Global Warming and Wildfires

I live in the Western US, where we have seen an increase in the number of wildfires, and the intensity of wildfires. Up until now, I thought most of Trump's actions were somewhat juvenile and foolish (the Wall, Islamophobia, Military Spending Increases while there is such a Deficit, etc).

The back-out of the Paris Accord changes all that. This man is my enemy, and an enemy to most American people. Majorities in 49 of the 50 states believe that Climate Change is real and caused by the activities of mankind. Now to the subject - wildfires. Huge Local, State and Federal governmental expenditures have been spent on wildfires and remediation. And this situation will probably get much worse. We may save a few billion a year, by backing out of the Paris Accord, but the future ramifications will cost much more. The cost of the Iraqi Oil War is at about $6 Trillion. Climate Change is a global problem, that requires a global solution.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...global-warming-and-wildfire.html#.WT03V5DyvIU

Higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snow-melt typically cause soils to be drier for longer, increasing the likelihood of drought and a longer wildfire season, particularly in the western United States.

These hot, dry conditions also increase the likelihood that, once wildfires are started by lightning strikes or human error, they will be more intense and long-burning.

The costs of wildfires, in terms of risks to human life and health, property damage, and state and federal dollars, are devastating, and they are only likely to increase unless we better address the risks of wildfires and reduce our activities that lead to further climate change.

Wildfires in the western United States have been increasing in frequency and duration since the mid-1980s, occurring nearly four times more often, burning more than six times the land area, and lasting almost five times as long (comparisons are between 1970-1986 and 1986-2003).

 

I sometimes wonder if the hysterical warmists are capable of actually reading and comprehension or are aware of what is not known in science. I also wonder why they take unfalsifiable conjecture as fact and always believe alarmist media.

From the paper:

"These results have important regional and global implications. Whether the changes observed in western hydroclimate and wildfire are the result of greenhouse gas–induced global warming or only an unusual natural fluctuation is beyond the scope of this work. "

I also wonder if they are aware that droughts worldwide show no trends or that basing the future on models that have no capability predicting precipitation so will always fail in that regard.

Then there is the belief that a global wealth redistribution scheme with little actual impact on temperature will somehow 'save the planet'.

I am afraid hysteria is a bigger driver of unfounded belief than reason is of founded belief.

 

The paragraph that you cited is not from the paper that I linked. As a matter-of-fact, UCS takes the opposite stance, and attributes the increase of wildfires to Global Warming. If I missed this, please point me to the paragraph number, from the paper. If not, that is pretty pathetic of you to misquote.

 

There is a link to the paper in your last paragraph.

 

The UCS article and the AAAS Science article cite the same statistics and data, showing increased incidences, increased durations, and increased intensity of wildfires. Both articles discuss climate, especially the shorter winters and early Springs. This implies that both sources agree there is warming. UCS mentions activities of mankind causing the climate change, and the AAAS Science article does not. That was not the intent of the AAAS article. It was merely to document the increases.

 

An erroneous alarmist interpretation of a paper that does not state what the article states.

 

The incidence and severity of wild fires is the result of mismanagement of the lands on which those fires take place. Fires have an important function in clearing land of flammable debris.

 

Not at all. The Union of Concerned Scientists follows the lead of the 97% of Climate Change Scientists who believe that the earth is warming, and it is due to the activities of mankind. I hardly call it alarmist, when 97% of the scientists who have studied the issue are in agreement.

Actually, it's the deniers who seem to be subscribing to a conspiracy theory that these scientists are somehow in cahoots, to maintain funding for their research. Sorry - but not 97%. And yet on these forums, the deniers are ever-so-vocal. The billions and billions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry is spending on alternative studies, well-financed misinformation groups, lobbying, and Republican political influence has you all bamboozled.

 

Yes, that's part of it. But it is wreckless and irresponsible to say that is the only criteria. If indeed, the earth is warming, it is, without a doubt, a factor. Do you agree that the earth is warming?

 

The US forest service, the BLM, and the Dept of the Interior don't agree with your statement. But hey, never let the actual facts get in the way...

 

Well, since you provided no link, I went to your actual source, the NIFC (the National Interagency Fire Center). Here's a NIFC link:

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

2015 shows over 10,000,000 acres burned, an all-time record. Looking at the chart before 2000, the average was about 3 to 3-1/2 million acres. Since 2000, the average is closer to double that! The higher overall numbers of wildfires, pre-1983, were much lower in acreage. The decrease in numbers, after that time, is inevitably due to education, awareness, and better forest management.

The telling statistic is "acreage", and I stand by the link that I provided. An out-of-control wildfire, like the ones I've been seeing lately, in Colorado, are very scary. Extreme drought and winds makes them impossible to fight, for weeks at a time.

The big question -- Do you deny that the earth is getting warmer? If the earth is getting warmer, it undoubtedly has an affect on wildfires (in the West), as it lengthens the summer season. In more humid climates, this may not be the case, as there is more rainfall in the summer. In general, the West does not see much rain from mid-summer through early Fall. I will grant, that this has always been the weather pattern in the West, and Global Warming hasn't changed that. But the extended dry season vastly increases the risk of UNCONTROLLED WILDFIRES.

 

So, two things. First, the acres burned statistic is frankly new, and is now backstopped by sat data that wasn't available previously, as are the total number of fires as reported which are generated by the same sat data. So, better info produces different data sets. It still directly refutes your assertion of more fires. Now, onto the acres burned. Prior to 2000 no actual ability of the agencies was available to produce an accurate estimate, which frankly were all those estimates ever were. Now, we can actually measure the effected areas by sat images and produce accurate data. So, there is a real question as to the veracity of your second assertion, being the intensity of fires which you don't support but assert because of the total acres burned data. As we don't have empiric data to compare, your assertion is functionally unknowable or testable. Your assertion tails.

As to whether the climate is "warming", I'd simply ask how you can tell. NOAA and NASA both reputedly offer comparisons that are well outside of the sigma of certainty, and only offer differentiation defined in hundredths of a degree F. The data simply don't support your contention or any demonstrable differentiation that would or could be defined as causal for the fires that you claim are both being driven by your notion of warming, and your own indignation.

You know what really causes forest fires? Shoddy forest management. Especially in places like CO WY and UT where the forest service failed to respond to the enormity that was the pine beetle infestation that savaged the actual forests and kill all the f'in trees out there. And now, surprise, there are millions of acres of dead trees out there waiting to burn. Stupid bureaucrats caused the thing you're whining about in the first place. Dead trees didn't happen because of any warming, it happened because bureaucrats failed in the most basic of their responsibilities, and instead of being held accountable, folks like you are doubling down on their stupidity and trying to whitewash their egregious atrocious record by blaming it all on the weather.

 

Two points:
1. One does not have to have satellite imaging to analyze burned acreage. There are many other ways to measure it. Are you doubting the data of the organization that you actually quoted to begin with?

2. If you don't agree that the earth is warming, there is no point in continuing the discussion. If I sided with the very-very small percentage of scientists that say that the earth is not warming, I would draw the same conclusions as you. But I don't. 97% of scientists say the earth is warming, and that it is at least, partially the result of mankind's activities (greenhouse gases). An even greater percentage simply believes the earth is warming (but not attributable to man-made greenhouse gases).

 

Wildfires are natural. In the past, forests were managed and fires were fought on BLM land. Today the US The U.S. Forest Service has a government EPA mandate to 'let it burn' so....it is really no wonder there are more devastating wild fires. GW has absolutely nothing to do with it it's just ignorant to think so.

 

The acres burned is the result of poor land management. Increases of ~ 0.1 deg C per decade have no affect on wild fire frequency.

 

I simply don't think you understand what you're discussing. Yes. The average global temp (which frankly is about as useful as knowing a statistic like average total weight of the human population) has increased. Yes. We know this. And the increase of which we speak of is around just over 1F. As in one degree F. This is what we know for a very small portion of land area since temp data started to be collected. And what we know now, is that our temperatures, as collected by both land based, and satellite based methods has demonstrated that temps are, generally very slowly increasing. As in by hundredths of a degree C. If you don't understand this, relying on the 33% or so of aggregated science papers that generated your BS 97% statistic simply means that your level of actual depth in the subject isn't sufficient to actually have the conversation.

Your original assertions, both in terms of numbers of fires US and intensity are simply wrong. As in, no basis for them. They are imaginary. The data doesn't support your assertions. The further assertion of warming being a causal factor also not established. But, I would point out that because I don't "believe" like you do doesn't make my rational assessment of the facts/data to be wrong. The facts are agnostic to your faith. I would point out that faith is a non testable thing.

 

I'll remind you that it was your link source that I quoted, and now you're denying the data. More acreage per burn, despite the fact that there are probably better fire-control methods today.

OK, so we agree the Earth is warming. Next question - Is it warming because of human generated greenhouse gases?

 

Any increase has an effect. These numbers that are thrown out by the Right sure vary. I had another Republican tell me that "we've only risen 1 deg F", which is more that 0.1 deg C.

Tell me, is your 0.1 deg C rise caused by mankind's release of greenhouse gases?

 

Increases of ~ 0.1 deg C per decade have no affect on wild fire frequency. Some of that is the result of human CO2 emission increases. And the preceding is the 97% consensus - some but not all.

Please go back and read with comprehension the 1 deg F discussion.

 

Laughable. You quoted your link. Nice deception though. Quick question for you though, why so quick to discount nay even ignore the forest service management issue? Or is it just easier for you to mouth the dogma?

Here's an interesting question. Given the empiric observable data, and the idea that the "warming" we see as expressed by the hundredths of a degree, are you asking for what percentage of that warming then is associable to human activity? Is that really your question? How about this question. Man's influence in CO2 generation is <3% of total CO2 production. So are you seriously asking for the fraction as expressed by the 10s of thousandths of a degree that this might actually be responsible for? Seriously???

 

Actually, now today, I heard another number from another Republican, of a rise of 1.1 deg C. The Paris Accord had a goal of a 2 deg C reduction, which wouldn't happen for many years, after some rising in global temps.

 

I'll defer to the experts for a reply. From your cited data, you certainly don't fall into that category.

https://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming

While many view the effects of global warming to be more substantial and more rapidly occurring than others do, the scientific consensus on climatic changes related to global warming is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen between 0.4 and 0.8 °C over the past 100 years. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other human activities, are believed to be the primary sources of the global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate carrying out global warming research have recently predicted that average global temperatures could increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C by the year 2100.

Although 0.4 to 0.8 deg C is substantial, it's where we are heading that is the real concern (1.4 deg C to 5.8 deg C).

 

Do tell what the Paris Accord would have done to stop wildfires in your state. This should be interesting....

 

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. My original link discusses the increase in wildfire activity, along with the earlier summers. Hope you find it "interesting".

 

More than poor management...NO management and a mandate to 'let it burn.'