good article on mars global warming

[wirehairman]

well bison eat grass cows eat corn, ground up cows and other yummy stuff

 

and bison is way better eating that cows

 

I find buffler to be a little tough. I much prefer a tasty little whitetail or elk.

[Perchoutofwater]

With all the talk of forest fires, I was wondering what affect if any they have on "global warming". Have they always been this prevalent, or have they increased in the last few decades? Why does it always seem that these forest fires always break out in areas with a large concentration of tree huggers? Around here we have forests dense enough that you can't see 10' in front of you in places, but we never have large scale forest fires. Is this because logging is still a fairly large industry here and not in the land of the tree huggers, or is there another reason, and if so, what is it?

[I Like Soup]

With all the talk of forest fires, I was wondering what affect if any they have on "global warming". Have they always been this prevalent, or have they increased in the last few decades? Why does it always seem that these forest fires always break out in areas with a large concentration of tree huggers? Around here we have forests dense enough that you can't see 10' in front of you in places, but we never have large scale forest fires. Is this because logging is still a fairly large industry here and not in the land of the tree huggers, or is there another reason, and if so, what is it?

Silly Perch...Allah is striking down the evil infidels that have overrun America...and the most evil of that lot are the tree huggers...

[bushwacked]

Around here we have forests dense enough that you can't see 10' in front of you in places, but we never have large scale forest fires. Is this because logging is still a fairly large industry here and not in the land of the tree huggers, or is there another reason, and if so, what is it?

 

God watches over the retarded.

[polksalet]

With all the talk of forest fires, I was wondering what affect if any they have on "global warming". Have they always been this prevalent, or have they increased in the last few decades? Why does it always seem that these forest fires always break out in areas with a large concentration of tree huggers? Around here we have forests dense enough that you can't see 10' in front of you in places, but we never have large scale forest fires. Is this because logging is still a fairly large industry here and not in the land of the tree huggers, or is there another reason, and if so, what is it?

 

The reason is that we manage our forests for profit. Part of that is the logging reduces the fuel load and controlled burning reduces fuel and littler. On the wast coast as is here forests are designed to burn. It is no coincidence that cionifers and some hardwoods are extremely flammable, it is a natural part of their life cycle. Angiosperms need naked soil to reproduce. In many places on the west coast fire is not used as a tool because it is deemed evil or unnatural. However nature will eventually win if we do not step up. What you see going on there now is a consequence of this inaction.

[bushwacked]

The reason is that we manage our forests for profit.

 

Mountain west forests have been mismanaged for many years; not sure the south was much different. But different climates, fuel types, and topography play a large part.

[tonorator]

Angiosperms need naked soil to reproduce.

 

i feel dirty after reading this.

[detlef]

Angiosperms

He said angiosperms

[I Like Soup]

He said angiosperms

:pantsgettingtight:

[Azazello1313]

With all the talk of forest fires, I was wondering what affect if any they have on "global warming". Have they always been this prevalent, or have they increased in the last few decades? Why does it always seem that these forest fires always break out in areas with a large concentration of tree huggers? Around here we have forests dense enough that you can't see 10' in front of you in places, but we never have large scale forest fires. Is this because logging is still a fairly large industry here and not in the land of the tree huggers, or is there another reason, and if so, what is it?

The reason is that we manage our forests for profit. Part of that is the logging reduces the fuel load and controlled burning reduces fuel and littler. On the wast coast as is here forests are designed to burn. It is no coincidence that cionifers and some hardwoods are extremely flammable, it is a natural part of their life cycle. Angiosperms need naked soil to reproduce. In many places on the west coast fire is not used as a tool because it is deemed evil or unnatural. However nature will eventually win if we do not step up. What you see going on there now is a consequence of this inaction.

 

it's an awful lot dryer in cali, arizona, colorado, than it is in the deep south. i'm thinking that has more to do with it than cutting lots of trees down for profit.

[polksalet]

it's an awful lot dryer in cali, arizona, colorado, than it is in the deep south. i'm thinking that has more to do with it than cutting lots of trees down for profit.

 

Ok visualize this, here we log heavily which removes a lot of fuel from the forest. Smaller trees burn hotter and longer than smaller faster growing trees. If it is a selective cut it is normal to either spray or burn the remaining underbrush to expose the bare soil. If it is a clearcut we burn all remaining fuel so it is not allowed to accumulate for 150 years like in the west. While the west is dryer that is relative. Some places in the south get extremely dry. I doubt SD is any dryer than the mountains just north of me have been for much of the summer. But when you keep nature from reducing fuels loads naturally with smaller cooler fires you are building up a monster load which will eventually esplode.

[Yukon Cornelius]

The reason is that we manage our forests for profit. Part of that is the logging reduces the fuel load and controlled burning reduces fuel and littler. On the wast coast as is here forests are designed to burn. It is no coincidence that cionifers and some hardwoods are extremely flammable, it is a natural part of their life cycle. Angiosperms need naked soil to reproduce. In many places on the west coast fire is not used as a tool because it is deemed evil or unnatural. However nature will eventually win if we do not step up. What you see going on there now is a consequence of this inaction.

 

true

it's an awful lot dryer in cali, arizona, colorado, than it is in the deep south. i'm thinking that has more to do with it than cutting lots of trees down for profit.

also true

[Azazello1313]

Ok visualize this, here we log heavily which removes a lot of fuel from the forest. Smaller trees burn hotter and longer than smaller faster growing trees. If it is a selective cut it is normal to either spray or burn the remaining underbrush to expose the bare soil. If it is a clearcut we burn all remaining fuel so it is not allowed to accumulate for 150 years like in the west. While the west is dryer that is relative. Some places in the south get extremely dry. I doubt SD is any dryer than the mountains just north of me have been for much of the summer. But when you keep nature from reducing fuels loads naturally with smaller cooler fires you are building up a monster load which will eventually esplode.

 

well, perch was just talking about forest so dense you can't see 10 feet, so which is it? i mean, i understand what you're saying, but they actually do a LOT of controlled burns and the like out here as well. the forest people out west probably sorta know a thing or two about fire risk and how best to control it....but in arid and semi-arid climates, there is only so much you can do.

[bushwacked]

Ok visualize this, here we log heavily which removes a lot of fuel from the forest. Smaller trees burn hotter and longer than smaller faster growing trees. If it is a selective cut it is normal to either spray or burn the remaining underbrush to expose the bare soil. If it is a clearcut we burn all remaining fuel so it is not allowed to accumulate for 150 years like in the west. While the west is dryer that is relative. Some places in the south get extremely dry. I doubt SD is any dryer than the mountains just north of me have been for much of the summer. But when you keep nature from reducing fuels loads naturally with smaller cooler fires you are building up a monster load which will eventually esplode.

 

If you don't think we log heavily up here, you guys need to get out more.

Link

 

I've been in Central Arkansas during the summer, relative humidities were consistently 75% +. Wildand fire watches and warnings are routinely issued throughout the mountain west because RH's routinely drop to single digits during summer months. There is no way dead fuels in the south get exposed to the conditions up here that make them tinder boxes awaiting summer dry lightning storms with 40-50 mph winds.

[polksalet]

If you don't think we log heavily up here, you guys need to get out more.

Link

 

I've been in Central Arkansas during the summer, relative humidities were consistently 75% +. Wildand fire watches and warnings are routinely issued throughout the mountain west because RH's routinely drop to single digits during summer months. There is no way dead fuels in the south get exposed to the conditions up here that make them tinder boxes awaiting summer dry lightning storms with 40-50 mph winds.

 

no dubt it is dryer longer there then here but rh usually hits in the signle digits here a few days per year as well. Basically the more fuel and the dryer it is increases the chance of catastrophy.

[polksalet]

I wan't speaking of your area as much as I was the brush hills of so cal.

[bushwacked]

Basically the more fuel and the dryer it is increases the chance of catastrophy.

 

You are oversimplifying things a bit here.

 

We have extreme topographical relief and a ton of areas out here that are just plain inaccessible. There is also a ton more fuel in Western WA and Western OR, but the drier conditions with flashier fuels on the eastern side of the Cascades are the primary cause generating the extreme fire behavior in the Pacific NW. Look, I'm not a wildland fire behavior specialist but I'm willing to bet I've have more knowledge, training, and first hand experience on it than most Huddlers.

 

I'm not trying to argue that our forests in the west haven't been mismanaged; but to claim the primary reason, you guys don't see fire behavior in the south like we do in the west "because you log more," is retarded.

[bushwacked]

I wan't speaking of your area as much as I was the brush hills of so cal.

 

The areas I fought fire in (Central Washington) are very similar to the brush hills of So Cal and Colorado:

 

Link.

[polksalet]

You are oversimplifying things a bit here.

 

We have extreme topographical relief and a ton of areas out here that are just plain inaccessible. There is also a ton more fuel in Western WA and Western OR, but the drier conditions with flashier fuels on the eastern side of the Cascades are the primary cause generating the extreme fire behavior in the Pacific NW. Look, I'm not a wildland fire behavior specialist but I'm willing to bet I've have more knowledge, training, and first hand experience on it than most Huddlers.

 

I'm not trying to argue that our forests in the west haven't been mismanaged; but to claim the primary reason, you guys don't see fire behavior in the south like we do in the west "because you log more," is retarded.

 

If you guys hd a 20 year rotation like most of the south, do you think it would influence fire severity. I was going off of the pic you sent of Oregon.

[bushwacked]

If you guys hd a 20 year rotation like most of the south, do you think it would influence fire severity. I was going off of the pic you sent of Oregon.

 

First - I have no doubt that aggressive fire suppression and not allowing nature to take its course has added to the extreme behavior observed over the last 15 - 20 years.

 

Second - I think you vastly underestimate the feasibility and the diversity of the west, on many levels, to harvest and/or control burn timber every 20 years.

 

As you insinuated, west coast areas of WA and OR with thick timber and old growth, rarely have devastating fires. There has been one substantial wildland fire in Western Washington that I'm aware of over the last 30 or so years, and it occurred during one of the hottest and driest years on record.

 

The arid environments of the west (i.e...where the big fires happen) do not generate enough timber on 20-year cycles for "rotation." Policy changes have happened but it is difficult to correct 100 years of mismanagement when you have a vast area of land that ranges from sea level to alpine tree line (~7,000 -14,000+ ft-amsl).

 

I found this pic on wikipedia: Pic. I'm about 90% positive I know exactly where that spot is....almost exactly in the middle of WA state. But it gives you an idea that even the "heavily" timbered areas in the rain shadow of the Cascades are far from a lush vegetative old growth areas. I'm guessing those trees were 50-75 years old.

 

Controlled burns have been integrated more in recent years, but as you can see it's kind of hard to wait for the right conditions when you see what is happening in SoCal during mid-October. I can see a controlled burn up in the hills outside my window right now on a warmer than usual 64 degrees and 70% relative humidity day. The can still generally light them and leave them over here. 120 miles to the east, it's a completely different story.