Are wild fires caused by climate change

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6

This is the way to balance the debate…expose the liars with ‘the science’.

Mozart

I worked for the Department of Forestry for 10 years.   There was some very strict rules about cleaning up undergrowth in afforested areas.   That limited forest fires to the minimum.   

Looking at the fires in Australia and California in recent years - the problem always were poor maintenance of undergrowth in both.   It is easy in both cases to blame Climate Change/Global Warming to cover up the neglect in Governance that cause deadly fires.   

According to stats in both Australia and California there were more fires started by arsonists than by Global Warming.    Despite the relatively hot climate in SA  in summer  virtually all mountain fires were caused by arsonists.   There was a relatively serious fire in the mountains near Riversdale - especially the Sleeping Beauty area - but there were arsonists wearing ANC shirts seen running away after starting the fires.  The Garcia plantation were despite proximity near the area under fire was not affected by the mountain fire.   There is virtually no undergrowth in the plantation at all.   

Maybe for the relevant purpose the Australian and California Governments should spend more money on undergrowth control and less on the theoretical Green Policy.

Duplicate

This is the way to balance the debate…expose the liars with ‘the science’.

It's not a debate, its settled science. But even if it was Bjorn Lomborg the author of this article, who is not a climate scientist I might add, has long been known for cherry picking and misrepresenting science. 

’Settled science’….only the fact that more CO2 raises temperatures all other things being equal …is settled. The extent, what other forces are at play, what the feedback effects are, is far from settled.

I repeat for your edification..  only 0.7 degrees of warming can be attributed to man made CO2. And then only in part, because the natural forces that gave us the other 0.5 degrees didn’t stop on a dime in 1950.

Also we have now used 45/50% of commercially exploitable oil reserves. Half the oil has given us <0.7 degrees in combination with massive coal usage. One would expect with the concomitant greening of the planet, the other half might give us at most another 0.7. Hardly an existential threat.

And that increase is already baked in, there is no way we can turn on other technologies fast enough to change the exploitation of much of the other 50%. All the hand wringing will produce nothing.

We have been bombarded with misleading heat headlines all summer…the bs about global warming causing Forrest fires at least has been exposed as a lie. That doesn’t depend on  Bjorn Lomborg, it’s a NASA chart and no institution is more committed to ‘the science’ than NASA.

I repeat for your edification..  only 0.7 degrees of warming can be attributed to man made CO2. And then only in part, because the natural forces that gave us the other 0.5 degrees didn’t stop on a dime in 1950.

You can repeat it all you want. Doesn't change the fact that present day warming is occurring at faster rate than early 20th century warming and is accelerating. Nor does it change the fact that the natural factor that contributed to early century aren't a factor in present warming.

Also we have now used 45/50% of commercially exploitable oil reserves. Half the oil has given us <0.7 degrees. One would expect with the concomitant greening of the planet, the other half might give us at most another 0.7. Hardly an existential threat.

I guess you can rather relaxed about the threat, with your age you're not going be around to see the full effects of climate change. I probably won't be either. Its the next generation that will really suffer.

We have been bombarded with misleading heat headlines all summer…the bs about global warming causing Forrest fires at least has been exposed as a lie. That doesn’t depend on  Bjorn Lomborg, it’s a NASA chart and no institution is more committed to ‘the science’ than NASA.

Amusing. This is a bit like Mike linking to the Guardian. You're now citing NASA to back up a claim you have made. The same NASA you have gone on about in the past as clinging to climate change as desperate ploy to remain relevant.

"If the cause is poor undergrowth maintenance, this problem must be worse than it used to be.

Look at the link wildfires are not getting worse they are getting much better.

I ts behind a paywall.

Mama mia - a few weeks ago the media lied about a distorted heat wave in Europe.   The temperature was given as 48% while temperature reading on the ground was 36%.   But even that is high compared to what I saw when watching tennis and over sport tournament with many people wearing warm clothing and especially tennis was disrupted by rain and cool temperatures.   Een tennis players wore warm tops when coming  out and awaiting  the toss,   Only when playing  they removed the warm tops.  My own eyes told me as a lie.   

There is no evidence that temperatures have risen faster since WW2.    In fact temperature meters have been recorded for more than 200 years and in that period the average total rise in that period was 1,7 degrees C.    

Politicians use the climate change myth  to get total control over people.       

Also from NASA back in 2019

>Stav Anger

I will repeat all I want because the narrative is false. ‘The world has warmed 1.2 degrees since the Industrial Revolution because of man made greenhouse gasses’

Nope only the period since 1950 can be attributed to man made CO2 increases. And then only partially. The IR is chosen because industry is hated by the goblins in the garden types and the ‘dark satanic mills’ nutters.

There are 8 billion people to sustain, we better have some ‘ dark satanic mills.’

As for me not caring about my children or grandchildren, that’s a little nasty. I do. And primarily I worry  about energy as oil becomes more scarce….right now windmills and solar companies are tanking. I own both categories and reality is setting in.

As for me quoting NASA I can’t see any reason not to when they are providing information exonerating man made climate change….given their clear bias to find fault with carbon, the fact that they are reporting declining fires based on satellite data seems to put the matter beyond dispute.

Hilarious….the NASA chart shows the level of the global area that was burned was about 3% prior to 2010 and has now dropped dramatically to 2.2% during this period of ‘Climate caused fires’. 

So the habits NASA is using as an excuse have suddenly changed so dramatically in the last 10 years, as to not only negate all the ‘climate change fires’ but also reduce the amount of land affected by fire by almost a percent.

Give me a break! These habits if they have changed at all, changed well before 2000.

As for me quoting NASA I can’t see any reason not to when they are providing information exonerating man made climate change….given their clear bias to find fault with carbon, the fact that they are reporting declining fires based on satellite data seems to put the matter beyond dispute.

Well ain't that convenient for you. NASA is competent enough to measure the number of wild fires accurately but too incompetent to measure the planets temperature accurately. 

This is not the link but covers some of the same ground….stick with moz:

Shifting livelihoods across the tropical forest frontiers of South America, the Eurasian Steppe, and the savannas of Africa are altering landscapes and leading to a significant decline in the amount of land burned by fire each year, a trend that NASA satellites have detected from space.

The ongoing transition from nomadic cultures to settled lifestyles and intensifying agriculture has led to a steep drop not only in the use of fire on local lands, but in the prevalence of fire worldwide, researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and colleagues found.

Globally, the total acreage burned by fires each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015, according to a new paper in Science that analyzes NASA’s satellite data, as well as population and socioeconomic information. The decline in burned lands was largest in savannas and grasslands, where fires are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems and habitat conservation.

Across Africa, fires typically burn an area about half the size of the continental United States every year, said Niels Andela, a research scientist at Goddard and lead author on the paper. In traditional savanna cultures with common lands, people often set fires to keep grazing lands productive and free of shrubs. As many of these communities have shifted to cultivate more permanent fields and to build more houses, roads and villages, the use of fire declines. As economic development continues, the landscape becomes more fragmented, communities often enact legislation to control fires and the burned area declines even more.

By 2015, savanna fires in Africa had declined by 270,000 square miles (700,000 square kilometers) — an area the size of Texas.

“When land use intensifies on savannas, fire is used less and less as a tool,” Andela said. “As soon as people invest in houses, crops and livestock, they don’t want these fires close by anymore. The way of doing agriculture changes, the practices change, and fire  slowly disappears from the grassland landscape.”

No Anger it’s not convenient, it’s logical. When somebody has a bias against a finding but are still forced to concede it’s true…the finding has passed a rigorous skepticism test.

No Anger it’s not convenient, it’s logical

Actually its cherry picking. 

Even that’s wrong….I never picked the NASA chart Lomborg  did. I simply provided a link to the whole article. But I do believe the chart for the obvious reasons I already cited.

Here’s another inconvenient fact:

• On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide (see Figures 1 and 2). Since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade.
• Some parts of the United States have experienced greater increases in precipitation than others. A few areas, such as the Southwest, have seen a decrease in precipitation (see Figure 3).

Over the past 50 years there has been a scientiic allegation that6 the Western Cape area wil be a desert area with minimal rainful in the area - and with dams drying up water provision to Cape Town was under threat.   It lasted for about two years and the shout went up the desert is with us.   Then the rainfall returned to normal and the dams filled up fast.

However, there was another problem that added to the water shortage and that was over the past decade the population of Cape Town more than doubled since 2000 - so there was a much bigger demand for water by inhabitants,    The normal average normal rainfall per annum in the Riversdale area is 406mm - thus far this year rainfall has been in excess of 330 mm - so it shows an increase.

There are complaints about a drought hitting  the Arizona and Colorado areas and global warming is to blame for it - but regio nal droughts have been around forever and the result is that in time to come the average situation does not really change that much.  

As to mountain fires in SA there is another issue at stake.   The mountains - especially in the Western Cape has a unique system of vegetation called fynbos at stake.  Plants like Proteas only grow from seeds after a fire - otherwise the seeds will not germinate and ultimately the plants will become extinct.     Fact is fynbios areas are protected and people cannot remove fynbos plants from the natural growing areas.    There are now undercover areas where plants like Proteas are grown for sale - but those are limited and requires that heat and precipitation are as near as possible to mountain areas.

 The attack on the issue of global warming has become totally ridiculous with the new story that farting of cows  result in global warming.   So the war on cows has resulted in the Dutch and Irish Governments to reduce the cows by 16% to start off with,   It will not have any results other than food shortages and will have no effect on the environment.   So the next 16% of a ll the cows will follow and after that another 16%..   It is that type of BS people call science and want to live by that.