To hear and read the MSM reports about this fire, you’d think that the entire states of Colorado and Wyoming were ablaze. Meanwhile, the usual paid advocates are already wailing about how the fires are supposedly exacerbated by “climate change”. NASA has released MODIS imagery that puts the size of fire in perspective:
Colorado’s High Park Fire continues to expand and generate a lot of smoke visible on NASA satellite imagery. NASA’s Terra satellite showed winds from the west-southwest blowing the smoke to the north-northeast and into Wyoming and southwestern Nebraska on June 19th, 2012.
The High Park Fire is located approximately 15 miles west of Fort Collins, Colorado, and is now 55 percent contained. To date, 189 homes have been lost, according to the U.S. Forest Service. More than 1,900 people are currently battling the fire, and about 1.3 million gallons of water have been dropped on it. As of June 20, the fire has consumed 65,738 acres, up from the previous day’s total area of 59,500.
On June 19, 2012, at 1840 UTC (2:40 p.m. EDT) the light brown colored smoke and the heat signatures from the fires were detected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument that flies onboard NASA’s Terra satellite.
Inciweb reports that pre-evacuation notices were issued to a number of areas. The U.S. Forest Service reported that fire was spotted “across the Poudre Canyon on the northwest corner of the fire triggered additional evacuations for the Glacier View subdivision and additional pre-evacuation notices west to Glen Echo Resort.” For a complete list of those areas and more information and firefighting updates, visit the Inciweb website: http://www.inciweb.org/incident/2904/.
For an unlabeled, high-resolution version of this image, visit: http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=Colorado.A2012171.1840.250m.jpg.
=============================================================
Some interesting stats from SOS Forests Western Institute for Study of the Environment:
The number of wildfires has been declining since the early 1980’s. That may be an artifact of the counting system. Many small fires started by multiple lightning strikes in the same vicinity are counted as one fire today, while they may have been counted as many individual fires in prior decades.
Total Number of Wildfires, 1960-2009. Chart by W.I.S.E.
In addition, delays in rapid response to small fires may result in those fires merging, and then they are counted as one fire. That can happen to large fires that merge, as well. There are many name changes and mergers of fires during the fire season, which confounds the fire count. Wildfires don’t happen in test tubes in a laboratory, and so the counting system is not as accurate and precise as some scientific studies might lead you to believe.
Another possible explanation for the decreasing number of wildfires is that human-caused and/or lightning-ignited fires are fewer today than 30 years ago. We have no data to either support or refute those hypotheses.
The average size of wildfires in 2009 was 75 acres. That is more than 2008 (66 acres per wildfire), but less than 2005, 2006, and 2007 when the average wildfire size was 131 acres, 103 acres, and 113 acres per fire, respectively.
Average fire size is not a useful statistic, though, because the distribution (number of fires by acreage class) is skewed by a few very large fires (greater than 20,000 acres). The NIFC does not report the distribution, but it is more or less in a “reverse-J” (negative exponential) shape, with many small fires, fewer medium-sized fires, and a handful of megafires out in the tail. The average fire size is also dependent on the total count of wildfires, which may be biased by inaccuracies and imprecision in the counting system, as mentioned above. We present the following chart anyway, because we have the annual data and it was easy to make the graph.
Annual Average Wildfire Size, 1960-2009. Chart by W.I.S.E.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By my little eye-strapolation of the trend curve, there will be 0 fires in about 2017. Nirvana with choiring angels will thereupon descend upon the state.
Or maybe not.
Wouldn’t a more important statistic be total number of acres burned per year?
Compared to the Cedar Fire or the Witch Creek Fire in San Diego…it is small potatoes…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2007_California_wildfires#San_Diego_County
The note about paid advocates complaining that the fires are caused by “climate change” reminds me of Michael Crichton’s novel on the Warmers’ fanaticism and strategy: “State Of Fear.”
If anyone here has NOT read that, I would HIGHLY recommend it!
– MJM
The neighbouring states should sue for all the second-hand smoke.
It’s unusual to have an early fire season that is this active. Interestingly, native Americans in Colorado used forrest fires as weapons and also to heard animals.
Oh dear.
Flying off to US early tomorrow for a driving holiday in Colorado and Wyoming.
Don’t want to see ashes everywhere !!
As Steve Goddard pointed out in1898, Forest Fires Burned Most Of Northwestern Colorado, involving an area about 50 times larger than this present outbreak. If you want to see real big scale fires, come out to Australia in summer.
To give a little perspective, the following two images show what the smoke plume looked like locally, viewing the fire area from about 40 miles to the south east of the fire.
The first below is the actual smoke plume from the High Park fire on June 9 2012 as the fire was starting to develop rapidly from a small fire to cover approximately 800 acres.
http://blackhorsephoto.net/wild_fire/high_park_fire_smokeplume_early_12C_0022a_sm.jpg
The second image below is actually from a different fire the 4 mile canyon fire on 9/6/2010, but is visually very similar to the smoke plume of the High park fire on day two when it got to about 35,000 acre coverage.
http://blackhorsephoto.net/wild_fire/4_mile_canyon_fire_smoke_plume_DSC_0005.jpg
(photos copyright Larry Ledwick)
Fire suppression efforts included both water drops from multiple helicopters and in the early days of the fire they had 6 slurry bombers flying out of the Jeffco Air Tanker Base at Rocky Mountain Metro Airport (formerly named Jeffco airport) near Broomfield Colorado.
The entire front range near Denver is populated with fire species trees that evolved to deal with fire conditions and studies in the area just west of Denver show that these areas typically burn about every 75-80 years. Much of this area is over due for a large burn so the extent of the High Park fire is neither unusual or unexpected in the longer historical view.
Larry
I’m probably not the first to say this, but wildfires are natural part of the woodland ecosystem.
Yes, I’m fully in favour of actively fighting wildfires when they’re 1) caused by humans, or 2) a threat to life or property.
However, I’d allow naturally-caused fires to run their course, intervening only minimally when necessary to protect lives or property.
Decades of forest fire containment has led to greater accumulation of combustible debris on the forest floor.
So, yes… there may very well be a human cause for bigger and more intense forest fires, but I wouldn’t automatically pin the blame on global warming.
There are a couple of items that should be mentioned regarding these fires. First, the Obama Administration gutted the air tanker fleet, thereby assuring that these fires would be larger than they otherwise would be. And second, how did these fires get started? I haven’t heard, but it’s interesting to me that Islamic militants recently called for their adherents to set fires in the West as a way to attack the US. Does anyone know how these fires are getting started? Arson? Lightening? Accidental?
Show a time when climate didn’t change and there were no forest fires then I might pay attention.
Large-tree-burning fires are a recent development and are primarily caused by man (not climate change). Natural fires used to be frequent and burned rapidly and did not burn hotly because they consumed what once was relatively meagre forest brush and litter. The frequent fires produced an absence of fuel, fuel which is now abundant because of fewer fires that are rapidly controlled. The abundant fuel allows fires to burn long enough and hot enough at the trunks of trees to the point the fire reaches the forest canopy and a “crown” fire results, a fire that rages through tree tops creating its own powerful winds and spreading rapidly.
If you can’t allow small fires to burn away the brush and forest litter frequently, then the most cost-effective alternative is herds of goats and sheep. But fire does a better job.
Using the number of acres burned per year might be a bit skewed, too.
Most firefighting used to be ground based till the mid to early 50’s. Then, airdrops of water made the containment easier, and helicopters were able to insert/extract crews closer to the center. Fires can be spotted earlier because of firetowers (which gained popularity in the early 1900s), and fire crews dispached quickly. Several states created fire roads to get crews in and out (and to provide firebreaks to act as a barrier to slow or stop the progress).
Satellite images like those shown above gained popularity. There are even programs that allow people to “model” fire events under varying conditions (check out here: http://www.firemodels.org/), and allow advance planning.
So as technology advanced, so did the fire detection and responses.
The exaggerations of global warming crowd remind me of a movie part Jimmy Durante played as an army recruit. He dropped his 1903 Springfield rifle picked it up and told the drill Sgt. it was broke beyond repair.
Could the fact that we stopped automatically fighting all fires about 30 years ago have played a roll. The total amount of built up fuel has decreased over that time.
@ur momisugly majormike1 says:
June 21, 2012 at 11:56 am
DEAD ON! As a 40 year resident in a forest fire “bullseye” region (Northern Arizona), and having had to evacuate my house twice because of impending fires, I resoundingly concur. I was also a USGS employee, and worked with several forest management types who stated exactly as you have above. They refer to the modern forests as “doghair” growth, which literally has trees growing so close that a man cannot walk on the ground through them. Doghair growth also ushered in another phenomenon almost unheard of in older times, the “canopy fire” wherein the fire escapes the ground, flaming the explosive tops of the trees, producing a fire which generates its own wind and can travel 25-30 mph. Even water bombers can only circle overhead and wait for the fire to stall before attacking the edges. Cutting the bomber fleet certainly made that scenario even worse! Thanks Mr. Obama!
A corollary to the doghair problem is the increased spread of pine beetles, but that’s s whole different rant! Actually, pine beetles may be nature’s way of correcting man’s bungling!
I now live in Texas, learning to dodge tornadoes! Sheesh!
Brian H says:
June 21, 2012 at 11:13 am
… Nirvana with choiring angels will thereupon descend upon the state.
What? The 1980s rock band?
Some perspective from someone who lives here…
Fires are not uncommon this time of year. Not every year normal, but not unheard of. But this was the driest winter in at least 20 years (after one of the snowiest last year when we had 200+%) There is no snowpack left. Also lots of beetle kill and waaaay more fuel than there would be if we allowed fires to burn rather than letting the forest grow out of control. This was not an if, but a when situation. Unfortunate for those who live in the area. I live in Denver. No smoke. Fire was started by lightning. Last one we had a few months ago was caused by the forest service lighting a “controlled” burn. People who lost homes were not happy.
Not the first, and surely not the last as there is a lot of fuel left in the mountains. However, contrary to what is often thrown out there, the beetle kill is natural and, though widespread and bad, not unprecedented. With or without AGW, this would still be happening. Poor forest management and the fact that more people live in these areas than in the past makes it seem much worse than it is.
Lastly, once “contained”, they are saying it will be fall before it fully burns out. Contained only means they will keep it from spreading further.
And to the guy coming here from overseas. You’ll be fine. Still plenty to see. You wouldn’t have gone there anyway. Drive through the smoke and move on and enjoy.
Cleaning the forests is a natural process that has been going on for millions of years. The insects kill the trees so they are receptive to burning and a new process begins all over again. It is a revitalization of the natural habitat with a natural process. It is called homeostatis and everything comes back stronger and better the next time around.
Aqua and Terra satellite imagery is available on a daily basis for the entire US. Resolution varies on the orbital positions of the satellites.
http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/imagery.php
I looked over the last several days and it appears they picked the image with the greatest amount go smoke.
From previous graphs we have fewer but larger fires. What about total area then? I think I interpreted this data correctly.
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html
http://i.imgur.com/2MlfN.png?1
Seems to have increased overall.
“MarkW says:
June 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Could the fact that we stopped automatically fighting all fires about 30 years ago have played a roll. The total amount of built up fuel has decreased over that time.”
Uhmmmmmmmm….methinks you have your facts 180 degrees out of phase there,Mark.
Could the fact that we started automatically fighting all fires about 30 years ago have played a roll. The total amount of built up fuel has increased dramatically over that time.
There. All fixed for ya.
Justthinkin says:
June 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Two points, we stopped fighting all fires automatically about 30 years ago, not started.
Secondly, the question was about a decrease in number and size of fires.
The act of no longer fighting all fires and letting them burn themselves out, should lead to less fuel on the ground so that over time, there would be fewer and smaller fires, once the over burden has burned off.
I guess they won’t tell us how many Manhattan’s that is! Maybe it should be measured in tennis courts – the megalomediacs measure Greenland ice melt in olympic-sized swimming pools full.