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.
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.
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.
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).