Do you think major wild fires have an effect on the climate?

Answer 1

Of course...

The types of wildfires that we've been seeing in the western United States are the result of mismanagement by the USFS. For 100 years, the policy had been to aggressively fight every forest fire that started - and that policy has resulted in an overloading of fuel in the forests. Consequently, the fires that start don't just burn the undergrowth - with occasional "torching" where mature trees burn. No... Now, the fires that start catastrophically destroy the entire forest - burning everything: Mature trees, healthy trees, diseased trees, brush, undergrowth, etc. All get destroyed now.

When all that material gets burned, more than just CO2 is being released into the atmosphere. Trees & brush have different compounds in them - depending on where they've grown and what they've extracted from the soils, and all of that material is released. Oh, and don't forget about the amount of soot, ash, and other particulate matter that is released during those fires - millions of tons worth of pollutants.

In addition to the atmospheric pollutants released, those destroyed forests no longer have the capability to hold soils in place, making them prone to mudslides/debris flows at the first sign of precipitation. Much of that ash/debris will end up in streams, creeks, and rivers, impacting the fish and water quality... Further, the areas that have been devastated by wildfires also become less able to support wildlife for many years afterward.

Do you remember the wildfires in Yellowstone National Park back in 1988? Roughly 48% of the park's territory/forest burned... Now, almost 20 years later, those areas are still recovering... Sure, there are new trees growing all over the place, but the sheer number of dead trees that ended up falling down - crisscrossed throughtout the forest - impacted which areas were even accessable to the wildlife there. Elk, deer, and bison have a hard time moving through areas like that due to the extreme risk for broken legs...

Yes, the unnaturally catastrophic wildfires that have been experienced do impact the climate, atmosphere, and ecosystems where they occur.

How can those catastrophic wildfires be prevented - or better yet - how can wildfires be reduced to a more "normal" level? Prescribed burns do help. They remove the overburden of fuel on the forest floor, and on occasion the diseased trees will also be burned...

Another method is logging. Yup. Good old fashioned chainsaw work...

Responsible logging - not clear-cut logging - removes the diseased trees, along with some of the mature trees from forests. This reduces the possibility for a catastrophic wildfire to happen, because the actual fuel load has been reduced. There are forests in the western United States where almost 50% of the trees have been killed by bark beetles, yet radical environmentalists will fight tooth and nail in the courts to prevent logging companies from harvesting those dead trees, and removing the diseased trees... Apparently they'd rather leave millions of acres of standing dead fuel for the next wildfire to consume and pollute the atmosphere. Those trees could be removed and put to good use for humanity - and the logging companies would (as is their typical practice) plant new trees in their stead... Further, in areas where catastrophic wildfires have already happened and there are literally hundreds of thousands of acres of standing dead trees - the logging companies should be able to go into those areas and remove at least 50% of those standing dead trees: the trees are dead & charred, but the trunks of the trees often still have very usable wood... And again, the logging companies would plant trees in those areas to help the ecosystems recover...

Responsible use of our natural resources, along with active management of our national forests, would most definitely reduce the number of catastrophic wildfires experienced in the forests of the United States. Lives, property, wildlife, and the environment would be saved and benefit from proactive management.

It's only logical.

Unfortunately, in many cases, LOGIC is completely lost on the radical environmental crowd. And I mean the RADICAL environmentalists - not ALL environmentalists...

Answer 2

Any time you seriously deplete trees which clean up the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a danger to the climate.

Don't forget, over the centuries the population keeps on multipying, doubling and tripling even, all the while trees have been cut down to make room for civilizations.

The rainforest was the major "air filter" for our planet, but it's been serioiusly depleted too. So as the number of people rise and create pollution, the number of trees needed has been extremely lacking to keep up with them, simply put.

This is why you have the "tree huggers" as people love to call them, who know the value of our trees, and why you see many urban areas actively planting new trees anywhere and everywhere that they can.

Trees are essentially the "LUNGS OF THE EARTH" and just as we INHALE and EXHALE, so do they, except they do so in reverse, and inhale our carbon dioxide and return oxygen for us, so together we are one.

Sadly people don't get this and don't realize the excess CO2 goes into our oceans, which are also a filter and pull the CO2 down to the bottom of the ocean where it is "stored" on the floor of the ocean.

Unfortunately, the ocean is being forced to take on much more than it is capable of processing at a level which keeps ocean life healthy and thriving, which is why fish, reefs and organisms which all work together to ensure survival of ocean species, are also threatened.

But it's not just carbon dioxide that is a danger, it's all the other chemicals and toxins which are carcinogenic (cancer causing) that are dumped in both the air and our waters too. This is why pollution in general is a danger, and why everyone should be on board with the "global warming" issues. It's more about keeping our planet clean and functioning and let's face it ALIVE so it can give us air, water and food.

Hope that answers some of your questions.

Answer 3

NO since the carbon (in the plants) burning injected as CO2 in the atmosphere was already part of the "short carbon cycle"...

UNLESS the vegetation is not going to grow back meaning the carbon will not be reabsorbed from CO2 to stored carbon in plants...

AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.... the general coverage of forests is decreasing and droughts already generated by global warming turn some regions too dry to grow back the vegetation that has been there for centuries. This happens everyday in third world countries... but soon in semi-aridic climate too (Mediterranean+California+Mexico)

Answer 4

They have to get off their duffs and start dealing with the knee-jerk opposition to every environmental issue. Current estimates of the rate of extinction is 3 species PER HOUR. That exceeds any mass extinction in the history of the planet. Picture a long list with every species name on it scrolling past at that rate. Somewhere on that list is the name Homo Sapiens This type of news is heavily suppressed in the USA . The American public is fed a steady diet of Paris Hilton, diapered astronauts, Brittany Spears, and Anna Nicole-- and they want it to stay that way. We can't wait forever for everyone to wake up. If we do, none of us are going to make it. You're right about the dolphins of course, but there is also mass starvation of people going on attributable to the same factors that are killing off the other species.

Answer 5

nope in reality getting rid of smog and green house gases does more damage

Answer 6

yes ofcourse...

Answer 7

yes.