Earlier this year, a series of forest fires on the coast of Greece killed 99 people. Then in July 2018, smoke from fires in Russia reached North America.
Some people might view the order of events as ordinary. But when the fires multiplied in all the world, there were also questions and misunderstandings about them.
Here are five common myths about forest fires - some of which can damage your success in fighting them.
The general assumption is that logging, or removing many trees, will counteract fires. Many experienced forestries write ineffective logging.
This is because the remaining trees after logging, like stumps and twigs, become super-user fuel for fires - which are even drier (and easier to burn) without a forest canopy.
There are not a few scientific propositions that support this claim. For example, new research indicates that the severity of fuel wants to be higher in areas with more senior management levels.
Experiences working in the field of fire conservation have also broken the argument that logging protects species that are in danger of becoming extinct from forest fires, a general discussion that supports the removal of trees.
It seems that animals like iconic owls still use it from the burning forest, and the removal of trees can hurt them.
Logging after a fire is counterproductive and can result in fewer fires. A different practice is to clean all areas of the forest, a common approach used by firefighters to ward off spread fire.
Forest fires are the most powerful and threatening, but the location of living stairs can minimize their risk by taking anticipatory measures at home. The building itself must be the first concern. Houses with fireproof roofs have more opportunities to survive the flames. The owner must also remove materials that are quickly burned from the structure, classified as leaves in gutters and roof lines.
Families can create a 'defense zone' between the location of their residence and the surrounding wilderness. This means washing everything that can burn, like a brush, dry leaves and wood piles within 30 feet (9 m) of a residential building. That's why currently many casino shifting to online mode like agen sbobet, so they didn't worries about fire in their building, maybe only for the server security, but usually there is a special treatment for server location.
When the distance is 30-100 feet (9-30m) from the house, the tree must have a large gap between the canopy - 12 feet (3.6 m) of space between the peaks between 30-60 feet (9-18m) from the house, and 6 feet (1.8 m) of use space tops that are 60 feet (18 m).
This disrupts the fire path and slows down the pace.
Forest fires are natural phenomena, but the level and intensity that occurs when this is not - and among the effects of climate evolution.
We witnessed more and fewer fires between 1930 and 1980, a period that coincided with a cooler and humid situation.
But because the climate has become hotter and drier in the past four decades, the number of fires has increased. Only in the two years between 1980 and 1999 did forest fires burn more than 6 million acres (2.4 million hectares) of US wilderness.
But between 2000 and 2017, there were ten years with land burning above that threshold. Globally, the duration of the fire season increased by almost 19% between 1978 and 2013.
Even though we cannot indicate climate change as the cause of a particular fire, it affects the factors that help trigger and spread fires, such as large droughts, high temperatures, low humidity, and strong winds.
As a result, all scientists wrote that the addition of forest fires in all the world, from Siberia to Portugal, was related to climate evolution.
Fires have played a crucial role in the ecosystem around thousands of years, and life has developed after a fire broke out:
Some beetles breed solely in the heat of a fire, pine cones sprout with periodic fires and washing space from burning trees makes it possible for new plants in the spring.
The uses that not a few people now expect to be reached by logging or forest management - the introduction of dense forests are naturally carried out by forest fires.
Fire routinely engulfs smaller branches and trees, eliminating forests that would otherwise not be useful as fuel.
By fighting endless forest fires about centuries ago, you have counteracted this 'cleansing': not enough of 1% of US fires were ignored.
This strategy works better when there are not many forest fires - but in our current fanatical condition, pumping less money to fight fires may have a reduced rate of return.
As we have seen, climate evolution, in addition to other factors such as the increasingly widespread human settlements, is thought to increase forest fires, especially at the upper-middle latitudes, in the coming decades.
The tropics may feel a decline in fires, which is a relief for countries around the equator. But the element of the world is different having to deal with the addition of the number of events.
Some fires, like California's wildfires, are too fast to handle. Evacuation and relocation is the only reasonable response.
This leads to the question of whether a community like Paradise, which is almost destroyed by fire, must remain in their location - or move to another location.
Some experience calls for a return to traditional knowledge to deal with the fire. Because efforts to burn fire appear to be inadequate - and the cause of fires is likely only to increase severely - that is the question that all policymakers must face.
These are many words commonly referred to as describe Antarctica, but the area is not just that.
There is a period where vast land in the southern element of the Earth is filled with forests and dinosaurs live freely.
But how can the wilderness with the ice mound have warm weather and support the life of this very large Earth creature?
To understand it, you must witness geological time. Antarctica is an ice-free region in the Cretaceous period, which stretched from 145 to 66 million years ago.
This period maybe very strange, but we can find out because this is the last period of the dinosaurs before the asteroids fell to Earth and burned them.
At this time, there was wilderness on two bodies of the Earth. The fossils of cold-blooded trees and reptiles that were found allowed all researchers to build a reflection of how the climate of those days.
Cold-blooded reptiles need warmth to survive; now we see them basking in the heat of the sun to warm themselves during the day. The importance is warm enough for them to survive in the dark
Scientists also use fossils of shelled animals that live in the sea that have the name foraminifera to know the past climate.
By examining the chemical elements in the shell and understanding the age intervals when the species are living opposite, they can obtain estimates of seawater temperature in that period.
Dr. Brian Huber of The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History investigated the Cretaceous period with special concentration at as many points in the deep sea during Antarctica.
He explained; "Foraminifera gives the best data because you can have both. Living things that live on the seabed live in sediments and record the temperature of the seabed, and then you get planktonic which lives in the top fifty meters of the ocean that records atmospheric temperatures.
"When we pair these records all the time and research shells from many parts of the ocean in all the world, we get the best proposal about climate change."
Huber explained that what they found in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica had been challenging to rely on because it was too warm; "We are pursuing temperatures of 30C at 58 degrees south," close to the Antarctic Circle.
This high temperature occurs around the middle of the Cretaceous, known as the 'Cretaceous Hothouse' - the location effect of staying hot glass caused by the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But what happened in the Cretaceous period to the point where trees and dinosaurs roamed Antarctica were not like barren ice fields today?
Huber explained; "What you know about the mid-Cretaceous in particular is that you have a much faster rate of seafloor spread and fewer CO2 volcanic sources."
Huber and his colleagues are still investigating whether 'greenhouses' occur as a result of large volcanic eruptions that produce CO2 and make blankets the location of glass that warms the earth.
We all know that climate evolution has happened in the past, changes have taken place now and that will happen in the future, but what is the opposite of what you and I are doing now is compared with what happened in the past? Could Antarctica be a location without ice anymore?
"(Current climate change) is truly unprecedented, both in terms of speed and extent, compared to the geological events that you know from the past."
"We are releasing hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere only in several decades. Volcanoes cannot produce the amount of CO2 in such short periods even if it is a large volcano," Huber said.
Regarding the future, Huber suggested; "I think what you will see in many decades, or perhaps centuries ahead, is what is called the flow of ice that begins to flow faster and can become West Antarctica especially starting to feel degradation."
"Given the rate of ice flow, you will not see [the whole] the Antarctic deteriorate in the next few decades."
Glaciologists estimate that once sea level rises, we begin to witness positive feedback where ice can flow faster, and sea levels rise faster, so it goes on. So yes I think the signs are already there. "
Dinosaurs no longer roam Antarctica again, but you can't rule it out, that Antarctica will be free of ice in the future. And you don't have the technique to understand how it feels for humans because we have never lived on Earth compilation there is no ice on the pole.