot of compassion for people who built their homes in the middle of 10 foot high chapparal and overstocked forests.
   
   Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

   Permalink

8. 

   Backcut Posted 3:03 am
   28 Oct 2007

   HmmmI guess the SoCal fires are just a small story in the world of Prius cars and hemp clothing.
   Here's a story about how active management saved homes and forests.
   http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me ...
   
   Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

   Permalink