Wildfires set to increase 50 percent ...

Wildfires set to increase 50 percent by 2050

There are 575 comments on the PhysOrg Weblog story from Aug 2, 2009, titled Wildfires set to increase 50 percent by 2050. In it, PhysOrg Weblog reports that:

This graph shows the percentage increase in organic carbon particles at the surface, from the present-day to the 2050s, as calculated by the model of Spracklen et al.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at PhysOrg Weblog.

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#22 Aug 3, 2009
Earthling has no brain wrote:
You still have no brain, Earthling dude.
Sorry to have to correct your spelling,
'You still have no brain, dirtling dud.'

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#23 Aug 3, 2009
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>What could be rewarding to you, as you admit to having no brain?
Earthling has no brain could compare his head to yours & find more knowledge in his........because Earthling-dirtling has no brain.

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#24 Aug 3, 2009
Northie wrote:
Wildfires around here are serious business, and this report merely corroborates others that predict a huge fire increase as the climate warms. Which, of course, merely releases more carbon and further warms the climate.
Can you say, "feedback"?
Forest fires are more serious than the wish of deniers to deny. As bad as some of the 4000 degF fires have been, it looks like its gonna get worse. The 50% increase is very conservative. Think the only fire fighting equipment that will be able to handle the future firestorms are the fire planes. Its so serious that 747's are being modified to be able to dump 120,000 pounds of water or flame retardant.

&fe ature=related

Also, the smaller fire planes that can refill water tanks by skimming & scooping lake waters without landing are tremendously versatile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Northie

Spokane, WA

#25 Aug 4, 2009
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Forest fires are more serious than the wish of deniers to deny. As bad as some of the 4000 degF fires have been, it looks like its gonna get worse. The 50% increase is very conservative. Think the only fire fighting equipment that will be able to handle the future firestorms are the fire planes. Its so serious that 747's are being modified to be able to dump 120,000 pounds of water or flame retardant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =KvBRWTumoZIXX&feature=rel ated
Also, the smaller fire planes that can refill water tanks by skimming & scooping lake waters without landing are tremendously versatile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
True enough. Can't wait to see a 747 dousing fires, although I'd hate to be the pilot who has to fly one through canyons. However, over the past thirty years the emphasis has shifted to quick response, with helitack and buckets on fires within the first hour. That reduces the number of medium-large fires. The problem is what to do about the giants like Tripod and Biscuit that explode beyond all control. We see more of those now, and you can't do much but wait for September rains.

All of this costs a fortune, of course. I know firefighters who've retired well in middle age. I see swarms of fire planes and choppers every August, trailing veritable streams of money. And the USFS and BLM build more road-miles than anyone on the planet, largely to control fires. That is your tax dollars and mine going to subsidize the world's coal industry.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27 Aug 4, 2009
Northie wrote:
...That is your tax dollars and mine going to subsidize the world's coal industry.
So coal emissions cause forest fires? Why don't you just call Smokey the Bear?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#29 Aug 4, 2009
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, tree growth rates in the Western US have slowed. The effects of heat and drought are much stronger than those of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Add millions more insect-killed trees, and you get more and larger fires contributing to still more greenhouse warming.
And this is merely in the boreal forests. The tropical forests will be next to burn.
While trees might have slowed the undebrush is growing dense due to an increase growing season. Your forgetting that they were talking wild fires not forest fires. You can have wild fires when there isn't a tree for a hundred of miles.

Also keep in mind that there are some spieces of plants that need those fires to reproduce. Add to that the ash acting as a fertilizer and you have a thicker underbrush in a couple of years.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#30 Aug 4, 2009
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to have to correct your spelling,
'You still have no brain, dirtling dud.'
And the both of you are doing what you claim BrianG was doing to you. Talk about a double standard.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31 Aug 4, 2009
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
True enough. Can't wait to see a 747 dousing fires, although I'd hate to be the pilot who has to fly one through canyons. However, over the past thirty years the emphasis has shifted to quick response, with helitack and buckets on fires within the first hour. That reduces the number of medium-large fires. The problem is what to do about the giants like Tripod and Biscuit that explode beyond all control. We see more of those now, and you can't do much but wait for September rains.
All of this costs a fortune, of course. I know firefighters who've retired well in middle age. I see swarms of fire planes and choppers every August, trailing veritable streams of money. And the USFS and BLM build more road-miles than anyone on the planet, largely to control fires. That is your tax dollars and mine going to subsidize the world's coal industry.
So how does the BLM and USFS building access roads for fire fighting have to do with coal mining. If anything allowing mining on public lands would save moeny because the mines would have to build thier own access roads and they would have to make them all weather as well. Not to mention they would be more active in preventing and controlling the fires so that they did not shut down the mines and distroy the surface facilities.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#32 Aug 4, 2009
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
While trees might have slowed the undebrush is growing dense due to an increase growing season. Your forgetting that they were talking wild fires not forest fires. You can have wild fires when there isn't a tree for a hundred of miles.
Also keep in mind that there are some spieces of plants that need those fires to reproduce. Add to that the ash acting as a fertilizer and you have a thicker underbrush in a couple of years.
Sorry, but no. Heat and drought impede brush growth as well, and brush doesn't absorb nearly the carbon that trees do.

Keep grasping at straws if you like, however.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33 Aug 4, 2009
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but no. Heat and drought impede brush growth as well, and brush doesn't absorb nearly the carbon that trees do.
Keep grasping at straws if you like, however.
Funny about you mentioning straw since that is what some of that brush is.

The part you grasping for is trying to deny while each individual plant isn't absorbing as much as a tree. That is true. But then again there are many more of them absorbing that CO2 and starting earlier than you realize. Since they can start earlier in the season and keep right on growing til much later in the season than before they produce much mor burnable material.

But keep on trying to deny the facts. They arn't going away anytime soon.

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#35 Aug 4, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
So coal emissions cause forest fires? Why don't you just call Smokey the Bear?
You need to breathe lots more coal chimney emissions. Or go the other direction & understand AstroMike.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#36 Aug 4, 2009
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny about you mentioning straw since that is what some of that brush is.
The part you grasping for is trying to deny while each individual plant isn't absorbing as much as a tree. That is true. But then again there are many more of them absorbing that CO2 and starting earlier than you realize. Since they can start earlier in the season and keep right on growing til much later in the season than before they produce much mor burnable material.
But keep on trying to deny the facts. They arn't going away anytime soon.
The Amazon rainforest is the largest living reservoir of CO2 on the Earth's land surface - its trees contain 17 billion tons of carbon and its soil perhaps as much again. Thus, trees and soil together contain the equivalent of about 20 years' of man-made emissions from burning fossil fuels. Experimental data shows that the forest can handle only two years of drought before the trees begin dying, falling down to rot and releasing CO2. After this occurs the newly exposed land also releases about 75% of its CO2. The scrub that replaces the forest absorbs almost no carbon by comparison.

At least half the world's tropical peat swamps are in Indonesia. They contain perhaps 50 billion tons of carbon. Wildfires there in '97-'98 released the equivalent of 40% of all man-made emissions.

And so on. Drought is the most damaging influence on forests--and the world is drying out.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

#37 Aug 4, 2009
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
The Amazon rainforest is the largest living reservoir of CO2 on the Earth's land surface - its trees contain 17 billion tons of carbon and its soil perhaps as much again. Thus, trees and soil together contain the equivalent of about 20 years' of man-made emissions from burning fossil fuels. Experimental data shows that the forest can handle only two years of drought before the trees begin dying, falling down to rot and releasing CO2. After this occurs the newly exposed land also releases about 75% of its CO2. The scrub that replaces the forest absorbs almost no carbon by comparison.
At least half the world's tropical peat swamps are in Indonesia. They contain perhaps 50 billion tons of carbon. Wildfires there in '97-'98 released the equivalent of 40% of all man-made emissions.
And so on. Drought is the most damaging influence on forests--and the world is drying out.
"Drought is the most damaging influence on forests--and the world is drying out. "
----------

Um, some advise for the make things up as you go AGW crisis peddlers. It don't take much to just do a web search for "record rainfall world"

And what does "record rainfall world" produce?
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu91H2...

Record rainfall brings chaos in India

The world record for rainfall in a 24-hour period was 75.98in which fell during ...

Tulsa World: OKC rainfall swamps record

Flooding hits Ireland after record August rainfall | Green Business ...

NASA - Long-Term Increase in Rainfall Seen in Tropics

Blackouts, mudslides, plague North Coast; SR nears wettest May ever ...

Record rainfall means Winnipeg could face its worst mosquito season ...

Gustav blamed for record rainfall - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

RECORD RAINFALL REIGNS OVER ALL (NY City)

Record rainfall for Coffs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

etc.etc. etc.

----------

Um, some advise for the make things up as you go AGW crisis peddlers. It don't take much to just do a web search for "record rainfall world"
Earthling

Almería, Spain

#39 Aug 5, 2009
The good, the bad and the ugly:
For example, the industry would have us believe that little or no natural growth of forest will occur after wildland fire. In fact, some of the most vigorous and productive forest growth occurs after burns, including in high severity fire areas in which most or all of the trees were killed (Shatford and others 2007, Journal of Forestry, May 2007). Fire converts woody material on the forest floor from relatively unusable forms into highly useable nutrients, which aids forest productivity and carbon sequestration.

The rapid forest growth following wildland fire sequesters huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).Whatever carbon emissions occur from combustion during wildland fire and subsequent decay of fire-killed trees is more than balanced by forest growth across the landscape over time. To put the issue in perspective, current emissions from forest fires are only a tiny fraction of those from fossil fuel consumption, and carbon sequestration from forest growth far outweighs carbon emissions from fire.
http://forestpolicyresearch.org/2009/03/19/us...
Earthling

Almería, Spain

#40 Aug 5, 2009
The good, the bad and the ugly, continued:
Role of Fire

1. Are fires good or bad?

Fires are natural and play an important role on the Canadian landscape. Forest fires remove the mature trees in the forest that are the most susceptible to insects and diseases. Surface fires remove accumulated materials on the forest floor, promoting the growth of new seedlings. Some species of trees even rely on fire to open their cones and release their seeds to regenerate. Pioneer organisms (those colonizing immediately after fire) gain new habitat and become more abundant.

Fire is not positive for all species, however. Many birds, mammals, and insects are dependent on old growth forest and are displaced by fire. Several species of trees such as white spruce, balsam fir, and white cedar need longer intervals between fires in order to reach reproductive maturity and will not survive in an area that burns too frequently.
http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/questions-fire-fe...
frank miller

United States

#41 Aug 5, 2009
Considering that over 90 % of wild fires in modern times are caused by arsonists, that in a non-restrictive sense, as opposed to lightning
setting off the other natural geologically timeless 10%, blame is on mischevious humans not CO2! The opposite would not be unlike writing
that insurance fraud arson fires are caused by gasoline, or any other pyrophoric material,
other than faulty electrical wiring!!
There is some convenient effect/causation pro-
paganda which tells us nothing! So "Wild Fires
Set To Increase by 50% by 2050" is very, pardon the pun, incendiary! Of course as Man encroaches
more into his URBAN Natural habitat,{2050-2009}
ie.41 years, with less forest biomass to set on fire, these should decrease, not increase!

However because extensive Reforestation will be necessary to absorb man-made 'heat-island" heat
from vehicles, power plants {fossil/nuclear};
distillation of corn/sugar for biofuels; con-crete-jungles city/towns reradiated heat at night; and carbon dioxide {CO2} while replenishing
oxygen {O2}, and giving off cooling photosynthesis water vapor bi-product FOREST
HUSBANDRY EDUCATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL
is imperative I think as a way to RESPECT our precious wild,urban and purposely seeded forests!
F.M.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#43 Aug 5, 2009
Earthling wrote:
The good, the bad and the ugly, continued: <quoted text>
http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/questions-fire-fe...
Where forest regeneration is concerned, drought changes everything. And drought is spreading like wildfire, so to speak:

"Droughts are projected to become more intense and frequent in subtropical and southern temperate forests, especially in the western United States, northern China, southern Europe, the Mediterranean and Australia. These droughts will also increase the prevalence of fire and predispose large areas of forest to pests and pathogens."

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0416-forests.ht...
Earthling

Almería, Spain

#44 Aug 5, 2009
frank miller wrote:
Considering that over 90 % of wild fires in modern times are caused by arsonists,
F.M.
I believe that's total guesswork on your part?
Earthling

Almería, Spain

#45 Aug 5, 2009
Northie wrote:
Where forest regeneration is concerned, drought changes everything. And drought is spreading like wildfire, so to speak:
"Droughts are projected to become more intense and frequent in subtropical and southern temperate forests, especially in the western United States, northern China, southern Europe, the Mediterranean and Australia. These droughts will also increase the prevalence of fire and predispose large areas of forest to pests and pathogens."
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0416-forests.ht...
Drought is as natural as fire, flood and any other natural occurrence.

Projected droughts are predictions, and we all know about predictions:
MattJ wrote:
It is unscientific in the extreme to make predictions
Earthling

Almería, Spain

#46 Aug 5, 2009
I believe this website refers to the American continent only:
More than 83% of forest fires in 2006 were started by human activities, accounting for the burning of nearly 4.4 million acres. However, lightning-caused fires burned more total area – nearly 5.5 million acres.*

* Source: National Interagency Fire Center
http://www.arborday.org/replanting/firecauses...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Physics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Standing Waves Feb '17 Aquamarisa 1
Is Inertial Force not a Real Force ? Feb '17 nakayama 9
News Science Shock: Electromagnetic fields from mobi... (Jan '16) Feb '17 samvila 4
Definition of Inertial Frame : A Proposal Feb '17 nakayama 7
Equivalence Principle & Elevator (Nov '13) Feb '17 nakayama 73
better safer ways of producing clean energy for... Feb '17 andrew john langham 1
News Is this black woman responsible for inventions ... (May '10) Jan '17 Fungkstaga 227
More from around the web