Huh wild. I guess I have heard about redwood trees surviving forest fires, so that makes some sense, but man those’d be some big fires.
I think it’s the other way around: If your forest is burning every 20 years then the fire is relatively minor. There’s much less accumulated fuel so it won’t burn as hot or be as destructive as we see now.
That makes more sense—there would be more land on fire, but the fires would be weak fires, not the destructive fires that we’re getting now.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Huh wild. I guess I have heard about redwood trees surviving forest fires, so that makes some sense, but man those’d be some big fires.
I think it’s the other way around: If your forest is burning every 20 years then the fire is relatively minor. There’s much less accumulated fuel so it won’t burn as hot or be as destructive as we see now.
That makes more sense—there would be more land on fire, but the fires would be weak fires, not the destructive fires that we’re getting now.