Comments on: The Age Of Megafires

Expert: Warming Climate Fueling Megafires

[bombadil4]

There are several reasons for so much human denial about disturbing events amd ideas, whether it be evolution, global warming, holocosts, etc. Some of the denial is based on superstition--sometimes called religion, some of it is based on greed, and some of it is based on fear of change and the unknown. The best tool we have, as fallible human beings who have not that long ago come down from the trees, is good science. It''s not perfect, but the best method we have to make rational decisions to insure a decent future for our children and beyond. The preponderance of good science tells us we are dwelling on a planet that shows definite signs of massive human abuse which may render it hostile to our own existence. It really doesn''t matter that you can google up dozens of articles denying it or that the the spate of 24 hour "news" stations, hungry to prlong controversy, can find some "scientist" to deny it. Along with all the positive things you can say about the Internet and Information Age, the negative is that arguments are seldom settled any more and therefore action can be delayed indefinitely. For example, you can stil hear ******** Cheney still claiming that he is "entirely persuaded" that Iraq had WMDs or at least had plans for them, or at least had preliminary discussions of plans, or at least drew up plans to have plans for preliminary plans to plan for WMDs...etc.

[biostock]

Let''s focus on solutions rather than run around fanning the flames.
Instead of healthy trees sequestering carbon, megafires and decay of the charred remains are releasing tree carbon in the form of greenhouse gases. That should be your lead story. NASA data demonstrates that the ghg emissions of American wildfires exceed all the emissions of all the autos in the U.S. each year. I write extensively on my blogs and give presentations about this subject and the potential of the emerging bioconversion technologies to help solve it - see http://biostock.blogspot.com/2007/09/woody-biomass-fuel-for-wildfires.html .
Our forests can''t be preserved. We need to garden our forests. "forestwmn" has it right. Thinned forests don''t burn. The problem of megafires is relegated almost entirely to public lands. The USDA Forest Service is so strapped fighting fires and environmentalist litigation (729 cases in 13 years!) they can''t deploy preventative thinning measures. They are looking to private industry to provide use for the fuelwood they thin to help increase economic and environmental sustainability of their efforts. With the decline of the forest products industry that new demand will likely come from biorefineries that conver woody biomass (understory, not trees) to cellulosic ethanol. Think of it - reducing wildfires by reducing our dependence on foreign oil!

[biostock]

Let''s focus on solutions rather than run around fanning the flames.
Instead of healthy trees sequestering carbon, megafires and decay of the charred remains are releasing tree carbon in the form of greenhouse gases. That should be your lead story. NASA data demonstrates that the ghg emissions of American wildfires exceed all the emissions of all the autos in the U.S. each year. I write extensively on my blogs and give presentations about this subject and the potential of the emerging bioconversion technologies to help solve it - see http://biostock.blogspot.com/2007/09/woody-biomass-fuel-for-wildfires.html .
Our forests can''t be preserved. We need to garden our forests. "forestwmn" has it right. Thinned forests don''t burn. The problem of megafires is relegated almost entirely to public lands. The USDA Forest Service is so strapped fighting fires and environmentalist litigation (729 cases in 13 years!) they can''t deploy preventative thinning measures. They are looking to private industry to provide use for the fuelwood they thin to help increase economic and environmental sustainability of their efforts. With the decline of the forest products industry that new demand will likely come from biorefineries that conver woody biomass (understory, not trees) to cellulosic ethanol. Think of it - reducing wildfires by reducing our dependence on foreign oil!

[brianbwb-2009]

American West could lose half its forests by the end of the century.

No big loss, the only remaining forest land is in relatively small preserves. The industrialist capitalists wanted this, unchecked logging until the areas were bare, they desertified large areas and created dust bowls, as if the planet''s resources were infinite. They polluted all the lakes and rivers, now we live with shortages of drinking water.

Even now there are idiots who deny that we have had a negative impact on our environment. The rich, who profit from it I can understand somewhat, but I have no sympathy or respect for the intelligence of the middle and poorer classes who suffer most, yet still believe the advocates of the status quo.

[ubrew12]

Along with rising sea levels, this will probably turn into the ''other'' major issue with Global Warming. It''s not a ''major'' issue. Fires can be fought when necessary, otherwise its a matter of allowing species to slowly adapt by moving northward out of newly desertified regions. Nevertheless, its time we took steps against the worst possibilities of Global Warming. No one knows how bad (or good) it could get. It behooves us, on behalf of the next generation, to take prudent steps to slow the pace of warming change so people have the time to react to any changes (if any) thay may come on the horizon.

[latree1-2009]

Hey, Mike--time to do some research, guy.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
Wake up, people!

[forestwmn]

Let''s get back to the science here and stop talking politics! The fire triangle is all about topography, weather and fuels. Us piddly humans have virtually no control over topography (unless you want to bulldoze all the hills to valleys) and the weather (some fire seasons have worse weather than others in the regionally context). The only thing we can do is reduce the fuel and change the type of fuel. Wildfire, when it is intense, instantly reduces the fuel but at the same time it changes the fuel that will be there when vegetation grows back. During this period of growback the forest is so much more susceptible to fire than ever! If we thin before we have an intense fire and follow it up with prescribed fire we may have an impact on future fire. That''s if the weather and topography don''t line up just right one year and take it all out again. Bottom line: take care of the one thing we have control over-vegetation

[tburzio]

There was an article about a decade ago on how the Smokey Bear drive in the 50s-80s left the forests dangerously overgrown with brush. I like CBS News, no one remembers anything!

If you want to see how to kill megafires, take a look at my article about PCADS on Military.com''s Defense Tech website www.defensetech.org/archives/003783.html and you can see a video I shot at a demo outside of Kingman, AZ, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc3fOhfXu1o
I know the video doesn''t look very impressive, but imagine 70 of these cascading out of a C-17 and you get some idea of the punch this system packs!

[rushlimpdrug]

Stupid is as stupid does.
So the retards start to sense that the name has changed.
Like calling a drunk an alcoholic.
It is the same problem.
Fortunately for these idiots they will never wake from their stupor.
They don''t have to admit the problem if they are too stupid to see it.
Just proves: "Ignorance is bliss."

[rudy654-2009]

Another pro-global warming article by liberal Time Magazine. Has anyone noticed that they libs don''''t even call it "global warming" anymore? Now it''''s called "climate change". That''''s because the warming that has been taking place since the end of the ice age is no longer happening. There hasn''''t been a measurable increase in the earth''''s temperature in the past 9 years.
Posted by mike71067 at 12:19 PM

That''s funny, I thought that was the Limbogg term for it. Several times the very scientific Limbogg has stated that it is climate change. And I know how so many just love to wait until the Limbogg tells them what''s what.

[jcr103]

It''s time to pull your head out guys! You can reiterate all of the silly, juvenile, and moronic "counter-arguments" all you want. What you cannot do is change the facts on the ground. Those facts illustrate near surface and ocean surface temperatures are rising and the overwhelming evidence highlights the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause.

[au_fait]

I understand your point about the change of the name. There is climate change, but there has always been climate change. I do have to throw in that the planets around us have undergone a warming trend due to solar activity. I guess the change here cannot be affected by this same activity, it has to be due to humankind (what a joke). I really cannot wait to see what the next purpose the liberals choose to champion.

[talkingham]

idot

[mike71067]

Another pro-global warming article by liberal Time Magazine. Has anyone noticed that they libs don''t even call it "global warming" anymore? Now it''s called "climate change". That''s because the warming that has been taking place since the end of the ice age is no longer happening. There hasn''t been a measurable increase in the earth''s temperature in the past 9 years.