This is what we get wrong about wildfires
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2021
- Fire is as natural as wind and rain in large forest- and, in fact, needed.
The 2020 wildfire season was the worst in California’s recorded history, with more than four million acres burned and almost 10,500 structures destroyed across the state. The fires were heavily covered by the news media, and some reports suggested California had suffered apocalyptic devastation and permanent loss. But the more complicated reality of fire’s long-term impact on forests is often poorly reported and misunderstood.
In this video, we talk to experts who say many accounts of California’s blazes sensationalize the extent of forest devastation while paying less attention to fire’s crucial role in nature.
Chad Hanson is a fire ecologist and director of the John Muir Project, an environmental group that advocates for drastic changes in state and national fire policy. He says fire is a natural and unstoppable reality in California. Hanson believes that in some cases, the state’s forests would be healthier and more resilient if certain fires were allowed to burn.
Another expert also notes that to understand 2020 in context, we need to take a very long view of fires in the forest: Valerie Trouet, a researcher who studies tree rings at the University of Arizona, has observed evidence of wildfires in giant sequoias in California dating back almost 3,000 years. She says that although today’s fires sometimes burn more intensely, they used to burn longer and over much larger areas.
Please visit our website to discover the latest advances in science and technology: bit.ly/30Z4ZpZ
Discover world-changing science with a subscription to Scientific American. Learn more: bit.ly/2RtR1cs - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
That’s extremely informative, thank you!
We must begin a migration incentive program in California. People want to move from high risk fire areas, but they cannot financially afford to move. People need incentive and support to move out of these areas.
The comment that he made regarding preventing fires in populated communities is not a reality for areas with severe fire history. Ask Santa Rosa. Controlled burns, city and property owner mitigation efforts, it doesn't matter. You can't stop a firestorm.
Sure, back country fires, more controlled burns, fire is natural...these are not disputed.
I don’t understand how a living forest needs to burn in order to survive.
I can understand how a dead forest is revived after a burn.
Some plant species (especially conifers) are pyrophytes, they need fire for their reproduction. In addition, fire also allows the regulation of the nutrient cycle and the addition of mineral matter to the soil.
I think that the general populace in the U.S. will not get their head around the idea that you can't stop forest fires by continually throwing larger amounts of money into firefighting.
Hmm it makes sense. We have molly-coddled the forests so now they are more susceptible to intense fires.
Scientific American
The emergence of cosmic expansion is millions of years before the advent of dark energy, so we ask this question: How did the cosmic expansion happen before the appearance of dark energy?
Please send this question to the physicists and
Please post the correct answers in the web browser
Where did you get this floating pot from ? :D
The fable of the three little pigs suggests homes that are built in or next to forests should be built of bricks, or some other material that will withstand fire.
Yup, this vid needs to be seen more, but more importantly- understood. But I guess it might be a bit late, as people have been told enough times by the media (which don't care about the truth, or idk, being right- or even objectivity- only about the high sensational value of "things are bad! Let's watch it!") that forest fires are bad, always. And honestly, probably most of us believed it at one time or another, because that's what we've been told all the time...
There's A LOT of education to be done now to counter these 100years of "forest protection"- which is what we thought preventing fires was. We still have uninformed, but very vocal people (including media) that will hug trees and make themselves look as if they care for nature, where in fact they interfere with what nature wants to do! Turns out we not always know better than nature- who'd have thought?
Obviously, I feel for the people who's lost their belongings or loved ones to forest fires, but first- these fires would not have been as bad if not for the fuel accumulation (of which we are the reason- we're not letting smaller amount of "fuel" burn, so once it accumulates it burns real bad and then is where it's hard to control around towns) and second- well, fires happen. There's always a chance it will burn, but making the forest much more likely to burn more intensely is counterproductive to the safety of towns surrounded by forests...
So yeah, I feel like this subject maybe needs some further explanation to people, because every time they turn on their tv in the summer it's a unrelenting barrage of "omg forest fires!!! How bad is it this year? Is it record yet? Here's what we know! BUT FIRST!!! BUY PRODUCTS!!! WE"LL BE BACK after these..."
EDIT: Also, google and check for yourselves how much area burned in California before say, the '40s, and contrast this with the recent values from 2010-20. Yet you still have shill media telling you it's another "record" year...
www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
Hi Adam Cern, I really appreciate the information at the link that you have provided in your post. I am here to learn as much as I can, and your point of view is interesting to me. I am not here to argue with anyone. The information at the link you have provided is exactly what I was looking for, but I specifically wanted the figures for California State. This chart appears to be the national totals with no option to view the breakdowns for each individual state. Am I missing something? Is there another page on this site that does the breakdowns by state or do I have to go to a different agency to find these totals for California?
So much ignorance in this bs. Less fires than in the past? No sh*t, theres hardly any forests left...
This is nonsense. Experts have called fires in the last few years in California the biggest ever recorded. I'm unsubscribed.
Is this sarcasm? www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
"In the preindustrial era, from 1500 to 1800, an average of 145 million acres burned every year nationwide - about 10 times more than the nation’s recent annual burns."
The low amount of forest burned recently is the effect of OUR suppression of these fires during last 70years, so any major fire now is "bigger" than in recent years, because we didn't let fires burn... Dry fuel accumulates and makes fires more likely, more intense and harder to control, so no shit you get bigger fires- but only when compared to like, last 70years. But before that- before fire suppression started half a century ago- you had massive natural fires. Your "experts" are shill.
Go google newspapers scans from the west during 1800s where rangers say that people come to California to see mountains, but typically don't see them because it's just smoke all around... And that was normal. Yet today media will make a circus of any amount of smoke.
You're missing the point of the vid. According to the fire expert, fires are (relatively) smaller than the pre-fire suppression era. And, worse of all, they are more intense due to drier and more abundant fuel.
Seems you drink too much media coolade and not actually looking at the reality