Dueling climatic wildfire studies

It seems that for every alarming press release these days, we can find an opposite and equal reaction. Perhaps we should dub it the First (or maybe third) Law of Climate Skepticism. We have this from the National Science Foundation this week:

Photo of a wildfire.Press Release 11-193

Scorched Earth: The Past, Present and Future of Human Influences on Wildfires

Fires have continuously occurred on Earth for at least the last 400 million years. But since the 1970s, the frequency of wildfires has increased at least four-fold, and the total size of burn areas has increased at least six-fold in the western United States alone. Steadily rising, the U.S.’s bill for fighting wildfires now totals $1.5 billion per year.

How much of the increases in the frequency and size of fires are due to human activities? No one knows for sure.  But a paper in this week’s issue of the Journal of Biogeography puts the role of fire in natural ecosystems into context and provides support for efforts to plan for future risks from wildfires.

Produced by an international team of researchers, the paper presents a new framework for considering wildfires based on the Earth’s pre-human fire history, ways that humans have historically used and managed fire and ways that they currently do so. “We need to look into the past to understand our current and future relationship with fire activity,” says Jennifer Balch of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis.

This research emphasizes the importance of understanding the relative influences of climate, human ignition sources and cultural practices in particular environments in order to design sustainable fire management practices that protect human health, property and ecosystems.

More information about this research, partially funded by the National Science Foundation, is provided in the accompanying interview with Balch, as well as in a press release issued by the University of California at Santa Barbara.

-NSF-

===============================================================

Reading that, you’d get the idea that the only the supposed recent climate change drives wildfire increase, right? Welll…not so fast. There’s more to the story. First, I think wildfire data suffers from the same sort of technology and media driven statistical bias near the present as do thunderstorm and tornadoes. Second, just like with Mannian team insistence that trees are accurate treemometers, there are many other factors and drivers in play. Liebigs law rules the issue, and water is often the most influential factor rather than temperature. Read this press release from 2009 by the Ecological Society of America below. Emphasis mine.

================================================================

Plants Could Override Climate Change Effects on Wildfires

Paleoecological data reveal strong influence of vegetation changes on wildfire frequency

The increase in warmer and drier climates predicted to occur under climate change scenarios has led many scientists to also predict a global increase in the number of wildfires. But a new study in the May issue of Ecological Monographs shows that in some cases, changes in the types of plants growing in an area could override the effects of climate change on wildfire frequency.

Philip Higuera of Montana State University and his colleagues show that although changing temperatures and moisture levels set the stage for changes in wildfire frequency, they can often be trumped by changes in the distribution and abundance of plants. Vegetation plays a major role in determining the flammability of an ecosystem, he says, potentially dampening or amplifying the impacts that climate change has on fire frequencies.

“Climate is only one control of fire regimes, and if you only considered climate when predicting fire under climate-change scenarios, you would have a good chance of being wrong,” he says. “You wouldn’t be wrong if vegetation didn’t change, but the greater the probability that vegetation will change, the more important it becomes when predicting future fire regimes.”

Higuera and his colleagues examined historical fire frequency in northern Alaska by analyzing sediments at the bottom of lakes. Using meter-long samples, called sediment cores, Higuera and his colleagues measured changes in the abundance of preserved plant parts, such as pollen, to determine the types of vegetation that dominated the landscape during different time periods in the past. Like rings in a tree, different layers of sediment represent different times in the past.

The researchers used radiocarbon dating to determine the sediment’s age, which dates as far back as 15,000 years. They then measured charcoal deposits in the sediment to determine fire frequency during time periods dominated by different vegetation. Finally, they compared their findings to known historical climate changes.

In many cases, the authors discovered, changes in climate were less important than changes in vegetation in determining wildfire frequency. Despite a transition from a cool, dry climate to a warm, dry climate about 10,500 years ago, for example, the researchers found a sharp decline in the frequency of fires. Their sediment cores from that time period revealed a vegetation change from flammable shrubs to fire-resistant deciduous trees, a trend which Higuera thinks was enough to offset the direct effects of climate on fire frequencies.

“In this case, a warmer climate was likely more favorable for fire occurrence, but the development of deciduous trees on the landscape offset this direct climatic effect. Consequently, we see very little fire,” Higuera says.

Similarly, during the development of the modern spruce-dominated forest about 5000 years ago, temperatures cooled and moisture levels increased, which – considered alone – would create unfavorable conditions for frequent fires. Despite this change, the authors observed an increase in fire frequency, a pattern they attribute to the high flammability of the dense coniferous forests.

Higuera thinks this research has implications for predictions of modern-day changes in fire regimes based on climate change. These findings, Higuera says, emphasize that predicting future wildfire frequency shouldn’t hinge on the direct impacts of climate change alone.

“Climate affects vegetation, vegetation affects fire, and both fire and vegetation respond to climate change,” he says. “Most importantly, our work emphasizes the need to consider the multiple drivers of fire regimes when anticipating their response to climate change.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 21, 2011 7:40 am

Cost of fires should not even be considered. If people insist on building homes in areas where fires can occur (which is anywhere there is combustible vegetation of any kind), then there is always the chance the homes will burn. Especially if the people prevent any active fire prevention actions such as controlled burns, fire roads etc. And just imagine the pre-mankind prairie fires that must have raged in the Plains states! It boggles the mind. Mother Nature has always used fire to change and renew habitat. Man is the one that keeps preventing her from doing what periodically needs to be done.

September 21, 2011 7:40 am

Second Law of Climate Skepticism : the time lag in hours between publication of a wildly alarmist and mostly baseless CAGW article or blog and its total debunking on a realist article or blog is a quantity forevermore approaching zero.

pittzer
September 21, 2011 7:55 am

I live next to a nature preserve in Austin, TX. This preserve is choked with Ash Juniper and is dry in the wettest of years. The keepers of the preserve SHOULD be using a system of cutting and prescribed burns in an attempt to rehab the land to it’s state prior to the introduction of grazing cattle. However, their science only includes building fences and keeping mountain bikers and dogs out. As a result, we have hillsides full of tinder-dry material just waiting to burn down the whole city. I live in fear of this scenario. It’s a perfect example of shoddy science putting us in danger.

Hugh Pepper
September 21, 2011 7:55 am

It is clear from both these articles that fire events have to be considered in the context of climate change. Assessing risk involves looking at all factors and the way they interact. For example, when a forest is devastated (weakened) by pine beetles, as in California, or Spruce Bud Worms (Alaska), and rising populations encroach into forested areas, AND there is a prolonged period of drought, small fires can become out-of-control wildfires very quickly. Yes, fire has always been a natural event, and a means of assisting the forest to regenerate, but humans have greatly changed the landscapes, and in many areas we have replaced diverse forests with monoculture tree farms, which are far more susceptible to fire and disease. Remember too, that in the past 50 -60 years our populations have tripled (roughly 2 billion to 6 billion)and we continue to add about 90 million to our numbers every year. This increase ensures that the threats described above will continue and worsen.

Douglas DC
September 21, 2011 8:03 am

Jay Davis -exactly right. I am a former airtanker pilot.. I cannot tell you how how may time I have seen homes surrounded by brush, trees and having no defensible space. Then they complain about retardant on the shake roof….
However the USFS and BLM has helped this idea along because they now do not really fight fires any more. The grounding of already meager air resources ( Chico’s own Aero Union) and the closing of forest roads contribute to the current state of the problem with wildfire.
The lack of thinning of forests is another factor. An example of interference in the nautral process
is the replanting of non approprite species after a fire, the non thinning of replanting after the
reach a certain size….
Then you blame global warming…

Douglas DC
September 21, 2011 8:05 am

“After the trees reach a certain size…”
dang it..

Bob Diaz
September 21, 2011 8:18 am

Sorry, but I couldn’t help but think of this music while reading this…

September 21, 2011 8:18 am

Were not some of the fires in California caused by people not being allowed to clear brush etc away from homes? And this drives up the cost of fires as California then had very expensive homes as compared to other areas of the country. Climate had nothing to do with those fires.

Don K
September 21, 2011 8:26 am

“The increase in warmer and drier climates predicted to occur under climate change scenarios has led many scientists to also predict a global increase in the number of wildfires. …”
Predicted? By whom? I thought the consensus re climate change was warmer and wetter.

Eric Gisin
September 21, 2011 8:28 am

There is a US Forest Service journal with a paper describing how natives of the pacific northwest set low-intensity fires ever few years in the fall. Most likely this was for the benefit of big game, which do not eat trees. This would have stopped in the late 19th century, when euro-settlers arrived.
The accumulation of dead wood set the stage for high-intensity fires in the 1930s, which resulted in fire supression, eventually leading to more fires when logging was stopped by eco fascists.

CodeTech
September 21, 2011 8:41 am

Agree with Jay Davis.
And, we can’t compare a wild, unmanaged continent with what we have now. Fires were most likely a more common occurance, but less devastating. It would appear the natural state of a forest doesn’t include much underbrush.
Sure, humanity’s fingerprint is all over the changes. But it definitely has nothing to do with CO2…

Peter Miller
September 21, 2011 8:56 am

I was under the impression that fires are larger now, but less frequent than previously, due to man’s interference.
Environmentalists discourage little fires by building firebreaks and trying to stamp out every little fire as it occurs. Consequently, dead twigs and undergrowth build up over many years until such time as they provide a huge store of fuel for a very big fire.
Of course, we should not forget the hand of man in the form of your friendly neighbourhood arsonist.

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
September 21, 2011 8:59 am

Human factors for increasing wildfire incidence and intensity – sure:
* many more people, often urban/suburban idiots using their new found (and undeserved) wealth to buy up pieces of wild land in the forest, and plopping a house down in the middle creating an indefensible space
* same increase in people with no land ethic whatsoever moving into the woods, doing stupid things
* federal agencies (primarily Forest Service * BLM) reneging on their promise to the rural west, refusing to manage several hundred million acres of forest, permitting it instead to grow old and moribund, and much more fire-prone
* refusal by same federal agencies to use aggressive tactics (retardant, bulldozers, large airtankers) in wilderness areas, allowing small fires to become much larger
Adding the above “human factors” to a landscape that is characterized by summer drought under normal situations, and occasionally exacerbated by cyclical drought, and we get more, larger, and more intense wildfires when a dry cold front blasts through with a spectacular lightning bust.
I don’t see a climate signal, but clearly several important human factors that have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.

Gary Turner
September 21, 2011 9:01 am

“Despite this change, the authors observed an increase in fire frequency, a pattern they attribute to the high flammability of the dense coniferous forests.”
This is one of the factors driving the Texas hill country wildfires, an area of dense juniper and cedar scrub forests.

JaneHM
September 21, 2011 9:02 am

An equally relevant question is what is the effect of prolonged wildfire seasons on climate.

kim;)
September 21, 2011 9:16 am

I have seen the tops of pine trees blowup – without outside influence or excessively high temperatures. It is lack of humidity [ Relative humidity less than or equal to 25% ]and the types of trees [ Pines have a high pitch content ]. When they do, the burning pitch spreads creating more burn.
Look to humidity and tree types.

DeanL
September 21, 2011 9:21 am

I thought there was a huge conspiracy among scientists to demonstrate a solid consensus on the science being settled? And I thought sceptics here argued that contrary or non-negative climate science change wasn’t publishable? Appears to me that the science is still being done – it’s just that the climate science house of cards “sceptics” want to believe in just does not exist.
First Law of Climate “Skepticism”: Be willing to make several conflicting arguments concurrently.

Interstellar Bill
September 21, 2011 9:33 am

LK
You’re parenthetical swipe at ‘undeserved’ wealth
has a strong tang of leftist envyism.
Wealth is only undeserved when it’s stolen, whereas
when its earned it’s by definition deserved,
since it was given voluntarily.
Most ‘undeserved’ wealth comes from stealing legally thru govt,
especially ruinous tax rates to pay for high salaries at Fannie & Freddie
and to bail out the Wall St firms that were Obama’s biggest donors.
For example, Al Gore’s wealth is 100% ‘undeserved’,
being garnered via govt-supported AGW lies.

September 21, 2011 9:39 am

DeanL says:
I thought there was a huge conspiracy among scientists to demonstrate a solid consensus on the science being settled?
97% is the ridiculous alarmist claim.
And I thought sceptics here argued that contrary or non-negative climate science change wasn’t publishable?
Read The Hockey Stick Illusion and get educated. The deck is heavily stacked against scientific skeptics – the only honest kind of scientists.
“Appears to me…” Baseless opinion. Pf-f-f-ft.
First Law of Climate “Skepticism”: Be willing to make several conflicting arguments concurrently.
You are conflating the cognitive dissonance endemic to the alarmist contingent by inventing your already debunked “Law.” Got anything actually worth posting? You can start any time.

philincalifornia
September 21, 2011 10:05 am

mkelly says:
September 21, 2011 at 8:18 am
Were not some of the fires in California caused by people not being allowed to clear brush etc away from homes?
========================================
No, you’re thinking of Australia, where I still find it amazing that people were not charged with manslaughter for that (e.g. compare with Italy where scientists are being tried currently, for providing incompetent, generic information regarding the recent big earthquake there).
Here in N. California, brush clearing was heavily encouraged even before the 1991 inferno. Now it’s mandated in the Oakland/Berkeley hills, complete with inspections. Also, many eucalyptus trees have been removed. It’s all a lot safer here now.

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
September 21, 2011 10:06 am

Interstellar Bill says:
September 21, 2011 at 9:33 am
LK
You’re parenthetical swipe at ‘undeserved’ wealth
has a strong tang of leftist envyism…
Bill, my apologies. I’m not a frequent poster here (although read and thoroughly enjoy this site!), so will take my 40 lashes for not including the /sarc tag.
If you knew me, you’d understand. Indeed, it’s altogether possible we’ve met at a Tea Party event.
Many in the CAGW crowd, even in my own forestry profession, point to the huge expanses of dead lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce in the interior west and proclaim loudly, “see, see, the extended drought was caused by man sourced CO2, resulting in the death of these trees.”
Not so much. Most of these forests were unmanaged, and overmature and dying. Made them ripe for mountain pine beetle, and a huge conflagration should a lightning bust happen at the wrong time. The only human fingerprint is lack of management, nothing more.

Tom_R
September 21, 2011 10:06 am

>>DeanL says:
September 21, 2011 at 9:21 am
I thought there was a huge conspiracy among scientists to demonstrate a solid consensus on the science being settled? And I thought sceptics here argued that contrary or non-negative climate science change wasn’t publishable? Appears to me that the science is still being done – it’s just that the climate science house of cards “sceptics” want to believe in just does not exist. <<
Really? Which one of the two articles quoted above goes against the cAGW dogma? Neither.
There is, however, an easy experiment any academic without tenure could do to prove us wrong, If you fit that category then just publish an article that points out any discrepancy in the cAGW dogma, and see how long you keep your faculty position. It doesn't even need to be much of a discrepancy, and could just be an article written for WUWT. Go ahead, dare to prove us wrong.

Geoffrey Withnell
September 21, 2011 10:07 am

Mr. Pepper
I don’t at this time recall any studies showing monoculture tree farms being more susceptible to fire. Disease, yes, but I fail to see how they affect fire susceptability, since they are seldom of particualrly flammable species.
“Hugh Pepper says:
September 21, 2011 at 7:55 am
….. Yes, fire has always been a natural event, and a means of assisting the forest to regenerate, but humans have greatly changed the landscapes, and in many areas we have replaced diverse forests with monoculture tree farms, which are far more susceptible to fire and disease. …..”

Peter Foster
September 21, 2011 10:34 am

Perhaps a scientist could investigate the relationship that the number of fires is proportional to the human population and how that relationship changes with the affluence of that population. Alternatively it could be proportional to the number of matches/lighters that are sold in the aforesaid affluent population.

September 21, 2011 10:55 am

“since the 1970s, the frequency of wildfires has increased at least four-fold, and the total size of burn areas has increased at least six-fold in the western United States alone.”
Not according to this data from the US National Interagency Fire Center
http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/10yrRA_Nmbr_Fires.jpg
or NOAA
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/fire/2011/08/august2011_wildfirecount.png
or Canada:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tIRx9mI5Np0/Thku9iFMvhI/AAAAAAAABtI/yuDFGje-k9o/s400/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B792011%2B92829%2BPM.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xX5iQCskG_4/Thku9xUaZ2I/AAAAAAAABtQ/jQOS84h6pxw/s400/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B792011%2B92732%2BPM.jpg

1 2 3