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.""

Comments

Accoeding to arsonists

[drainbramage]

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.

Bullshit.

[Karmashock]

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.

Re:Man is responsible for larger wildfires ...

[Mashiki]

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.

Great idea, back in the 80's when I used to visit Socal, they'd burn out the hills every summer. Worked like a charm to keep the fires down, then the environmentalists, idiots with the mansions in the hills, and nimby's started throwing a hissy fits on every pro-active burn program out there. Everything from "it's making the air bad," to "it's not natures way."

Re:I thought weather was not climate...

[jackspenn]

Are you sure the more frequent larger fires aren't actually the result of past fire prevention? I know some fire fighters and park rangers who told me that policy changes in the 90s prevented them from letting small fires go naturally (these fires weren't even important enough to make the national news). Instead the policy was modified to "Put all observed fires out ASAP." In addition they were banned from removing brush that would normally have been consumed by these smaller fires. I remember them saying that if not changed the policies would lead to bigger fires in the future. A sorta pay for it later mess. So my question is, if it is fair to say many "Scientist" claim fire increases are because of "climate change", is it not fair to say there are "Philosophers" who reason fire increases are because of "bureaucratic BS"?

Re:I thought weather was not climate...

[jackspenn]

area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a yea

So here is the problem with libtards, they create a problem and then use selective results that are actually the result of their own BS as proof, more of what they want, needs to be done.

This is true with the wild fires and the selection of data to help show how bad Global Warming is getting. The government back in the 90s decided their brilliant fire policies could be even more brilliant. Instead of letting small fires burn (some seeds and bugs only grow/hatch after a fire), but no no no, people in universities and in Washington, these intellectuals, were smarter than nature or those western ranching folks with no college degree. See these collectivists were so smart they said "New policy let's put every fire out ASAP". "Oh, and no you cannot remove brush and grass and 'fuel' that would normally have been periodically consumed and used up and removed". Instead the new "intellectuals" said "protect nature" ... by acting in an unnatural way. So all these little fires were put out and things looked so good ( ... in the short-term), that I am sure they patted themselves on the back and were like "Boy are we awesome, we are so much smarter than that farmer who said this was a dangerous idea".

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later .... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

Re:Facts are there

[Namarrgon]

Heh, now you accuse me of not providing links to support the claims I didn't make :-)

But if you like. A couple of studies (of many) predicting increases in wildfires due to climate change:

* Gonzalez et al 2010: Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change

* Moritz et al 2012: Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity

And a study (one of many) showing that climate is the dominant factor in the size of the wildfires we've been seeing:

* Littell et al 2009 Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces:

We demonstrate that wildfire area burned (WFAB) in the American West was controlled by climate during the 20th century (1916-2003)....For 1977-2003, a few climate variables explain 33-87% (mean = 64%) of WFAB, indicating strong linkages between climate and area burned.

By contrast, Mr Watts' "facts" are also nothing more than unsubstantiated declarations and assumptions, just like yours. A few random examples from your link:

* "This [CO2] percentage increase means nothing. Human CO2 emissions didn’t begin to rise significantly until after 1945": Keyword is 'significantly' - he claims the rise is not significant, but provides no justifications for this assumption, other than that the atmospheric percentage is "about as close to nothing as you can get" (it's a really small-looking number). No citations given.

* "...there is no way that this miniscule amount [of atmospheric CO2] can have any significant effect on climate." Another unsubstantiated declaration in his "facts" list. No citations given for this claim.

* "CO2 also lags short-term warming [historical graph] showing that warming causes rise in CO2, not the other way around if CO2 was the cause." - Incorrectly assumes that CO2 must either be a cause or an effect, but could never be both. No citations given for this "fact", either.

* "...global climate marches in lock step with sun spots, length of the sun spot cycle, and intensity of the solar magnetic field... total solar insolation (TSI) correlates very well with climate". Once more, he just claims this as a fact, with (wait for it) no citations given.

* "HadCRUT4 temperature curve showing that 56% of the warming since 1895 occurred prior to 1945"... according to his arbitrarily-drawn red lines. The HadCRUT4 temperature graph may well be accurate, but (of course) he provides no citation for any peer-reviewed source for his claimed "56% of warming" cut-off point (looks to me like the red line that claims to show this is just drawn to the peak of the biggest short-term fluctuation he can find, without regard to averages or trends or anything).

I could easily go on, but I have work to do. If Watts' unbacked assertions are what you consider "facts", then it's no wonder you usually don't bother to link to them.