The Guardian: Support Climate Action or Face Hellfire

The low-to-moderate intensity surface fire in this prescribed burn will lower the fuel load in this forest in the Lake Tahoe Basin. CREDIT
Alan H. Taylor

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Ivan Kinsman – According to The Guardian, if you don’t mend your wicked ways you will burn in climate driven hellfire. But the Guardian fails to identify the true culprits behind USA’s devastating wildfires.

This is what our future looks like – Hellfire

by John Vaillant • Photography by Tim Hussin

The worst case scenario plays out the same way everywhere, whether you are in southern California or northern Alberta. A nascent wildfire – driven by extreme heat, high winds, drought conditions and a century of largely successful fire suppression – explodes into a juggernaut and takes over the countryside.

Any houses in the way are simply more fuel. Preheated to 500C by the 100ft flames of the advancing blaze, homes don’t so much catch on fire as explode into flames. In a dense neighborhood, many homes may do this simultaneously. The speed of ignition shocks people – citizens and firefighters alike – but it is only the beginning.

Because the temperatures achievable in an urban wildfire are comparable to those in a crucible, virtually everything is consumed as fuel. What doesn’t burn, melts: steel car chassis warp and bend while lesser metals – aluminum engine blocks, magnesium wheels – will liquify.

What do you call something that behaves like a tornado but is made of fire?

Wildfire scientists bridle at the term “fire tornado”; they prefer “fire whirl”, but “fire whirl” seems inadequate to describe something that built its own weather system seven miles high. In 1978, meteorologist David Goens devised a classification system that placed fire whirls of this magnitude in the “fire storm” category, along with the caveat that: “This is a rare phenomenon and hopefully one that is so unlikely in the forest environment that it can be disregarded.”

This was 40 years ago. So what has changed?

For one, the addition of a new verb to the wildfire lexicon. “Natural fire never did this,” explained Gyves. “It shouldn’t moonscape.” But now it does. It is alarming to consider that this annihilating energy arrived out of thin air, born of fire and fanned by an increasingly common combination of triple-digit heat, single-digit humidity, high fuel loads, dying trees and the battling winds that swirl daily through the mountains and valleys all over California and the greater west.

There was a time not so long ago, when a fire like this one, which forced the evacuation of 40,000 people and burned nearly 1,000 sq km across two counties, might have been a monstrous anomaly, but now, says Jonathan Cox, a Cal Fire battalion chief: “The anomalies are becoming more frequent and more deadly.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/oct/10/climate-change-what-will-happen-hellfire-california-forest-fires

While I feel for the people who have lost everything, its important to identify the real cause of their misery, to avoid wasting resources chasing phantoms.

Decades of forest mismanagement by green politicians is what caused this, not climate change.

Back in August, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke identified the real culprits behind these disasters.

Wildfires seem unstoppable, but they can be prevented. Here’s how.

Ryan Zinke, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2018

Actively managing our forests benefits the environment, the economy, and most important, it saves lives.

The flames of the Ferguson Fire in California have become the latest symbols of a seemingly perennial challenge of fighting fires in the West. I just returned from the Ferguson Fire camp, where I met with firefighters who are working to combat the fire as it bears down on Yosemite National Park and its visitors, workers and nearby residents.

Why we need to manage our forests

There are three reasons for active forest management:

First, it is better for the environment to manage the forests. Wildfires produce smoke and emissions. The release of gases and particles can negatively affect air quality. Fires also damage watersheds, and as we see fires burning hotter and longer, the soil is actually becoming scorched and sterilized, preventing regrowth. In addition, while many of the frivolous lawsuits waged to stop timber harvests cite habitat as a concern, environmental litigants are little concerned when an entire forest burns to the ground and the habitat and wildlife are lost.

Second, active forest management is good for the economy. Logs come out of the forest in one of two ways: They are either harvested sustainably to improve the health and resilience of the forest (while creating jobs), or they are burned to the ground. Jobs matter, and logging has long been a cornerstone of rural economies. Fortunately for all, these economic benefits go hand-in-hand with our goal of healthy forests.

Third, and most important, the active management of our forests will save lives. The Carr Fire in northern California has already claimed half a dozen lives, and the Ferguson Fire has taken the lives of two firefighters. Sadly, these are not the only wildfire casualties this year.

Every year we watch our forests burn, and every year there is a call for action. Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods.

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/08/active-forest-management-prevent-wildfires-column/913801002/

In my dry, fire prone native Australia even green governments usually actively manage our forests. They don’t really want to – every so often one of them backslides – but in Australia the consequences of poor forest management are so immediate and devastating, voters take an active interest in reminding politicians what will happen if they fail this most basic duty.

Forest management works. Its really very simple – if there is nothing to burn, there can be no fire.

Active forest management means ensuring adequate fire breaks, to prevent fires from spreading, good access roads so firefighters can rapidly reach and control any fires which do occur, and regular controlled burnoffs of excess fuel to reduce the intensity of any fires which do occur.

Unfortunately in the USA greens have gotten away with mismanagement of forests a lot longer than could ever happen in Australia. Innocent US families are now bearing the cost of decades of green policy failures – while greens try to deflect responsibility for their own mistakes and mismanagement by blaming climate change.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LdB
October 12, 2018 8:47 pm

Even if we restored CO2 levels to the Guardians perfect value we still have some high fire risk. In this day and age we must demand zero deaths etc, there is no risk that is allowed. The solution is therefore obvious trees burn so we either remove all trees or create genetically engineered trees that don’t burn … problem fixed 🙂

WXcycles
October 12, 2018 10:10 pm

“The rise in the IPCC is now the leading cause of a dangerous increase in ridiculous quotations.” – UN IPCC

Ivan Kinsman
October 12, 2018 10:39 pm

To blame the huge recent wild fires on the ‘greens’ for ‘poor forestry management is utter bollocks and you know it Eric. Your viewpoint us a huge oversimplification and is written simply to blame everything on environmentalists and cast them in a negative light.

Forestry mismanagement may be a contributing factor where trees are too dense and there are not enough fire breaks but only one of the factors. Of course the rising temperatures as a result of cO2 emissions are a big contributing factor, with warmer winters leading to increased drought and the drying out of the land.

Again, just as in Florida, those who have lost their homes and possessions will be thinking about climate change next time they head for the ballot box.

Trump sits in the WH listening to the praise of his mega rich buddy Kayne whilst American citizens struggle to put their lives back together. The optics ciuldn’t have looked worse.

Emory
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
October 13, 2018 2:55 am

Decades of forest fuel buildup due to ill-advised fire suppression policies and management practices is exacerbated when the natural cycles of drought occur. Not the other way around. Tree ring cores prove drought and fire have occurred for eons, long before modern climate change (whatever that is supposed to be).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
October 13, 2018 10:31 pm

“Ivan Kinsman October 12, 2018 at 10:39 pm

To blame the huge recent wild fires on the ‘greens’ for ‘poor forestry management is utter bollocks and you know it Eric.”

And then there is reality.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

The council made clearing land illegal, based on “green” policies.

Amber
October 13, 2018 12:07 am

The Guardian will be long gone before the earth floods . Of course if the Guardian really believed what it preached they would stop their tree killing ways . Maybe that’s why they do it . Deflection strategy or guilt ?
The objective of eco-anarchists like the Guardian is population elimination so what better way than by
flooding the earth as the IPCC has predicted over and over again . Obviously crying wolf has lost its effect .
The deplorables can’t even be fooled anymore . A trillion $ scam just crumbling under the weight of it’s own BS .
Climate changes and fortunately humans are not running the show . An inconvenient truth indeed .

Don
October 13, 2018 4:08 am

This in via Energy Matters http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-250/

“Australia is rejecting the latest U.N. report on climate change, insisting coal remains critical to energy security and lowering household power bills…. Australia’s Environment Minister Melissa Price believes the IPCC report exaggerates the threat posed by fossil fuel.”

Don132

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Don
October 13, 2018 10:28 pm

Don, you made a comment at that link that the oceans have 1000x the specific heat capacity of air. While you are heading in the right direction, the number is well short of the actual. Water has ~2500 times the heat capacity of air. For the alarmists to claim that ~4% of ~410ppm/v CO2 is warming the air above the land and oceans which in turn warms the land surface and deep ocean, is simply a load of twaddle!

Don
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 16, 2018 8:48 am

You may be right. My understanding is that the oceans, taken as a whole, have 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere as a whole, taking into account the heat capacity of water versus air.

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Don
October 16, 2018 9:20 am

So what point are you making here exactly? You just are happy to see the oceans gradually warming? And the impact on the life in those oceans? You think everything will just carry on as normal? Think that and you grand kids are going to be living on a sterile planet. Ok with you maybe but not with me and many others…

gnomish
Reply to  Ivan Kinsman
October 16, 2018 9:26 am

doesn’t all that existential angst make your stigmata bleed?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 16, 2018 9:32 am

” For the alarmists to claim that ~4% of ~410ppm/v CO2 is warming the air above the land and oceans which in turn warms the land surface and deep ocean, is simply a load of twaddle!”

Yes indeed.
And this while that 0.04% (actually)
Greens the planet.
Miraculous stuff CO2 (sarc).
It does what you want it to but nothing else.

Don
October 13, 2018 6:29 am

Dumb question:
If CO2 absorbs and emits IR, and if roughly half of that IR is directed back down, then why would the local atmosphere not burn up on a foggy day, when there’s an abundance of water vapor that absorbs/emits IR in many more wavelengths than CO2?

Or to put it another way, since it’s chilly here today and there’s fog in the valleys, can I go to the valley to warm up? Or if I climb a mountain and it gets cold but clouds are near the summit, can I climb up to the clouds to warm up?

These things would make sense to me if back-radiation is so powerful. I’m just trying to figure out ways to survive the coming end-times.

Thanks in advance,
Don132

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Don
October 16, 2018 9:42 am

“If CO2 absorbs and emits IR, and if roughly half of that IR is directed back down, then why would the local atmosphere not burn up on a foggy day, when there’s an abundance of water vapor that absorbs/emits IR in many more wavelengths than CO2?”

Because it’s not a one-shot action.
The half that goes down is radiated back up again and half of that is back-radiated.
And so on. And so on.
In a fog there is a balance between that received from the ground and that emitted from it’s top.
Otherwise the fog will either cool/thicken or burn-off.
In strong insolation the burn-off wins. In radiation conditions the cooling/thickening wins.
WV has more absorbing/emitting wavelengths yes BUT there is an overlap at 15 micron where CO2 is most effective, especially so at 255K – which is the temp that has it’s peak emission at 15 micron. And where is that temp to be found? – at the Earth’s effective radiating level (where indeed more goes up than back down. Currently at ~6km globally averaged …. and slowly rising.
At the surface WV massively dominates.

Keith
October 14, 2018 9:18 am

“Triple-digit temperatures and single-digit humidity”? Never mind that AGW theory suggests rising humidity levels. Never mind that temperatures are always more variable in conditions of low humidity. Somehow, high temperature and low humidity equals CO²-caused thermageddon.

(palm-to-head interface)

Ivan Kinsman
Reply to  Keith
October 14, 2018 9:55 am

Every sceptic has their own ‘killer theory of why global warming is not happening. Fortunately the vast majority on this planet, particularly in Europe, remain unconvinced. So you will have to do better than that.
https://www.euronews.com/2018/10/13/thousands-rally-against-climate-change-across-europe

gowest
October 16, 2018 4:32 am

There is a simple answer- make the environmental departments responsible for fire damage.