Climate change is likely fueling the larger and more destructive wildfires that are scorching vast areas of the American West, according to new research led by Michigan State University scientists.
These erratic fires are harder to contain and often result in catastrophic damage and loss of property and life. Although not analyzed in the study, the recent Arizona wildfire that began with a lightning strike and killed 19 firefighters appeared to be such an unpredictable, fast-spreading blaze, according to a state report.
The MSU-led study, which appears in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, predicts the trend will continue in the western United States.
“Our findings suggest that future lower atmospheric conditions may favor larger and more extreme wildfires, posing an additional challenge to fire and forest management,” said Lifeng Luo, MSU assistant professor of geography and lead author on the study.
The researchers analyzed current and future climate patterns projected by multiple regional climate models and their effect on the spread of fire in a mountainous region that includes Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The study focused on August, the most active month for wildfires in the western United States.
August 2012 saw 3.6 million acres burn in the region, the most of any August since 2000. However, there were only 6,948 fires in August 2012 – the second fewest in that 12-year timeframe – meaning the fires were much larger.
Large wildfires are mainly driven by natural factors including the availability of fuel (vegetation), precipitation, wind and the location of lightning strikes. In particular, the researchers found that exceptionally dry and unstable conditions in the earth’s lower atmosphere will continue contributing to “erratic and extreme fire behavior.”
“Global climate change may have a significant impact on these factors, thus affecting potential wildfire activity across many parts of the world,” the study says.
Co-authors include Ying Tang and Shiyuan Zhong from MSU, and Xindu Bian and Warren Heilman from the USDA Forest Service.
– See more at: http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/extreme-wildfires-likely-fueled-by-climate-change/#sthash.u0hR62YK.dpuf
=========================================
I’m late thanks to having to deal with some BS this AM, but I’ll add comments that have factual information to
dispute this. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Gray Monk @ur momisugly 9:09 am:
Exactly so.
So they see changes in the weather and models since 1975, and give their opinion of the effect of those changes. Did they examine how often in the past similar conditions existed?
More predictions based on models that have been proven wrong. Nothing like ignoring facts to fuel an agenda. No matter how you look at it; BS + BS still equals BS. Just more of it!
who cares what the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology says about Extreme Wildfires? You want actual information, you go to the Extreme Journal of Extremely Applied Extreme Meteorology and Extreme Climatology. And MSU? They don’t even have an Extreme Department of Extreme Climatology or Extreme Meteorology, so I don’t know where they get off doing a totally non-extreme study on anything.
Additional authors were Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo and Ho Lee Fuk.
Seems like an increase of CO2 is almost always associated with a decrease in O2 which should decrease fire danger. See for example: http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/3_Seasonal.pdf
‘May’ is a month of the year , and a great get-out trick for those that wish to make a claim which allows them to say ‘its not happened yet but it could’ or those that want to get their excuses in early for when their BS turns out to be total wrong.
As usual, pick a location in question, run the 21 General Circulation Models (GCMs) out to the year 2100, and find that 13 of 21 models predict that location will be dryer (or wetter, or warmer, or windier, or less windy, or in some cases cooler).
Then pick another location. At this other location perhaps 13 models will predict a wetter future, but not the same 13 models.
Models are not thrown out because they disagree with the average of all models 80% of the time. The 20% where a poor predictor agrees with at least 12 other models is important to these statistacally challenged computer modelers.
I believe the increase in stupidity in the last nine months with regard to these ‘studies’ is directly related to the lack of the hostess Twinkie (and to a lesser extent the other tasty hostess snacks). All students and researches lived off of these delicious morsels and their lack was sorely felt. I am appreciative of the efforts of the great state of Michigan in their efforts to distribute the hostess products to my local store. If they could also distribute a little sanity along with the spongy goodness I would be even more grateful.
Another reason for the increase in forest fires is that (I’ve read here) in recent years fewer water dumping planes have been put on retainer, and the policy has been not to extinguish small fires unless they become large ones.
I would think the University of Michigan should be more interested in what likely caused Detroit.
“…assistant professor of geography and lead author on the study.
August 2012 saw 3.6 million acres burn in the region, the most of any August since 2000. However, there were only 6,948 fires in August 2012 – the second fewest in that 12-year timeframe – meaning the fires were much larger”
Assistant prof of geography. Did he consult with anyone from the MSU department of alchemy? We map the world several times a day with great accuracy and have no more need for “graphiness” of the “geo”. As a child in school in the 1940s, it was already clear that they had nothing to do. They took up topics such as coffee grows in Brazil and Polynesia grows breadfruit. Clearly I have encapsulated their trite thesis in the paragraph above. This is the extent of the geographer’s mathematics and science.
From all these inane studies I’ve become worried about a more likely scare:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains
“As early humans faced new environmental challenges and evolved bigger bodies, they evolved larger and more complex brains.Over the course of human evolution, brain size tripled. The modern human brain is the largest and most complex of any living primate.”
By 2100, we could all have pea-heads and grow thick fur.
Wildfires are *CERTAINLY* fueled by dry cellulosic material, remains from expired plants, that did not get previously consumed by herbivores, decay-microbes (fungi and bacteria), or earlier fires. The key to wildfire prevention is the prevention of the accumulation of fuel, since the humidity cannot be controlled.
More locusts, more rot, or more controlled burns. Pick your winner!
AGU investigate the effects of wildfires!
Can’t even read it. Global warming sure has been causing a lot of stuff recently, especially considering that the curious fact that it actually hasn’t gotten any warmer in 16+ years.
You know that “pause” thing that the NYT’s recently called, “a bit of a mystery for climate scientists.”
Idiots.
Gaia can only produce so much fuel at a time.
Once that fuel has been burned, it may take decades to litter the forest floor with fuel again.
She will though, and some plants depend on the ensuing fires.
Not sure if adaptation will ever work, for the houses built in the ecosystem.
Wow, are they also running Detroit economic policy?
Heh, how timely. I just got done graphing the YTD data for the last decade from the National Inter-agency Fire Center. And making a little derisive post on such posits. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/climate-update-climate-change-means-more-wildfires/
You all are more than welcome to use the graph. Canada also has an agency tracking fires. Here’s theirs http://www.ciffc.ca/images/stories/graphs/fires.gif
Lunatics trying to tie wildfires to CC are only missing about a gadzillion other factors. Clearing the underbrush would probably be the best deterrent.
They didn’t talk to the Michicgan DNR either.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_30505_30816-24038–,00.html
“On October 8, a great wildfire struck the town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin, killing 1300 people in a single night (the same night as the Great Chicago Fire, which received the greater attention). This fire burned over 1,100,000 acres in Wisconsin and Michigan before late fall rains put it out. The Peshtigo wildfire is considered the most devastating fire in U.S. history in terms of both lives and property lost.”
The fire is from 1871
So it’s in the future again. Definitely maybe. Perhaps. If was happening now I presume they would tell us. While we’re waiting, let’s have a musical interlude.
In press reports on wild fire events in the U.S.and Australia, I never see any reference to the diverse species of plants that have co-evolved along with fire and need periodic burning to reproduce. Such plants are widespread from one end of Africa to the other and are most densely spread in those locations where mountain slopes coincide with general vegetation that provides a fuel supply. Arizona in particular has the right type of topography for wild fires to be a fairly common event. Does the U.S. in fact have such plants, evolved over eons of time?
The lack of general knoweldege about nature is extremely disappointing in academia. Country wide there are multiple insect species that have evolved to breed in burned wood. That takes a lot longer than just a few years of AGW. Wildfires are part of nature and have probably been so since plants grew into forests.
Because everyone know fire burns better when it’s warmer.
JimK says:
August 1, 2013 at 9:57 am
I think extreme wildfires are due to excess carbon dioxide causing extreme growth which leads to evermore combustible material. Oh noes!!!
—————————————————————-
Isn’t it strange the one thing that could be attached to increased CO2 is more vegetation and therefore more forest fires but the greens won’t even say that.
I guess that would mean CO2 increases are needed to feed the world.
And we know they don’t care about feeding the world.
cn