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

161–170 of 210 posts

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

#161

Post by outworlder »

Stupulous wrote: post #154
hinkley wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Why? Culture is a big factor.

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

#162

Post by DLA »

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…

One of my favorite investing books (wait for it, it ties in!) is The Dao of Capital [0] which is all about contrarian investing. Great read on investing and for the philosophical perspective as well. In the book Mark Spitznagel (investment manager for Nassib Taleb's black swan inspired hedge fund, Universa Investments) has an entire chapter on how conifer trees take advantage of fire-cleared forrest floors to propagate at a higher rate. Fire clears faster growing endosperm trees which tend to dominate slower growing conifers (cone droppers) in the early stages of growth. The fire cleaning allows conifers to productively seed the forest floor and get growing with less competition in their early years. In fact some cones actually use fire as a signal to drop and open to release their seeds. Fascinating. Very eloquent writing, IMO.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16599562-the-dao-of-capi...

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

#163

Post by woofie11 »

umvi wrote: post #109
woofie11 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure that was fearmongering, so much as people operating from limited information. It's reasonable that people will make mistakes.

Well it seems like the prevailing emotion in times of limited information is fear. You see dire forecasts that embody people's worst fears prefixed with probability qualifiers. The same has happened many times in the past (and is still happening now) with Covid, climate change, upcoming election, etc. It is reasonable people will make mistakes, lots of them, so let's stop prefixing predictions with probability qualif…

Fear is a good reaction to limited information!

If COVID19 has a 15% chance of leading to a million people on long-term disability, that justifies a lot of precautions. You can phrase that as a mathematical equation, where you sum up the outcomes, average, and get an expected value, or as an emotion. In this case, the outcome is the same.

Ditto for climate change. I agree the worst-case is unlikely, and people get ahead by presenting the worst-case, but "unlikely" means 10%, not 0%. In the grand scheme of things, switching to sustainable technologies isn't too expensive.

And things with 15% odds will fall flat 5 times out of 6.

I think the bigger problem we have is an inability to move. We should have dealt with COVID19 when it first appeared. We should be doing a lot more to deal with climate change. And so on. Problem-solving is the best way to mitigate fear.

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

#164

Post by throwaway5752 »

refurb wrote: post #140
throwaway5752 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global warming is happening, and easily measurable and observed with the naked eye. Obviously large forest fires have occurred before humans doubled atmospheric CO2 levels in the last century. The idea it is either natural or the result of human caused climate change is a false choice. The question is how much climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of them as a contributing factor. They occur natural…

So firestorms aren't natural?

I stated explicitly that they are in my comment.

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

#165

Post by refurb »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #164
refurb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So firestorms aren't natural?

I stated explicitly that they are in my comment.

Obviously large forest fires have occurred

Firestorms are distinct from "large forest fires', but point taken.

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

#166

Post by throwaway5752 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #142
throwaway5752 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global warming is happening, and easily measurable and observed with the naked eye. Obviously large forest fires have occurred before humans doubled atmospheric CO2 levels in the last century. The idea it is either natural or the result of human caused climate change is a false choice. The question is how much climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of them as a contributing factor. They occur natural…

Doubled? No. From Wikipedia: > Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century[2] to 415 ppm as of May 2019. I know, it's Wikipedia. If you've got a better source, cite it. Until you do, "doubled" is hyperbole. If you want to persuade people that anthropogenic climate change is real, easil…

Look, you're right. I base off 250 (10k yrs ago) and looking at current 415 and carelessly using an order of magnitude type phrasing. It's not up 100.0%. It's between 50-100% and on the lower end.

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

#167

Post by outworlder »

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…

No.

The majority of fires are not started by arsonists. This time it was lightning. Two years ago, it was strong winds and power lines. There are the occasional accidents, like the case where a hot car pulled over and ignited some dry leaves.

Also, a lot of California is a chaparral. It's an ecosystem shaped by wildfires. They are expected. Those locations must burn regularly, as they have been doing for thousands of years.

This is completely unrelated to, say, a tropical forest. Which is not expected to have more than isolated, occasional fires.

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

#168

Post by outworlder »

pvaldes wrote: post #63
URSpider94 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sponta…

You are definitely not talking about California weather.

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

#169

Post by AnimalMuppet »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #166
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubled? No. From Wikipedia: > Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century[2] to 415 ppm as of May 2019. I know, it's Wikipedia. If you've got a better source, cite it. Until you do, "doubled" is hyperbole. If you want to persuade people that anthropogenic climate change is real, easil…

Look, you're right. I base off 250 (10k yrs ago) and looking at current 415 and carelessly using an order of magnitude type phrasing. It's not up 100.0%. It's between 50-100% and on the lower end.

Yeah, well, I've never been imprecise here on HN. Never rounded my data to an order of magnitude. Nope. Never. (I, ah, may have rounded toward zero a bit in this paragraph...)

Now I feel like "Captain Nitpick" for my previous comment.

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

#170

Post by eloff »

Justsignedup wrote: post #149
eloff wrote: 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…

I don't see how that makes it "a bad way to look at it" I didn't discuss the implications of likely changes in precipitation at all. Just stated what kinds of changes are likely in my opinion.

I also don't think the consequences as easy to predict as you think. For example cross crops may transpire less because of their pores being closed more due to higher CO2 concentrations. That may be good, depending on the crop and location. There will be higher flow in most rivers, and by association most lakes (but offset by higher evaporation) which could be good both for humans and irrigation. I think the answer is complicated and difficult to predict.

Current unsustainable practices with respect to both soil and groundwater depletion will still be unsustainable.

Parts of California are not a great place to grow crops sustainably, at least not the kinds of water and soil intensive crops currently grown. That may increase or decrease on the whole over time due to climate change, it's tough to say with any certainty.

Post reply on HN