Slashdot Mirror
Studies: Wildfires Worse Due To Global Warming
An anonymous reader writes "According to scientists we can look forward to more devastating wildfires like the ones scorching Southern California because of global warming. "The fires in California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade," said University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck. "It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future.""
Global Warming is the nickname of the guy who started the fires.
Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".
Well who does not remember years and years of past California wildfires. Guess what, drought happens. You can't declare one "climate change" just because it's scary.
And you can't even see that climate change makes drought more likely without way more data than we have. A warmer climate could mean some areas are dryer, others wetter. But actually overall it would mean more moisture in the system, not less...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We would like to give our heartiest thanks to the politicians that have made it illegal to clear under-brush or to provide any reasonable wildfire suppression activities.
No brain, no pain.
Geez we blame everything on global warming now...
First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.
Secondly, droughts happen. The history of California is the history of water politics mainly because most of SoCal is a semi-arid desert. San Diego in particular has a giant desert separating us from the rest of the country -- even LA.
Thirdly, unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.
Fourthly, there's good reason to believe that at least some of the ones this week were started by (d-bag) arsonists.
It's over-broad statements like this from "scientists" that give credence to the assertion that climate scientists are thinking with the social policy side of their brains instead of the factual side. /signed
Native San Diegan; MRC/former CERT member; non-scientist.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
All weather supports global warming until it doesn't. Then it's just weather.
...their rumored sequel to Frozen:
Anna the Fire Princess
Hey, fans of the movie already blamed the exceptionally cold winter on Elsa.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Make the ice caps melt faster, flood San Diego to put the fires out!
Here is the list.
Disclaimer: I'm Canadian.
Latest study provides conclusive proof
Every year there are devastating fires somewhere. But we have to look at the acreage and number of fires.
Last year was a light fire year. About 20% lighter than the 10 year average.
So far this year, we are about 15% behind the 10 year average in the number of wildland fires. And we are about 50% behind in the number of acres burned.
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/n...
Honestly, I still expect overall the world's climate will be getting wetter with global warming. There might be some regions that will get drier, but warmer oceans mean more evaporation. Warmer temperatures mean the air can hold more moisture resulting in higher humidity. Eventually that higher humidity has to result in more rainfall somewhere. But even if higher humidity doesn't result in rain, higher humidity does result in less aggressive fire behavior.
I am not a climate scientist. I have a lot of people scoff at me when I say this, but they never explain how I am wrong. I can read the projections but the projections never seem to include the increased levels of ocean evaporation that I expect.
saw some photos of the wildfires outside of San Jose. Wow. Fires look worst than the ones outside of Los Angeles (Santa Claria or Ventura City, I think) that happened last year. seems every year the wildfires in Cali and Arizona keep getting worse.
plus, the drought and high winds aren't helping.
leaving us a thin atmostfear of breathless anticipation http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+manufactured+weather pretense of imaginary chosenness is obsoletely fatal still. when even one innocent spirit is treated poorly anywhere we really all 'feel' the discomfort & must return to pretense to continue to 'function' in a spiritdead capacity
First off, I am *not* a climate change denier.
That said, wildfires are a very complicated topic and man is responsible for their increased size and devastation. However the man made activity that has a huge impact here is fire fighting. This has been known for many decades. The problem is that the natural cycle of fires leads to smaller fires. These smaller fires prevent fuel from accumulating and they provide a patchwork of natural firebreaks to a degree. Our habit of stomping out every single fire as it starts just leads to more and more fuel accumulating over larger and larger areas. The result is the larger and more devastating fires.
Preventing the natural burn cycle sets us up for larger fires. We need to be more strategic about our fire fighting in rural and wilderness settings.
Okay, so I accept that the expansive worsening of fire season may be at least in part caused by global warming, climate change, or whatever we are calling it this week. But I squarely point my finger at the logging industry and decades of mismanaging re-forestation as a substantial contributor that is just now catching up with us.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
You're right. Here's a photo of one:
http://www.constantinereport.c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Increased levels of ocean evaporation are (surprise) mostly over the oceans.
How many times have they talked about moisture "streaming in from the gulf".
Did you think that meant it was piped over? Perhaps by the same tubes carrying your internet?
I wonder what you think the combination of ambient moisture and winds do...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Very true and very few scientists would ever suggest that.
What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe and study, test and discuss the various theories surrounding this area.This means that you can be considered an expert on the subject.
The "others" are a bunch of people who pull opinions out of their arse at best or purposely malign the truth for their own ends at worst.
For you to say such things betrays a level of ignorance that is truly awesome to behold - assuming you are not just trolling for the sake of it which just makes you a common garden variety douche bag. Regardless of your own insignificant thoughts and motivations the thought process you describe appears to be a relatively common one.
But fear not, the reasons for your ignorance and/or troll-like behaviour is something studied, tested and discussed in the field of psychology by scientists!
Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".
Especially when it is very localized.
That's the mean of temperatures at all Historical Climatology Stations in the U.S., for Jan. 1 - May 17 2014. So even when the warmth in CA and AZ is included, on average the U.S. has still been experiencing record cold this year.
Weather vs. climate, indeed.
Waiting for the Clean Air Resources Board to tax me for that too.
story
Other than being completely factually wrong 100%, you make a good point.
Tip: When a leftist gives you a "fact" that can be looked up, please look it up. Its amazing what you can learn, such as there are significanly more trees in the US today than 100 years ago, despite what wjcofkc claims. There are also more polar bears today then a few decades ago, and they can actually swim!
Wow first four comments are global warming deniers and all post within six minutes. Earn that pay, boys!
Sorry, AC. But the deniers of science here are those who deny the effect of fire suppression policies and land management policies. Sometimes it really is the politics.
The huge factors here are (1) fire suppression policies not allowing natural burn cycles to occur, fuel unnaturally accumulates and it does so over larger areas and (2) land management where people are allowed to build in fire prone areas but not allowed to clear brush to a "safe" distance. The result is larger fires and fires that are a high risk to homes.
CO2 is only one of many man made problems and it is not always the leading contributor.
Prevent clearing of brush to protect an endangered snail and you get wildfires that endanger multiple species. Ecoterrorism FTW!
Oh come on... is anyone going to sit here and seriously believe this garbage? The climates what? 1 degree warmer maybe?
The wild fires are caused by man. But not through global warming. For decades western states forest services put out every fire. As a result underbrush and dead trees build up. 1/4 of the country is a tinder box just waiting to go off now. They've since realized their folly and have more controlled burns now, but there's still a lot of fuel out there. But global warning? No wonder so many people think climatologists are idiots.
California has been a hot bed of wild fires since before I can remember. Attributing everything to "global warming" is crap.
Let's make a deal, global warming (or climate change, or whatever the buzzword of the week) deniers: You can keep your SUVs, your ACs turned to 60 degrees and all your other toys. And once the waters rise you drown like good old idiots and don't try to climb up on my mountains.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As someone that has been in regions where these wildfires have happened, I can tell you it is actually bad forest management.
Here's the thing. In nature, forests burn on occasion. Always have. Its part of the natural process. Some species either actively encourage the fires or rely upon the fires as part of their life cycle.
Okay, now that it is established that if left alone the forests will occasionally burn... what happens if you don't cut trees down and cut brush back on occasion and instead just leave the whole thing to take care of itself.
It burns.
I live in California and that has been the cause of most of our wild fires. We used to have forest management to the extent that we would subcontract logging companies to go through the forests and thin them out a bit so there was room for new growth and the whole forest didn't go up like a roman candle every 10-30 years (depends on the plant species and local climate).
Well, that was stopped and the logging companies aren't allowed to operate in our forests anymore because they're not environmentally friendly.
Fine... you're now putting nature in charge. And nature is going to burn that fucker down on its own schedule.
Global warming might have something to do with this sort of thing but it is NOT what is causing the vast majority of forest fires in the US. They are caused by moronic forest management that is itself guided by crystal rubbing mystics that will say out of one side of their mouth that the environment is harmed by direct human management and then say out of the other side that nature's natural processes are all our fault.
These people are idiots.
And just to preempt the first fucktard that responds to this post saying I have his misguided asshattery wrong... I don't. I live here. I've seen this happen over years. I saw was we were doing before. I saw what you did, I watched the forest prime itself like a coiling spring, I saw the fires, I watched the clean up, and I've been listening to you same slack-jawed halfwits ever since point fingers at anyone besides yourselves.
Do the Earth a favor and listen more and talk less.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes. The Northern part of the Canadian prairie provinces might make a shitload of money selling wheat and corn to the USA, whose own production will drop considerably. However, it's still illegal in Canada to sell you clean fresh water in large amounts, so start building those desalination plants now.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
On the other hand, putting human beings (specifically, the shareholders of your company) ahead of entire eco-systems makes you a suicidal+ecocidal idiot and a nihilistic life-hater; kind of a super-villain.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You may not care to look at facts, but they exist (search for droughts).
I love how your response contained no links refuting what I said... because you are not basing your arguments from data, but from emotion.
I expect your response to be something about the source of the link, without any more real facts on the matter. Good luck with that approach in life...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe"
When did this happen? If your definition is correct, today's scientists are not the same as yesterdays.
The weather is changing. Though there is no global warming. C02 talk is a big scam. C02 sinks to the ground. C02 makes the plants grow better which makes more oxygen. It's like a see saw. This hogwash is all political.
Stupid sheeple.
I agree with your overall sentiment. In many cases it is beyond a joke and misguided attempts to help the environment often hurt it, as is the case with banning the disturbance of brush around homes and communities.
While you are correct that the banning of DDT was at the time unfounded scientifically--the egg shells seemed to be thinning that year generally and may not have had anything to do with DDT, but alas it was never really researched. However, had DDT continued to be used on the scale that it was, modern research has showed that mosquitoes would have adapted and become resistant in just a couple of years, ending the use of DDT anyway. Put in another way, banning DDT did *not* directly lead to the deaths of millions of people. Perhaps banning DDT was even a benefit, because now it is used by some countries, on a much smaller scale, to a good effect in controlling malaria.
back in the 80s I heard a forest ranger predict that our forest fires would get worse.
not because of the on coming global winter, but because of the build up of vegetation and dead wood.
"Someday that fuel is going to catch fire and burn"
his point was to not stop forest fires. it's natures way of cleaning house.
First off, I am *not* a climate change denier.
Of course the climate is changing. The real question is are the changes such that we need to try and implement measures to stop them?
Articles like this are from the Warmists, wishing to use tools of Fear to scare us into thinking that we must.
But you yourself note in this aspect a rational reason why we need not be more scared of forest fires because of climate change, when more sensible fire policy would have a far more dramatic impact.
Now think of all the OTHER times someone tried to scare you with climate change. For each of those times there was a person like yourself pointing out why the fear was irrational ad unwarranted.
Far from being a "denier", those trying to counteract acts of raw fear mongering are helping to participate in REAL science, deciding what is actually a problem from climate change and what is not. To refer to the mere act of questioning as "denial" is a form of propaganda, and going forward I hope you and others when you head the rem "denier" used will use your own experience where to question the people who feel the need to use such a dismissive term against ideological opponents...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The reasoning behind this "expert's" opinion seems to be that higher temperatures lead to more drought and thereby to more wildfires. But that's far from certain:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
You want a long-term pattern?
Here's one.
That's a plot of CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere over the past 1/2 a BILLION years. Not 10,000. Not 300. Half a fucking billion.
If you have the balls to look at that, you'll see today's concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - about 400 ppm, is at the EXTREME LOW END of where it's been over the past 1/2 a billion years - where it's ranged from 200 ppm to a full FUCKING 6,000 ppm. NB that the highest concentrations of CO2 predate SUVs.
In geological time frames, we're now at the very bottom of the range CO2 fluctuates over - naturally.
And guess what? When there was 6,000 ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, Earth DIDN'T turn into a copy of Venus - life went on just fine, thank you.
But actually overall it would mean more moisture in the system, not less...
Exactly, and you know what, water vapor in the atmosphere has been steadily rising since ~1980. However just because there is an increase of water vapor on a global scale does not mean droughts will not become more common on a regional scale. More rain in the tropics actually implies the deserts to on either side of the tropics will widen and become drier. Yes it's "counter intuitive", but not nearly as hard to wrap your head around as (say) quantum mechanics. Google "Hadley cells" for a more technical explanation as to "why", it's quite interesting to read about and not hard to understand. Basically, the tropics expand, the equatorial deserts expand and move pole-wards, the poles melt.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Does it count as climate change-related when these fires are starting due to human activity? It seems part of the problem is that one fire starts, either by accident or on purpose, and then several more pop up as fire bugs start lighting fires all over (as was the case in San Diego). FD resources get strained and it just takes longer to put them out because efforts are spread thin. My guess is that large fires would be just as infrequent if you removed us from the equation.
We haven't had a "large dump" on California since 1969! 2+ years of a lack of sunspots brought the US a very hard winter.
The Eastern Pacific bulge of hot water on the equator looks like it might spawn another "Pineapple Express".
Some geophysists say the sediment record shows that a mega-dump like occurred in 1862 in CA & OR could dump 11 feet of water on CA in about a month.
Will that be "climate change", given that it happens every 40 or 160 years on known cycles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
It's just getting started / warming up.
Just not so !
Psst. The Earth is more than 10,000 years old !
Most "Anthropocene Global Warmers" or "Anthropoccene Climate Changers" become violent when presented solid evidence that Earth is more than 10,000 years old.
Violence (Sexual) is their "Scientific" reaction to facts.
Parade of the Examples: James E. Hansen, Michael E. Mann, Kevin Trenberth (I just name a few of the sexual predator perverts in "Climate Science").
Ha ha.
First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.
It's still global warming, in spite of republican efforts to relabel it climate change. Stop prevaricating.
Secondly, droughts happen.
Red herring. That's totally orthogonal to this point. Stop prevaricating. Also, the current drought is unusual even in Northern California, where the water comes from. You didn't even bother to mention that, most likely because it's inconvenient to your point. Stop prevaricating.
unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.
This is about global warming making wildfires more likely and worse, not about global warming making wildfires possible. Stop prevaricating.
Fourthly, there's good reason to believe that at least some of the ones this week were started by (d-bag) arsonists.
See last point. Stop prevaricating.
It's over-broad statements like this from "scientists" that give credence to the assertion that climate scientists are thinking with the social policy side of their brains instead of the factual side.
No, it's stupid shit like you just posted that lets stupid people feel smug about stupid decisions even though they have nothing to be smug about.
/signed
Native San Diegan; MRC/former CERT member; non-scientist.
I personally am in favor of the scientific process. You might consider accepting it as well.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When you throw out bullshit like that DDT was banned for treating malaria mosquitoes why should we listen to you and the fact that by spreading the bullshit that DDT was banned for malaria really makes you wonder about the education of the moderators.
Look it up, DDT was not banned for malaria, it just became less useful as the mosquitoes were evolving to like DDT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Riiiight. So this has absolutely nothing at all to do with progressively worse nonmanagement of national forests over the past 30 years, opting instead to wait for a really big fire to clear burn areas?
Nice dogmatic and unfounded supposition, warmers.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is how it physically affects the world we live in.
It works because the universe is a very big place with a lot of complexity.
Sorry, but policy has much more to do with it. The prevention of regular logging operations due to bogus environmentalist claims has a great deal to do with it. National forests that currently have 250 trees per acre used to have around 50 per acre only a few decades ago which keeps fire from spreading and the forest healthier. There are those who think we shouldn't remove dead trees because the birds won't be able to eat the bark beetles (Yes, this B.S. was on NPR). The only problem with that theory is that the bark beetles don't inhabit dead trees. They inhabit live ones until they kill the tree and leave the tree when it dies. As a matter of interest, the Wallow Fire in Arizona wiped out 841 square miles. That will take generations before it returns to a healthy state. That fire also wiped out the bulk of the spotted owl population. The anti-loggers end up torching that which they are trying to save.
A recent wildfire in Victoria spread to the Hazelwood open-pit coal mine , setting ablaze two disused coal faces and prompting a 45-day firefighting effort. Photographs released by Victoria's Country Fire Authority show the terrible power and persistence of coal seam fires, which in some cases can burn for decades.
Maybe, I wonder if there were epicycle experts back in the day saying the same thing though.
... according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West:
And the reason for that is well known, and has nothing to do with global warming.
It is caused by environmentalist interference in land management. The major factors are;
- Fuel load: Logging is stopped, or delayed for decades by lawsuits, even of diseased and fallen trees, which are left to rot. Brush clearing, deemed "unnatural", is also stopped. LOTS of little trees and weeds grow up between the big trees. When a fire finally starts, it soreads rapidly and burns big and hot, and is very hard to control. The hot burning sterillizes the ground, killing many types of seeds that would otherwise have fueled a post-fire recovery.
- Access restriction: Loggers and other visitors to the area are the main source of reports of fires when they're still tiny. With logging stopped and most recreational uses banned the woods are essentially deserted. A fire that would have been spotted in tens of minutes might have as much as days to grow before it is discovered. Once it IS discovered, the lack of roads and lack of clearng of those paths still there impedes fire-fighting: Regular equipment, or even four-wheel-drive SUV-based, fire equipment can't access much of the area, and must leave those areas it can access early, to avoid being trapped.
I think it's ludicrous that the blame for the anthropogenic forest fire severity increase is being deflected from the policies and policy-makers that caused it and simultaneously being used as additional "evidence" for global warming. It's tactics like this that cause people to distrust global warming claims.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Global warming is not climate change. Global warming is the cause, climate change is the effect.
DDT isn't banned around the world and it is still widely used to fumigate villages on a limited scale.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
There were some idiot future prediction cooling articles to provide "balance" after reports or warming were published. I'll go with the scientific community instead of whoever picked a bait cover article for TIME once in the 70's any day.
Southern California gets wildfires in the spring and the fall due to the prevalence of strong Santa Ana winds (hot dry winds blowing from the deserts, over the mountains, toward the sea) and, given that the region is essentially an irrigated desert there's ALWAYS material ready and willing to burn. Any time a fire starts in the brush or in a canyon for ANY reason it will naturally become a massive wildfire unless fire fighters get it out in a hurry while it's still small
Some wild fires are started by power lines knocked-down by strong Santa Ana winds. Many are caused by illegal alien migrant workers who camp-out in some of the brush-filled canyons and use small fires to cook or keep warm on cold nights (one body has been found in the remains of such a campsite in the canyon where one of the current fires began). Some are started by morons throwing cigarette butts out of cars. Occasionally some hunter causes one. Many are either directly caused by federal land management activity or made worse by federal policies. And then, of course, one should never underestimate the destructive power of a pair of stupid teenage males who clearly have no valid reason to live.
Nowhere in that list was "global warming". In fact, there were some really bad fires in the 1960s that were only matched, NOT in the 70's or 80's or 90's but in 2012. When you consider that Southern California has been getting more and more-populated and developed decade-by-decade, it should NOT surprise if the number if fires detected (with more people around, and more arsonists present) and fought (with more property at risk) goes up - indeed the trendline for value of property should also go up (because more developed property, with higher value, is threatened when more land is developed and populated). Lining-up such fire data with climate data will easily provide a correlation-causality illusion. Of course, such false relationships are the sort of propaganda no self-respectingAGW alarmist can resist: When the "weather" seems severe it's proof of global warming, but when the "weather" is cold or fails to produce the predicted hurricanes and tornadoes, these uber-intellectual titans insist that "only an idiot" would conflate "weather" with "climate" - and they think the general public is too stupid to spot the completely dishonest and hypocritical "spin"...
Note for the future: When Katrina hit and Al Gore was running around pushing his book and film, he and his friends were pointing to a rise in hurricanes and tornadoes as evidence for AGW - but we are (and have been for severl years) experiencing a record low-level of such activity (and A.G. and his friends are notably quiet about these "weather" incidents). It is inevitable that hurricaine and tornado activity will rise in the future - when it does, look for Al and his compatriots to once again start using "weather" as "proof" of their "climate" theories. Given that we continue to build more-valuable things in more desireable (and riskier) locations, we can predict that the monetary damage caused by those future weather events will go up and up too, which will no-doubt make it into some dramatic (and intentionally misleading) graphs...
News just in! Reporters will comment on anyhing they think is related to the topic of the day.
Isn't it a good idea to perform preventive burns to limit the amount of available fuel that can burn?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
" it's natures way of cleaning house." - as long as its not your house
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
People tend to compartmentalise the world and make it out to be smaller than it is.
Even if you are a scientist straddling several areas this is STILL a small part of the whole.
Also...how the hell is my comment a troll?!
"Troll" means you don't believe what you're saying. "Flamebait", which also isn't what this comment was, is when you believe what you're saying but you say it deliberately inflammatorily. The comment I replied to is a troll. HTH, corrupt moderators.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
will someone straighten this out for me. am i a global warming denier,or climate change denier? can i be both? that would be neat.
Local governments seem to universally have an answer for areas at risk. Simply issue tons of new building permits. Got a huge fire problem? Isn't it obvious? You simply need tens of thousands of new homes in the hot spots. Got a beach that is vanishing? What the heck, just bang out some really expensive homes on those beaches or maybe put a nuclear reactor on that beach. they work under water don't they? Got a really dangerous, active earthquake zone? Move your high tech companies smack dab onto the fault line. That way when the earth shakes all those companies can crumble and bankrupt the nation and probably touch off a world wide depression. Do you have sink holes swallowing homes? That proves you need a lot more homes on the spot. That way they can suck even more water out of the ground causing more sink holes. And why waste the sales potential of homes that have a view of lava flowing down the side of a volcano. They should be multi million dollar homes every time. That way we can get rid of foolish rich people, bankrupt insurance companies which tend to own our banks, and set of an economioc holocaust. It's all about growth. More building permits, more growth, more pollution, more tragedies, hell it's the American way.
This is where the YouTube commentators spend their free time?
In California there is this thing called El Nino which is a multiyear cycle of drought/temperature shifts (a natural shift of warm ocean currents) that has been known as long as man has been there (long before the fake Manmade Global Warming fraud even existed).
So just more warmist attempts to pass their socialism by their constant lies - logic reason and facts dont intersect with these wasters and whiners
Maybe I'm too late commenting and this isn't going to get any attention, but I was under the impression through reading articles about the situation that wildfires worsening in California is mainly due to the fact that we suppress what would ordinarily be small routine burns that need to happen to keep forests healthy. By suppressing these, the buildup of undergrowth makes the ones we can't control much worse.
I'm not saying global warming couldn't be one of the factors contributing to worsening conditions, but I don't think it can shoulder the lion's share of the blame.
Common Sense (+1)
Wow. The "global warming" that isn't occurring is making wildfires worse. What's next?
Yeah, these are some of the same scientist that in the 70's predicted a mini ice age. Some of the same people that say eat oat bran, don't eat oat bran, eat fish oil, don't eat fish oil. It's all agenda driven. You look at the places having "wild fires" (we use to call them brush or forest fires), a LOT of the people having problems, are in areas that were either desserts, waste lands, or areas that always had this problem, and since "we've" moved in, planted a lot of vegetation, or areas where "naturalist" won't let them clean the underbrush out, they have problems with fires! Go figure! Also, didn't I read where someone started one of these out in California recently? How did man made global warming cause that?
Carbonic acid is breaking down the Karst. This is not new, but the rate of disintegration is probably increasing.
This is another feature of the current Anthropogenic Carbon Release event.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
...is that this is yet another case of conjecture.
Wildfires have been with us for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some of the largest occurred in the 1800's when we didn't have the means to fight them. But politicians today want more money so they claim the fires are getting worse. Funny, I remember a few California wildfires in the 70s that were much worse than the San Diego fires we just had. Santa Ana winds are just something that Southern California locals have been dealing with for a VERY long time. The problem for San Diego is the arsonists. Three of them were just arrested. Another problem is aging transformers. We have had a number of the explode here recently and they typically start fires. The secondary transformer across for my mother's house is seriously rusted and it's only a matter of time. California's biggest threats is state insolvency and our power infrastructure. Sacramento would rather spend it on the booty train, impose fire fees and raise taxes.
It is interesting how political hacktivists & croonie capitalists are helping with the official propaganda.
They do not talk to real scientists that could explain these phenomenons with the "El Nino" & "La Nina" currents.
They do not talk to geologists who have studied our past cold & warm periods through millenia.
Taking the word of the same loonies that cried wolf during the Reagan years, who are now pseudo-scientists with high powered political friends, & calling for "consensus" is not science (in the Descartes way).
#manmadeglobalwarmingdoesnotexist
Ok, let.s call it bullcrap then.
GW 'researchers' are getting further out there in the quest for Mo' Money. Got to feed that University pig trough. Mo' Money! The faculty swimming pool pump needs to be repaired.... better get another GW grant.
Now every single event of bad weather or other disaster is the result of mankind burning fossil fuels. If CO2 is a pollutant, than Obama needs to stop flying around in Air Force One.
The dry conditions in California can be traced back to a repeating pattern linked to the the ENSO/PDO cycles. Dr Easterbrook and Bob Tisdale (Who Turned on the Heat at http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/) . Give their stuff a read sometimes and it is obvious the drought cycle is tied to ENSO/PDO. What that means for us now is that we will have another 20-30 years before the ENSO cycle is back to sending rain to California.
It is a sine wave of about 60 years. 30 positive (wet) and 30 negative (dry).
By the way all scientific theories require predictions. So to all who think that CO2 controls the climate I ask the following question:
How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit CO2 does not control the climate? 20 years? 30? 50? Never?
For some accurate predictions that have withstood the test of time check out Dr Libby's prediction from the 1970s (3+ decades of accuracy), Dr Easterbrook's (12 years), Dr Abdussamatov (8 years). They all have correctly called for a cooling period of varying depths and lengths. So far they have been correct and the IPCC models wrong.
As long as we realize that there's well over 1000x more money backing the "fossil fuels don't cause global warming" shills as those, if any, promoting the scientific view.
And that's only direct revenues to fossil fuel industry, compared to scientific climate research funding. It doesn't even include the monetary value of industries currently optimized to depend heavily on fossil fuel.
Essentially, those with a stake in 2/3 of all kinds of economic activity have an incentive to lie and say everything is fine.
Those with most credibility are those who speak AGAINST their own short term interest. I benefit from the fossil fuel economy, I hypocritically use the products of it, but I still insist that we have to suck it up and change it radically starting yesterday. I'll take what disadvantage comes, because I know our current path is incredibly dumb, incredibly dangerous, an incredibly selfish FU to all future generations. It's so indefensible that people just deny it like it was a cancer diagnosis. LA LA LA LA can't hear you. My whole lifestyle is based on a completely indefensible way of doing things? Don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
""climate change will make hurricanes worse and worse!", they said in a year with bad hurricanes"
and they have.
""climate change will make flooding worse and worse!", they said in a year with bad floods"
and they have.
""climate change will make snowstorms worse and worse", they said in a year with bad snow storms"
and they have.
""climate change will make wildfires worse and worse!", they said in a year with bad wildfires"
and they have.
Maybe you should learn to be able to think about complex things and stop reading Black and White fairy tales?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Where is the story saying we are experiencing fewer tornados and hurricanes in the US? Why isn't that good news being shared or linked to global warming?
Arsonists and idiots tossing cigarette butts start the majority of the wildfires in the West each year. But instead of blaming them, practitioners of the religion of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming blame all of humanity for burning fossil fuels. Continuous claims of this nature make the lot of them modern day Chicken Littles (Henny Penny). If they have a dire need to blame someone other than those directly responsible, they need only look into the mirror. The liberal Western states have been sucking all of the water out of the mountains for decades for their backyard pools and lawns, preventing natural run off. This is what turns the grasslands into gasoline. Not global warming.
more bullshit.
more like the radical environmentalists that won't let tree companies cut down the trees they have deemed to be a hazard for wild fires.
see, tree companies spend millions of dollars figuring out how to NOT impact the wildlife.
They do this with success because they actually understand the needs of the environment.
The truth is not cutting down some trees will help spread wild fires. These companies dump
millions into figuring out which ones to cut down and which to leave up and where to plant the new trees as to not impact the environment.
Ever wonder why keystone pipeline is being delayed until after november? aside from election reasons,
it's so a democrat senators friend can build a similar pipeline running right next to it.
A vote for progressive is a vote for collectivism. A vote for a democrat is to vote for someone to feed you, instead of learning how to feed yourself.
Stupid libtards. Please, get over your megalomaniacal outlook on life.
Clearing underbrush isn't illegal. The best way to do it is with controlled burns. The politicians who are most to blame for underbrush buildup, are those that cut the budget of the National Forest Service and the National Parks Service.
wrong, hurricanes are not getting worse and worse. In fact, we are having hurricane seasons with less than average activity.
no evidence of flooding or drought worse than historically normal.
no evidence whatsoever that wildfires are any worse than normal, in fact the only issue causing big wildfires is man's interference preventing the frequent small ones.
maybe you should develop some critical thinking skills, and read some history. we have cycles of these events, that is all. but like most internet children, you have the attention span of a gnat