It is now being thought that forest fires are not all bad. Some new research indicates that forest fires may actually reduce global warming. Previously, it was thought that forest fires would increase global warming because they released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com
The fires burn down the trees in the forests, affecting the amount of shading of the ground. More sunlight is reflected back into space for numerous decades after the fire has occured.
The new research shows that the greenhouse gases emitted from the fire and the cooling effect do make a significant difference in global warming because, in effect, they cancel each other out when averaged globally. However, fires in the northern regions may result in cooler temperatures.
Some people are sceptical because this data is only from 1 fire, the Donnelly Flats fire in central Alaska. This fire burned approximately 16,500 acres in 1999. Some of the tests included were: measurements of incoming & outgoing radiation, carbon dioxide being absorbed or emmitted by plants, and wind speed. Some similiar measurements were taken from surrounding land that had been burned by fires in 1987 and in 1920.
With these fires, new trees had to replace the old ones. The newer trees took in more carbon dioxide, resulting in less global warming. It took more than 80 years before the old type of trees took over again.
I don’t really know which side to believe. It makes sense that greenhouse gases and the cooler temperatures would cancel each other out; however, only one place was really studied. I think that it might take a couple more studies before people start to believe this. Plus, I think that more climates and different types of forests need to be studied.
Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11681 Article: Forest Fires May Actually Cool Climate By: Randolph E. Schmid
9 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
On the other hand, more mature forests are generally thought to sequester more carbon than young forests — though I know some people dispute that, too.
Comment by sonofbruce December 1, 2006 @ 2:55 pmlook what i don’t get is how do you actually find out about this sourt of things.
Comment by paola December 6, 2006 @ 5:12 pmi don’t get it what exactly is fire?
Comment by Miranda Woodbury December 15, 2006 @ 2:47 pmYounger trees take up carbon dioxide and store carbon in new wood at a greater rate than a mature stand of trees. Older trees do not produce as much “new” organic material each year because they aren’t growing. So the statement that a young and growing forest would take up more carbon dioxide than a climax forest is reasonable.
I wonder if the effect that airborne particulates on the cooling effect were studied. Huge forest fires create a haze of particles in the atmosphere that can spread globally. These particles, suspended at high altitudes can block solar radiation and cause a cooling effect.
Comment by mrmc December 27, 2006 @ 10:02 pmLauren wrote on this too:
Comment by mrmc December 27, 2006 @ 10:21 pmhttp://lschneider.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/smokey-you-can-take-a-break-from-watching-for-those-fires-they-arent-cooking-us-yet/
The current forests of America have been nurtured to the point where a forest fire is unlikely, but extremely dangerous for human life and property. Also, alot of oxygen is eaten up, and alot of carbon byproduct is released so the new trees are simply recycling the old carbon, and C02 that was burned at first. (Equation of Combustion) Forests were alot more beneficial before humans involved themselves and people search a way to bring about historic fires by controlled burnings.
It is my belief through arduous research (40+ hours, and 3 papers in the the last three years) that global warming isn’t real. A site Globalwarming.org was the first place that set me on that path when I tried to prove globalwarming right, or prove that there was good evidence. The actual UN report on it clinched it for me when their data states that they know what likely happened, and are virtually certain of the future.
Comment by James Reed January 16, 2009 @ 1:00 am* I meant forest fires were alot more beneficial for the ecosystem, and the following cite is a good one to find out about forest fires, I believe.wcs.org/globalconservation/northamerica/pacificwest/fires
Comment by James Reed January 16, 2009 @ 1:02 amFIRE!
What is it?
wikipedia may help but a quick overview is that some fuel source, (usually involving carbs that have both Hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen and makes water, carbon, and byproduct. The actual fire is carbon, (run something in a fire like a bright yellow pencil and you’ll get black something on it, that black stuff is carbon. Super-heated carbon is the ‘fire’ we see.
So FIRE is
CH?+O2 = H20 + C?(C02+C+who knows what else)
(It’s funny how, this site that sites global warming in the exact opposite effect as http://abbyr.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/are-forest-fires-good/)
Comment by James Reed January 16, 2009 @ 1:10 am(oy.. I’m so going to get deleted) The link should’ve been the smokey the bear one.
Comment by James Reed January 16, 2009 @ 1:12 am