Canada fire: This looks like climate change - CNN.com(CNN)The fire raging in Fort McMurray, Canada sounds like something from the apocalypse.
"It was like driving through hell," Michel Chamberland told CNN of his escape from the area. "Those flames, they were bright, they were big ... It's unreal. It's almost like a dream or something."
The fire, which has burned at least 325 square miles, forcing the evacuation of some 88,000 people, is so hot and so intense that's it's formed its own weather. The thundercloud produced by the blaze actually is creating its own lightning, and consequently spreading the fire's rage, setting more trees alight.
True, there have been fires in Canada's boreal forest for ages. But scientists and researchers say this fire looks a whole lot like climate change. And that should be alarming for all of us.
The Alberta wildfire looks a lot like Earth warning us not to dig those tar sands up. It has wiped out all the homes built there in the last few years for the tar sands workers. It is so big it is creating its own weather.
Canada fire: This looks like climate change - CNN.com
The Alberta wildfire looks a lot like Earth warning us not to dig those tar sands up. It has wiped out all the homes built there in the last few years for the tar sands workers. It is so big it is creating its own weather.
Canada fire: This looks like climate change - CNN.com
The Alberta wildfire looks a lot like Earth warning us not to dig those tar sands up. It has wiped out all the homes built there in the last few years for the tar sands workers. It is so big it is creating its own weather.
Canada fire: This looks like climate change - CNN.com
Before you go jumping on the eco-tard band wagon.
Fire ecology | Natural Resources Canada
In boreal forests, the complete opposite is true. Fires are frequent and their ecological influence at all levels—species, stand and landscape—drives boreal forest vegetation dynamics. This in turn affects the movement of wildlife populations, whose need for food and cover means they must relocate as the forest patterns change.
The boreal: A forest shaped by fire
The Canadian boreal forest is a mosaic of species and stands. It ranges in composition from pure deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous to pure coniferous stands.
The diversity of the forest mosaic is largely the result of many fires occurring on the landscape over a long period of time. These fires have varied in frequency, intensity, severity, size, shape and season of burn.
There is one way global warming has contributed to wildfires in British Columbia, though.
There's a tiny little critter called a pine beetle that's run amok through the lodgepole pine forests due to years of warm winters. It takes a period of cold weather to kill the buggers and that hasn't happened- as a result they've killed umpteen hectares of pine trees and turned the forest into huge stands of candles-in-waiting. 'Beetle-kill', those dead forests are called, and the incendiary sawdust from beetle-killed pine has caused two sawmill fires lately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle
edit- the Wikipedia article does say that NASA suggests that beetle kill doesn't contribute to forest fires but people here, on the ground, disagree.
"The long-held belief that beetle infestations and resulting deadkill lead to more devastating forest fires is currently being challenged. Although some disagree[citation needed], ongoing NASA studies have shown beetle kill may actually reduce available small fuels and consequently limit the effect and reach of fires."
Can the beetle survive fire?
The Alberta wildfire looks a lot like Earth warning us not to dig those tar sands up. It has wiped out all the homes built there in the last few years for the tar sands workers. It is so big it is creating its own weather.
Canada fire: This looks like climate change - CNN.com
Before you go jumping on the eco-tard band wagon.
Fire ecology | Natural Resources Canada
In boreal forests, the complete opposite is true. Fires are frequent and their ecological influence at all levels—species, stand and landscape—drives boreal forest vegetation dynamics. This in turn affects the movement of wildlife populations, whose need for food and cover means they must relocate as the forest patterns change.
The boreal: A forest shaped by fire
The Canadian boreal forest is a mosaic of species and stands. It ranges in composition from pure deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous to pure coniferous stands.
The diversity of the forest mosaic is largely the result of many fires occurring on the landscape over a long period of time. These fires have varied in frequency, intensity, severity, size, shape and season of burn.
There is one way global warming has contributed to wildfires in British Columbia, though.
There's a tiny little critter called a pine beetle that's run amok through the lodgepole pine forests due to years of warm winters. It takes a period of cold weather to kill the buggers and that hasn't happened- as a result they've killed umpteen hectares of pine trees and turned the forest into huge stands of candles-in-waiting. 'Beetle-kill', those dead forests are called, and the incendiary sawdust from beetle-killed pine has caused two sawmill fires lately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle
edit- the Wikipedia article does say that NASA suggests that beetle kill doesn't contribute to forest fires but people here, on the ground, disagree.
"The long-held belief that beetle infestations and resulting deadkill lead to more devastating forest fires is currently being challenged. Although some disagree[citation needed], ongoing NASA studies have shown beetle kill may actually reduce available small fuels and consequently limit the effect and reach of fires."
And? Without taking a firm stance either way, why does that preclude global warming from being a relevant factor? You're just saying "Look forest fires happen all of the time there." That's true, but the severity of this is off the charts. Global warming isn't important because it's the only factor in these ecological problems, nor does global warming need to the the exclusive factor for people to say global warming was involved. Famines happen all of the time, El Niños happens every year, floods happen every year, parts of the ice caps melt every year --none of these are the issue. The issue is when compounded with global warming, how extreme do these ecological events become (and many effects not even noticed and many, many more than haven't yet started)? We've been seeing for a while now, "Yeah, they start to get pretty severe." You might be able to deny individual things, but there's an alarming number of severe weather and ecological events occurring. Some economists have placed the current number at tens of billions of dollars to the economy every year, and that number will continuing ramping up --and that's not even discussing the biodiversity issues.
The biggest threat to the Pro-AGW agenda isn't anti-AGW's, its knuckle heads like this Seattle City Council Women
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant
Politicizing it and exposing AGW for what it is and for everyone to see, a vehicle to push the Socialist agenda
If the left cared at all about AGW or " renewable energy " they would abandon it as part and parcel of their overall agenda.
But then again, when did the left ever care about legitimacy or credibillity ?
There is one way global warming has contributed to wildfires in British Columbia, though.
There's a tiny little critter called a pine beetle that's run amok through the lodgepole pine forests due to years of warm winters. It takes a period of cold weather to kill the buggers and that hasn't happened- as a result they've killed umpteen hectares of pine trees and turned the forest into huge stands of candles-in-waiting. 'Beetle-kill', those dead forests are called, and the incendiary sawdust from beetle-killed pine has caused two sawmill fires lately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle
edit- the Wikipedia article does say that NASA suggests that beetle kill doesn't contribute to forest fires but people here, on the ground, disagree.
"The long-held belief that beetle infestations and resulting deadkill lead to more devastating forest fires is currently being challenged. Although some disagree[citation needed], ongoing NASA studies have shown beetle kill may actually reduce available small fuels and consequently limit the effect and reach of fires."
I've never seen anything like it, it's pretty stunning. I'm not sure how many millions of acres of trees have been wiped out in our state... a lot.
It should also be mentioned that the lodgepole pine is a fire dependent species. So fire is a natural and necessary part of it's cycle. Without these fires you don't have a healthy forest.
It should also be mentioned that the lodgepole pine is a fire dependent species. So fire is a natural and necessary part of it's cycle. Without these fires you don't have a healthy forest.
Down in California, in the 50s and 60s the US Forest Service used to know this and would do controlled burns. Keep the forest healthy but with managed as opposed to unmanaged fire. But the eastern environmentalists pushed Congress to take control and our western forests have suffered for it ever since.
It should also be mentioned that the lodgepole pine is a fire dependent species. So fire is a natural and necessary part of it's cycle. Without these fires you don't have a healthy forest.
Down in California, in the 50s and 60s the US Forest Service used to know this and would do controlled burns. Keep the forest healthy but with managed as opposed to unmanaged fire. But the eastern environmentalists pushed Congress to take control and our western forests have suffered for it ever since.
And? Without taking a firm stance either way, why does that preclude global warming from being a relevant factor? You're just saying "Look forest fires happen all of the time there." That's true, but the severity of this is off the charts. Global warming isn't important because it's the only factor in these ecological problems, nor does global warming need to the the exclusive factor for people to say global warming was involved. Famines happen all of the time, El Niños happens every year, floods happen every year, parts of the ice caps melt every year --none of these are the issue. The issue is when compounded with global warming, how extreme do these ecological events become (and many effects not even noticed and many, many more than haven't yet started)? We've been seeing for a while now, "Yeah, they start to get pretty severe." You might be able to deny individual things, but there's an alarming number of severe weather and ecological events occurring. Some economists have placed the current number at tens of billions of dollars to the economy every year, and that number will continuing ramping up --and that's not even discussing the biodiversity issues.
This is a bunch of bunk. Severity of fires like this happens all the time. Yellowstone for example back in 1988. Portugal had a huge forest fire in 2003 which wiped out 10% of it's forests. Wildfires create their own weather, small or large. But the issue here is not global warming and never was. Just as it's largely not an issue with other severe weather either.
The human population is settling in areas where before.. it was very limited to them before. Fort McMurray from 1966 to 2011 went from a population of 2,300 to 61,000. That means a small sleepy town to an urban sprawl. Look at a map of the town and it's urban sprawl. In 1966 there was natural fire line breaks, today communities are built into the forests. It's also naturally the dry season for that part of Canada, very little Albert Clippers after March.
The issue isn't whether lodgepole pine fires are natural and necessary as I don't think anyone here is disputing that. The issue is whether the extended fire season is a good thing or no. And oh, I'm pretty sure there were westerners who pushed congress to take control and save the homes they built in the middle of forests as well.
Yeah, isn't fire necessary for the cones to release their seeds?
But the pine beetle isn't a good substitute for fire.
Yellowstone was an example of man's intervention to fight fires having unintended consequences later on... the severity of that fire was all man caused. I will say it has indeed come back over the years which gives me hope with the current pine beetle killed forests.
The fires kills the beetle and allows the seed release. In nature the idea is not to get rid of the beetle altogether. The idea is to keep the population under control. Nature hasn't been able to do that with mankind. :mrgreen:
Not back then. I was born and raised almost within a National Forest. There are regional forms of fire and forest management in the US, or were when the USFS wrote the rules. Once Congress took the reins they enforced the eastern model on all. Controlled burns have become a thing of the past.
The base problem is indeed man. Our population and spread has steadily increased. So even controlled burns (forest style) become too dangerous for the surrounding communities which have grown well beyond rural and density has radically increased.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?