• 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

yep forest management is very much needed we do that where i live all the time to handle brush fires during the summer months.
controlled burns are vital to some of the plants here and get rid of non-native plants.

a lot of issues in CA are all these environmental nuts that won't let the state do the things that are needed.
I would let the loggers come in and take out the specified trees for a price. fine for any tree that doesn't fit the criteria.
Not a terrible idea. Here in Texas we have a problem tilapia, they get into every body of water.
Parks and Wildlife says if you catch they, keep all you want and eviscerate the rest,
just plane old killing them is not good enough.
 
The deluded Darwinists imagine the earth once cooled enough to form a global ice age and then warmed again to the point that human habitation was possible, and also speculating that all of these supposed massive changes in the weather or climate had nothing to do with human involvement.
That's because... The end of previous ice ages had nothing to do with human activities.

Unless, of course, you believe there were hundreds of millions of gasoline-powered cars circa 12,000 BCE.


And then they get themselves bent in a twist over imaginations that a few hundredths of a degree change in one point here or another there is sufficient to assume alarming massive weather changes are coming and it is somehow human's fault and human's responsibility to keep it from happening.
Or....

Temperatures have changed roughly 1.5C since 1750 (pre-industrial era). The planet keeps breaking temperature records, and it's not by a "few hundredths of a degree." Warming is likely to hit 3C by the end of the decade, and won't stop there.

It's already having effects, one of which is increasing the frequency and intensity of wild fires. It also makes storms more intense and powerful; greater sea levels makes floods more likely, and have a bigger impact; it causes more droughts; it depletes water supplies; it reduces crop yields; heat waves are more frequent and more intense; the list goes on.

Keep in mind, there are a few billion more people on the planet than there were during the last Ice Age. We're putting a huge strain on the environment already, and billions of people are vulnerable.

So yes, we know it's real, and yes, it matters.
 
That's because... The end of previous ice ages had nothing to do with human activities.

Unless, of course, you believe there were hundreds of millions of gasoline-powered cars circa 12,000 BCE.



Or....

Temperatures have changed roughly 1.5C since 1750 (pre-industrial era). The planet keeps breaking temperature records, and it's not by a "few hundredths of a degree." Warming is likely to hit 3C by the end of the decade, and won't stop there.

It's already having effects, one of which is increasing the frequency and intensity of wild fires. It also makes storms more intense and powerful; greater sea levels makes floods more likely, and have a bigger impact; it causes more droughts; it depletes water supplies; it reduces crop yields; heat waves are more frequent and more intense; the list goes on.

Keep in mind, there are a few billion more people on the planet than there were during the last Ice Age. We're putting a huge strain on the environment already, and billions of people are vulnerable.

So yes, we know it's real, and yes, it matters.

:bs Alarmist nonsense.
 
That's because... The end of previous ice ages had nothing to do with human activities.

Unless, of course, you believe there were hundreds of millions of gasoline-powered cars circa 12,000 BCE.


You admit that humans had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with past climate changes, no matter how monumental or negligible?
 
An interesting question.

[FONT=&quot]". . . My question – why do US greens seem to believe advocating forestry management is synonymous with opposing climate action?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Surely it is possible to be concerned about climate change, yet also support sensible forestry management policies.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In my native Australia the issue of forestry management is barely a debate anymore. It is common in winter to see controlled burn operations to clear undergrowth, even in states with green governments, because the alternative is unthinkable. Australia might be famous for our catastrophic bushfires, but we have learned through bitter experience that forestry management mitigates the risk.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lives will be saved if US greens drop their senseless opposition to effective forestry management."[/FONT]

Politics
Green Fury: California Fires Caused by Environmentalists, Not Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Greens have reacted with fury at Trump Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke‘s suggestion that opposition to sensible forestry management is exacerbating fire risks. Wildfires seem unstoppable, but they can be prevented. Here’s how. Ryan Zinke, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2018 Actively managing our forests benefits the…
 
An interesting question.

[FONT="]". . . My question – why do US greens seem to believe advocating forestry management is synonymous with opposing climate action?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Surely it is possible to be concerned about climate change, yet also support sensible forestry management policies.[/FONT]

[FONT="]In my native Australia the issue of forestry management is barely a debate anymore. It is common in winter to see controlled burn operations to clear undergrowth, even in states with green governments, because the alternative is unthinkable. Australia might be famous for our catastrophic bushfires, but we have learned through bitter experience that forestry management mitigates the risk.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Lives will be saved if US greens drop their senseless opposition to effective forestry management."[/FONT]


[FONT=&]Politics[/FONT]
Green Fury: California Fires Caused by Environmentalists, Not Climate Change

[FONT=&]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Greens have reacted with fury at Trump Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke‘s suggestion that opposition to sensible forestry management is exacerbating fire risks. Wildfires seem unstoppable, but they can be prevented. Here’s how. Ryan Zinke, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2018 Actively managing our forests benefits the…
[/FONT]

More Wattsian :bs by ex-Breitbart journalist Eric Worrall. Can safely ignore.
 
You admit that humans had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with past climate changes, no matter how monumental or negligible?
Of course. I am quite confident that before 1750, human activity had a minimal impact on the environment.

Climate scientists do not, in any way shape or form, deny that natural cycles and events affect the climate. Rather, they recognize that human emissions of GHGs are producing effects that are more powerful than natural cycles or events. E.g. CO2 is at levels the planet hasn't seen in nearly 1 million years, and that isn't because of volcanoes.

I.e. The fact that natural processes change the climate is not mutually exclusive with human activity changing the climate.

Human agricultural activity might have had an influence on earlier events (e.g. Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age) but I don't believe it's a position held by most climate scientists.
 
More Wattsian :bs by ex-Breitbart journalist Eric Worrall. Can safely ignore.

More elective ignorance. Zinke's article was published in USA Today.

Wildfires seem unstoppable, but they can be prevented. Here’s how.
Ryan Zinke, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2018
Actively managing our forests benefits the environment, the economy, and most important, it saves lives.
The flames of the Ferguson Fire in California have become the latest symbols of a seemingly perennial challenge of fighting fires in the West. I just returned from the Ferguson Fire camp, where I met with firefighters who are working to combat the fire as it bears down on Yosemite National Park and its visitors, workers and nearby residents.

Why we need to manage our forests
There are three reasons for active forest management:
First, it is better for the environment to manage the forests. Wildfires produce smoke and emissions. The release of gases and particles can negatively affect air quality. Fires also damage watersheds, and as we see fires burning hotter and longer, the soil is actually becoming scorched and sterilized, preventing regrowth. In addition, while many of the frivolous lawsuits waged to stop timber harvests cite habitat as a concern, environmental litigants are little concerned when an entire forest burns to the ground and the habitat and wildlife are lost.
Second, active forest management is good for the economy. Logs come out of the forest in one of two ways: They are either harvested sustainably to improve the health and resilience of the forest (while creating jobs), or they are burned to the ground. Jobs matter, and logging has long been a cornerstone of rural economies. Fortunately for all, these economic benefits go hand-in-hand with our goal of healthy forests.
Third, and most important, the active management of our forests will save lives. The Carr Fire in northern California has already claimed half a dozen lives, and the Ferguson Fire has taken the lives of two firefighters. Sadly, these are not the only wildfire casualties this year.
Every year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action. Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods.

[FONT=&quot]Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...anagement-prevent-wildfires-column/913801002/[/FONT]
 
Of course. I am quite confident that before 1750, human activity had a minimal impact on the environment.

Climate scientists do not, in any way shape or form, deny that natural cycles and events affect the climate. Rather, they recognize that human emissions of GHGs are producing effects that are more powerful than natural cycles or events. E.g. CO2 is at levels the planet hasn't seen in nearly 1 million years, and that isn't because of volcanoes.

I.e. The fact that natural processes change the climate is not mutually exclusive with human activity changing the climate.

Human agricultural activity might have had an influence earlier events (e.g. Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age) but I don't believe it's a position held by most climate scientists.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
 
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
 
Maybe this will make sense to you... Notice the comment - "the new normal"...

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/tempe...levels-in-the-west-amid-widespread-wildfires/

I think that is not how it goes, after a few years of getting fuel burned off the situation will be much better, we are in this situation largely because the forests have been poorly managed...too much fuel was allowed to build up.

Dont believe everything you read, much of it these days is lies told by the would be brain molders.

DONT BE A CHUMP
 
I think that is not how it goes, after a few years of getting fuel burned off the situation will be much better, we are in this situation largely because the forests have been poorly managed...too much fuel was allowed to build up.
That's only part of the reason.

First of all, the US has used the same management policies for decades. As a result, that won't necessarily explain any relevant trends. (And yes, the trend is for more fires, worse fires, longer fire seasons, more eastern fires etc).

Second, flaws in forest management do not make trees drier, or fire seasons longer, or drive fires further east in the US.

Third, this isn't just the US that's affected. Wild fires are getting worse around the world, regardless of the forest management policies in use. Forest seasons are longer around the world. We're seeing fires in areas that don't have them -- e.g. unprecedented wildfires in Sweden that extend into the Arctic Circle.

So yes, maybe you should believe some of the things you read, because they're actually true -- even if you don't want them to be true.
 
That's only part of the reason.

First of all, the US has used the same management policies for decades. As a result, that won't necessarily explain any relevant trends. (And yes, the trend is for more fires, worse fires, longer fire seasons, more eastern fires etc).

Second, flaws in forest management do not make trees drier, or fire seasons longer, or drive fires further east in the US.

Third, this isn't just the US that's affected. Wild fires are getting worse around the world, regardless of the forest management policies in use. Forest seasons are longer around the world. We're seeing fires in areas that don't have them -- e.g. unprecedented wildfires in Sweden that extend into the Arctic Circle.

So yes, maybe you should believe some of the things you read, because they're actually true -- even if you don't want them to be true.

What you might not know is that fire costs have been eating the budget, the forest service has been begging Washington to change the way fires are budgeted so that they can get back to managing the forests. Washington of course does not work anymore, so nothing has been done. Complicating issue is that since they never know how much fires will cost they cant do long term forest management budgets.

I agree that this is not the only problem, but deeply dysfunctional Washington an lots of years if increasingly poor forest management are huge factors here.

You can forgo the snark btw.
 
What you might not know is that fire costs have been eating the budget, the forest service has been begging Washington to change the way fires are budgeted so that they can get back to managing the forests. Washington of course does not work anymore, so nothing has been done. Complicating issue is that since they never know how much fires will cost they cant do long term forest management budgets.

I agree that this is not the only problem, but deeply dysfunctional Washington an lots of years if increasingly poor forest management are huge factors here.

You can forgo the snark btw.
I am not disputing that fire policies are not working, or that budgets are insufficient. I'm pointing out that government policy doesn't explain a lot of things that are happening, such as longer fire seasons, more areas vulnerable to fires, international increases in the frequency and intensity and areas affected by wildfires, and so on.

That post wasn't snarky, by the way. It's direct. Climate change is a factor in the increase in wildfires, whether you care to believe it or not.
 
That's only part of the reason.

First of all, the US has used the same management policies for decades.
It is the poor forestry management that allows a fire to reach the canopy a lot easier. That problem HAS been around for decades.
As a result, that won't necessarily explain any relevant trends. (And yes, the trend is for more fires, worse fires, longer fire seasons, more eastern fires etc).
There are no 'relevant' trends. There is nothing at all unusual about any wildfires, their intensity, their number, or their location.
Second, flaws in forest management do not make trees drier, or fire seasons longer, or drive fires further east in the US.
The season isn't any longer. Wildfire has been ON the east coast as well as the west coast for all this time. Nothing is 'moving further east'.
Third, this isn't just the US that's affected. Wild fires are getting worse around the world, regardless of the forest management policies in use.
Wildfire is not getting worse around the world. Reporting them has just gotten better.
Forest seasons are longer around the world.
There is no 'forest fire season'. Wildfire can happen in any season.
We're seeing fires in areas that don't have them -- e.g. unprecedented wildfires in Sweden that extend into the Arctic Circle.
Fires in the Arctic circle has always occurred. Many of them burn in from Sweden, Norway, Alaska, or the USSR. Nothing 'unprecedented' here.
So yes, maybe you should believe some of the things you read, because they're actually true -- even if you don't want them to be true.
You are believing the fake news. Wildfires have NOT increased in number or in intensity. Poor forestry management in the U.S. does allow more forest to burn than it otherwise would when they were properly managed, but that's all.
 
I am not disputing that fire policies are not working, or that budgets are insufficient. I'm pointing out that government policy doesn't explain a lot of things that are happening, such as longer fire seasons, more areas vulnerable to fires, international increases in the frequency and intensity and areas affected by wildfires, and so on.

That post wasn't snarky, by the way. It's direct. Climate change is a factor in the increase in wildfires, whether you care to believe it or not.

There is no such thing as a 'fire season'. Wildfire can and does happen in any season.

A government naming some set of days 'fire season' is purely a government assignment. It does not reflect on anything actually being a longer season. Wildfires have not increased in number, intensity, or frequency. All areas are vulnerable to wildfire.

Define 'climate change'. Meaningless buzzwords don't cause wildfire.
 
This is a good summary of wildfires that occur today. Note the point that I bolded.

"Globally, wildfire size, severity, and frequency have been increasing, as have related fatalities and taxpayer-funded firefighting costs (1). In most accessible forests, wildfire response prioritizes suppression because fires are easier and cheaper to contain when small (2). In the United States, for example, 98% of wildfires are suppressed before reaching 120 ha in size (3). But the 2% of wildfires that escape containment often burn under extreme weather conditions in fuel-loaded forests and account for 97% of fire-fighting costs and total area burned (3). Changing climate and decades of fuel accumulation make efforts to suppress every fire dangerous, expensive, and ill advised (4). These trends are attracting congressional scrutiny for a new approach to wildfire management (5). The recent release of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (NCWFMS) (6) and the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS's) current effort to revise national forest (NF) plans provide openings to incentivize change. Although we largely focus on the USFS, which incurs 70% of national firefighting costs (7), similar wildfire policies and needed management reforms are relevant throughout the United States and fire-prone areas worldwide."

Reform forest fire management | Science

There are fire independent ecosystems and fire dependent ecosystems. Fire (wildfire or prescribed) can be beneficial or harmful to the ecosystem depending on the fires intensity, duration and frequency.

The deserts of the SW are not a fire dependent ecosystem. The ecosystem has been changed with the introduction of exotics like cheat grass and red brome. The exotics are fire dependent and invade burned areas out competing in some cases the native vegetation. This spread makes the desert ecosystem more prone to large fires.

Lodgepole pine forests are fire dependent. The forest needs a hot enough fire to open up the serotinous cones so the seeds can spread. Fires are generally a stand replacement event.

Ponderosa Pine forest are fire dependent and historically fires were low intensity. Fire prepared the forest floor by reducing the duff layer and thinning the forest. The pine stand was mostly open and park like.

Bottom line, when we have years of below normal snow pack, lack of rain during the summer what dead and live fuels that exist on the landscape will be more prone to burn when ignited. Exotic species and humans building homes into fire prone areas adds to the problem.
 
That's only part of the reason.

First of all, the US has used the same management policies for decades. As a result, that won't necessarily explain any relevant trends. (And yes, the trend is for more fires, worse fires, longer fire seasons, more eastern fires etc).

Second, flaws in forest management do not make trees drier, or fire seasons longer, or drive fires further east in the US.

Third, this isn't just the US that's affected. Wild fires are getting worse around the world, regardless of the forest management policies in use. Forest seasons are longer around the world. We're seeing fires in areas that don't have them -- e.g. unprecedented wildfires in Sweden that extend into the Arctic Circle.

So yes, maybe you should believe some of the things you read, because they're actually true -- even if you don't want them to be true.

The Royal Society says you're wrong.

This paper was just published in the Royal Society Biological Sciences journal. The takeaways:
“Global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.”
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world
wildfire-occurence-720x249.jpg
Figure 2. Wildfire occurrence (a) and corresponding area burnt (b) in the European Mediterranean region for the period 1980–2010. Source: San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [37].

AbstractWildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.
Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.This article is part of themed issue ‘The interaction of fire and mankind’.
The paper: Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jun 5;371(1696). pii: 20150345. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0345.
Wildfire: perceptions and realities | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Alabama’s State Climatologist John Christy Debunks This Month’s Climate Hysterics[/h][FONT=&quot]WRITTEN BY JEREMY BEAMAN There is one particular word that Dr. John Christy turns to frequently for describing climate science: murky. It’s a point of view foundational to his own research, and a message underpinning each of his twenty appearances before various congressional committees. “It’s encouraging because they wouldn’t invite you back unless your message was…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Bottom line, when we have years of below normal snow pack, lack of rain during the summer what dead and live fuels that exist on the landscape will be more prone to burn when ignited. Exotic species and humans building homes into fire prone areas adds to the problem.
It does. But it bears repeating that many of the aspects -- less snow pack, more droughts, higher initial temperatures, drier fuels -- are the result of climate change.
 
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/02/wil...ionally-as-california-battles-new-blazes.html

Wildfire acreage up 25% nationally as California battles new blazes, prepares for 'very dangerous heat wave'
...
California Gov. Jerry Brown announced late Monday that more wildfire acreage had burned statewide so far this year than during the same period last year.

Climate change is wreaking havoc with the US West. A longer, dryer warm season, has resulted in more wildfire burn acreage for the last several years.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...ic-wildfires-climate-change.html#.W2iw2ChKjIU

View attachment 67237561

More media propaganda
 
Yes. The "hot/dry temps" is one of the factors. As the UCUSA article points out, the wildfire season was at 5 months in the 1970s, and today it is 7+ months. Also since the 1970s, temperatures are up 1.9 deg F. I live in Colorado. and "high fire prone areas" can be just about anywhere.

Wildfires occur year round. There is no 'wildfire' season except that designated by the government. They changed the length of daylight savings time a few times since the 1970's too.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. 1.9 deg F is not going to start any more wildfires or make them burn more intensely.
 
Back
Top Bottom