It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yellowstone Fires and Climate Change

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Interesting read. Enjoy.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

 
 

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



Mod Note: Starting A New Thread ?... Look Here First.
edit on Wed Jul 27 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Actually, I'm gonna say Yellowstone will weather the climate change better than most forests around the nation "if" this Global Warming thing is true or not. YNP uses wildland fire use on majority of its fires. This management objective actually has been beneficial. The Yellowstone Fire of '88 was in many areas "left to burn" and the conservationists were in an uproar because the park would never recover from an intense fire like that one. Well 10 years later, the vegetation had more diversity of native plant species, and the lodgepole pine forests were more healthy. 23 years later, and its tough to even tell where that fire was at, I know, I've visited the area almost every other year.

The philosophy of "put-it out" is actually what is killing our forests. Without fire, the fuel buildup of dead trees becomes too great, and when a fire strikes, it "nukes" the ground, causing it to be sterile for a number of years. Whether or not the Global Warming/Climate Change thing is real, the problem with the forests isn't the climate, it's the human interaction on nature and the consequences it causes. And by this I mean, that when the fire hits, its not going to be because of GW/CG that the fire was super intense....more of man's "suppression" tactics for the last 100 or so years in the wildland environment.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5
Actually, I'm gonna say Yellowstone will weather the climate change better than most forests around the nation "if" this Global Warming thing is true or not. YNP uses wildland fire use on majority of its fires. This management objective actually has been beneficial. The Yellowstone Fire of '88 was in many areas "left to burn" and the conservationists were in an uproar because the park would never recover from an intense fire like that one. Well 10 years later, the vegetation had more diversity of native plant species, and the lodgepole pine forests were more healthy. 23 years later, and its tough to even tell where that fire was at, I know, I've visited the area almost every other year.

The philosophy of "put-it out" is actually what is killing our forests. Without fire, the fuel buildup of dead trees becomes too great, and when a fire strikes, it "nukes" the ground, causing it to be sterile for a number of years. Whether or not the Global Warming/Climate Change thing is real, the problem with the forests isn't the climate, it's the human interaction on nature and the consequences it causes. And by this I mean, that when the fire hits, its not going to be because of GW/CG that the fire was super intense....more of man's "suppression" tactics for the last 100 or so years in the wildland environment.


agreed fires are good for forests strange how these people seem to believe that a fire is an un-natural occurence. its only seen as bad because it affects us financially.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Lodgepole pines have serrotinous cones. Pine beetles are controlled by fires.

Fires are controlled because trees are an economic resource and it is like setting money on fire.

The buffalo of the plains used to eat down new trees and brush. The brush of the plains is a CHANGE in climate, which itself was also a change in climate, as the buffalos natural large predators were wiped out in the previous climate change. Shrub and forest became plains. Plains are now becoming agriculture and shrub and forest again.

The land changes. The plant material of the land changes the climate. That change is not solely created by humans.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by saabster5
Actually, I'm gonna say Yellowstone will weather the climate change better than most forests around the nation "if" this Global Warming thing is true or not. YNP uses wildland fire use on majority of its fires. This management objective actually has been beneficial. The Yellowstone Fire of '88 was in many areas "left to burn" and the conservationists were in an uproar because the park would never recover from an intense fire like that one. Well 10 years later, the vegetation had more diversity of native plant species, and the lodgepole pine forests were more healthy. 23 years later, and its tough to even tell where that fire was at, I know, I've visited the area almost every other year.

The philosophy of "put-it out" is actually what is killing our forests. Without fire, the fuel buildup of dead trees becomes too great, and when a fire strikes, it "nukes" the ground, causing it to be sterile for a number of years. Whether or not the Global Warming/Climate Change thing is real, the problem with the forests isn't the climate, it's the human interaction on nature and the consequences it causes. And by this I mean, that when the fire hits, its not going to be because of GW/CG that the fire was super intense....more of man's "suppression" tactics for the last 100 or so years in the wildland environment.


agreed fires are good for forests strange how these people seem to believe that a fire is an un-natural occurence. its only seen as bad because it affects us financially.


I could not agree more. It is strange how people think fire is un-natural. You are totally right, it's bad because it effects us financially. I'm not saying a house fire is a good thing here... I mean these natural wild-fires. And I get it... you build your house there and you might lose it because of the fire. But then I have never felt bad for people who build their homes in tornado alley or on a known unstable fault like or on a cliff where land slides occur regularly or on the beach in New England. You go through Scituate Harbor in Mass and there are actually homes built on stilts! Then these naturally occuring things happen and people are on teevee crying because their house is floating out in the Atlantic somewhere... ugh! Sorry, getting way off topic.

Anyway, exactly right about fire = more growth later.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
As long as the fires aren't coming from the volcano, fires happen all the time.....Sad to see ground and forests being destroyed there, but the real scare to me is the volcano....



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Skorpiogurl
 


I wonder how much carbon all these wildfires and volcanic eruptions are putting out.

I would wager it is close tot he amount being released from fossil fuel being burnt.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


When I used to run fires larger than 50 acres, I would have to submit observations to the State DEQ (Dept of Environ Quality). These observations were of the fuel being burned (type of tree/brush/grash), photos of the smoke column, and rates of spread. The amount of smoke that is put into the atmosphere is a large amount, but unlike fossil fuel burning these particulates are of larger mass than of the molecular scale that carbon monoxide from petrol produces. On a smaller fire the smoke is fairly quick to dissipate with winds and stability of the atmosphere. The smoke is superheated from the fire, and when the fire gets large enough, it produces thunderstorm like qualities. This means the top of the "cloud" reaches that point in the atmosphere where it gets supercooled, or it "cauliflowers" out. Making a pseudo-Cumulo-nimbus cloud. Rain, lightning, hail can occur from these. Anyway, so when these fires get super big, and create their own weather, it's only raining down the soot and ash that was lifted into the sky with the fire. But my feelings are that these carbons in the air are less damaging than those from fossil fuels (or at least modern production of fossil fuels).

In my opinion, I think wildfires are hugely beneficial. The ecosystem on such a large scale is really alive. And fire and beetles are just some of the ways it keeps itself rejuvenated. The smoke from wildfire is less toxic in my opinion because it is burning "natural" fuel (i.e. trees not some chemical).



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by saabster5
 


The article is stating that there will be an increase in fires. Which will cause a problem. A fire every few decades is beneficial, a fire every few years that doesn't allow the landscape time to rehab itself, is not.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saabster5
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


When I used to run fires larger than 50 acres, I would have to submit observations to the State DEQ (Dept of Environ Quality). These observations were of the fuel being burned (type of tree/brush/grash), photos of the smoke column, and rates of spread. The amount of smoke that is put into the atmosphere is a large amount, but unlike fossil fuel burning these particulates are of larger mass than of the molecular scale that carbon monoxide from petrol produces. On a smaller fire the smoke is fairly quick to dissipate with winds and stability of the atmosphere. The smoke is superheated from the fire, and when the fire gets large enough, it produces thunderstorm like qualities. This means the top of the "cloud" reaches that point in the atmosphere where it gets supercooled, or it "cauliflowers" out. Making a pseudo-Cumulo-nimbus cloud. Rain, lightning, hail can occur from these. Anyway, so when these fires get super big, and create their own weather, it's only raining down the soot and ash that was lifted into the sky with the fire. But my feelings are that these carbons in the air are less damaging than those from fossil fuels (or at least modern production of fossil fuels).

In my opinion, I think wildfires are hugely beneficial. The ecosystem on such a large scale is really alive. And fire and beetles are just some of the ways it keeps itself rejuvenated. The smoke from wildfire is less toxic in my opinion because it is burning "natural" fuel (i.e. trees not some chemical).


Sweet, I am going to pretend I knew all this before hand and brag to my buddy who is out fighting fires here in Arizona. Heeber firefighters what good!?

I was just pointing out that volcanoes and wildfires were a major part of climate change before humans ever existed. Fossil fuel burning by humans makes up such a small percentage of all the carbon released in the world that I really view this whole climate change is fossil fuels fault as fraud to get a world tax. Carbon is a lagging indicator to global warming.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.



Mod Note: Starting A New Thread ?... Look Here First.

Closed, no content from OP.




top topics



 
1

log in

join