Live data from Hacker News

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

nbcnews.com

151–160 of 210 posts

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

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trees used to be used as wind breaks for farms, would it be possible to do some geo-engineering to prevent fires from spreading through passive design like gaps or roadways or something?

During the socal fires a few years back, the Santa Ana winds caused it to jump an 8 lane freeway. You're going to need one hell of a firebreak.

A fire jumped the Columbia River (a large river) a couple of years ago

https://www.opb.org/news/series/wildfires/oregon-columbia-ri...

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I being overly optimistic if I think "hey maybe the buildup of fuel on the ground goes away in a fire"?

No, but the point is if the buildup goes for too long, what the controlled fires were trying to prevent becomes reality: a firestorm strong enough to burn to the tops of the trees.

What is cool about coastal redwoods is that they can survive all of their branches being burned off (i.e., a tree topping fire). The redwood trees in the Oakland fire were just logs in the sky after the fire and now the ones that were not cut down look quite nice. You can see the sprouts coming out of the redwoods left in place after the Santa Rosa fire. And those were just young redwoods (<100yr old). The ancient redwoods have much thicker insulating bark layers and even some insulating bark on some of the larger branches. It takes a lot of heat for a long time to heat up a 12ft diameter insulated redwood tree enough to kill it.

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

#153
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is getting hotter, but only parts of it are getting drier. Parts of it are getting wetter. Overall it will get wetter. For each 1C rise in temperature, the air can hold about 7% [1] more water vapor. Warmer air above warmer oceans will pick up more water and dump it over much the same places as it does now, although the prevailing winds and ocean currents changing will also change that up. I think the effec…

It’s tempting to believe that climate change just means that some places will get hotter or colder, or that species will move north or south, upslope or downslope, but the reality is that we don’t really know. Much of the work coming out of ecological niche theory shows that ecosystems have many emergent properties and can’t simply be studied at the level of an individual species because those species wouldn’t surviv…

Yes, I don't think that's surprising or seriously contested. Rapid change means species will have to adapt or die, and many will perish. It's not the first time that's happened on Earth, but it is the first time since the end of the last ice age. It's a terrible slow-motion train wreck that seems nearly unstoppable. Humans too will have to adapt, and some number of us could well perish also.

Longer-term I have the controversial opinion that it's a good thing (downvotes incoming!), but that could just be my tendency to look for the silver lining. Being Canadian and knowing that my entire country was buried under kilometres of ice and then scraped clean to bedrock 12,000 years ago, I feel that's a more dangerous long-term risk than global warming and rising oceans. Think of how much food we grow in northern and southern latitudes. That process would maybe have begun in about 1500 years, and one could imagine that stopping that might involve crazy things like digging up buried hydrocarbons and burning it to add CO2 to the atmosphere, or spraying dark pigment over ice and snow to reduce the albedo (rename Greenland to Greyland anyone?)

We've fucked things up pretty badly for the next thousand or more years, there will be mass extincions, mass migrations, maybe even famines and wars. But we also dodged an icy bullet for who knows how long. I take some comfort in that.

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

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you acknowledge that forests in California predated human habitation thereof? (I could see a pedantic point in that they would not then be part of “recorded history,” if that were the point intended.)

I acknowledge that the forests of California are more than 12000 years old, yes. We have very little information on what those looked like [and some of that was systematically suppressed by the people who wrote the history books]. What we have is documentation of forests that were already under active but low-intensity cultivation for almost 10,000 years before someone with pen and paper saw them [and decided that a…

Because races aren't genetically distinct in any substantial way, and Eurasian and African climates match North and South American ones, indigenous societies in the Americas would presumably follow the same trajectory as the indigenous societies elsewhere.

This is not to absolve colonialists of guilt for the horrific consequences of their actions. 'If I didn't, someone else would' is not a moral justification. But if it is the forests that we are concerned about, they would have the same fate one way or another, maybe lasting a few more millenia- not significant on the geological scales they exist in.

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Further to that, the global temperature anomaly has caused rainfall patterns to change, meaning some places are trending wetter, and some drier, and crucially, volatility has increased. Having wet seasons, generating fuel load, followed by dry is more problematic than a sustained drought.

This was actually part of my theory of why California electric companies got so lazy about tree and brush removal around their power lines. I don't think it's a coincidence that just 1 year after exiting a 6 year drought state power companies started huge fires in both Northern and Southern California.

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

#156
post #108
post #99

I was elated to read this, and then disappointed at the comments here. It seems to be feeding an argument of “see, fires are natural and these trees are old - Climate Change is a fear-mongering hoax!” Firestorms are not the meandering fires that have long been a natural part of ecosystems. Ladder fires — where fire leaves the forest floor, up to the crowns, creating a wall of fire that can change weather patterns — a…

The world is getting hotter, but only parts of it are getting drier. Parts of it are getting wetter. Overall it will get wetter. For each 1C rise in temperature, the air can hold about 7% [1] more water vapor. Warmer air above warmer oceans will pick up more water and dump it over much the same places as it does now, although the prevailing winds and ocean currents changing will also change that up. I think the effec…

Both can be true. It can be wetter on average, but drier during fire season

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a bad way to look at it. A better way: The moisture is being sucked out of some places and falling to others. So one area is becoming barren, and another is being flooded. This means a few things: - It is harder to farm. Can't farm when it is flooded, can't farm when it is barren - It is harder to keep fixed cities because the climate changes. Imagine having to move NYC every 10 years. It is far worse when peop…

Overly pessimistic. We have irrigation, dams, and drainage, we’re not totally beholden to the natural rainfall cycle anymore for farming. As far as coastal cities go, we should be investing more in sea walls, but I think technology can help solve these problems too as it has so far in Miami and Venice. If it eventually gets too expensive to maintain that will happen gradually, not like a sudden refugee crisis.

we're not too protected either. What percentage of the US's food gets grown in CA? https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/27/california-farms-prod....

The solution to California's droughts isn't just dams. You can't build a dam large enough to hold enough water for going multiple years without rainfall and the aquifers, which bank water in the ground were deeply depleted in the last drought.

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

#158
post #86

Let's take a moment and recognize the fear-mongering going on a few days ago where there were articles saying "this time is different because of climate change, this time climate change super fires have caused a national treasure to be destroyed"

Even the redwood park society released a statement saying the park was "gone."

They were referring to the buildings.

Ironic?

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

#159
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is getting hotter, but only parts of it are getting drier. Parts of it are getting wetter. Overall it will get wetter. For each 1C rise in temperature, the air can hold about 7% [1] more water vapor. Warmer air above warmer oceans will pick up more water and dump it over much the same places as it does now, although the prevailing winds and ocean currents changing will also change that up. I think the effec…

Thats a bad way to look at it. A better way: The moisture is being sucked out of some places and falling to others. So one area is becoming barren, and another is being flooded. This means a few things: - It is harder to farm. Can't farm when it is flooded, can't farm when it is barren - It is harder to keep fixed cities because the climate changes. Imagine having to move NYC every 10 years. It is far worse when peop…

> The moisture is being sucked out of some places and falling to others.

I would like to learn more about this, can someone post more information?

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

#160
post #99

I was elated to read this, and then disappointed at the comments here. It seems to be feeding an argument of “see, fires are natural and these trees are old - Climate Change is a fear-mongering hoax!” Firestorms are not the meandering fires that have long been a natural part of ecosystems. Ladder fires — where fire leaves the forest floor, up to the crowns, creating a wall of fire that can change weather patterns — a…

In the case of Armstrong Woods historic Redwood grove here in Sonoma County, CA - currently threatended by Walbridge fire [1]:

From a fuel standpoint, the entire area around the redwoods used to be managed by logging companies and private industry - they even staffed the fire towers. Since that time, private and conservation owners have bought up the land around the area, but pretty much have done nothing to manage fuels, right now that is all burning for the first time in 50+ years.

The failure of those parcels to properly manage fuels on their property probably led to the threat to the redwood groves in this case. For this area in general, the NIMBY attitude has largely precluded controlled burning on the scale it used to be conducted at.

1 - https://napsg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?i...

Post reply on HN