Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Harry has provided a great explanation, we've prevented forest fires for the last century. Now we're paying the price. Forest fire are natural and healthy for a forest, these fires due to all the fuel on the ground are devastating whether it's the forest or man made.
First off, fire was part of the cycle for thousands of years. Only within the last 100 years, we started to start with suppression efforts when it comes to fires. In doing this, we have denser forests and more fuels which burn hotter. Fires burn hotter, the more the soil becomes sterilized and harder to start the cycle.
In addition, with selective logging, it could help in managing fuels. However, it is such a battle to do sensible logging (not clear cutting) which is met with resistance. Also with houses build close to the forest, steps to make the homes defensible are not. There is no way a house is worth more my life as a firefighter.
As far as technology, yes they have improved. New techniques and tools, such as foams help to make forward progress. Since the discovery of fire, fire still burns the same. In some instances, fire can be a great tool.
Sometimes it best to let nature do its thing, we often can’t improve on it.
One aspect of this that I hadn't considered before is that forest fires add a lot of particulate matter to the atmosphere, which reduces the amount of sunlight that reaches ground level. Could part of reducing temperatures globally mean allowing more forest fires?
Suppose we use a lot of trees instead of letting them burn?
It's not a matter of letting the trees burn, it's matter of letting the fuel on the ground burn frequently. When you allow nature take it's course with smaller but more frequent fires the trees have a better chance of surviving and the overall recovery is much faster.
Suppose we use a lot of trees instead of letting them burn?
If the tree-huggers stopped the clearing out of dead brush/wood in our forests you really think the tree-huggers would approve your idea?
LMAO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.