| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| WIldfires Caused by - What Else? - Climate Change |
| 2012-07-03 |
| Are wildfires in the Western United States getting bigger and more severe? There's a fair bit of evidence that yes, they have been. And, ecologists and fire experts say, that's not a fluke. Thanks to both climate change and shifting forestry practices, humans may bear some responsibility here. A research ecologist 1) Global warming. Huge wildfires are, of course, more likely during droughts, when the forests are dried out and filled with kindling. And many parts of the West are facing "severe" or "extreme" droughts right now. But, Allen notes, data from tree-ring studies suggest that there have often been large droughts in the West. "What's different today," he says, "is that it's also getting warmer, which can amplify the fire severity in the West." Historically, Allen says, the snowy mountains have acted as giant "fire towers" that release water slowly throughout the spring and summer. But when there's less snow to go around, soils and forests get parched more quickly, which exacerbates droughts and can make large wildfires more likely. This year, snowpack in the Colorado Rockies peaked on March 6, a full month earlier than the historical average date. (Note, however, that there are still plenty of other, non-climate-change reasons why the current Colorado fires are so vicious, such as a high-pressure system that has prevented clouds from forming.) Plenty or other reasons, he says. Still, climate change is listed first among three "drivers", the other two of which are not at all theoretical. 2) Sprawl has pushed more people into forest areas, increasing the odds of fires. Many forest fires are caused by lightning. But others are caused by human activities. And as more and more people push deep into forested regions, that increases the risk of accidents. "More smokers, more ignition from motorized vehicles... even more arson," says Allen. He offers up one salient example: The record-setting Las Conchas fire in New Mexico last year, which consumed 40,000 acres, began when an aspen tree toppled onto a power line that was serving just six homes in a remote area. 3) Changing forestry practices have made wildfires more destructive. A look at tree-ring data shows that the Southwest has seen massive fires going back for centuries. But, in the past, many of these fires were low-intensity "surface" fires that mostly cleared out underbrush and prevented forests from building up too thickly. That all changed around the 1900s, when the area's population grew and forest managers began suppressing these natural fires. Southwestern forests became much more dense with trees and brush. And that means when fires do break out, there's more fuel to burn and the fires are often far more destructive. The scale of these "megafires," which can spread all the way up to the tree canopy, appears to be unprecedented in the historical record. So two unquestionable causes rooted in man, and one highly questionable theory are put on the same level. The Sunday version of this article noted forest-thinning is limited by the Spotted Owl and offered the choice of the Spotted Owl or wildfires. No wonder that got culled out! |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #14 You only need to drive west on I-70 from Denver to see the miles and miles of brown pine trees killed by the pine beetles. None of that tinder was allowed to be cleared out, so it is prime fuel for a massive fire. No doubt that human intrusion into the forest has had an impact, but I would argue that ridiculous forestry rules are the prime culprit. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2012-07-03 13:52 |
| #13 I don't know the norm - just that there is a lot of variation. One way of estimating drought is by study of tree rings - they've managed to tie together ring patterns from living trees back though old-ancient logs to get local estimates of climatic stress frequency and duration. I don't know if there are enough old trees/logs available to study from enough locations around the country and the world to reconstruct 'global' climate history. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-07-03 12:51 |
| #12 Glenmore, what IS the norm? How is it calculated? |
| Posted by: Uneatch Ebbeng2748 2012-07-03 12:10 |
| #11 I fought fires back in the 90s. Even then the forest service admitted that their own fire prevention habits were too good and was detrimental to the forest. Instead of several small, low burning fires like in the past they had a few large firestorms that were fueled by the deadfall that wasn't cleared out by the smaller fires. With the expanding wilderness/urban interface (yes, real term used for housing in the forest) it makes for real tough fights. Global warming is still bullshit. The cause of the drought was the jet stream staying north and no snow or cold air dropped on the region. It simply is that time in the cycle and it happened 8 years ago and there were large fires then too. If "experts" took the time to look they would see drought happened like clockwork every 8-10 years. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2012-07-03 10:20 |
| #10 Fires may have been started by stupid human tricks, but they become these monster fires because of accumulation of underbrush and forest floor debris during abnormally long interludes between fires. The best documented example is the Yellowstone fires several decades ago. This gets made worse by heat and drought - which seem to come in cycles. It is claimed that the current phase is outside the normal variance but I'm not certain that's correct, nor, if it is, how far it is outside the norm. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-07-03 09:57 |
| #9 Its called fuel load. Perhaps more small fires would have culled the pine beatles. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-07-03 09:46 |
| #8 I thought most were started by careless folk or firebugs... The recent Colorado Springs file notes the careless State University Mental Heath Emp who screwed up bad with his camping stove or the monster fire in AZ started by idiots having a party with rounds designed to start fires... |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2012-07-03 09:26 |
| #7 Sick of these governments playing with peoples lives like this. They disgust me. Refuse to control burn and when homes burn down and people get killed, some stupid A-hole says it is because of some fake climate scare. Criminal. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-07-03 09:03 |
| #6 "experts"... |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-07-03 08:58 |
| #5 Weren't the experts surprised when they stopped trimming back the underbrush in Yosemite and allowing fires to burn naturally and then discovered that natural fires (although healthy for the forest in the long run) can be scary big and devastating to everything nearby. Same is true out west, except there are less granite faces to contain the mess. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-07-03 08:36 |
| #4 To reduce energy consumption/carbon footprint I recommend banning air conditioning in the District of Columbia and the adjacent state counties. We all have to make sacrifices, there's the start. Heh. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-07-03 08:30 |
| #3 the area's population grew and forest managers began suppressing these natural fires. Says all you need to know. |
| Posted by: Spot 2012-07-03 08:10 |
| #2 I'm willing to bet that the wildfires kill more spotted owls than logging does. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-07-03 08:04 |
| #1 Different article, more like the one I read Sunday: Logging is forbidden in some western areas to protect the endangered Mexican spotted owl. But the Forest Service must make a call — wildfires or the owls, Allison said. This one is all climate change: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorados-table-was-set-for-monster-fire/2012/07/01/gJQAVa6cGW_story_1.html |
| Posted by: Bobby 2012-07-03 06:13 |