7 ms·

I don't think the person you're responding to was trying to deny global warming being a factor. I think they're just explaining why this fire is so bad compared

I don't think the person you're responding to was trying to deny global warming being a factor. I think they're just explaining why this fire is so bad compared to other fires we have seen in France before. I know global warming plays a major role in this, but I still found it interesting to know why this fire seems so bad.

markdown 2mo ago
The pine forests have been there for centuries, so it being pine is no explanation at all for why it's burning so badly now.
- AlecSchueler 2mo ago
  They've actually been there for less than two centuries, just to be pedantic.
- applepearlime 2mo ago
  But one pine forest in France has burned badly in the past as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire Did you check for forest fires in the past?
- superfrank 2mo ago
  It's not, but the original comment never claimed that it was. There have been 4 or 5 pretty massive wildfires in France that I can remember in the last 5 years, but this is the first time they've had to deal with pyrocumulonimbus caused by a wildfire. Global warming was likely a contributing factor for all of those fires, but global warming alone doesn't explain why this one is different. The first comment about the pine isn't answering "why is this happening now?", it answers the question, "why is this fire so much worse?"
- tirant 2mo ago
  I come from the Mediterranean region and locally we know many explanations for that. Many of those pine forests are relatively new. Pine trees burn frequently, around every 20-30 years. In the past they used to be mixed with many other original trees, but during the recent century reforestation, pines were planted as the single tree species, making fires more prone to happen and more easily to spread. In the past, way more population lived next to the forests, where lumber used to be part of their income, so trees were frequently cut, forests maintained and shepherds would bring their sheep to feed from forest lower plants. All of that is gone. In the past, locals used to be able to build firewalls, clean forests and fight fire with fire (provoking small controlled wildfires to stop the big ones). Green policies forbid those actions nowadays. Also, if we talk about past centuries, temperatures used to be higher during early middle age and before. These high temperatures are nothing new in terms of historical forest. Also, looking at the statistics, we’re probably at the bottom number of wildfires per area in the last 70-80 years, while total forest mass has probably increased around 40-50%.
  - mctaylor 2mo ago
    I love how four comments down there is someone posting: "You’re both right. However OPs post is more useful than yours. By now, everyone knows about climate change. But I assume most didn’t know the fact about the pine trees in this area. Nowadays it’s much more about how we deal with climate change and not so much about the fact that there is human made climate change" Thank you for proving that there are, in fact, still climate change deniers even here on hacker news. I'm assuming you're a climate change denier. You don't say so outright, but "Green policies forbid those actions nowadays" is a bit of a dogwhistle that you oppose environmental protection regulations broadly (not merely overzealous ones that have side-effects that make combating certain types of wildfires harder in certain situations), and: "Also, if we talk about past centuries, temperatures used to be higher during early middle age and before. These high temperatures are nothing new in terms of historical forest. Also, looking at the statistics, we’re probably at the bottom number of wildfires per area in the last 70-80 years, while total forest mass has probably increased around 40-50%." Well... that's pretty close to just coming out and saying you don't believe in climate science. This truly is the least intelligent timeline.
    - haaz 2mo ago
      [flagged]
    - bluebarbet 2mo ago
      These factual corrections are warranted. But IMO the accusations of dog-whistling and wrongthink are unnecessary and counterproductive. Again: I agree with you on the substance! And this probably is a climate denier. But (1) that's not very interesting in itself, and (2) by adopting an accusatory tone we're just going to push them and their sympathizers into a posture of defensiveness and victimhood which will only worsen the polarization and make the whole problem even harder to solve than it already is. IMO, on this issue it's best just to stick doggedly to factual correction and avoid the temptation to police people's inner minds.
      - cassepipe 2mo ago
        On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand I think this is highly idealistic: Most people would have a hard time debating a flat-earther since it's their hobby and they master all the talking points whereas you spent maximum one hour even thinking about it in the last 10 years. They will get you in a dark forest of details you don't know how to navigate and win the argument. I am so sorry for the one in a million crackpot-sounding genius that will get hurt in the process but social shunning is just so so much more effective. No wonder the crackpots and grifters are back and running the show nowadays I think a better approach is to ask people who have contrarian/non-consensual opinions to show that they know that they are crackpots out and to distance themselves from them: "I know some people come up with conspiracy theories that says climate is a hoax designed to control populations because they don't want to change anything in their way of life but that's not what I am. I just care about the science and I think I found a real flaw in the leading explanation of climate change. I'd love for someone with knowledge about to discuss it with me to see if they took X into account" etc. This above is what I expect but if you quack like a quack, you're probably a quack and you'll get the social shunning treatment
- sandworm101 2mo ago
  Decades ago i was a big wall rock climber. We would often see old photos of mountains and cliffs and remark "where are the trees?" Areas we knew to be covered in forrest were bare only a century ago. This wasnt logging (climbing areas are too rugged to be logged bare.) There were just fewer trees. The general assumption was CO2. The combination of longer growing seasons and more plant food (co2) may mean there are simply more trees.
  - Earw0rm 2mo ago
    The timing is curious to me. Atmospheric CO2 didn't really start picking up bigtime until 1970, and trees, even fast growing pines, take decades to grow.
reco98gg 2mo ago
You may be absolutely right about the OP, I cannot know. Still, I believe it is important to highlight the elephant in the room first. For example to your point: "I still found it interesting to kmow why this fire seems so bad compared to [...] before", I think it is important to state: "because global warming is getting worse over time". Not because pine trees, which have been around for a long time, and have never burned so badly.
- yoghurtwere 2mo ago
  > Not because pine trees, which have been around for a long time, and have never burned so badly. Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire
  - reco98gg 2mo ago
    I responded to this elsewhere on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49065156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49065156 Basically they had no way to fight those fires at the time, as the article explains.
    - applepearlime 2mo ago
      I can't say that I buy your argument. Either way, firebreaks and green firebreaks seem like they could be a reasonable mitigation approach, whatever the overall causes. Does anyone here know whether the Landes forest has good firebreaks? If not, does anyone here know why? I failed to find anything about it online.
      - cindyllm 2mo ago
        [dead]
      - gabaix 2mo ago
        I grew up there. I used to bike along stretches of firebreaks between plots. These firebreaks are nowhere nearly enough. Trees are young, pine needles spread everywhere, and ground is sandy. The forest is a giant tinderbox.

markdown 2mo ago

The pine forests have been there for centuries, so it being pine is no explanation at all for why it's burning so badly now.

AlecSchueler 2mo ago
They've actually been there for less than two centuries, just to be pedantic.
applepearlime 2mo ago
But one pine forest in France has burned badly in the past as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire Did you check for forest fires in the past?
superfrank 2mo ago
It's not, but the original comment never claimed that it was. There have been 4 or 5 pretty massive wildfires in France that I can remember in the last 5 years, but this is the first time they've had to deal with pyrocumulonimbus caused by a wildfire. Global warming was likely a contributing factor for all of those fires, but global warming alone doesn't explain why this one is different. The first comment about the pine isn't answering "why is this happening now?", it answers the question, "why is this fire so much worse?"
tirant 2mo ago
I come from the Mediterranean region and locally we know many explanations for that. Many of those pine forests are relatively new. Pine trees burn frequently, around every 20-30 years. In the past they used to be mixed with many other original trees, but during the recent century reforestation, pines were planted as the single tree species, making fires more prone to happen and more easily to spread. In the past, way more population lived next to the forests, where lumber used to be part of their income, so trees were frequently cut, forests maintained and shepherds would bring their sheep to feed from forest lower plants. All of that is gone. In the past, locals used to be able to build firewalls, clean forests and fight fire with fire (provoking small controlled wildfires to stop the big ones). Green policies forbid those actions nowadays. Also, if we talk about past centuries, temperatures used to be higher during early middle age and before. These high temperatures are nothing new in terms of historical forest. Also, looking at the statistics, we’re probably at the bottom number of wildfires per area in the last 70-80 years, while total forest mass has probably increased around 40-50%.
- mctaylor 2mo ago
  I love how four comments down there is someone posting: "You’re both right. However OPs post is more useful than yours. By now, everyone knows about climate change. But I assume most didn’t know the fact about the pine trees in this area. Nowadays it’s much more about how we deal with climate change and not so much about the fact that there is human made climate change" Thank you for proving that there are, in fact, still climate change deniers even here on hacker news. I'm assuming you're a climate change denier. You don't say so outright, but "Green policies forbid those actions nowadays" is a bit of a dogwhistle that you oppose environmental protection regulations broadly (not merely overzealous ones that have side-effects that make combating certain types of wildfires harder in certain situations), and: "Also, if we talk about past centuries, temperatures used to be higher during early middle age and before. These high temperatures are nothing new in terms of historical forest. Also, looking at the statistics, we’re probably at the bottom number of wildfires per area in the last 70-80 years, while total forest mass has probably increased around 40-50%." Well... that's pretty close to just coming out and saying you don't believe in climate science. This truly is the least intelligent timeline.
  - haaz 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - bluebarbet 2mo ago
    These factual corrections are warranted. But IMO the accusations of dog-whistling and wrongthink are unnecessary and counterproductive. Again: I agree with you on the substance! And this probably is a climate denier. But (1) that's not very interesting in itself, and (2) by adopting an accusatory tone we're just going to push them and their sympathizers into a posture of defensiveness and victimhood which will only worsen the polarization and make the whole problem even harder to solve than it already is. IMO, on this issue it's best just to stick doggedly to factual correction and avoid the temptation to police people's inner minds.
    - cassepipe 2mo ago
      On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand I think this is highly idealistic: Most people would have a hard time debating a flat-earther since it's their hobby and they master all the talking points whereas you spent maximum one hour even thinking about it in the last 10 years. They will get you in a dark forest of details you don't know how to navigate and win the argument. I am so sorry for the one in a million crackpot-sounding genius that will get hurt in the process but social shunning is just so so much more effective. No wonder the crackpots and grifters are back and running the show nowadays I think a better approach is to ask people who have contrarian/non-consensual opinions to show that they know that they are crackpots out and to distance themselves from them: "I know some people come up with conspiracy theories that says climate is a hoax designed to control populations because they don't want to change anything in their way of life but that's not what I am. I just care about the science and I think I found a real flaw in the leading explanation of climate change. I'd love for someone with knowledge about to discuss it with me to see if they took X into account" etc. This above is what I expect but if you quack like a quack, you're probably a quack and you'll get the social shunning treatment
sandworm101 2mo ago
Decades ago i was a big wall rock climber. We would often see old photos of mountains and cliffs and remark "where are the trees?" Areas we knew to be covered in forrest were bare only a century ago. This wasnt logging (climbing areas are too rugged to be logged bare.) There were just fewer trees. The general assumption was CO2. The combination of longer growing seasons and more plant food (co2) may mean there are simply more trees.
- Earw0rm 2mo ago
  The timing is curious to me. Atmospheric CO2 didn't really start picking up bigtime until 1970, and trees, even fast growing pines, take decades to grow.

reco98gg 2mo ago

You may be absolutely right about the OP, I cannot know. Still, I believe it is important to highlight the elephant in the room first. For example to your point: "I still found it interesting to kmow why this fire seems so bad compared to [...] before", I think it is important to state: "because global warming is getting worse over time". Not because pine trees, which have been around for a long time, and have never burned so badly.

yoghurtwere 2mo ago
> Not because pine trees, which have been around for a long time, and have never burned so badly. Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Landes_forest_fire
- reco98gg 2mo ago
  I responded to this elsewhere on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49065156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49065156 Basically they had no way to fight those fires at the time, as the article explains.
  - applepearlime 2mo ago
    I can't say that I buy your argument. Either way, firebreaks and green firebreaks seem like they could be a reasonable mitigation approach, whatever the overall causes. Does anyone here know whether the Landes forest has good firebreaks? If not, does anyone here know why? I failed to find anything about it online.
    - cindyllm 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - gabaix 2mo ago
      I grew up there. I used to bike along stretches of firebreaks between plots. These firebreaks are nowhere nearly enough. Trees are young, pine needles spread everywhere, and ground is sandy. The forest is a giant tinderbox.