M
MikeInVA
Guest
We have about 200 years worth of accurate data that has been extrapolated to describe millions of years of climate change.
Tucker: Democrats, fires and the climate misinformation campaign
- Status
There are some historical facts that dispute the climate change causes big fires narrative.
Now, unless the claim is climate change in that timeframe caused far more significant and massive fires, it is difficult to thread the needle with that argument now.
https://www.hcn.org/issues/251/13986
Now, unless the claim is climate change in that timeframe caused far more significant and massive fires, it is difficult to thread the needle with that argument now.
P
Peebo
Guest
After the disastrous fires in Australia recently that burned over 25 million acres they are now looking at the practice of “cultural burning” that Aborigines have practiced for thousands of years.
phys.org
Australia bushfires ignite calls for indigenous fire practices
For tens of thousands of years, Australia's Aboriginal people have used fire to manage the landscape, and after a summer of raging bushfires the practice is increasingly being seen as a way to help stem future disasters.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I do not think there was much effective effort to control large fires in the Northern Rockies and Pacific NW in 1756. Population density alone makes it unlikely, unless you know of Native American people who tried it.
Modern firefighting techniques for large scale fires include dropping water, flame retardants, etc. from above the fire. That means any fires earlier than 1903 were not fought with the techniques used today. The only use for your historical data is to show what happens if fires are not contained.
People fight to contain fires, so few fires are able to grow to more than 100 acres. One fire this year has grown to 800k acres while people are actively contain it. It is still only 30% contained, so it may get larger. (next largest, from 2018, was 450k) fire.ca.gov For info. 4 of the 6 largest modern fires are from this year
Mismanagement of forests may be one factor, but higher temperatures are probably more important. Fires start faster, and die out more slowly, in warmer temperatures; drier wood lights more easily; stronger winds spread fire more quickly; etc. The higher temperatures throughout California likely helped fires to grow for these reasons. Large fires in Australia and Siberia have probably affected the jetstream, generating unpredictable winds that may have contributed as well.
This is not a normal summer. The heat hopefully will not be as extreme next year. But even if the temp drops next year, that is not a sign of the climate cooling. The record high heat this year is a sign of climate change; it would not have happened if the base heat had not gone higher, that is, if the climate had not grown warmer.
Exactly. If humans fail to control land, which even Newsom admitted was the case, then the natural occurrences of large scale fires will return. That’s what we are seeing, not an event caused by climate change.
Controlled burns to prevent tinder build up used to be done regularly, the mitigate what naturally occurs. This has not been done over the last few decades leading to the conditions we have.
Mismanagement is, overwhelmingly, the primary cause. A three degree increase over a century is not a significant factor.
You have to show why the fires were orders of magnitude larger 200, 300 years ago without the impact of warmer temperatures. You have to show that the hotter temperatures are specifically result of human activity, and not part of the normal cycle of weather.
And this year’s higher temps are not a sign of global warming.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim, one when hand, that a hot year is global warming, but a cooler year is not global cooling. Actually, neither is true.
You don’t know that. As I said, unless you can show that the order of magnitude fires centuries ago were caused by global climate change, you can’t attribute this year’s fires to it.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
The climate change part is still mostly hand waving baloney.
You’re not taking into account the degree of fire suppression that has come with development in California. It is not possible to go from 1.49m population in 1900 to 39.5m population in 2020 and not have an extremely significant influence on fire suppression and the additional hazards that brings to the desert chaparral and the forests. Especially that closest to the developed areas. After all, no one wants fires next to wherever they’re living.
Next you have no consideration for the arson problems (both intentional and accidental) that California has always had for decades. The insurance industry knows all this: they rate every area by the degree of fire hazard present and they charge accordingly for homeowner insurance. Some of the very hazardous areas have had their own citizen patrols during the dry season for decades now.
Is it more today than it has been since the beginning of development? Yes, but I would argue that like Oregon and Washington, it’s an issue made worse by intentional arson. If one wants to look deeper at this, I strongly suggest to look at a North America fire map which shows a definite difference between the degree of fires in the western US vs western Canada. If it was just natural causes, the two regions would not be as different as they are. But somehow, miraculously the fires in eastern Washington stop at the Canadian border. Climate change? I don’t think so.
You’re not taking into account the degree of fire suppression that has come with development in California. It is not possible to go from 1.49m population in 1900 to 39.5m population in 2020 and not have an extremely significant influence on fire suppression and the additional hazards that brings to the desert chaparral and the forests. Especially that closest to the developed areas. After all, no one wants fires next to wherever they’re living.
Next you have no consideration for the arson problems (both intentional and accidental) that California has always had for decades. The insurance industry knows all this: they rate every area by the degree of fire hazard present and they charge accordingly for homeowner insurance. Some of the very hazardous areas have had their own citizen patrols during the dry season for decades now.
Is it more today than it has been since the beginning of development? Yes, but I would argue that like Oregon and Washington, it’s an issue made worse by intentional arson. If one wants to look deeper at this, I strongly suggest to look at a North America fire map which shows a definite difference between the degree of fires in the western US vs western Canada. If it was just natural causes, the two regions would not be as different as they are. But somehow, miraculously the fires in eastern Washington stop at the Canadian border. Climate change? I don’t think so.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Actually, that was part of my argument that older fires cannot be compared to modern ones in any useful way.
I can accept that arson is a factor in the fires, and even that there is more arson than before. But the cause of a fire has little effect on its size. Fires are not as much of a problem in British Columbia’s rainforest. Moving to a different climate matters. Changing the climate from dry hot desert to drier hotter desert matters does not matter as much, but it still matters.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
You made my argument for me.
Your thesis is that the severity is primarily related to climate change.
But you contradicted yourself by agreeing that development has influenced the ecosystems via a high degree of fire suppression and that’s the basis of your argument that older fires can’t be compared to modern fires.
So which is primary? Climate change or fire suppression plus arson?
So the Canadian border in the state of Washington defines the demarcation zone between the climates of the respective areas on either side? And that’s why the fires in eastern Washington stop right at the border because climate?
That’s a new one on me. Just … wow, look at that gaslighting.
Why can’t you admit that arson is a far greater factor than you’re giving credit to? Maybe you can’t admit it because that would detract from the climate change point you’ve been trying to hold on to?
Yes they can. In fact, they point us to how to prevent them. Controlled burns to limit the fuel for huge fires is critical. Controlled burns mimic in small Controllable pieces what happened centuries ago. If you don’t do this, natural huge fires will happen.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
My thesis is that you can look at this year’s fires and see the effects of climate change. I did not say anything about it being the only factor, the primary factor or anything like that.
Arson is probably not a factor in the severity of the fires. The August complex fire has grown out of several smaller fires, so there may be multiple arson incidents involved. But it has grown well past those beginnings to encompass 800k acres. I do not really see how arson could have contributed to that growth, which is our proxy for severity isnt it?
I do not know why you are discussing the Canadian borders. The only map I could find with clear images for both sides of the border was the Canadian Wildland Fire Information Map. Fires seem to follow terrain, so Eastern Washington has a large flat semiarid area that gives way to mountains south of the border; most of BC is mountainous. Western Washington is certainly wetter than eastern, but not as wet as BC. Different climates have different effects on wildfires. (which is not an argument for or against climate change) As I said, wildfires and climate seem to follow terrain, which accounts for any big differences between the adjoining parts of both countries.
Probably a good idea and would have helped cut down on the severity of the fires. At the same time, a higher temperature has probably also contributed to the size of the fires this year. Dryer wood and hotter air and all that.
Trump’s denials of the impact of climate change are like his anti-science attitudes toward the coronavirus. Don’t say you are affected until it is too late.
No. You can’t. If it were climate change, it would look different than before. It is only different in that they are not as massive.
If it is a tiny factor, theN the point is the overwhelming problem is the failure of state governments (and the general government on federal land) to properly maintain the land.
Not climate change.
Correct. That and better maintain the electrical infrastructure, among others.
Then blame weather if you choose, because that is what you are describing. Not climate.
For all we know, those past huge fires years might have had elevated temperatures and droughts.
Last edited:
R
Rockoh22
Guest
I keep asking. I can not find this.
What are the good things about Global Warming? Positives about the world heating up?
What are the good things about Global Warming? Positives about the world heating up?
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
You’re still missing that a substantial part of the severity of the fires can be traced to both the long term effects of suppression and to arson. Both of which you have been minimizing in favor of climate change.
The increase in flammability was always going to happen due to long term suppression regardless of climate change. They have been suppressing fires in California for over a century. But somehow that is less important than climate change.
Due to the flammability arising from long term suppression, it is extremely easy for multiple smaller fires to join to become a much bigger fire. Arsonists do this just as easily as lightning strikes and the volume of fires over and above recent years indicates the degree to which arson is taking place. Recall the PG&E-caused fires a few years back? These were not natural fires, they were caused by human agency for which liability was assigned. Those fires were a substantial part of the fire levels that year.
In contrary to your point that BC is entirely mountainous, there is a good part of BC adjacent to the US border that matches Washington’s dry terrain profile. Very little in the way of fires north of the border even though that terrain is represented as very high fire danger on Canada’s fire map. Click “Overlay” for display options.
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/interactive-map
Lots of fires in Washington and Oregon states. Far fewer fires in matching terrain in BC. That’s a good sign that arson is at work south of the border or conversely, that Canadians do not have our arson problems.
As far as intentional arson goes, it doesn’t take many persons at all to cause substantial damage when the conditions are right.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
There are none. If someone claims there is, they are pulling a rabbit out of a thimble.
R
Rockoh22
Guest
One thing I did hear, and makes a lot of sense, is that there will be more land for farming. The colder areas with permafrost, that can not cultivate, will have more farm land, thus produce more food. Also in the past when we had a global warming, the plants where bigger.
Those two things I have heard. And they make sense, but there has to be more.
Here you are.
https://www.reference.com/science/positive-effects-global-warming-2b236d67fbd497ee
Do those who oppose global warming hate the poor?
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Wikipedia provides Köppen Climate type maps for both Washington and BC. They show radically different climates on the different sides of the border. If the links do not work, just go to the Wikipedia pages.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/British_Columbia_Köppen.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Washington_Köppen.svg
Eastern Washington is Hot summer Mediterranean continental with Cold semi arid valleys
British Columbia is Subarctic with Warm summer humid continental valleys
It looks like the climate changes at the border, to my immense surprise. That would explain the difference you see.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/British_Columbia_Köppen.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Washington_Köppen.svg
Eastern Washington is Hot summer Mediterranean continental with Cold semi arid valleys
British Columbia is Subarctic with Warm summer humid continental valleys
It looks like the climate changes at the border, to my immense surprise. That would explain the difference you see.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
So the Canadian government’s own wildfire map for which I gave you the link is not to be believed? You’re getting worse and worse. Stop digging.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Your description of the Canadian Wildlands map:
. Look at the evidence. Matching terrains have different, colder or wetter climates north of the border. Unless you have some evidence about arson other than the change at the border, there is no reason to think differing arson rates are a cause of the differences if Climate explains it.
If you look at ND Saskatchewan border there is no change of climate at the border, and no drop of fires. Why would the Canadians be so arson prone here and not in BC?
The Climate maps show different climates north from south of the border. That is probably enough to explain the differences you describe.
. Look at the evidence. Matching terrains have different, colder or wetter climates north of the border. Unless you have some evidence about arson other than the change at the border, there is no reason to think differing arson rates are a cause of the differences if Climate explains it.
If you look at ND Saskatchewan border there is no change of climate at the border, and no drop of fires. Why would the Canadians be so arson prone here and not in BC?
R
Rockoh22
Guest
@Dovekin I am lost at what you are trying to explain. But I do have some question for “skeptics” To which I lean more towards skepticism than believe it. Simply put, I am not sold on the political side of Global warming. But that we are hurting the planet, indeed we are.
Do you believe World Transportation affects the climate? I do. Engines run very hot, on top of man made paved roads that get hot. This does not include the smokeless toxics that go up. This said. Think about when you are on a busy road, in the middle of the day. How hot is that? Heat goes up.
Now, this is me, just rationalizing. I do not know if this be true, but makes sense. Fires make smoke. Smoke makes shade, and thus help bring down temperature in that shade. Plus thermal particles of smoke, somewhat help the atmosphere block harmful rays.
But we came up with Smoke Free fire. So we can heat up anything and not have to deal with health problems of the smoke. At what expense?
Do you believe World Transportation affects the climate? I do. Engines run very hot, on top of man made paved roads that get hot. This does not include the smokeless toxics that go up. This said. Think about when you are on a busy road, in the middle of the day. How hot is that? Heat goes up.
Now, this is me, just rationalizing. I do not know if this be true, but makes sense. Fires make smoke. Smoke makes shade, and thus help bring down temperature in that shade. Plus thermal particles of smoke, somewhat help the atmosphere block harmful rays.
But we came up with Smoke Free fire. So we can heat up anything and not have to deal with health problems of the smoke. At what expense?
- Status