• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wildfire Acreage up 25% Nationally

I was in Colorado Springs during the wildfires of 2012. The Springs, El Paso County and Fremont Counties, were declared a federal disaster area. I agree that homeowners need to do their part, but with the high winds and dry conditions, huge pine trees were igniting like matchsticks, one after another. I actually think that today's mountain homes are, for the most part, are built better to withstand fires. Steel roofs and stucco siding make a huge difference. But with the intensity of the fires of 2012, hardly any change to practical building code would have helped.

As far as the "hype". With a 1.9 deg F higher temperature, and the resulting extended wildfire season, it stands to reason that there is more risk today. I actually believe that financial damages would be a lot worse, if it weren't for better building practices, wildfire education, etc.

How does a 1.9 F temperature increase raise the combustible material above it's flash point?


Deadfall and live plants are just going to flash off now? :lamo
 
Deadfall and live plants are just going to flash off now? :lamo
Nope. No one is saying that, either.

It's that higher average temperatures dry out land surface, thus the trees, brush, fallen leaves etc are drier. As a result, fires can spread faster and further, and can be hotter.

It also makes the fire season longer. Climate change has probably already extended the fire season, iirc in some areas by more than a full month.

It's not necessarily a huge impact, and there are other factors at play (such as forest management). However, it is very likely already having an influence.
 
...unless there were dramatic changes in, say, firefighting methods, techniques and policies after WWII. E.g. wider use of vehicles, implementation of fire roads

I can't think of many natural cycles that would cause fire acreage to be cut in half between 1943 and 1949, then cut in half again by 1956, then stay in the same general range for decades, and start an upward trend in the mid-80s.



And as with many other aspects, climate change is not necessarily the initial cause of an event.

For example, climate change does not result in a higher number of hurricanes per year (let alone the numbers hitting US shores). However, it makes the storms more intense and more damaging. The increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more precipitation; the precipitation and higher sea levels both increase flood damage; changes to pressure systems can result in hurricanes parking over land for days longer than in the past. We saw all of this with Hurricane Harvey.



Yes, I'm definitely not saying it is the only factor that causes all wildfires, or can make them worse. Changes in fire policies and funding will have a big impact on future fires. I also believe that wildfire management is one area where human efforts may be more capable of mitigating the impact of climate change. It's certainly not easy or cheap, but it's a cakewalk compared to, say, preparing every coastal city for increased flooding due to climate change.

That said, we are just starting to see some of the impacts of climate change, and unfortunately it's going to get worse.

2 deg F does not make any change in the number of intensity of wildfires.

Define 'climate change'. You keep using this buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.
 
How does a 1.9 F temperature increase raise the combustible material above it's flash point?


Deadfall and live plants are just going to flash off now? :lamo

No kidding. What is the flashpoint? Around around 240 C isn't it?
 
2 deg F does not make any change in the number of intensity of wildfires.

Define 'climate change'. You keep using this buzzword. It doesn't mean anything.

You would be wrong. 2 deg F most certainly will extend the wildfire season. In general, it will dry out areas more than normal, because in general, the American West is a dry climate. You should read up on AGW, if you're not familiar with the term. And you certainly shouldn't be posting in this thread, if you're not familiar with it.
 
You would be wrong. 2 deg F most certainly will extend the wildfire season.
HAHAHAHAHA! I guess that means the temperature increase of EVERY DAY is enough to set the world on fire! :lamo
In general, it will dry out areas more than normal,
Dry is normal in California in late July and August.
because in general, the American West is a dry climate.
I suggest you check out the American West around western Oregon and western Washington.:lamo
You should read up on AGW, if you're not familiar with the term.
Not an answer. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions.
And you certainly shouldn't be posting in this thread, if you're not familiar with it.
YOU are not familiar with it. You can't seem to define it!:lamo
 
HAHAHAHAHA! I guess that means the temperature increase of EVERY DAY is enough to set the world on fire! :lamo

Dry is normal in California in late July and August.

I suggest you check out the American West around western Oregon and western Washington.:lamo

Not an answer. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

YOU are not familiar with it. You can't seem to define it!:lamo

I'm glad you're a Republican, because I'm not. With people like you arguing for their causes, the opposition can't go wrong.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Study – Global Tree cover on the rise – possibly due to CO2/global warming[/h][FONT=&quot]Global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) between 1982 and 2016, reports a new study in Nature. These new findings contradict earlier studies that reported a continuing net loss of forest cover. Researchers using satellite data tracked the changes in various land covers to find that gains in forest area in the…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/07/study-global-tree-cover-on-the-rise-thanks-to-co2-induced-global-greening/"]
forest_for_trees.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]

[h=1]Study – Global Tree cover on the rise – possibly due to CO2/global warming[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) between 1982 and 2016, reports a new study in Nature. These new findings contradict earlier studies that reported a continuing net loss of forest cover. Researchers using satellite data tracked the changes in various land covers to find that gains in forest area in the…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/07/study-global-tree-cover-on-the-rise-thanks-to-co2-induced-global-greening/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

WUWT :bs alert. No actual statement in the study abstract that increasing tree cover is possibly due to CO2/global warming.
 
WUWT :bs alert. No actual statement in the study abstract that increasing tree cover is possibly due to CO2/global warming.

LOL. Sure. ". . . [FONT=&quot]to advance our understanding of global environmental change."[/FONT]:mrgreen:
 
WUWT :bs alert. No actual statement in the study abstract that increasing tree cover is possibly due to CO2/global warming.
That's what you get for only reading the abstract. The article in the journal says:


A recent study(29) using ecosystem models attributed 70% of the observed increase in the global leaf area index to the CO2 fertilization effect and 4% to land-use change.

Endnote 29 is this study: Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Why are you guys so ignorant at to think you know squat, from an abstract? Nature is only a $199 annual subscription. If you are serious about this topic, you should pay up, else shut up about your certainty. Nature Climate Change is also a $199 annual cost. Nature Geoscience is $175 annual, but you can get online only for $59.

I pay for all three, because unlike you guys who drink the kool-aid, I am serious about understanding the facts.
 
Last edited:
That's what you get for only reading the abstract. The article in the journal says:


A recent study(29) using ecosystem models attributed 70% of the observed increase in the global leaf area index to the CO2 fertilization effect and 4% to land-use change.

Endnote 29 is this study: Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Why are you guys so ignorant at to think you know squat, from an abstract? Nature is only a $199 annual subscription. If you are serious about this topic, you should pay up, else shut up about your certainty. Nature Climate Change is also a $199 annual cost. Nature Geoscience is $175 annual, but you can get online only for $59.

I pay for all three, because unlike you guys who drink the kool-aid, I am serious about understanding the facts.

18fe570eaca8052d670a9114ca1e4a53.jpg
 
The childish turn was in your #112 because my #111 crushed your claim.

Sorry, but Surface Detail blew you away on that series of posts. You copped out...
 
[FONT=&quot]Wildfires[/FONT]
[h=1]Wildfire Attribution study full of smoke[/h][FONT=&quot]December 4, 2018 Guest post by Bob Vislocky In light of the devastating wildfires that ravished California last month, I thought it would be interesting to critically review a frequently referenced article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 titled “Impact of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire Across Western US…
[/FONT]
 
Back
Top Bottom