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.”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 22, 2011 3:11 am

This is rank cherry-picking. From my forthcoming book, Don’t Sell Your Coat:
“In the 1920s, according to the U.S. Forest Service, fires burned an average of 26 million acres a year. During the 1930s, they burned an average of 39 million acres a year. During the 1940s, the total was 22 million acres a year. During the 1950s, 10 million acres a year. During the 1960s, the total burned was 5 million acres a year. During the 1970s, 4 million acres a year. During the 1980s and ’90s, fires again burned an average of 5 million acres a year. The record for the 2000s shows an annual average of 7 million acres a year.
“Thus, the overall trend for the past century is overwhelmingly in decline. If the number of acres burned increased next year to the levels of the 1920s and ’30s, what do you suppose the newspaper headlines would read?”
The NSF signed off on these false claims? Really? For shame…

LKMiller (aka treegyn1)
September 22, 2011 6:18 am

@Caleb:
“There are not so many plants in the east which, like some western pines, require fire to even open their cones.:
Actually, lodgepole pine is essentially the only widespread species in the west with serotinous cones, and even that is not complete across the range. In the east, a very close relative of lodgepole, jack pine, has serotinous cones across its complete range. Where ranges of jack and lodgepole come together in Manitoba, hybridization occurs and we see a broad range of cone serotiny.
Western species co-evolved with fire. Thus, combined with ever-increasing bark thickness with advancing age, completely unmanaged stands (no fire control whatsoever) in the interior west developed a regime of light intensity surface fires, thereby cleaning out the understory of brush and thickets of small trees. The larger trees with very thick bark protecting them from light intensity fires, thrived.
Another human influence on fires comes via our friend Smokey – the rush to jump on every smoke and “put them out by 10 o’clock,” lead to stands in the interior west choked with young trees, and much more prone to a stand-replacing fire.

Mike
September 22, 2011 8:11 am

Once the forests burn up there will be fewer fires!

Robert Doyle
September 22, 2011 8:44 am

Guess I Rip Van Winkled. Didn’t the AGW “scientists” proclaim and explain to the press
that the snow driven spring floods were caused by the modeled, predicted increase
in water vapor?

Douglas DC
September 22, 2011 8:51 am

I agree Natural fire is important. But,I’m not against Smokey Bear. There are way too many human caused fires. The big fire on the Apache-Sitgraves this year was due to careless campers, Arson, and accidents happen. BTW the “Out by 10:00” has long been gone. More like “Out when it rains/snows”. Reason has to used when managing fire. A good example
is the Tillamook Forest. Now the state of Oregon has been looking at a “Green” option, since the replanted trees (at the hads of the good people of Tillamook county in the 1950’s ) Green meaning “no/little cut” the stand needs to be thinned. to not thin is foolish…

kramer
September 22, 2011 12:16 pm

How much of the increases in the frequency and size of fires are due to human activities? No one knows for sure.
Many of these recent fires in the US could have been started by arsonists, terrorists, technocrats, or careless campers.

Patrick Davis
September 22, 2011 11:10 pm

Australian Police have arrested two teenagers (19 and 13) who are suspected to have started all the recent fires in New South Wales. I wonder if they are involved with any pro-agw groups?

Richard Scott
September 23, 2011 8:59 pm

The Park Service line included a big dose of nonsense after the Yellowstone fire. “It’s part of a natural process and is really a good thing”. Well, not quite. They let the fuels build up to unnaturally high levels so that when the fire occurred, flames were twice as high as the trees. Natural fires in the area are generally ground fires, not nearly so intense.
The bit about the fires killing the bugs that would otherwise kill the trees is questionable at best. Sure, the bugs died, but so did the trees. “We have to destroy the forest to save it” kind of thinking.
The Yellowstone fire fire did release a lot of seed from the lodgepole cones. But a couple years after the burn, I walked several acres and saw only half a dozen seedlings. The fire not only released the seed, but it also burned a lot of them. I haven’t been back there, so the forest may have come back, but it didn’t look like a good start, at least in the area I surveyed.