"This is a View of the Future, so Watch Out"

[RWebb]

aerial photo of the Waldo Canyon "Super Fire" in Colorado

[jyl]

Food inflation is going to start up again. Check out charts for corn and other agricultural commodities, beef, dairy.

[motion]

That "super" fire comprises a tiny speck of land within the state of CO. We have a 200,000+ acre fire burning in eastern MT. Still, a tiny speck. I don't think the end of the world is nigh just yet.

[porwolf]

Another view of the future: Cities.

[KaptKaos]

Wait.... is this climate or weather? Funny how that when it's cold it's weather, but when its hot it's climate. I guess it's weather when you think it's not climate, or it's the other way around.

What's the new phrase? Climate Disruption? Why don't we cut to the chase and call it Climate Ambiguity? There, that settles it. My work is done.

[motion]

Originally Posted by porwolf

Another view of the future: Cities.

Mexico City?

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by motion

That "super" fire comprises a tiny speck of land within the state of CO. We have a 200,000+ acre fire burning in eastern MT. Still, a tiny speck. I don't think the end of the world is nigh just yet.

No, not the end of the world but many forest ecosystems in the US are already being changed into some thing else. Much of Colorado is being deforested for example.

The quote is from a scientist at NCAR. He points out that hotter summers, warmer winter (which are not cold enough to inhibit pine beetles and other pests), and increased aridity all mean that such Super Fires will become more common.

The problem is made worse for the 300 or so people who lost their homes. Many of them should not have been living away from towns to begin with, and failed to clear brush, small trees, and wood piles off their land, but that may no longer be enough.

Here is some reading for you:

Waldo Canyon is latest super fire; get used to them, expert says - latimes.com

[onewhippedpuppy]

I do genuinely feel for the folks affected in Colorado Springs. I was supposed to be heading there on Friday with my family for vacation, we have now diverted to Breckenridge due to the fires.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by motion

Mexico City?

Yes, Mexico City, and a manifestation of overpopulation.

[daepp]

Deforestation is NOT the problem - over-management and prohibitions on logging are the problem. Many Forest Service officials even acknowledge this now.

[sammyg2]

Life sure was better back when we didn't have any wildfires




These are also in our future, and just like earthquakes and wildfires have absolutely nothing to do with man's influence on this planet's climate IMO:

[GWN7]

Once the fire is out the people living near Waldo Canyon will have to be worried about mud slides next rainy season.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Deforestation is NOT the problem - over-management and prohibitions on logging are the problem. Many Forest Service officials even acknowledge this now.

I've read articles to this exact effect. Forest fires are a natural part of the evolution of the forest, it's the normal cycle of destruction and renewal. We try to prevent forest fires because people now live in these areas and they bring in valuable tourist dollars. Meanwhile the forests are becoming a ticking time bomb, as brush accumulates (that normally would have burned already) and creates a fire that cannot be contained once started.

[Hugh R]

Agreed, I live in a canyon with brush (yeah I know, but heavy fire insurance). I get fires every few years and am delighted that they clear out the in some areas, decades old brush.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by DAEpperson

Deforestation is NOT the problem - over-management and prohibitions on logging are the problem. Many Forest Service officials even acknowledge this now.

Someone pointed out that American Indians used to burn the forests. However, they did this to improve hunting. I'm sure as long as the Indians were around to live their ways undisturbed, they learned from this.

They certainly were not logging or over managing.

[porwolf]

Originally Posted by DAEpperson

Deforestation is NOT the problem - over-management and prohibitions on logging are the problem. Many Forest Service officials even acknowledge this now.

Right, prohibition on logging are the problem. Therefore: Cut all trees, no more forest fires! So simple!

[Scott R]

We have fires like this every year, whats the big deal with this one?

[RWebb]

The big deal is that we don't -- the size, severity and number of such fires is increasing. The article to which I posted a link explains this.

Although forest fires are a natural part of the "evolution" (succession) of the forest, the fire return interval has changed as has the severity of the fires.

A part of the problem is that the forests are becoming a ticking time bomb, as brush and litter, and ladder trees such as white fir accumulate (that normally would have burned already) and creates a fire that cannot be contained once started. - a few edits here, whipped

But the big issue is the hotter summers, warmer winters and low humidity (see above post). That is what weakens the trees no matter what you do to the forest. Much of what is now forest will not be in the future.

There are some things to do and some things to avoid:

Clearcut logging eliminates relatively fire "proof" forests, and then brush and "dog-hair" (numerous small trees) grow in. These are the tinderboxes that fuel crown fires. You can do selective cut logging, but this usually makes for lumber that costs more, but is higher in quality (tight grain).

The Indians did burn forests and created open park like areas with smaller numbers of bigger trees (and lot and lots of deer - yumm!). The grass in between the trees burns and kills most of the brush. Without low lying limbs, that fire cannot climb up into the canopy and crown out. This leads to low intensity fires that are easy to control and do not do much damage (they also kill insect pests).

USFS has made thinning forests a top priority - but it is expensive and takes a while. Maybe we can burn the tiny trees that are thinned out as biomass fuel to make electricity. Another way to mitigate death and damage is to try and control the so-called urban-wildland interface. People don't like being told it is dangerous to build a house in the pretty forest (or on a cliff above the pretty ocean), so it is unclear what will happen there. The "prohibitions" on logging are there mostly to prevent entire species from becoming extinct. I agree tho, that thinning when done right, is helpful. I have not seen an enviro group try to stop a pure thinning logging project - the ones around here are usually promoting thinning. USFS likes to try and pay for the thinning by logging out the few remaining old growth trees, and the envl. groups oppose that.

Bottom line: unless you destroy the forests entirely by logging them all, they will eventually burn. If not thinned, they will burn hot - crown out and destroy buildings. If you do thin and do other things, you solve only part of the problem, since the bugs, heat and aridity are going to wipe these forests. But you buy more time, and lessen the damage per year or per decade.

[Scott R]

Just check the gov' site for Colorado over the last 10 years, nothing has changed temperature wise. It's been no colder, nor hotter than when I moved here 30 years ago. This is just the media stirring up the masses with shocking headlines. We will be fine here, like we always are.

KDEN_ClimateGraphs_2008

I have a very nice house in the "red zone" fires are just part of living here. The only one that came close to my home was started by an angry ex-girlfriend who was a forest ranger. It truly is not big deal, far bigger issues that people could be focusing on.

[911boost]

The future? How about the sick bastard that started the fires in Colorado Sprongs...