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

181–190 of 210 posts

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

#181

Post by maerF0x0 »

danans wrote: post #127
blhack wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's frustrating that such an obvious solution to this problem exists. Logging will create jobs, stimulate the economies of rural towns, help the forest ecology. Imagine this: what if we could create a biomachine that pulls CO2 out of the air and turns into carbon bricks. Now imagine that we not only have this biomachine but we have a use for all of these bricks. People want them really badly. So there is a huge ince…

> Logging will create jobs, stimulate the economies of rural towns, help the forest ecology. The types of plant growth that significantly increase wildfire risk significantly (by providing kindling) are not the big profitable trees, but rather the low growing brush and low diameter trees, for which there isn't much of a market (although Sierra Pacific Co. in CA is trying to turn those in to particle board). Also, the…

To be clear your article is mostly about clear cutting and I'm talking about thinning. One of the steps to those big profitable trees is thinning and selectively keeping the best tree(s) for later.

The interim products are lower value, but giving the industry a promise of the best logs allows them the finances to deal with the less valuable interims.

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

#182

Post by ummonk »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #112

selective harvesting (thinning), controlled burns and other tasks are hard sells to tree hugging Californians. However, it could be someone's livelihood AND a partial solution to the issues that come up. How much do we spend on forest firefighting? How much do we spend on "no logging" lobbying? How much do we spend on smoke inhalation property damage and all the public communications? All that could be recouped AND a…

Loggers tend to clear cut large trees, which is the exact opposite of what we need.

Obviously if they wanted to thin out the smaller trees that would be beneficial but the profitability there is questionable.

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

#183

Post by throwaway5752 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #169
throwaway5752 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I had to acknowledge you are right, and good for you for holding me to the higher standard! Particularly on this topic.

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

#184

Post by 01100011 »

ummonk wrote: post #179
01100011 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument a lot and it makes sense, but on the other hand isn't there a maximum limit to the amount of fuel(carbon?) that can accumulate? Fungus and detritivores must certainly play some role, no? Doesn't the shade provided by the big trees place some limit on what can grow beneath?

Yes very much so. And you notice it the minute you enter an old growth redwood forest - suddenly the forest floor becomes largely barren of shrubbery and small trees, because the redwoods are soaking up the sunlight and nutrients.

Yeah that's been my experience but since I've only been in 6-8 different groves I didn't want to generalize.

Sure, fallen needles make a good portion of the floor beneath, and they may be rot-resistant enough to resist decay for a while, but at some point they're going to breakdown.

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

#185

Post by dmckeon »

dhosek wrote: post #130
calvinmorrison wrote: post #121

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?

Firebreaks are a long-standing fire management technique. The problem is that with an intense fire, it's possible for the flame to leap across the firebreak, even very wide ones when there are windy conditions (which an intense fire can exacerbate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak

A greater risk than flames crossing firebreaks is firebrands or cinders - flaming bits of bark, small branch, clumps of pine needles - being carried aloft by heat and falling past the firebreak into combustible dry grass or other fuel, or onto a wooden deck next to wooden siding of a house, or in a rain gutter full of pine needles and twigs next to a composition shingle roof edge.

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

#186

Post by DoreenMichele »

gdubs wrote: 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…

If you think I am saying "climate change is a fear-mongering hoax!", you are reading in things I never said.

I'm an environmental studies major myself, though I never completed my bachelor's degree. I also have a lot of personal reasons why my personal philosophy can be boiled down to "It's the end of the world as we know it -- and I feel fine."

I said nothing about climate change at all. Jumping to conclusions about my opinions on that topic is entirely unwarranted.

I'm guilty of being an optimist. I've been guilty of that my entire life. Previous remark by me about being an optimist in the face the shit really hitting the fan: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22619932

Sorry the world is all stressed. When I was homeless and dying of CF and it was just my life that was a personal apocalypse, no one was all up in arms about needing to rescue me. You will have to excuse me for failing to wring my hands about how other people are now running around screaming "The sky is falling" now that the seeming apocalypse is larger than just my personal reality.

I didn't die on the street. I got healthier and back in housing. Life goes on.

And it will probably go on for most of the rest of the world after Mother Nature has once again proven that scientists don't know everything there is to know about this world.

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

#187

Post by DoreenMichele »

footlose_3815 wrote: post #88
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…

So this whole thread is "Fires good because seeds on some Trees", right?

No. All my comments on the internet can be explained as "I have a serious medical condition and spend most of my time trying to distract myself from misery," a la: http://writepay.blogspot.com/2020/07/my-occupation.html

I know a little something about redwoods. I talked about redwoods. The End.

I bear zero responsibility for how other people choose to interact with anything I have said.

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

#188

Post by Stupulous »

outworlder wrote: post #161
Stupulous wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Firstly, I worry that I am coming across as overconfident. I haven't researched these topics in great depth, and if someone could correct my broad model of history, I'd appreciate it- there's no better feeling than updating a mental model and letting things click into place in a clearer way.

10,000 years ago, Europe, Asia, and Africa were hunter-gatherer populations. Such cultures succeed by taking care of their environment so that the things they depend on remain. Cultural evolution isn't necessary there; biological evolution already optimizes for hunter-gatherer humans.

When you develop agriculture, circumstances change. The most profitable move for society at large is to eradicate nature in favor of farms. The wealth and abundance that results from that makes room for selfish individuals to fight for power. Societies develop kings and slaves at this point. The wealth can be grown by further replacing nature with roads, cities, and infrastructure. With selfish people in power, this is inevitable.

In the Americas, the Mayans had reached this point and had fallen, likely due to overindulgance in those benefits.

Incas had no slaves and no currency, so theirs was a unique culture that fits the opposing viewpoint. But they also had no writing system, had only really been around for 60 years before Columbus arrived, and still had an elite class, so my view is that they would have become homogenous with other societies that were successful. As far as I know, they weren't conservationists anyway.

Cultures move to positions that are resistant to change, easy to fall into, and that provide an advantage over competing cultures. That means centralized power, military dominance, and some benefits for those in charge. Cultures that don't meet these criteria either become those that do, or are conquered by those that do.

American Indians (I am told this is the preferred nomenclature) were increasingly competing between tribes, and the agricultural tribes were growing. Either they would have soon walked the path that everyone else in history has, or they would have been wiped out by the larger southern civilisations.

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

#189

Post by gdubs »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #186
gdubs wrote: 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…

If you think I am saying "climate change is a fear-mongering hoax!", you are reading in things I never said. I'm an environmental studies major myself, though I never completed my bachelor's degree. I also have a lot of personal reasons why my personal philosophy can be boiled down to "It's the end of the world as we know it -- and I feel fine." I said nothing about climate change at all. Jumping to conclusions about…

Sorry if this post seemed like a response to yours. It’s not. I didn’t find your post unreasonable, nor did I think you were implying that climate change is non-existent. You simply were pointing out fire’s role in nature, and I added my own response in-line with your post to call out what I see as a distinction between milder forest fires and the ones that are becoming more common today.

In general I aim to respond to people directly if I disagree :)

[But in this particular case I was responding in frustration to a trend of comments, not one in particular.]

I’m sorry that my post added additional stress to your day — it really was not my intention.

Post reply on HN