Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 210 posts

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#61

Post by pvaldes »

chrisco255 wrote: post #27
zorpner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The global temperature anomaly is already out-of-range for not only the lifetime of this tree, but much of its evolutionary history. We are entering an out-of-context situation for a large portion of the earth's extant lifeforms.

California has been subject to century long droughts in the not too distant past (about 1000 years ago). "BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that…

> BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago

When systematic deforestation and massive logging started?

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#62

Post by hangun »

khuey wrote: post #24
hardmath123 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the heat of a wildfire is literally the trigger for the cone to open up and release the redwood's seeds! (I don't know the exact mechanism for this, though.)

You're thinking of the coast redwood's relative, the giant sequoia. Fire dries out the cones causing the seeds to release.

I think I saw this in a zombie movie once

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#63

Post by pvaldes »

URSpider94 wrote: post #13
bamboozled wrote: post #6

I guess 2000 is a long time biologically and I suppose those trees have seen bad fires before climate change really kicked off. I'm sure there were very dry and warm periods before this too. Even thought we might think we're dominating nature, I'm sure it has a few tricks up it's sleeve yet.

The concerning issue with this fire is that humans have spent most of the last 100 years suppressing wildfires in these forests. This leads to an unprecedented amount of fuel built up on the forest floor, which leads to abnormally large and hot wildfires. Fortunately, it doesn’t seem to be too much for the redwoods, though time will tell.

> This leads to an unprecedented amount of fuel built up on the forest floor

Everybody forgets the second part. Unprecedent amount of fuel AND WATER.

Forest soil is a sponge plenty of fungus, tender roots, moss, and roundworms. This means that there is a lot of water in the soil also (and that each year there is more water in the area until is fireproof). Plant tissues store water also.

Rainforests do not burn spontaneously. There is a net of streams and it rains. Maybe just once in a blue moon a lightning strikes here and there. When this happens it rains each day at 17h, therefore is a self-contained event.

Ancien forests do not burn. Gasoline soaked trees yes, they burn.

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#64

Post by quixoticelixer- »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #4

“Withstand” is a funny word. Forests need fire. Fire is destructive to the organs (flora and fauna) but beneficial to the organism (a forest). I’m thinking of all of the sequoia seeds, now germinated from the fire[1], that will sprout next year into full sunlight that hasn’t touched the forest floor in hundreds of years. It is sad though that it’s also destructive to the lives of so many people. May everyone find saf…

The forest needs fire but the individual trees certainly don't like it

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#65

Post by dividedbyzero »

pvaldes wrote: post #56
samcheng wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Also, these trees must now survive a hundred years of aggressive fire suppression, which (ironically) allows fuel to build up to dangerous levels. Either way, these trees are a lot safer after surviving a fire.

Again, the forest does not burn each summer. Is the job of arsonists in the majority of the times. This is a criminal problem. Is domestic terrorism Claiming that fuel is increasing and somebody should burn the forest attract lunatics and does not help to have a future with water, or to decrease the levels of CO2 in the air. We desperately require the CO2 stored in plants and in soil and this is not compatible with t…

Not sure about California in particular, but I think a pretty solid case can be made for controlled burning of environments that have evolved around regular wildfires. It's how these ecosystems work, and have worked well for a long, long time, and we risk damaging or collapsing those ecosystems if we take fire suppression too far.

Besides, while having lunatics torch forests is not desirable at all, fuel accumulation isn't fictional. Again, no idea about California in particular, but it's definitely a problem in parts of Spain, and controlled burns are already a thing there, I believe that's being done in the US, too, with good success so far.

I get that it's no fun having wildfires, even controlled ones, behind one's backyard, but it's probably not sustainable to not have any at all, forever. Even if fires can be suppressed effectively for a long time, when a fire eventually escapes suppression, and one probably will, it'll find many years of bone-dry plant matter to consume; that'll release all of the CO2 at once, and it would make for a very destructive firestorm. At least that's my layperson's understanding.

The criminal burning of the Amazon, way beyond what any wildfires would do, that absolutely must stop.

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#67

Post by mdonahoe »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #5

Redwoods not only survive the fires, they tend to proliferate afterwards. After lesser trees have been cleared out by the fires, redwood seedlings take root. Redwoods also thrive in low rain areas that are prone to fog because they benefit from the fog in a way that other trees do not. I once suggested redwoods as an alternate or additional metaphor for giftedness re Stephanie Tolan's "Is it a cheetah?" https://www.s…

I was thinking redwoods are like rich people. Their scale gives them unfair advantages compared to other plants.

Also metaphors make weak arguments.

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#68

Post by jupp0r »

mdonahoe wrote: post #67
DoreenMichele wrote: post #5

Redwoods not only survive the fires, they tend to proliferate afterwards. After lesser trees have been cleared out by the fires, redwood seedlings take root. Redwoods also thrive in low rain areas that are prone to fog because they benefit from the fog in a way that other trees do not. I once suggested redwoods as an alternate or additional metaphor for giftedness re Stephanie Tolan's "Is it a cheetah?" https://www.s…

I was thinking redwoods are like rich people. Their scale gives them unfair advantages compared to other plants. Also metaphors make weak arguments.

They also get thousands of years old, which rich people might achieve in the future.

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#69

Post by phkahler »

jupp0r wrote: post #68
mdonahoe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking redwoods are like rich people. Their scale gives them unfair advantages compared to other plants. Also metaphors make weak arguments.

They also get thousands of years old, which rich people might achieve in the future.

Maybe they already do.

Re: 2,000-year-old redwoods survive wildfire at California's oldest state park

#70

Post by jupp0r »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #65
pvaldes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the forest does not burn each summer. Is the job of arsonists in the majority of the times. This is a criminal problem. Is domestic terrorism Claiming that fuel is increasing and somebody should burn the forest attract lunatics and does not help to have a future with water, or to decrease the levels of CO2 in the air. We desperately require the CO2 stored in plants and in soil and this is not compatible with t…

Not sure about California in particular, but I think a pretty solid case can be made for controlled burning of environments that have evolved around regular wildfires. It's how these ecosystems work, and have worked well for a long, long time, and we risk damaging or collapsing those ecosystems if we take fire suppression too far. Besides, while having lunatics torch forests is not desirable at all, fuel accumulation…

In California, controlled burns are now happening all the time (although not enough).
Post reply on HN