California Wildfires

A lot of devastation in California. Wildfires are setting the state on fire. As of this typing it is only 25% contained. Many homes destroyed and over 20 lives lost.

This is a reoccuring issue. We've been hearing about wildfires in California for years now. Even in the 90's and 80's the state dealt with such fires. Lately, many people are blaming the fires on global warming. There's no doubt the climate is changing, its never constant honestly, but is it reasonable and sound to blame the tragedy in California on global warming, or is it something they've always dealt with and increased population and divisive political climate magnifies the issue?

I'm genuinely curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Please be civil.

As you said, the climate is constantly changing. However, I think the climate is like any dynamic system in that adding a variable to the equation will produce unpredictable results. Is it all global warming? Maybe if you define global warming as a part of a naturally occurring cycle, buy my opinion is that the influence of industry is just one piece of an incredibly complex puzzle.

Frank_Wx wrote:A lot of devastation in California. Wildfires are setting the state on fire. As of this typing it is only 25% contained. Many homes destroyed and over 20 lives lost.

This is a reoccuring issue. We've been hearing about wildfires in California for years now. Even in the 90's and 80's the state dealt with such fires. Lately, many people are blaming the fires on global warming. There's no doubt the climate is changing, its never constant honestly, but is it reasonable and sound to blame the tragedy in California on global warming, or is it something they've always dealt with and increased population and divisive political climate magnifies the issue?

I'm genuinely curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Please be civil.

I believe the earth goes through cycles of warming an cooling naturally.At one time where I sit typing this, there was 100 feet of ice.At another time, it was warm and covered with water.All before man's industry was around.I read many years ago, ice core studies in Greenland showed the earth very rapidly changed temperatures over very short periods of time.I'm not denying CO2 levels produced by industry and vehicles can change global temperatures, but the trillions spent on carbon taxes would cripple economies and lower global temperatures by very little.We take for granted our little safe bubbles we live in, but there was once a huge asteroid that hit the Yucatan area that wiped out species.The Krakatoa volcano blast affected the earth for a year.At any time, rapid temperature changes could wreak havoc or a massive asteroid strike could produce massive earthquakes or tidal waves killing millions.Another threat is the creation of a killer microorganism through rampant, poor use of antibiotics, that could produce a Bubonic Plague like epidemic killing billions.Enjoy every day you are given by God, it really is a precious gift.

I have read, and don't know if it's true, poor forest management has caused massive growths of underbrush in CA that dries out and provides tinder for these fires.I never remember this happening bakc in the 60's and 70's to the extent it is happening today.People who choose to live in these areas are facing the risk of death or loss of their property.Perhaps the hotter, drier conditions of climate change could be affecting this situation, like the people living near the ocean with hurricanes and gradually increasing water levels.CO2 levels in the USA are lower now than 15 years ago, and with the increasing use of solar, wind power, EV's, natural gas trucks and busses,hybrid vehicles I expect these levels to keep dropping.Will it be enough to lower global temperatures remains to be seen .

Frank_Wx wrote:A lot of devastation in California. Wildfires are setting the state on fire. As of this typing it is only 25% contained. Many homes destroyed and over 20 lives lost.

This is a reoccuring issue. We've been hearing about wildfires in California for years now. Even in the 90's and 80's the state dealt with such fires. Lately, many people are blaming the fires on global warming. There's no doubt the climate is changing, its never constant honestly, but is it reasonable and sound to blame the tragedy in California on global warming, or is it something they've always dealt with and increased population and divisive political climate magnifies the issue?

I'm genuinely curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Please be civil.

Good morning Frank.  Without question population density and spread is a MAJOR contributing force.  The more people you have the more likely you are to have a) stupid people, and b) accidents even with reasonable people.  Now lets combine this with the climate.  This is much more complex.  There is no doubt the SW US overall has been one of the drier places in the country in recent history.  



One might think intuitively and say well the drier it is the easier it is to burn.  What you really have to do is look at during any given year was there a wet period, even if brief, just enough to sprout all the smaller brush and grasses.  Its in those years or likely the months and years to follow that will likely end of being the worst years, because that really is the real fuel for these fires to spread.  If during the winter you get a 1-2 month period of above normal moisture for a given month, even though the yearly avg is still well below normal, you will get the smaller vegetation to grow.  Consequently the remaining time in a given year is below normal, then this vegetation dries out and becomes the kindling for the fire allowing it to spread beyond what it otherwise might.  

You can easily google and see that the number of overall Californian wildfires is actually decreasing; whereas, the number of acres burned has increased.  While a brief wet period does help promote the rapid growth of the smaller stuff, it nothing for the overall health of the larger trees/forests.  So you still have large areas in the SW with dead trees and conditions ripe for rapid spread in times when there is abundant kindling if you will.    

The overall global wind patterns and oscillations have been driving the conditions in the SW CONUS.  To blame this tragedy and the California wild fires in general on global warming, if that phrase is being used to denote "man made" global warming, is the equivalent of blaming the children for your divorce.  While the children have undoubtedly put stress on the marriage and is part of the big picture as to why the couple split, it is no way the children's fault.  

Again while a certain group of scientists, politicians, and media believe global warming causes are closed for debate, outside of that ever shrinking circle the real understanding of the true driving forces behind the climate change cont to come to light.

Its an easy answer for me . Way back in grade school about the only subject I was interested in was Geography. I remember learning about the North American climate and its regions. Coniferous forest, grasslands, deciduous forest and so on. Some people apparently forgot that much of California and much of the SW, is and has always been , designated as Desert climate or along the coast as Mediterranean which means long periods of dryness mixed in with a few months of rainy season. Fires in this region have been a natural occurrence since civilization, did some people think this would change ? Lets build tens of thousands of homes and buildings in these areas, well ok. Its no different than building on a flood plane , eventually it will flood. Look where most of the houses are , in a beautiful hilly or rolling hills area in the midst of conifers that burn like cut Christmas trees. More people , more electric lines , more ways , accidental or not, of fires starting, to go along with natural fires. I really don't know what people were expecting to happen when you overpopulate an area like this. Good lord , California has been stealing water from the Colorado river for how long now? Can't people in charge see these things coming , I know I do , but i'm not in charge.

To me, the mixing of science and politics is rarely if ever a good thing. Especially when the science is as dodgy as that upon which the theory of man made global warming is based. Not a single person has conclusively been able to show that man and our carbon emissions is causing the earth's temperature to rise. Cause and effect is hardly a valid replacement for the scientific method, yet here we are. Money and power within science have caused dogma to replace reason. Anyone who espouses these fires as a result of man made global warming has an agenda to push because the argument simply cannot be reasonably made. Again, cause and effect is not scientific. As has been stated in this thread already, the sprawl of humanity into areas that have a history of burning will tend to have catastrophic consequences at some point.

I think the global warming issue is one where reasonable people can disagree. It just tends to get my dander up when this whole "settled science" nonsense comes into play, which leads to words like "denier" or "flat-earther". For one thing, science is never "settled", otherwise we would call it something different. Like "religion". Second of all, there is nothing scientific about belittling people who simply want to see actual scientific proof as opposed to theory, conjecture, and always incorrect climate models.

docstox12 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:A lot of devastation in California. Wildfires are setting the state on fire. As of this typing it is only 25% contained. Many homes destroyed and over 20 lives lost.

This is a reoccuring issue. We've been hearing about wildfires in California for years now. Even in the 90's and 80's the state dealt with such fires. Lately, many people are blaming the fires on global warming. There's no doubt the climate is changing, its never constant honestly, but is it reasonable and sound to blame the tragedy in California on global warming, or is it something they've always dealt with and increased population and divisive political climate magnifies the issue?

I'm genuinely curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Please be civil.

I believe the earth goes through cycles of warming an cooling naturally.At one time where I sit typing this, there was 100 feet of ice.At another time, it was warm and covered with water.All before man's industry was around.I read many years ago, ice core studies in Greenland showed the earth very rapidly changed temperatures over very short periods of time.I'm not denying CO2 levels produced by industry and vehicles can change global temperatures, but the trillions spent on carbon taxes would cripple economies and lower global temperatures by very little.We take for granted our little safe bubbles we live in, but there was once a huge asteroid that hit the Yucatan area that wiped out species.The Krakatoa volcano blast affected the earth for a year.At any time, rapid temperature changes could wreak havoc or a massive asteroid strike could produce massive earthquakes or tidal waves killing millions.Another threat is the creation of a killer microorganism through rampant, poor use of antibiotics, that could produce a Bubonic Plague like epidemic killing billions.Enjoy every day you are given by God, it really is a precious gift.

I have read, and don't know if it's true, poor forest management has caused massive growths of underbrush in CA that dries out and provides tinder for these fires.I never remember this happening bakc in the 60's and 70's to the extent it is happening today.People who choose to live in these areas are facing the risk of death or loss of their property.Perhaps the hotter, drier conditions of climate change could be affecting this situation, like the people living near the ocean with hurricanes and gradually increasing water levels.CO2 levels in the USA are lower now than 15 years ago, and with the increasing use of solar, wind power, EV's, natural gas trucks and busses,hybrid vehicles I expect these levels to keep dropping.Will it be enough to lower global temperatures remains to be seen .

I agree with you Doc. I think the direction we are headed in will undoubtedly lower CO2 emissions in our atmosphere. I see solar panels everywhere I look now.

sroc4 wrote:

Frank_Wx wrote:A lot of devastation in California. Wildfires are setting the state on fire. As of this typing it is only 25% contained. Many homes destroyed and over 20 lives lost.

This is a reoccuring issue. We've been hearing about wildfires in California for years now. Even in the 90's and 80's the state dealt with such fires. Lately, many people are blaming the fires on global warming. There's no doubt the climate is changing, its never constant honestly, but is it reasonable and sound to blame the tragedy in California on global warming, or is it something they've always dealt with and increased population and divisive political climate magnifies the issue?

I'm genuinely curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Please be civil.

Good morning Frank.  Without question population density and spread is a MAJOR contributing force.  The more people you have the more likely you are to have a) stupid people, and b) accidents even with reasonable people.  Now lets combine this with the climate.  This is much more complex.  There is no doubt the SW US overall has been one of the drier places in the country in recent history.  



One might think intuitively and say well the drier it is the easier it is to burn.  What you really have to do is look at during any given year was there a wet period, even if brief, just enough to sprout all the smaller brush and grasses.  Its in those years or likely the months and years to follow that will likely end of being the worst years, because that really is the real fuel for these fires to spread.  If during the winter you get a 1-2 month period of above normal moisture for a given month, even though the yearly avg is still well below normal, you will get the smaller vegetation to grow.  Consequently the remaining time in a given year is below normal, then this vegetation dries out and becomes the kindling for the fire allowing it to spread beyond what it otherwise might.  

You can easily google and see that the number of overall Californian wildfires is actually decreasing; whereas, the number of acres burned has increased.  While a brief wet period does help promote the rapid growth of the smaller stuff, it nothing for the overall health of the larger trees/forests.  So you still have large areas in the SW with dead trees and conditions ripe for rapid spread in times when there is abundant kindling if you will.    

The overall global wind patterns and oscillations have been driving the conditions in the SW CONUS.  To blame this tragedy and the California wild fires in general on global warming, if that phrase is being used to denote "man made" global warming, is the equivalent of blaming the children for your divorce.  While the children have undoubtedly put stress on the marriage and is part of the big picture as to why the couple split, it is no way the children's fault.  

Again while a certain group of scientists, politicians, and media believe global warming causes are closed for debate, outside of that ever shrinking circle the real understanding of the true driving forces behind the climate change cont to come to light.

Great post Scott. Very interesting to see the number of fires is decreasing but the average acre burned is increasing. I also agree...the tragedy is not just the fire itself and what people are dealing with, but it's also within the scientific community who sees this as global warming evidence.

Wheezer wrote:Its an easy answer for me .  Way back in grade school about the only subject I was interested in was Geography.  I remember learning about the North American climate and its regions.  Coniferous forest, grasslands, deciduous forest and so on.  Some people apparently forgot that much of California and much of the SW, is and has always been , designated as Desert climate or along the coast as Mediterranean which means long periods of dryness mixed in with a few months of rainy season.  Fires in this region have been a natural occurrence since civilization, did some people think this would change ?  Lets build tens of thousands of homes and buildings in these areas, well ok.   Its no different than building on a flood plane , eventually it will flood.  Look where most of the houses are , in a beautiful hilly or rolling hills area in the midst of conifers that burn like cut Christmas trees.  More people , more electric lines , more ways , accidental or not, of fires starting, to go along with natural fires.  I really don't know what people were expecting to happen when you overpopulate an area like this.  Good lord , California has been stealing water from the Colorado river for how long now?  Can't people in charge see these things coming , I know I do , but i'm not in charge.

Fantastic post. Similar to my thinking honestly. Thank you for sharing.

bobjohnsonforthehall wrote:To me, the mixing of science and politics is rarely if ever a good thing. Especially when the science is as dodgy as that upon which the theory of man made global warming is based. Not a single person has conclusively been able to show that man and our carbon emissions is causing the earth's temperature to rise. Cause and effect is hardly a valid replacement for the scientific method, yet here we are. Money and power within science have caused dogma to replace reason. Anyone who espouses these fires as a result of man made global warming has an agenda to push because the argument simply cannot be reasonably made. Again, cause and effect is not scientific. As has been stated in this thread already, the sprawl of humanity into areas that have a history of burning will tend to have catastrophic consequences at some point.

I think the global warming issue is one where reasonable people can disagree. It just tends to get my dander up when this whole "settled science" nonsense comes into play, which leads to words like "denier" or "flat-earther". For one thing, science is never "settled", otherwise we would call it something different. Like "religion". Second of all, there is nothing scientific about belittling people who simply want to see actual scientific proof as opposed to theory, conjecture, and always incorrect climate models.

I agree!!

This was quite interesting, we talked about this at our last North Jersey Weather Observers meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4hbKF5-qUE

My sense is the fires have nothing to do with climate change. They have everything to do with people building up population centers in areas that are naturally historically prone to natural disasters, then being surprised when they happen. We see a similar phenomena on the east coast with the building boom on barrier islands. There were storms 50, 100 years ago that if they hit the jersey coast today would do billions in damage. Back then they did little (comparatively) damage because some of those booming shoretowns were sparsely populated fishing villages back then. The Southwest has always been hot and dry. Forests have always caught fire and regrown. It’s their natural cycle. There have not always been celebrity mansions in the middle of those forests and 24-hour news cycles to fill.

Duhhh!



https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/24/california-acknowledges-government-policy-failures-in-wildfires-not-nebulous-climate-change-excuses/