Wildfires must be considered 'natural' carbon dioxide emitters & are often the way many plant species propagate. The Forest Service knows how 'unnatural' it is to fire suppress forests. Forests will burn off in superfires despite best efforts to stop fires. Don't let guilt over man-made pollutions, force measures on nature that aren't 'natural'.

@ Nick -

you're quite right, smaller forest fires (e.g. controlled burns) lead to a temporary release of CO2. After ~20 years, the affected area recovers, i.e. during that time it absorbs much of the CO2 initially released. Climate changes occur on scales of many decades to centuries, so the net effect of these types of fires is usually negligible.

Of course, the rate at which carbon is re-sequestered as living biomass depends on the predominant tree species. Old-growth temperate rainforest (e.g. coastal redwoods, giant sequoias) can take centuries to recover. Logging or fires on a sufficiently large scale could have an impact, though it would be almost impossible to isolate it from that of other sources.

Very large and very hot fires can also damage the ecosystem so severely that topsoil erosion occurs before the root systems of pioneer plants can once again anchor it in place. Once the topsoil is gone or depleted (cp. slash-and-burn deforestation in the tropics, or overgrazing in medieval Spain), the forest cannot recover and re-sequestration cannot occur.

This is yet another reason why those opposing controlled burns on the grounds of air quality (actually, the falling value of their real estate) are making things worse for everyone. Decades of active fire suppression are now coming back to haunt the American West. It would be appropriate for e.g. the State of California to invoke eminent domain to counter lawsuits against controlled burns.

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying litesong but with human alteration of landscapes, fire regimes and climate, it is increasingly difficult to follow a 'natural' pattern of burning.

From my understanding here in Australia, the Californian fires have been accompanied by extreme drought and unusual weather conditions. Whether these conditions are natural or not is up to the climate scientists and meteorologists to decide.

This year California fires were discussed on Climataudit.org :

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2268#comments

Couple of comments could be of interest:

Jeez says: “…every single year you hear this:
1. If it was a below average rainfall winter.
“The lack of rain will lead to dryer brush and a bad fire season”
2. If it was an above average rainfall winter.
“All this rain will lead to an excess of brush and a bad fire season”

John Baltutis says: “… the enviros … make it nearly impossible, because of draconian “protect the environment and nonhuman species” laws, to cut down brush and clear forests and wooded areas, especially in the numerous canyons that permeate this county. The canyons are where the fires act like blowtorches: Santa Ana winds and ample fuel. The 2003 fires destroyed over 3,000 homes four-years ago, this year’s fires destroyed almost 1,300”

Ed says: “In San Diego we have, have had, and will have a repeating pattern. Fuel accumulates over time, faster when there is above average rainfall and slower when there is little rainfall. When there is enough fuel and the right weather, everything burns and the cycle resets. This isn’t going to change. More rainfall would probably make the fires less frequent and much larger. The only scenario I can envision with no fires is no rain at all.”
“San Diego is covered by a network of canyons. These have steep sides and tend to channel wind creating a natural furnace. They are difficult to build in so developers, when required to provide open space, designate the canyons. The result is fire pathways that interlock with housing like fingers. These are pervasive which is why a brush fire can burn through the city all the way to the coast.
Once canyons are designated open space, they can’t be cleared and must remain in the natural state. Unfortunately their natural state is to burn periodically.”

"Unfortunately their natural state is to burn periodically.”

Yes, this is the bottom line.
But what struck me was that US fires emit ONLY 4-6% of the CO2 that fossil fuel use does. That kind of margin is well within everyones near term target for vehicle fuel efficiency improvements. Here in Oregon this issue is the latest fear tactic used as an excuse to "manage" (liquidate) public forests. It is a red herring, most of these emissions should be considered baseline levels. Whatever increase in fire emissions that has occurred is largely unknown. The Command and Control paradigm of forest management would have us believe that cutting old growth reserves is necesary to combat global climate change. This farce is similar to the public subsidies corn producers get for ethanol production.

I'm interested in this topic and recent articles on carbon emissions from decaying forests, such as those damaged by Katrina around LA. I have 36 acres (in the northeast US) and got into a discussion about burning brush vs. dragging it into the woods to decay. My argument is that burning brush causes un-necesary carbon emissions, the rebuttal was that carbon will be emitted during brush decay anyhow. Of course, most decay would occur in the summer when the leaf canopy would be most actively taking up carbon. Does anyone have a more informed opinion than my speculations? (In addition, nitrogen would be recycled by dragging brush onto the forest floor.)