American Wildfires

[Budley Doright]

Maybe I've not communicated my position well, I am genuinely not trying to be insulting or combative.

I think more people need to be thinking about solutions, I think that's awesome that you are, and it's been a fun conversation. What I am attempting to put across is that watering all of the vulnerable forests of the west is not physically possible, it is too large an area, completely independent of the viability or non-viability of desalinization. If you are talking about something else then I guess I'm confused.

I totally agree with you that to rake all of the forests would be detrimental to the biodiversity of the forest and bad for the soil food web.
But, that's not why people felt that his comment was tone-deaf, most people don't understand the role of composting matter and humus in the forest. The reason people felt that it was a silly comment is because the forests of the west are way too large for raking to be employed on a large enough scale to be an effective solution to fire danger in the west. And likewise, the forests of the west are too large to water them with drip irrigation. I felt like you were not able to hear what I was saying in that regard, it's not about technology or desalinization, it's about scale. It's totally okay if you disagree with me on that, I just wanted to make sure you understood what part of your proposal I felt was impractical.

You may as well propose improving the beach by washing each individual grain of sand, sure it could be calculated and you could create a computer mockup that could produce a theoretical result, but...yeah...it's not gonna happen in the real world.
You are thinking of solutions, that's more than most people can be bothered with. I think for the most part we're on the same page, cheers.

If I have misunderstood what you were trying to get across, then I apologize.

Don’t feel bad, it seems a few here misunderstood or are not seemingly getting it including me lol.

 

[hanimmal]

Maybe I've not communicated my position well, I am genuinely not trying to be insulting or combative.

No worries from me. My laptop is acting up (not sure if I picked up a virus or if my dog's drool on it finally messed it up. So it has been kind of a pain in the butt to post the last couple days.

My cursor is jumping all over the place and shrinking/expanding the screen I am on. Very annoying.

I think more people need to be thinking about solutions, I think that's awesome that you are, and it's been a fun conversation. What I am attempting to put across is that watering all of the vulnerable forests of the west is not physically possible, it is too large an area, completely independent of the viability or non-viability of desalinization. If you are talking about something else then I guess I'm confused.

I agree, it is something that we need to get a lot more proactive about. I started off talking about bringing in water from the ocean as a way to not use the precious fresh water sources in these dry regions, but then took it a step further to wanting to consider the ability to bring water in to most of our nation.

As for 'watering the forests', it was not something that I put much thought in and was just answering a rhetorical nay saying question.

But that being said, I don't know why we can have water access every couple dozen feet over every suburban zone and not design something for people to tap into in our vulnerable forests. Hire a few thousand people to walk and identify potential dry areas and tap that sea water to use in these areas using hoses seems very feasible.

It might be expensive to set up and maintain, but so are these mega fires, and not nearly as dangerous. And it might take a decade of hard work, but the only other option is to just let it burn, and I think that is far worse of an option.

I think we as a species need to start acting like stewards of the land/nature and do more to help it thrive after centuries of abuse.

I would add that did see you mention plastic at one point too. I would just add to that, there is a difference between a plastic toy from a fast food joint that is going to last forever and piping to get water to vulnerable areas that desperately need it.

I totally agree with you that to rake all of the forests would be detrimental to the biodiversity of the forest and bad for the soil food web.
But, that's not why people felt that his comment was tone-deaf, most people don't understand the role of composting matter and humus in the forest. The reason people felt that it was a silly comment is because the forests of the west are way too large for raking to be employed on a large enough scale to be an effective solution to fire danger in the west. And likewise, the forests of the west are too large to water them with drip irrigation. I felt like you were not able to hear what I was saying in that regard, it's not about technology or desalinization, it's about scale.

You really seem to be fixated on my bullshit 'drip irrigation' statement.

I am tip toeing around what I think, because it is extremely harsh in some ways, and I really am not wanting to put that out. I know how scary fire is and how utterly terrified I would be if I lived there, and can't imagine what you all are going through. So with that warning label, please don't take offense to what I am about to say.

I think that living in these fire zones is the same as people who live in flood planes, hurricane zones, volcanoes, etc. and it not something that we should necessarily allow.

Again as for area though, if we can water monoculture lawns across suburbia, we could water forests that are otherwise going to burn we just need the will. And it really seems that right now we do not.

You may as well propose improving the beach by washing each individual grain of sand, sure it could be calculated and you could create a computer mockup that could produce a theoretical result, but...yeah...it's not gonna happen in the real world.

No, because what you are saying here is stupid. What would be the point of washing sand? While providing water to an area when we have the ability to provide as much water as we could ever use, a substance that all known life on our planet needs to survive, is something that we would need to do eventually.

We are still a young species and have relied on living next to fresh water until very very recently. We now need to figure out how to do things smarter.

I found this, I don't trust MBS at all, but it had some interesting information about it.

I think that the main complaint about desalination is the dumping back the brine in the ocean, while I am saying we dump it inland, and the 'sultan sea' thing that was mentioned earlier in this thread would seem like a perfect place to set this up.

And I was pleasantly surprised that desalination already has companies investing billions in doing it, so I am pretty confident that it is not as stupid of an idea (getting water to every home in water scarce areas in our nation using sea water) as people have acted like it is in this thread.

You are thinking of solutions, that's more than most people can be bothered with. I think for the most part we're on the same page, cheers.

If I have misunderstood what you were trying to get across, then I apologize.

Again no worries.

Don’t feel bad, it seems a few here misunderstood or are not seemingly getting it including me lol.

We both live in a water abundant area. It is easy for us to not get.


Edit:

Thought that this was interesting. And again thinking that it makes sense to set something like this up by that Salton sea and using it to dump the brine into instead of sending it back out into the ocean.

Also I would like some way for the ocean intake to be accessible from the surface so boats can dump plastic from the ocean pollution into that gets collected inland.

These could be propaganda videos, idk. But the concept is what I am talking about.

 

[Funkentelechy]

I am tip toeing around what I think, because it is extremely harsh in some ways, and I really am not wanting to put that out. I know how scary fire is and how utterly terrified I would be if I lived there, and can't imagine what you all are going through. So with that warning label, please don't take offense to what I am about to say.

I think that living in these fire zones is the same as people who live in flood planes, hurricane zones, volcanoes, etc. and it not something that we should necessarily allow.

I get what you are saying, I would never advocate for something like..say... bringing a bunch of water from somewhere else and piping it to places that don't have enough water, thus allowing people to live in an area that they shouldn't(teasing). We need to be more efficient with the water we have and not build in places that don't have enough.

For reference, I live in an area that is water abundant, the average annual precipitation in the County that I live in is 38.33 inches, whereas the average annual precipitation of Michigan is around 33 inches, so I actually get more precipitation than you do it's just that southern California urban sprawl and big AG are very thirsty. I don't think that people should build in an area if they don't have enough water, folks in Northern California are more keenly aware of why this is true than many because our abundant water resources have been diverted to allow for growth in areas where people probably shouldn't be living or growing crops.

I also live in a very rural area so there is a lot more forest than people which makes it very difficult to get to fires in time. I don't know if you live in a rural or urban area of Michigan so it's hard to compare directly but for reference, Michigan has 176.8 people per square mile, in the County I live there are 7 people per square mile.

Before Europeans took over, the natives here used to burn all of the areas around their communities, and lightning fires were allowed to burn unimpeded. what we are seeing now is the consequences of a century and a half of fire suppression exacerbated by climate change.

Thinning of the forest around vulnerable communities is very useful. Unfortunately in most thinning operations that I see the biggest trees are cut because they are more profitable, and the small trees are left. The big trees in a forest are hugely important to the health of the forest for a multitude of reasons and the smaller trees are a far bigger fire danger because their branches are closer to the ground and bigger trees oftentimes have thick bark that can resist fire.
What is needed in communities around me, in my opinion, is a way to incentivize a lot more controlled burning and clearing of small trees and underbrush(i.e. fuel ladders) around vulnerable communities. But, it's hard to convince state or local government to do more controlled burning because there is no money in it. Even though it is far more effective and it mimics the natural cycle that the forests have evolved with since before humans, if there is no profit in it then it's like pulling teeth convincing people to do the right thing.

 

[hanimmal]

I get what you are saying, I would never advocate for something like..say... bringing a bunch of water from somewhere else and piping it to places that don't have enough water, thus allowing people to live in an area that they shouldn't(teasing). We need to be more efficient with the water we have and not build in places that don't have enough.

For reference, I live in an area that is water abundant, the average annual precipitation in the County that I live in is 38.33 inches, whereas the average annual precipitation of Michigan is around 33 inches, so I actually get more precipitation than you do it's just that southern California urban sprawl and big AG are very thirsty. I don't think that people should build in an area if they don't have enough water, folks in Northern California are more keenly aware of why this is true than many because our abundant water resources have been diverted to allow for growth in areas where people probably shouldn't be living or growing crops.

I also live in a very rural area so there is a lot more forest than people which makes it very difficult to get to fires in time. I don't know if you live in a rural or urban area of Michigan so it's hard to compare directly but for reference, Michigan has 176.8 people per square mile, in the County I live there are 7 people per square mile.

Before Europeans took over, the natives here used to burn all of the areas around their communities, and lightning fires were allowed to burn unimpeded. what we are seeing now is the consequences of a century and a half of fire suppression exacerbated by climate change.

Thinning of the forest around vulnerable communities is very useful. Unfortunately in most thinning operations that I see the biggest trees are cut because they are more profitable, and the small trees are left. The big trees in a forest are hugely important to the health of the forest for a multitude of reasons and the smaller trees are a far bigger fire danger because their branches are closer to the ground and bigger trees oftentimes have thick bark that can resist fire.
What is needed in communities around me, in my opinion, is a way to incentivize a lot more controlled burning and clearing of small trees and underbrush(i.e. fuel ladders) around vulnerable communities. But, it's hard to convince state or local government to do more controlled burning because there is no money in it. Even though it is far more effective and it mimics the natural cycle that the forests have evolved with since before humans, if there is no profit in it then it's like pulling teeth convincing people to do the right thing.

The native people also had a full old growth forest that was not clear cut.

I grew up in rural Michigan and lived through a house fire as a kid, which is why this is such a scary thing that I worry about you all, and all the wildlife, and really hope we do something unexpectedly huge to address the further destruction of all of our environment.

 

[Funkentelechy]

The native people also had a full old growth forest that was not clear cut.

I grew up in rural Michigan and lived through a house fire as a kid, which is why this is such a scary thing that I worry about you all, and all the wildlife, and really hope we do something unexpectedly huge to address the further destruction of all of our environment.

Yup, Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox were created in a town about twenty minutes from me, big timber industry area here.

I've never been to Michigan, I'd really like to.

 

[hanimmal]

Yup, Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox were created in a town about twenty minutes from me, big timber industry area here.

I've never been to Michigan, I'd really like to.

I would love to see a real redwood tree. We have done some truly evil things as a nation, cutting down those (and the rest of our forests) are at the top of my list.

Michigan is great if you don't mind grey from about September to June. But the lightning bugs are worth seeing. I heard you all don't have them out there.

 

[Funkentelechy]

I don't understand how someone could cut down something that is 2,000 years old. Someone who's been on this earth for two or three decades can own something that old and has the legal right to chop it down because they bought a parcel of land? That's the only qualification needed to kill something that's been around since the beginning of civilization? In my opinion, something that old should be part of our national heritage that no one person should be allowed to own much less kill, it just doesn't make sense.

You have to see the redwoods, personally, I find the sequoias slightly more impactful than the coastal redwoods(I like big buttresses and I cannot lie). There are some amazing trees in Washington state as well, last fall I went and checked out the world's biggest spruce tree up in Quinault Washington, amazing. A tour bus of senior citizens almost ruined it for me but I just hung out on the other side of the tree(big tree), smoked a joint, and really enjoyed the experience.

Yeah, no lightning bugs here, that's really cool.

 

[topcat]

US 101 in my area is still referred to as the Redwood Highway, but the last of them have been removed to add another lane. Soon, we'll have 3 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic instead of two going each way. They call that progress. I've planted 5 redwoods on my property over the years. They're a huge distinction from the damn eucalyptus trees around.

 

[hanimmal]

 

[hanimmal]

I love the idea of paying these people money to restore their forests on their land.

US 101 in my area is still referred to as the Redwood Highway, but the last of them have been removed to add another lane. Soon, we'll have 3 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic instead of two going each way. They call that progress. I've planted 5 redwoods on my property over the years. They're a huge distinction from the damn eucalyptus trees around.

That is awesome (the planting redwoods, not the cutting them down). MSU out her has a almost extinct redwood from China that I think I might try to find one to plant in my backyard here in Michigan. It is cool to think that thousands of years from now, those trees will still be thriving (hopefully).

Are yours growing pretty fast?

 

[captainmorgan]

I love the idea of paying these people money to restore their forests on their land.


That is awesome (the planting redwoods, not the cutting them down). MSU out her has a almost extinct redwood from China that I think I might try to find one to plant in my backyard here in Michigan. It is cool to think that thousands of years from now, those trees will still be thriving (hopefully).

Are yours growing pretty fast?

I just took this pic of a redwood growing in my yard in Michigan, it was planted 25-30 years ago, think they are pretty rare around here, I think there is only one species that can survive Michigan winters.

 

[topcat]

I love the idea of paying these people money to restore their forests on their land.


That is awesome (the planting redwoods, not the cutting them down). MSU out her has a almost extinct redwood from China that I think I might try to find one to plant in my backyard here in Michigan. It is cool to think that thousands of years from now, those trees will still be thriving (hopefully).

Are yours growing pretty fast?

Mine are coastal redwoods that thrive in foggy areas. They require irrigation for a few years to establish a taproot system, then can usually survive on their own. All but one of mine are doing okay in this drought. That one I give water. Costco sells them in spring as 7 footers. The sequoias would likely be a better choice for you. They grow well in good times, but I wouldn't call it fast. I do wonder how the toxic smoke from fires has an effect on them. Here in Sonoma County, we have Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve. There's much more up in Humboldt County.

 

[captainmorgan]

@hanimmal Here's a couple more pics, the tree is about 30' tall but the pine cones are tiny, they are about twice this size on a big tree.

 

[captainmorgan]

‘Jaw-dropping’ forecast is warning sign of climate change’s future impact in Washington, scientists say

A potentially historic heat wave in the Pacific Northwest could be a harbinger of the future and have ripple effects across the region, including for forest fire suppression, salmon spawning and farming.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[Funkentelechy]

I have a good friend that lives near Mount Rainier, he told me that they've been warned about potential flooding in areas around Mount Rainier from glacial sloughing events caused by the heat.

 

[Funkentelechy]

The local paper published an article asking folks to be on the lookout for smoke due to the dry conditions lately, for context, the North Complex fire that is referenced was started by lightning on August 17 last year:

"In a press release today, forest personnel noted that the past few weeks of hot, dry weather have resulted in several smoke sightings within the burn areas of the North Complex Fire and the Sheep Fire."
"Most of the sightings have occurred in and around the fire containment areas. It’s not unusual for there to be lingering pockets of heat inside the perimeters of large fires, as fire can enter root systems, then smolder over winter and reignite in the summer."


So they are saying that this fire may have been burning underground all winter and has now been burning for 10 months straight!

 

[Don't Bogart]

So they are saying that this fire may have been burning underground all winter and has now been burning for 10 months straight!

Got me thinking about how long underground fires can last. I found this.
"The Burning Mountain, a coal deposit in New South Wales, Australia, has been smoldering since 4,000 B.C."
I've heard that some peat fires will go for decades.

 

[hanimmal]

Got me thinking about how long underground fires can last. I found this.
"The Burning Mountain, a coal deposit in New South Wales, Australia, has been smoldering since 4,000 B.C."
I've heard that some peat fires will go for decades.

That is nuts.

Here is another good one.

https://www.history.com/news/mine-fire-burning-more-50-years-ghost-town

 

[Don't Bogart]

Here is another good one.

Yeh, I heard about this on NPR and how they finally kicked out the whole town.
Yep count on us humans to come up with new and creative ideas on how to screw-up a good thing. Like this blue ball.
Aliens have been watching us in action. "These humans could be a great weapon.............but how........hmmm. Let say we let loose a few thousand on an enemy's planet, problem solved?"

 

[smokinrav]

Ironic that the US and Canada have, by far, the largest collection of fresh water on Earth in the Great Lakes. International treaties prevent the piping of any great lakes water over any border illegal without the consent of all 7 states and 3 Canadian provinces that surrou d the lakes. Which, of course, will never happen.
In northern Illinois, I've been drinking lake Michigan water for some 30 years now. Its excellent water.