http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...183125,00.html

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer

Sunday, February 16, 2003 - The worst is yet to come for fire-prone
areas of the Rocky Mountain West, the nation's top fire historian
says.
But forest thinning and restoration programs are helping Westerners
rethink their uneasy relationship with one of nature's most
spectacular and important ecologic processes.

"I think it's probably working its way out," said Arizona State
University professor Stephen Pyne at a symposium on the role of
science in ecosystem management in the American West.

"Lots of communities are already taking steps to reduce fire danger in
their neighborhoods. We're watching the crest of this wave, and the
next five or six years will see the worst of it. Then I think we'll
increasingly see people start to view fire as a routine problem
instead of a crisis."

But like the other speakers on the panel at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, Pyne agreed that
Westerners have a rough road in front of them.

"We don't have one fire problem in the West; we have many fire
problems in the West," said Pyne, a Fulbright scholar whose books have
made him among the most respected experts on the relationship between
people and wildfire.

Climate change will bring warmer weather and frequent droughts to the
already dry West, amplifying fire cycles and overwhelming federal and
state programs designed to limit the danger to rural residents, said
University of Idaho professor Penelope Morgan.

While the cause of climate change is still debated in political
circles, Morgan is among the majority of scientists who believe the
fossil fuel economy is making it worse.

"Human-induced climate change is very real and will have a major
impact on fires," said Morgan, who pointed to one study that showed
Canada has already experienced a dramatic surge in acreage burned
during the past few decades, which have been the warmest in the past
1,000 years.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

But fires themselves are the product of complex interaction among
precipitation, forest growth, wind and human activities.

National firefighting policies have largely eliminated the small- and
medium-sized fires that used to clean out dead and downed wood during
presettlement times, Morgan said. Those policies set the stage for the
spectacular conflagrations that have hit the West roughly every two
years since Yellowstone burned in 1988.

"One of the most interesting paradoxes is once we suppress a fire, the
next one often burns more intensely," Morgan added.

Wildfires are only one contact point in the slow-motion collision
between society's demands and ecological reality in the arid West,
said Gary Machlis, a senior scientist with the National Park Service.
But the intensity and frequency of big fires has made them a major
political issue.

Adapting to the environmental limits is a process that will bring
disruption and dislocation, Machlis said.

"We may be in one of those exceedingly brief periods in history which
will influence future natural resource policies for a very long time,"
he added.

University of Colorado historian Patricia Limerick said scientists can
help society change gears by providing policymakers with a range of
options that show the true costs and benefits of their actions.

"When shifting paradigms, it's important to use the clutch," Limerick
observed.

One of the dangers confronting policymakers is the temptation to look
for simplistic solutions to complicated problems, said University of
Washington professor Jerry Franklin, who conducted pioneering ecologic
studies following the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 and the
Yellowstone fires of 1988.

For example, thinning to reduce fire danger may be smart policy for
ponderosa pine systems, but not high-elevation forests.

And he criticized a Bush administration plan to let loggers cut big
trees in payment for thinning forests.

"That's like saying you have to destroy the village in order to save
it," Franklin said. "It's absolutely inappropriate."

(Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message . com...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...183125,00.html

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
[snip]
One of the dangers confronting policymakers is the temptation to look
for simplistic solutions to complicated problems, said University of
Washington professor Jerry Franklin, who conducted pioneering ecologic
studies following the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 and the
Yellowstone fires of 1988.

For example, thinning to reduce fire danger may be smart policy for
ponderosa pine systems, but not high-elevation forests.

And he criticized a Bush administration plan to let loggers cut big
trees in payment for thinning forests.

"That's like saying you have to destroy the village in order to save
it," Franklin said. "It's absolutely inappropriate."

It's nice to have someone who actually knows about forests commenting
on the current madministration's policies regarding forestry.

Our current presentdent cuts a 30-foot tall scrub oak on his Texas
property and presumes all forests react the same way as his.

Evidently this mind-set applies to foreign policy as well. After
spending some $200 billion on the "War on Terrorism" without getting
either Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, there is some question in my
mind at least how much of everyone else's money he's willing to spend
to get these terrorists.

Let's see...$200 billion (to date) divided by 350 million
Americans...looks like the tax breaks he gave to big business is going
to be financed by increased taxes and less services to the rest of us.

Sounds like faulty math to me.

Regarding the Bush forestry and economic plans: George W needs to
learn that destroying a thing is not the same as managing it.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.forestry:43297 sci.environment:252469

(Donald L Ferrt) writes:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...183125,00.html

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer

The problem with journalists is that they are too stupid or ignorant to
say anything intelligent.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

See what I mean?

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
(Donald L Ferrt) writes:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...1183125,00.htm
l

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer

The problem with journalists is that they are too stupid or ignorant
to
say anything intelligent.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

See what I mean?

No! That was said by Arizona State University professor Stephen
Pyne. It was only reported by the Stein, and I have no reason to
believe inaccurately. The sooner you face up to the fact that GW
is happening, then perhaps you will be able to read what is written,
not what your blind prejudice would prefer to see.

Cheers, Alastair.


Would you like to expand on your thoughts

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Donald L Ferrt) wrote in message . com...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...183125,00.html

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer


......

National firefighting policies have largely eliminated the small- and
medium-sized fires that used to clean out dead and downed wood during
presettlement times, Morgan said. Those policies set the stage for the
spectacular conflagrations that have hit the West roughly every two
years since Yellowstone burned in 1988.


......

It should be pointed out that fire-suppression policies did not
play a major role in the Yellowstone fires. Most of the forest
that burned there was high-elevation lodgepole pine or mixed
lodgepole-pine/subalpine-fire forest. Infrequent, high-intensity
crown fires are the norm there.

Lodgepole pines have evolved a "burn hotter than hell and
incinerate the competition, then grow back real fast"
wildfire strategy.

In Yellowstone, the lodgepoles are growing back like crazy
in the burned-over areas, and are doing so without the assistance
of timber-industry "stewardship".

(Alastair McDonald) writes:
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message

The problem with journalists is that they are too stupid or ignorant
to
say anything intelligent.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

See what I mean?

No! That was said by Arizona State University professor Stephen
Pyne. It was only reported by the Stein, and I have no reason to
believe inaccurately. The sooner you face up to the fact that GW
is happening, then perhaps you will be able to read what is written,
not what your blind prejudice would prefer to see.

Where did the global warming crap come in? The recent catastrophic fires
in the West were not caused by global warming, they were caused by
overcrowded and dying forests. The entire West, except a thin band along
the coast, gets dry enough to burn every year, and always has. The
problem is becoming extreme because the American public despises the land
and refuses to care for it. The vast public holdings in the west are
treated by political spoils by whichever party wins the most recent
election.

Whomever this ASU prof is, he was either misquoted or he is an ignorant
idiot. Whichever the case, the statement is false.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:33 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

(Alastair McDonald) writes:
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message

The problem with journalists is that they are too stupid or ignorant
to
say anything intelligent.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

See what I mean?

No! That was said by Arizona State University professor Stephen
Pyne. It was only reported by the Stein, and I have no reason to
believe inaccurately. The sooner you face up to the fact that GW
is happening, then perhaps you will be able to read what is written,
not what your blind prejudice would prefer to see.

Where did the global warming crap come in? The recent catastrophic fires
in the West were not caused by global warming, they were caused by
overcrowded and dying forests. The entire West, except a thin band along
the coast, gets dry enough to burn every year, and always has. The
problem is becoming extreme because the American public despises the land
and refuses to care for it. The vast public holdings in the west are
treated by political spoils by whichever party wins the most recent
election.

Whomever this ASU prof is, he was either misquoted or he is an ignorant
idiot. Whichever the case, the statement is false.

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but they
are not, EVER, the cause.

(David Ball) writes:

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but they
are not, EVER, the cause.

You have a pretty narrow version of causality there, David. If forest
fires are caused by lighting or carelessness, why don't we have forest
fires in the winter?

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(caerbannog) writes:

It should be pointed out that fire-suppression policies did not
play a major role in the Yellowstone fires. Most of the forest
that burned there was high-elevation lodgepole pine or mixed
lodgepole-pine/subalpine-fire forest. Infrequent, high-intensity
crown fires are the norm there.

You are mistaken. Yellowstone is the result of decades of fire
suppression. The big Yellowstone fire was an exception. The park
management was concerned about fuel loads, so decided to let it burn. It
got away from them, and the result made national headlines.

Lodgepole pines have evolved a "burn hotter than hell and
incinerate the competition, then grow back real fast"
wildfire strategy.

Just about the whole West enjoys a fire climax ecology of some sort.

In Yellowstone, the lodgepoles are growing back like crazy
in the burned-over areas, and are doing so without the assistance
of timber-industry "stewardship".

Time to burn them again, before they build up another huge fuel load.
Lodgepole will sprout thick as the hair on a dog. Most of them need to
be killed off.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...183125,00.html

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer

Sunday, February 16, 2003 - The worst is yet to come for fire-prone
areas of the Rocky Mountain West, the nation's top fire historian
says.
But forest thinning and restoration programs are helping Westerners
rethink their uneasy relationship with one of nature's most
spectacular and important ecologic processes.

"I think it's probably working its way out," said Arizona State
University professor Stephen Pyne at a symposium on the role of
science in ecosystem management in the American West.

"Lots of communities are already taking steps to reduce fire danger in
their neighborhoods. We're watching the crest of this wave, and the
next five or six years will see the worst of it. Then I think we'll
increasingly see people start to view fire as a routine problem
instead of a crisis."

But like the other speakers on the panel at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, Pyne agreed that
Westerners have a rough road in front of them.

"We don't have one fire problem in the West; we have many fire
problems in the West," said Pyne, a Fulbright scholar whose books have
made him among the most respected experts on the relationship between
people and wildfire.

Climate change will bring warmer weather and frequent droughts to the
already dry West, amplifying fire cycles and overwhelming federal and
state programs designed to limit the danger to rural residents, said
University of Idaho professor Penelope Morgan.

While the cause of climate change is still debated in political
circles, Morgan is among the majority of scientists who believe the
fossil fuel economy is making it worse.

"Human-induced climate change is very real and will have a major
impact on fires," said Morgan, who pointed to one study that showed
Canada has already experienced a dramatic surge in acreage burned
during the past few decades, which have been the warmest in the past
1,000 years.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

But fires themselves are the product of complex interaction among
precipitation, forest growth, wind and human activities.

National firefighting policies have largely eliminated the small- and
medium-sized fires that used to clean out dead and downed wood during
presettlement times, Morgan said. Those policies set the stage for the
spectacular conflagrations that have hit the West roughly every two
years since Yellowstone burned in 1988.

"One of the most interesting paradoxes is once we suppress a fire, the
next one often burns more intensely," Morgan added.

Wildfires are only one contact point in the slow-motion collision
between society's demands and ecological reality in the arid West,
said Gary Machlis, a senior scientist with the National Park Service.
But the intensity and frequency of big fires has made them a major
political issue.

Adapting to the environmental limits is a process that will bring
disruption and dislocation, Machlis said.

"We may be in one of those exceedingly brief periods in history which
will influence future natural resource policies for a very long time,"
he added.

University of Colorado historian Patricia Limerick said scientists can
help society change gears by providing policymakers with a range of
options that show the true costs and benefits of their actions.

"When shifting paradigms, it's important to use the clutch," Limerick
observed.

One of the dangers confronting policymakers is the temptation to look
for simplistic solutions to complicated problems, said University of
Washington professor Jerry Franklin, who conducted pioneering ecologic
studies following the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 and the
Yellowstone fires of 1988.

For example, thinning to reduce fire danger may be smart policy for
ponderosa pine systems, but not high-elevation forests.

And he criticized a Bush administration plan to let loggers cut big
trees in payment for thinning forests.

"That's like saying you have to destroy the village in order to save
it," Franklin said. "It's absolutely inappropriate."
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
...
(Alastair McDonald) writes:
"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message

The problem with journalists is that they are too stupid or ignorant
to
say anything intelligent.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

See what I mean?

No! That was said by Arizona State University professor Stephen
Pyne. It was only reported by the Stein, and I have no reason to
believe inaccurately. The sooner you face up to the fact that GW
is happening, then perhaps you will be able to read what is written,
not what your blind prejudice would prefer to see.

Where did the global warming crap come in? The recent catastrophic fires
in the West were not caused by global warming, they were caused by
overcrowded and dying forests. The entire West, except a thin band along
the coast, gets dry enough to burn every year, and always has. The
problem is becoming extreme because the American public despises the land
and refuses to care for it. The vast public holdings in the west are
treated by political spoils by whichever party wins the most recent
election.

So it is the politicians who are burning the forests. Perhaps you should
read what was written again.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...183125,00.html

Worst ahead for fires in West
Experts: Complex factors at work
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Environment Writer

Sunday, February 16, 2003 - The worst is yet to come for fire-prone
areas of the Rocky Mountain West, the nation's top fire historian
says.
But forest thinning and restoration programs are helping Westerners
rethink their uneasy relationship with one of nature's most
spectacular and important ecologic processes.

"I think it's probably working its way out," said Arizona State
University professor Stephen Pyne at a symposium on the role of
science in ecosystem management in the American West.

"Lots of communities are already taking steps to reduce fire danger in
their neighborhoods. We're watching the crest of this wave, and the
next five or six years will see the worst of it. Then I think we'll
increasingly see people start to view fire as a routine problem
instead of a crisis."

But like the other speakers on the panel at the American Association
for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, Pyne agreed that
Westerners have a rough road in front of them.

"We don't have one fire problem in the West; we have many fire
problems in the West," said Pyne, a Fulbright scholar whose books have
made him among the most respected experts on the relationship between
people and wildfire.

Climate change will bring warmer weather and frequent droughts to the
already dry West, amplifying fire cycles and overwhelming federal and
state programs designed to limit the danger to rural residents, said
University of Idaho professor Penelope Morgan.

While the cause of climate change is still debated in political
circles, Morgan is among the majority of scientists who believe the
fossil fuel economy is making it worse.

"Human-induced climate change is very real and will have a major
impact on fires," said Morgan, who pointed to one study that showed
Canada has already experienced a dramatic surge in acreage burned
during the past few decades, which have been the warmest in the past
1,000 years.

The underlying reason the West burns so furiously is simple: Forests
become choked with flammable debris because it's too cold or too dry
for the dead wood and downed trees to rot.

But fires themselves are the product of complex interaction among
precipitation, forest growth, wind and human activities.

National firefighting policies have largely eliminated the small- and
medium-sized fires that used to clean out dead and downed wood during
presettlement times, Morgan said. Those policies set the stage for the
spectacular conflagrations that have hit the West roughly every two
years since Yellowstone burned in 1988.

"One of the most interesting paradoxes is once we suppress a fire, the
next one often burns more intensely," Morgan added.

Wildfires are only one contact point in the slow-motion collision
between society's demands and ecological reality in the arid West,
said Gary Machlis, a senior scientist with the National Park Service.
But the intensity and frequency of big fires has made them a major
political issue.

Adapting to the environmental limits is a process that will bring
disruption and dislocation, Machlis said.

"We may be in one of those exceedingly brief periods in history which
will influence future natural resource policies for a very long time,"
he added.

University of Colorado historian Patricia Limerick said scientists can
help society change gears by providing policymakers with a range of
options that show the true costs and benefits of their actions.

"When shifting paradigms, it's important to use the clutch," Limerick
observed.

One of the dangers confronting policymakers is the temptation to look
for simplistic solutions to complicated problems, said University of
Washington professor Jerry Franklin, who conducted pioneering ecologic
studies following the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 and the
Yellowstone fires of 1988.

For example, thinning to reduce fire danger may be smart policy for
ponderosa pine systems, but not high-elevation forests.

And he criticized a Bush administration plan to let loggers cut big
trees in payment for thinning forests.

"That's like saying you have to destroy the village in order to save
it," Franklin said. "It's absolutely inappropriate."


Whomever this ASU prof is, he was either misquoted or he is an ignorant
idiot. Whichever the case, the statement is false.

He is a Fulbright scholar, and he is backed up by Professor Penelope
Morgan, Professor Jerry Franklin, and Gary Machlis, a senior scientist with
the National Park Service. I don't think it is Stein who is the ignorant
idiot! I can think of one or TWO others!

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:34:14 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

(David Ball) writes:

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but they
are not, EVER, the cause.

You have a pretty narrow version of causality there, David. If forest
fires are caused by lighting or carelessness, why don't we have forest
fires in the winter?

I have a pretty accurate version of causality. Kindly show me,
Larry, how to start a fire just by putting wood into a pile?

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
(David Ball) writes:

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but they
are not, EVER, the cause.

You have a pretty narrow version of causality there, David. If forest
fires are caused by lighting or carelessness, why don't we have forest
fires in the winter?

Would it help if the discussion was framed in the context of 'risk'
and 'hazard', where 'risk' is the probability of ignition (e.g.
lightning or 'the match') and 'hazard' is the fuel condition or state
that MAY lead to a fire?

How might global warming affect risk and/or hazard?

Which combination of hazard and risk is likely to be most prevalent
given the effects of global warming?

1)high risk, low hazard
2)high risk, high hazard
3)low risk, low hazard
4)low risk, high hazard

What are the effects of low intensity (low hazard) fires that occur
frequently (high risk)?

What are the effects of high intensity (high hazard) fires that occur
frequently?

What are the effects of low intensity fires that occur sporadically
(low risk)?

What are the effects of high intensity fires that occur sporadically?

Finally, what would a landscape with such a fire regime look like
(ecologically as well as aesthetically), and how would such a fire
regime affect human activities (e.g. where houses get built, forest
management practices)?

Scott

"David Ball" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:34:14 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

(David Ball) writes:

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were
CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think
about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the
case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does
not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but
they
are not, EVER, the cause.

You have a pretty narrow version of causality there, David. If
forest
fires are caused by lighting or carelessness, why don't we have
forest
fires in the winter?

I have a pretty accurate version of causality. Kindly show me,
Larry, how to start a fire just by putting wood into a pile?

uh, oh.... David. Not to burst your bubble but you *can* do that. In my
hometown the used to be a large 'pit' that contained rather extensive
piles of 'sawdust'. It would catch fire at regular intervals from
'spontaneous combustion'. Just wood in a pile... ;-)

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:11:09 -0500, "Ian St. John"
wrote:


"David Ball" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:34:14 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

(David Ball) writes:

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were
CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think
about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the
case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does
not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but
they
are not, EVER, the cause.

You have a pretty narrow version of causality there, David. If
forest
fires are caused by lighting or carelessness, why don't we have
forest
fires in the winter?

I have a pretty accurate version of causality. Kindly show me,
Larry, how to start a fire just by putting wood into a pile?

uh, oh.... David. Not to burst your bubble but you *can* do that. In my
hometown the used to be a large 'pit' that contained rather extensive
piles of 'sawdust'. It would catch fire at regular intervals from
'spontaneous combustion'. Just wood in a pile... ;-)

I didn't ask you about spontaneous combustion, Larry. I asked
you to start a forest fire by piling up wood, the implication being
along the lines of the fuel loading you describe in your original
post. It would be like saying that a person dies because they fall off
a building. As the adage goes, it isn't the fall that kills, but the
sudden stop at the bottom. If falling killed, the mortality rate for
sky-divers would be rather high...like 100%. As I said in my original
reply, fuel loading will certainly exacerbate a fire, but then so will
exceptionally dry conditions. It's just that neither causes the fire.

"David Ball" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:11:09 -0500, "Ian St. John"
snip
I have a pretty accurate version of causality. Kindly show me,
Larry, how to start a fire just by putting wood into a pile?

uh, oh.... David. Not to burst your bubble but you *can* do that. In
my
hometown the used to be a large 'pit' that contained rather extensive
piles of 'sawdust'. It would catch fire at regular intervals from
'spontaneous combustion'. Just wood in a pile... ;-)

I didn't ask you about spontaneous combustion, Larry. I asked
you to start a forest fire by piling up wood, the implication being
along the lines of the fuel loading you describe in your original
post. It would be like saying that a person dies because they fall off
a building. As the adage goes, it isn't the fall that kills, but the
sudden stop at the bottom. If falling killed, the mortality rate for
sky-divers would be rather high...like 100%. As I said in my original
reply, fuel loading will certainly exacerbate a fire, but then so will
exceptionally dry conditions. It's just that neither causes the fire.


David. Lighten up a little and check the header.. You must be
overworking a bit... ;-)