Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States News Science

Climate Change Doubled the Size of Forest Fires In Western US, Says Study (time.com) 191

Posted by BeauHD from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TIME: Man-made climate change has doubled the total area burned by forest fires in the Western U.S. in the past three decades, according to new research. Damage from forest fires has risen dramatically in recent decades, with the total acres burned in the U.S. rising from 2.9 million in 1985 to 10.1 million in 2015, according to National Interagency Fire Center data. Suppression costs paid by the federal government now top $2 billion. Now a new study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has found that a significant portion of the increase in land burned by forest fires can be attributed to man-made climate change. Other factors are also at play, including natural climate shifts and a change in how humans use land, but man-made climate change has had the biggest impact. That trend will likely continue as temperatures keep rising, researchers said. Climate change contributes to forest fires in a number of ways. Fires kill off trees and other plants that eventually dry and act as the fuel to feed massive wildfires. Global warming also increases the likelihood of the dry, warm weather in which wildfires can thrive. Average temperatures in the Western U.S. rose by 2.5 degree Fahrenheit since 1970, outpacing temperature rise elsewhere on the globe, according to the research.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climate Change Doubled the Size of Forest Fires In Western US, Says Study More

Climate Change Doubled the Size of Forest Fires In Western US, Says Study

Comments Filter:

  • Total BS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:35PM (#53052699)

    The only man made problem here is the fact we've stopped forest fires in the first place. They are worse because of all the underbrush that didn't burn in the first place.

    Climate change has nothing to do with it, except it got the author a new grant.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What about the man made problem of climate hysteria?

      Above average year of hurricanes? Climate change!

      Below average year of hurricanes? Climate change!

      8 year gap in major hurricanes hitting the US? We are just lucky.

      Gap ends and Florida gets hit? Climate change!

      Warm day? Climate change!

      Cold day? Climate change!

      I'm currently enjoying a beer while typing this, unfortunately it was the only one in the fridge... clearly the fault of climate change.

      • I remember when climate change (back when it was called global warming) was responsible for lack of snow in winter.

        Now that (in my area, and elsewhere) we are getting record snows, guess what causes that...

        • When was global warming responsible for a lack of snow in winter, and who said that? Was it someone who might know what they're talking about, or was it just someone spouting off?

          • Mostly someone spouting off. I think I was remembering an op-ed by Robert Kennedy Jr. (I looked it up, published in 2008 [robertfkennedyjr.com]):

            In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

            (And you can read the rest of the text from the link, it's plainly in the context of climate change.)

            But even scientists can pin the blame as they see fit [nytimes.com]:

            ''I bought a sled in '96 for my daughter,'' said Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. ''It's been sitting in the stairwell, and hasn't been used..."
            ...
            And Dr. Oppenheimer, among other ecologists, points to global warming as perhaps the most significant long-term factor.

        • The jetstream moving further south [blogspot.com.au] due to a decreasing temperature differential between a rapidly warming Arctic and the not-as-rapidly-warming lower latitudes, allowing cold air from the poles to move further south than previously.

          Not a guess, as such, more like science.

      • When I was a kid, 70 years ago, winter storms and cold arrived in the first week of November. We also had much more snow. Winter now arrives after Christmas.

        70 years ago, by first week of April, we could say, winter has ended.

        I see a one month shift and I also note mich less precipation. Want collaboration of my comment? Ask the ski hill operators.

         

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by popo ( 107611 )

      Exactly.

      Forests burn.

    • Choices (Score:3, Interesting)

      by frovingslosh ( 582462 )
      Which should we blame, poor land management or climate change? Hmmm, climate change is popular, lets go with that.

      • Hey! We're not even sure whether it's man made as long as it's climate related, now you come with an argument that is certainly man made but not climate related. Stop introducing new variables, we're trying to have a sensible bickering here!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dywolf ( 2673597 )

          you may not be sure.
          but the scientists are.
          and its their opinion that counts.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Salgak1 ( 20136 )

            WHICH scientists, is the question.

            The ones with any authority would be geophysicists with specialization in atmospheric physics, and meteorologists. . .

            The opinions of, for example, biologists or metallurgists would not be relevant. . .

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dywolf ( 2673597 )

        the answer is both, unless you lack the capacity for rational thought.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Barsteward ( 969998 )
      When are you going to publish your own research to back up your claim so we can all read it?
      • you don't have to wait for his research. You could read the many research papers already published on the topic, or hell even read the research this story points to which also points out this is a significant contributing factor. It has long been a problem in Australia too, especially around where I live near Canberra where the greenies were given too much power and actively prevented a lot of undergrowth clearing and burning, this led to some devastating bushfires here around 2003, on the bright side the r
        • his premise was that longer droughts do not result in more fires, thats the research i'm waiting for.
          • he didn't mention droughts, so not sure what you are referring too, he claimed they are worse because of all the undergrowth not being regularly burn't as it would be in nature, instead it is allowed to build up and results in larger fires. That is most definitely a fact and supported by evidence and research. Climate Change may also contribute, not sure how you can effectively measure that with so many other contributing factors though.

    • Some people just want to see the world burn...

    • Another trick to make disasters look bigger is to denominate them in dollars of damage. This boosts them in two ways:
      - It multiplies them by inflation. (They're talking "decades". Damage costs of $100 in four decades ago dollars, in current dollars come to $219.46.)
      - It ignores increases in target size: How many more, and more expensive, houses, vacation/retirement homes, suburbs, and other pricey buildings and infrastructure have been built out into formerly "wild" areas - still subject

  • What about forest management practices (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:38PM (#53052711)

    There's also been a big change in forest management practices during that time. How were those factored in?

    • Re:What about forest management practices (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:45PM (#53052747)

      A fair amount of this can probably be traced back to this. In the days of yore, the Forest Service had a policy of "Out by 11" (the next day). The reality is that just caused massive fuel buildup in the forests, and made them far more flammable than they were in the past. That said, climate change has magnified this problem and made the tinder box even more dangerous.

      Reference: I spent two summers ago at the heart of the Wolverine Fire in Chelan County, WA. We watched over 1000 acres burn in 15 minutes (from 8 miles away) and it's what I imagine what a Nuclear weapon going off would look like.

      • Re:What about forest management practices (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @12:36AM (#53052933) Homepage

        The reality is that just caused massive fuel buildup in the forests, and made them far more flammable than they were in the past. That said, climate change has magnified this problem and made the tinder box even more dangerous.

        Considering that forests here in the west thrive on natural burn policies, and the current forestry management practice is to put them out ASAP, you're right on part of that. There are parts in the pine forests in Western Canada where the debris is more then 6' deep in places. Some places are even worse after the pine beetle infestations, there are places in the US the same way. Climate change hasn't magnified this problem, but humans sure have magnified it by not letting natural burn & regrowth cycles to occur.

        Hell when I was in California(Southern) in the 1980's visiting with my dad's friends, the hills in the mountains usually burned every summer or every other summer. I was out there ~4 years ago, 3' of debris and the last fire had been in 1996. They put out even the smallest brush fire in minutes. These are man-made problems.

        • mod parent up

        • Re:What about forest management practices (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @03:06AM (#53053265)

          and the current forestry management practice is to put them out ASAP, you're right on part of that.

          Actually, modern policies are to let it burn as much as possible, and only fight it where required. In our situation, they protected our facility (we run a retreat center in a deep valley) by doing controlled burns throughout our valley. This greatly reduced the fuel load, while protecting the larger/more established trees, and saving our site. In the end, the forest will be far more healthy because of this fire.

          There were some other fires, further into the back country that summer as well, and for the most part they just kept them under observation, and allowed them to follow their natural course.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Jhon ( 241832 )

            "Actually, modern policies are to let it burn as much as possible"

            You forgot to add in "recently updated" between that comma and "modern". You also forgot to mention that a lot of this is regional (for state controlled land vs. federally controlled land -- rules aren't necessarily the same).

            There's still a HUGE build up of old growth that needs to either be cleared manually (not going to happen) or burn off in a blaze of glory.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Layzej ( 1976930 )
          Hotter years typically have more forest fires [climatecentral.org].Years are getting increasingly more hot. [woodfortrees.org]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Orgasmatron ( 8103 )

      Same as always. Team Hockey Stick passes around an internal survey asking if global warming caused all of the fires, or just some. Since The Team is, by definition, the only scientists qualified to give opinions on such questions, the fires are Presto! "attributed" to the funding stream that is putting their kids through college and fuelling their yachts.

      Anyone, like you, raising an objection will be investigated, and shortly you will be discredited because the grocery store you use gives a 2 cents-off-pe

    • There's also been a big change in forest management practices during that time. How were those factored in?

      DENIER!!!

    • Yup. The practice of small controlled burns and/or fuel management just aren't practiced. I was shocked earlier this year with this story [bostonglobe.com] where they mentioned that it hadn't burned in 70 years. It probably hadn't been logged or cleaned out at all in that time either. From a few years back here in MN there was the gigantic fires up in the BWCA and there was a big concern about the blow down from several years previous since there were just piles of dry wood laying around from that still. After the blow down

  • yeah (Score:5, Informative)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:51PM (#53052765) Journal
    Here's the raw data [nifc.gov], the article itself is behind a paywall. Choosing 2015 is kind of cherry-picking for the headline, since in 2014 there were only 3,5 million acres burned.

    There's a fairly strong correlation between temperature and wildfires, so, this finding seems reasonable.

  • Firefighting increases forest fire size (Score:5, Informative)

    by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:53PM (#53052775)
    Firefighting also increases forest fire size. Attacking nearly every fire allows flammable materials to collect, we end up trading a series of small fires for a very large conflagration when an area eventually burns.

    There is some debate about being less aggressive and to allow a process closer to natural, but development and the protection of structures complicates things.

    So man made causes, those of a climate change variety and others are both at work. It would be interesting to see how they separate the two. Plus increased human activity in an area also increases fire risks, from unsupervised campfires to bad mufflers on dirt bikes and atvs. Its not as simple as saying there was an increase from 3M to 10M acres over the last 30 years. I've witness a lot of increased development and increased human activity in southern california hills that are prone to wild fires.

    I also worked a wild fire once ... as a scuba diver ... recovering and hooking up buckets helicopters dropped (if a lift doesn't feel right its a safety precaution, quick detach cable and try again) into a lake being used as a water source. Take that myth busters, scuba diver in a tree at a forest fire, plausible. :-)

    • Firefighting also increases forest fire size. Attacking nearly every fire allows flammable materials to collect, we end up trading a series of small fires for a very large conflagration when an area eventually burns.

      Part of firefighting where I live involves back-burning (ie deliberately lighting small fires to burn all the combustible material) to prevent a large uncontrolled fire.
      The biggest issue here is human proliferation. Back in the day a fire could burn for a week and not threaten anyone. Now that there's so many humans everywhere, even small fire is a disaster.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 )
      California forestry service does prescribed burns periodically, during the wet parts of the year. But it's getting complicated by the recent dry years - too much of tinder-dry undergrowth and dead trees have accumulated. The windows for safe burns are becoming smaller especially given the vast population of California.
    • Energy in has to equal energy out. Plants take in CO2 and H2O, and use sunlight to convert it to (C6H10O5)n - cellulose. Energy from sunlight gets converted into energy stored in cellulose. That energy is released during fires. So for global warming to be causing a two-fold increase in forest fires, it must first be causing a two-fold increase in the creation of cellulose - growth of plant matter Any increase in fires without a corresponding increase in the creation of plant matter is just a transient

  • Alas, they got it backwards. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:59PM (#53052795)

    Uhm, I think it's the fires that cause the warming, not vice versa.

    [No whooshies, please!]

  • Shoddy science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday October 11, 2016 @12:19AM (#53052875)

    Average temperatures in the Western U.S. rose by 2.5 degree Fahrenheit since 1970, outpacing temperature rise elsewhere on the globe, according to the research.

    Western North America was cooler than normal for the period running from about 1949 to 1972, IIRC (I used to work in a lab that studied past climates using 13C from trees and 18O from ice cores). You could just as easily flip it and say 1970 was 2 or 3 degrees cooler than 1940.

    I'll put this one on the article writer rather than the scientists, but - sloppy work like this just give the denialists more ammunition to keep ignoring actual valid data. Cooking the books in an attempt to provoke a stronger reaction ends up back-firing, more often than not.

  • More carbon dioxide and warmer, more humid temps should also means an explosion of plant life right?

    • Plants also need freshwater and fertile soil to grow. Otherwise deserts would be forests.

      • Plants also need freshwater and fertile soil to grow. Otherwise deserts would be forests.

        Global warming is making more rain. Some parts will become dryer, but others will become more wetter and more green. Global warming may be catastrophic for humans, but should be a net gain for trees. (ie exactly like a greenhouse, which is where it got its name)

  • Why is this horseshit even posted? The tiniest glance at actual temperature change data show this is complete BS.

    • Relly? Which source did you use?

      I quick search in google on 'Temperature west USA 1970 till now' gave the following 2 links:
      EPA [epa.gov] and NOAA [epa.gov]

      Both are for the US as a whole, and both show a temperature increase of approx 2.5 F.

      • Ah, but if you look closely you'll notice that the heat only starts when we start measuring it with satellites. Conclusion: Satellites cause global warming, we have to stop funding NASA. If we can't measure it, it doesn't happen.

  • As far as I can tell, the paper shows that temperature increases are correlated with more wildfires. Up to this point it's solid science. Then they then define "Anthropogenic climate change" to mean "temperature increases since 1901" and "climate variability" to mean "fluctuations about the trend since 1901" and conclude that the anthropogenic climate change has been the cause of wildfire. Here I call shenanigans.

    When most people say "climate variability" (especially in contrast to "anthopogenic climate

    • The temperature has gone up, so there's more wildfires. You seem on board with that.

      Then we need to ask about why the temperature has gone up. We find that man-made CO2 emissions are large enough to matter considerably, that the amount of CO2 has indeed gone up considerably because of human activity, and the temperature has gone up. Scientists have been saying since the late Nineteenth Century that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would probably warm things up. Currently, a theory to account for

      • There is no doubt that man-made CO2 emissions contribute significantly to the warming seen since the 19th Century, so that most of the warming since 1901 may be due to man-made emissions. Please clarify where in my post I asserted otherwise.

        In other words, we both agree that "man-made CO2 emissions would warm things up". But the authors of the paper are relying on the assertion "all warming up is due to man-made CO2 emissions" and that is something else entirely.

        The authors of the study claim they can sepa

        • I haven't been following the literature, so I can't really comment on this. It looks to me like AGW is sufficient to explain temperature increases, and I don't know of other explanations that actually turned out to work, so it may well be that human activity has caused all the temperature change. I really don't know. I do know that human activity is responsible for big changes.

  • In the Valley Fire (on Cobb, CA) the firefighters were literally seeing behavior they have not seen previously. In particular, the fire produced its own massive updraft and inversion layer, the combination of which was lofting burning coals into the sky and throwing them great distances -- which spread the blaze. We literally had little bits of charcoal land in OUR yard, and we live miles away. Of course, exploding propane tanks don't help...

  • As usual Slashdot totally fucks up the headline with a clickbait headline that in no way represents the research. Forest fire size have doubled, but the research DOESN'T say this is from climate change, it says this has occurred due to many factors including increased fuel from mismanagement of undergrowth and climate change being a contributing factor as well/. It is embaressing, you can't even link an article on this site anymore as you will get laughed at for the tabloid amateur headlines that are create

  • 1985 (Score:2)

    by fche ( 36607 )

    How strange, I wonder why they chose 1985 as the starting point for their analysis. It couldn't possibly be cherry-picking for a local minimum, could it?

  • One of the huge concerns especially if you look at xkcd's representation of the development of modern man and civilization vs Temperature is that the arrival of modern man and the development of civilizations occurred at a relatively flat plateau in temperature. It's uncertain if we'll be able to thrive as well if the temperature shoots up beyond this plateau which we seem to be rapidly accomplishing. I'm not saying we'll completely die out or anything but if you look at that graph a few degrees below ave

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close