Comments on: Are forest fires good?

By: James Reed

James Reed — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:12:07 +0000

(oy.. I’m so going to get deleted) The link should’ve been the smokey the bear one.

By: James Reed

James Reed — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:10:53 +0000

FIRE!
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/)

By: James Reed

James Reed — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:02:12 +0000

* 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

By: James Reed

James Reed — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:00:14 +0000

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.

By: mrmc

mrmc — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:21:35 +0000

Lauren wrote on this too:
http://lschneider.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/smokey-you-can-take-a-break-from-watching-for-those-fires-they-arent-cooking-us-yet/

By: mrmc

mrmc — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:02:29 +0000

Younger 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.

By: Miranda Woodbury

Miranda Woodbury — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:47:25 +0000

i don’t get it what exactly is fire?

By: paola

paola — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:12:35 +0000

look what i don’t get is how do you actually find out about this sourt of things.

By: sonofbruce

sonofbruce — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:55:51 +0000

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.