I'm only bringing this up again cause of the recent headlines and Frogger's annoying propaganda. Before either of those events, Trav recently misinformed someone (astrapol?) that there was not increased fire activity in California. In response, I posted a study showing that there was.

Here's an article talking about the issue:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-07-06-climate-fires_x.htm

By Patrick O'Driscoll, USA TODAY
DENVER — The number and size of large forest fires in the West have grown "suddenly and dramatically" in the past two decades in part because of global warming, a study released Thursday says.
The scientific paper, posted online by the journal Science, says wildfire season in Western states has grown up to 2½ months longer since 1987 because of warmer spring temperatures and earlier, faster melting of mountain snow. The timing of that annual snowmelt, a key source of the West's water, also helps gauge the severity of wildfire season.

The study by scientists at the University of California-San Diego and the University of Arizona does not address the cause of climate warming, only the effect it has had on forest fires here. Climate change is caused by gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists and politicians debate how much of that heating is made worse by humans and the burning of fossil fuels.

"We didn't set out to make a climate-change argument," says co-author Anthony Westerling, a researcher at UC-San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "But it's easier to see how a further (rise) in temperature under climate change would result in more frequent (wildfires) in these severe years. You get early snowmelt, the soil and vegetation dry out sooner, and you get a lot more fires, burning longer and getting bigger."

The paper analyzes 1,166 large forest fires (at least 1,000 acres each) from 1970 to 2004 on national forest and park land in the West. In the second half of that period, 1987-2004, there were four times as many forest fires, and 61/2 times as much land burned.

Co-author Tom Swetnam of Arizona's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research says the key shift was after 1987. Infrequent large fires that lasted a week or so gave way to more frequent infernos that averaged five weeks. One of the worst years was 1988, when almost one-third of Yellowstone National Park burned until autumn. The climate effect is most dramatic in the northern Rockies, which includes Yellowstone. The number of large fires in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming has risen 60% since 1987.

Climate is the principal reason, Swetnam says. Forests in the northern Rockies have not been as heavily managed to stop fires as most other places in the West. Putting out more fires can lead to worse fires by leaving unburned debris and unthinned groves. So human intervention is a factor, along with warming, in the worsening of wildfires in many areas. But the rising temperatures and dryness due to warming are the main factor in the northern Rockies, Swetnam says.

I bet you when the dinosaurs were around there were some huge fires that burned all year long and millions of acres!

Seriously, this is a stupid study. Global warming hasnt even happened yet. It WILL happen unless we do something NOW! How much warmer is it now then the time before all the massive out of control fires started burning anyway? 1 degree? maybe 2 if its real bad? Do you honestly think the is the cause of all these fires? you don't think insane environmental regulations that allows tons of fuel to accumulate has anything to do with it?

Look at the lake Tahoe fires of this year. the environmental managers in the area are now "rethinking" their policys. If global warming caused the fires why would they do that?

and on a side note, I measure the snow melt as runoff in the rivers that come down from the Sierra. It is NOT any earlier then it has been. It is and has been in late May early to mid June for a long, long time. it is not happening in March and April.

Hume said the catastrophic fires of this summer point to a catastrophic failure on the part of Congress and state legislatures in addressing the extraordinary danger wildfire poses to mountain communities and neighborhoods.

He said recent research by forest experts, such as Thomas Veblen of CU-Boulder, defines the danger and the source of the problem.

"For the past 100 years or so, we have been very successful in putting out forest fires in the mountain areas of the west," said Hume. "The result is dangerous fuel loading in our mountain ecosystems and a tree population 10 to 20 times greater than what existed prior to the construction of transportation infrastructure that has so clearly assisted fire-suppression efforts."

Obviously, said Hume, the let-it-burn strategy cannot safely be used, either.

He said the answer lies in "prescribed thinning and fuels reduction" where private sector companies, in cooperation with local governments and federal lands administrators, create opportunities for fuel reduction projects that can be accomplished at no cost to the taxpayer.

"This means no clear-cutting. This means highly structured and automated harvesting to trees for commercial use, with fuels reduction being the objective," said Hume. "The government subsidy strategy is not the answer in that there will never be enough taxpayer funding to really make a significant difference in fuels reduction."

Hume said in the era of high environmental consciousness, forests have for too long been loved to death.

"The environmental damage done by these catastrophic fires is hundreds of times greater than the minimal disruption causes by prescribed thinning and fuels reduction," he said.

http://www.tahoe.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73113377658738&Avis=VD&Dato=20021008&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=210080102&Ref=AR

I bet you when the dinosaurs were around there were some huge fires that burned all year long and millions of acres!

Um, good point.:rolleyes:

Do you honestly think the is the cause of all these fires? you don't think insane environmental regulations that allows tons of fuel to accumulate has anything to do with it?


So, I take it you acknowledge that there are more fires now? I just want to be clear because you were denying that fact a short time ago.

And you think we cut down less trees now than in 1970 due to "insane environmental regulations"? Am I understanding that correctly? Lol...

and on a side note, I measure the snow melt as runoff in the rivers that come down from the Sierra. It is NOT any earlier then it has been. It is and has been in late May early to mid June for a long, long time. it is not happening in March and April.

This scientist looked at data for 84 rivers in the Western U.S. and found that snow melt runoff has shifted to an earlier part of the season over the past 50 years. However, he says most of the shift took place during the 1980's.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1698-2005.05.pdf

I am responsible for gages along the Merced and Tuolumne Rivers at Yosemite and Hetch Hetchy. I have been for the past 5 years and have access to 80 years of data at some of those sites. I can plot any amount of years you like. I plotted the mean discharge since 1970 at site 11266500 Merced River at Pohono Bridge. This is an unregualted site that shows no shift in time of the snow melt run off. This is one of the sites used in the report you posted. I am responsible for all the stream flow site on the eastern part of california in your report actually. I can say that looking in my database I can see no incremental bump to an earlier snowmelt.
The report may be thrown off by snow melt on top of rain during the winter which also causes streamflow peaks during the winter months. There can be large peaks in December and January quite often. Either way, this still proves absolutly nothing in regard to the souther california wildfires.

Um, good point.:rolleyes:



So, I take it you acknowledge that there are more fires now? I just want to be clear because you were denying that fact a short time ago.

And you think we cut down less trees now than in 1970 due to "insane environmental regulations"? Am I understanding that correctly? Lol...


There may be more fires, that proves nothing. If there is year with less fires does that mean global warming is over? no, it means its a fluke year to global warming advocates.
And it is not about the amount of trees cut down, it is about the amount of trees planted to replace them. We are talking number of trees in the ground, not number cut down. And its not just trees, its also under brush and such. That stuff needs to be cleared too.