US Burn Acreage Plummeting, Lowest In A Decade

9 Responses to US Burn Acreage Plummeting, Lowest In A Decade

1. kbray in california says:

   June 24, 2015 at 3:55 pm

   Off topic suggestion:

   Another chart like this with additional lines for Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon, to give additional perspective. Add a pointer arrow for the CO2 line, with a little quip phrase.

   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIQwHiUUcAAJLUj.png:large

   Everybody I know thinks CO2 is a huge percent of the atmosphere.

   Reply
   • inMAGICn says:

     June 24, 2015 at 6:34 pm

     Tri it on a chart 1 meter high. You still can’t see (realistically) the increase. As a mental experiment, and an illuistration, try a chart 1 kilometer high, and your ppm COs rises from, say 280 ppm (28 cm) to 400 ppm (40cm). The delta is 12cm. All that hysteria over THAT?

     Reply
     • inMAGICn says:

       June 24, 2015 at 6:35 pm

       Tri=Try. (There’s got to be a joke in there somewhere.)

       Reply
       • Gail Combs says:

         June 24, 2015 at 7:28 pm

         I can thing of an old one but it is dirty. (sort of )

         Newly wed – tri-weekly
         middle age – try weekly
         golden aniversery – try weakly

         Well you did ask for it…
2. inMAGICn says:

   June 24, 2015 at 6:30 pm

   But don’t you see, under the One, firefighting has become so efficient that wildfires are now easily contained. The miracle of less burnt acreage is due entirely to new procedures adopted by the all-seeing and al-doing folks there in D.C. Right?

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     June 24, 2015 at 7:29 pm

     Which is why Obummer got rid of the planes that can dump huge loads of water on Forest fires. (sorry don’t have the links at hand.)

     Reply
3. Climatism says:

   June 25, 2015 at 1:59 am

   Reblogged this on Climatism.

   Reply
4. Tom says:

   June 26, 2015 at 2:54 am

   Wildfire suppression in the last century has been one of the biggest environmental blunders in history. Anyone who lives with forests as I do knows there is a constant rain of flammable leaves and bark to the ground plus a steady drumbeat of natural tree mortality. Regular burns keep the forest healthy and beautiful, but take away fire for any length of time, and the build-up of fuels is catastrophic. Once the fuel load reaches a certain point, fire cannot be re-introduced without very expensive preparation work. Many millions of dollars have been spent on thinning forest in SW Oregon in the last few years, but without following up with timely controlled burns all that effort will be lost.

   We just had our first large fire of 2015 here, now at 5,341 acres after being lit by lightning on June 11. It burned in brush and dead trees which were killed by the Biscuit Fire in 2002. The Biscuit Fire burned 500,000 acres between July and October when it was finally extinguished by the first rain. For $147,000,000 they were able to pinch the flanks for four months.

   Regular controlled burning is a bargain financially and psychologically compared to the money spent on and terror caused by wildfire. It’s all going to burn sooner or later anyway — we can burn it sooner on our terms, or later on nature’s terms. A knowledgeable old Indian squaw with a firebrand could do a better job of fuel load management than all of our trained foresters. If you divide the total forested wildland in the west by ten (about how many years it takes for the fuel load to start getting too much) you would have the minimum number of acres to do prescribed burns in annually. We aren’t even close.

   Reply
   • Padre says:

     June 26, 2015 at 3:08 pm

     There’s our new job market! Take the unemployed, issue shovels, rakes and chipper-shredders, then send them into the National Forests as part of the Mulch For Money Campaign. Pay them by the amount, not by the hour, and we should have the wildfire thing in hand in a decade or so. Perfect Government program…….., not.

     Reply