Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [See update at end] [Note correction under Figure 1.]
Our charmingly incompetent California Governor, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, has announced that all climate-change deniers are “definitely contributing” to the wildfires in the northern and southern parts of the state over the past few days, as well as blazes “in the coming years.” So look out, you dang “deniers”, it’s all your fault!
He continued:
“This is not the ‘new normal.’ This is the ‘new abnormal.’ And this new abnormal will continue, certainly in the next 10 to 15 to 20 years … And unfortunately the best science is telling us that dryness, warmth, drought, all those things, they’re going to intensify. Predictions by some scientists are we’ve already gone up one degree; I think we can expect a half a degree, which is catastrophic, over the next 10-12 years. So we have a real challenge here threatening our whole way of life.”
And what is his brilliant solution? Why … to my shock and surprise, Governor Moonbeam proposes throwing more and even more taxpayer money at it:
“And we’re going to have to invest more and more in adaptation. When we talk about things like the climate, and the warming climate, and we talk about words like ‘adaptation,’ that’s what we’re talking about. And it’s not millions, it’s billions, and tens, and probably hundreds of billions even in the span of a few years.”
So … did scientists actually “predict” that past temperatures have gone up by one degree? Can scientists actually predict the past? And can we really expect half a degree of warming in the next decade? To get some perspective on these questions, I thought I’d take a look at the records. I found an interesting site, the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), which has a variety of weather-related data state by state. So with no further ado, here is the average temperature in California from January of 1895 to the present, October 2018.
Figure 1. Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC. The seasonal variations have been removed.
Now, has the temperature gone up by one degree as the Governor said? Well, yes, but only since 1895. Since 1895, it has been going up at a rate of about 0.12°C, twelve-hundredths of a degree Celsius, per decade. [NOTE: An earlier version of this post mistakenly stated that the trend was two-hundredths of a degree per decade, rather than the correct value of twelve-hundredths of a degree per decade. The text has been changed to reflect the correct values. My thanks to Grietver, the commenter who pointed out my error.]
How much is twelve-hundredths of a degree Celsius? Well, as is widely known, temperature decreases with altitude. You can feel this when you go from sea level up the side of a mountain, for example. The rate at which the temperature drops is about 1°C for every hundred metres of additional altitude.
And this means that 0.12°C is about the altitude-caused temperature drop between … wait for it … the ground floor and the fourth floor of a building. In other words, it’s equivalent to moving 12 metres (40 feet) vertically up the side of a mountain …
So obviously, the Governor is telling porkies when he says that anthropogenic temperature rise is the cause of the recent decade’s fires. The temperature rise in California is small, twelve-hundredths of a degree Celsius in a decade. That is not enough to make a big difference like the increase in fires that we’ve seen in the last decade.
Well, if it’s not the temperature, how about the rainfall? Is climate change making the state dryer? Fortunately, the WRCC has the data for that as well. Here’s the monthly rainfall in California.
Figure 2. Annualized monthly rainfall in California per the WRCC. Since rainfall data is usually given in inches per year, not per month, I have multiplied all of the values by 12 to “annualize” them, in order to make the trend a yearly trend.
Is the precipitation decreasing? Yes … by a totally meaningless five-hundredths of an inch (1.1 mm) per decade. So that is clearly not the reason for the increase in fires.
So what is the reason for the increase in fires? Actually, there are a few reasons.
First, our forests have not been harvested properly for some years. This is the result of a variety of lawsuits, one of which banned logging in many areas in 1994. This was in a vain attempt to protect the Spotted Owl. Unfortunately, this was just a green fantasy—stopping the logging has had no effect on the decline of the Spotted Owl. It appears that instead, it is being displaced by another owl, the Barred Owl. Oops … and there have been a host of other lawsuits that have stopped or restricted logging.
Next, California regulations highly restrict both the logging and the thinning of forests. After the fires in Redding, Governor Brown said he’d work to change the laws … but so far, crickets.
Naturally, when you don’t log and you don’t thin the forest, you get a buildup of what is called the “fuel load”. This is the amount of burnable stuff per acre. And when that happens, what would otherwise be a small fire turns into a large fire very quickly
Finally, a couple of years back we had a big El Nino/La Nina event. This led to the recent couple of warmer, drier years. There’s a name for this, and it is not “climate change”—it’s called “weather”.
Now, there’s been a meme circulating on the internet saying that President Trump is bad and wrong to blame the State, because according to the meme, 98% of the forest in California is National Forest, and 2% is State Forest. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But in fact, about 43% of the forest is privately held, and of the remainder 98% is Federal and 2% is State forest. So overall, about 44% of the forests in California are ruled by California laws and regulation.
But wait, as they say on TV, there’s more … both of the recent fires, the Camp Fire in Paradise and the Woolsey Fire in Thousand Oaks, occurred on privately owned forest. Which means the Federal Government had nothing to do with the regulations leading up to these fires.
Should President Trump have been so aggro? Of course not, that was a mistake … but I can understand his anger, given that Governor Brown is claiming that the fires have nothing to do with California regulations.
But not to worry. The Governor said that steps to combat global warming can still, eventually, “shift the weather back to where it historically was.”
Ah, yes, back to where it historically was, to the mythical Climate Eden, where the weather is the same year after year after year …
Where once it never rained till after sundown
By 8 a.m the morning fog had flown
Don’t let it be forgot that once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment
That was known as Camelot
[UPDATE] A commenter asked:
Could you please give us a ‘public relations’ plot of the “Average monthly California temperatures from the WRCC” on a hardware store thermometer
We’re nothing if not a full-service website:
Here, my gorgeous ex-fiancee and I staying in the Youth Hostel in Santa Cruz on our way back home. The smoke from the forest fires was bad in the Central Valley on the way up from LA, but it’s relatively clear in Santa Cruz. The word from where we live, though, is that it is still quite bad there … we’ll find out tomorrow.
Best regards to all,
w.
PS: When you comment, please quote the exact words that you are discussing, so we can understand just what you are talking about.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Man has caused these massive annual forest fires in the west due to drought–not by carbon usage, but by shunning the fact the atmosphere is composed of the same energy as us. Like us, it negatively affected by man-made electromagnetic energy, especially high-frequency and nuclear. The atmosphere and all space are filled with cosmic energy, which is the basis for all movement and matter (including weather systems) known as aether or orgone. It is mostly invisible and mass less, but at the same time interacts with everything to varying degrees–think of neutrinos and gravity.
Electrical radiation overexcites the atmosphere, ushering in drought conditions as it is “stuck” in an over expanded state, which does not allow contraction and forming of heavy rain clouds. Further, these thin, dirty looking clouds (smog) are water vapor lacking and as such, absorb water in huge quantities, much like an expanding desert “creeps” over lush land and dries it out. Take California for instance, it has the most stringent pollution controls for industry and cars, but the skies are continuously polluted with a “haze/smog.” How can this be? It is not carbon, but the insane drive for faster, more exotic and dangerous forms of electromagnetism, just to fill the empty desert in man. In summary, including the insane tyrannical government “carbon cap” rules, and the prohibition of intelligent land-management, man squares the shoulder for these fires, much like everything else he is scared to look at.
???
Willis — it’s probably a mistake to conflate forest management practices in Southern California coastal areas with those further North. The problem is that the “forest” there isn’t much of a forest. Except for a few valley floors where there are sycamores, it’s a “woodland” with California live oak, thorny brush of various sorts, poison oak, and various other stuff — most of it hostile. And although live oak can grow into a respectable tree, in places like the Santa Monica Mountains (“Malibu”) it doesn’t. I can’t recall ever seeing one much taller than 20 or 25 feet.
In theory, folks who chose to live there should clear all the brush for a considerable distance around their dwelling. 100 feet seems to be recommended. And they should be very careful about planting flammable exotics like eucalyptus. In practice, they may not own/control much of the area around their house. And some of it may not be accessible. And clearing it is hard work. And expensive. And the result is ugly. And the stuff grows back.
Personally, nothing in the world other than maybe a working Gold mine in the basement could cause me to own a rural property in Southern California.
In my youth, I spent some time in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Real woods there and a different set of problems. And I’ve also spent some time in the Sierra Nevada. Yet another set of problems there. I don’t recall a lot of underbrush issues there.but that was long ago and maybe things have changed. The problem there would be that dry pine trees burn. Always have. Presumably always will.
Good post Willis, thank you.
I posted this earlier today on another thread:
From Marc Morano
“Gov. Brown blames climate ‘deniers’ for worsening wildfires – Scientific evidence refutes him: ‘Less fire today than centuries ago’ – Wildfires are NOT due to ‘climate change’”
Jerry Brown has again made one of the truly stupidest statements in the long history of humanity.
Unless someone is referring to the last Ice Age, saying “I blame climate change” puts them in the lower decile of human intelligence.
Incompetent forestry management was the cause of this wildfire disaster Jerry – it was your fault!
There is one confounding factor that can be attributed to CO2, more efficient use of water in the growing season. If global greening can be ascribed to carbon dioxide, so can a small increase in fuel load in dry fire zones. While it’s probably a secondary effect, it exacerbates the issues created by lack of forest management.
I am also struck by how many of the most devestating fires are caused be sparking power lines. You might be able to argue that hundreds of square miles of forest land consumed by fire would justify the use of cap and trade funds to harden or bury power lines. Interestingly there are several warnings of power line problems in the area where the Camp fire started near Pie Dam and a conscious decision not to shut down power in the area because winds were not for predicted to be strong enough to justify it. One of the consequences of reliance on wind and solar is (plus hydro near Paradise) Is that generation is rural but used in urban areas meaning the power line issues get worse if not resolved. But hardening of the grid is just a way to buy time while forest management issues get resolved.
The risen atmospheric CO2 is relatively healthy for plants. They grow faster so the fuel load accumulates faster. Forest management should adapt.
There was a good article on the Forbes Magazine website a couple of days ago, which I have shared widely on FB, including on Anthony’s page. It goes a long way, although quite brief, to explain how human activity and the lack of it has caused these increasingly destructive fires in CA.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/30/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but-not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/
If only the stingy voters had approved more money for that high-speed train between Pixley and Hooterville, it would have been done by now and none of this would have happened.
I suppose you owned the land between the towns and are just mad you didn’t get to sell it, isn’t that right Mr Haney?
Got me. My retirement in California is costing far more than I had anticipated.
Off piste but fun-
ps://principia-scientific.org/filament-experiment-proves-co2-causes-temperature-to-fall-not-rise/
There is a chance for an increase in humidity in northern California.
“Should President Trump have been so aggro? Of course not, that was a mistake … but I can understand his anger, given that Governor Brown is claiming that the fires have nothing to do with California regulations.”
There are some points raised here:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trump%e2%80%99s-misleading-claims-about-california%e2%80%99s-fire-%e2%80%98mismanagement%e2%80%99/ar-BBPDW0W?ocid=ientp
which are slanted, but not entirely, on brief reading, hysterical….
The president is likely a tad annoyed at the Governor for trying to set national policy-
“This IPCC report makes unmistakably clear that the world must radically change. It must decarbonize and establish a totally renewable basis for all economic activity. The big powers – the United States, China, India and the European Union – must show the way. We can do it but only if the deniers, the skeptics and the comfortable wake up to what the scientists are telling us.”
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2018/10/07/ipccreport/
I was pleased to see that the governor added the phase “comfortable” to the post.
So you can engage in as much ecological destruction as you like as long as you are “uncomfortable”
I have the feeling that when Mr Brown says “comfortable” he means “taxable”
Governor Brown had zero problem blaming Trump. So Trump’s not allowed to actually counter the lie? Interesting.
Steve McIntyre referenced (on twitter) a paper that brings into question the attribution, of the fire(s)-
“with California wildfires in news, climate scientists cynically give false attribution of wildfires to “climate change” e.g @AndrewDessler. True story e.g Stephens &c 2007, “Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests,…” is opposite
https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory-Stephens07.pdf …”
Dear Jerry Brown, according to you all “deniers” contribute to the fires in California. Contributing to massive destruction and death is against the law. I am what you call a “denier”. Please indict me and have a warrant issued for my arrest. I expect to be arrested NEVER because you know everything you said was a lie.
Have a nice day.
Is dead wood an issue here? Before “greens” were created dead wood was probably cleared by people concerned about fires, wild ones and their own, but now the concern is for the critters who need the dead wood for habitat.
Bollocks. Stop coming up with such garbage.
With every post you confirm more clearly that you understand much less than you think you do.
You are only a mediocre troll, and not at all informed or convincing.
But on the bright side your mindless spew does get less extreme true believers to doubt the dogma you so ignorantly parrot, so please do continue.
It’s completely true. If you had actually studied the issue instead of spending your time worshiping the AGW idols, you might have managed to learn something.
I clearly remember my local governments (Metro Vancouver, B.C.) plan to spend millions of dollars laying down wood (logs, stumps) for habitat, but the great wind storm of 2006 did the job naturally. Thousands of trees in Stanley Park alone fell. My local park a block away didn’t have its trails reopened until about a year and a half after the event.
climanrecon,
Actually, in the late 19th C, the forests were significantly thinned to provide lumber for building and timbering in the numerous active mines. Sutter’s Mill (the site of the first discovery of gold in northern California) was built to take advantage of water power and the abundant trees to supply lumber for the growing Sacramento.
People largely depended on wood for heating and dead wood was scavenged for tinder, when it was available.
Ivan is one of those people who thinks he knows everything, but only ‘knows’ what he reads in the MSM, which is written by other urbanites who know little about the real world.
By ‘adaptation’ does the governor mean confiscating all the private land and forcing people to live in cities rather than forests? Because that’s what it will take to avoid the destruction of so many homes.
His successor, an accomplished expert in abusing the law, is most certainly considering just that.
California is leading the way to the recreation of the thinking that ends with witch burnings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
Temperature in the US in the morning on November 13, 2018.
well
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1061932207940530176
It helps to untangle various questions.
I’m not clear on what your link is untangling. Rhode’s data indicates that fires become more prevalent as weather becomes hotter and dryer. In California, fire-season weather has been generally hotter and dryer of late. It makes sense that hotter and dryer would result in larger and more destructive fires. One could describe this as normal local climate change. It doesn’t address the question of what causes the change.
Dry and very cold air reaches California.
“In California, fire-season weather has been generally hotter and dryer of late. It makes sense that hotter and dryer would result in larger and more destructive fires.”
Most skeptics would disagree with this, if I said it.
Oh, AGW predicts that over time dryer places will get dryer and hotter places will get hotter.
and, un remarkably we can expect fires to get worse– all other things being equal
Steven, if “AGW predicts that over time dryer places will get dryer and hotter places will get hotter”, does that mean that wetter places will get wetter, and colder places will get colder?
w.
“Most skeptics would disagree with this, if I said it.”
I don’t see why. Regardless of how global temperatures–or more specifically CA temperatures–got to where they are, the effects of hotter and dryer should be worse than colder and wetter. If anyone disagrees, please enlighten us.
The correlation between AGW predictions and temperature and rainfall trends is extremely weak given all the possible natural causes that conflate the data. Willis has eloquently illustrated that here showing century long trends arguably insensitive to CO2 concentration.
The very high winds are what turned these Calfornia fires into conflagurations. Without the winds, there would be no firestorms.
The cause is a high-pressure weather system pushing high winds into California, Governor Brown, not CO2 and climate change.
Excellent synopsis of many longer papers, Willis. This post likely will need to be dusted off and republished every dry year, for this situation seems to repeat. Will people ever learn?
Irony is that the drought in California seems to go hand in hand with drenching in the east, and heat in the west with the east’s coldest winters. When it burns in California I remember the winter of 1976-1977 and stock up on firewood in New Hampshire.
Does anyone know if the global warming satellites can see and count forest fires or other point sources of heat for that matter? Or are the fires just too small to move the needle.
How many times during the last few millenniums has wildfires rage down those canyons but there was little or no human built structures in the way?
Gov Brown may not want the “new abnormal” to revert to the “historical normal.” The historical normal contains multi century droughts and the last 170 years have been wetter than the historical normal.
Realistically, it doesn’t matter how hot or dry it is. If there’s no fuel load there will be no fire. Minimize that on both developed and undeveloped land and fires will also be minimized. California has always had hot, dry weather spells with severe winds. Designing, building and managing to accommodate those realities will provide better results than trying to impose modern expectations/needs upon nature. The primitive Indians understood what modern man kicks against.
icisil,
There also needs to be an ignition source. In recent years there has been a lot of arson. Also, what isn’t getting a lot of media attention is that PG&E (look up the stock prices) is taking ‘heat’ for starting fires. It seems that the transmission-line practices of the past may not be appropriate for today as PG&E attempts to meet the needs of a burgeoning population. Savvy investors are on top of the PG&E situation, but the media seems to be largely ignoring the culpability of the utility companies.
President Trump needs to haul his Secretary of Agriculture into his office and tell him to fix the mismanagement of federal forests throughout California and the country so that populated areas are much less exposed to these disasters. He can get some of the funds to do this from the over $2 Billion spent on climate change bullshit.
The feds could
withhold federal aidblackmail the states into managing their forests and writing zoning laws.The millions of Ponderosa pines that were killed by bark beetles as a direct result of the drought were obviously a big factor in the intensity of the Paradise fire. I believe the wood in those trees would likely have had enough value to have financed their cutting and removal and also to pay for a lot of reduction on the brush and kindling that got the fire going. Those trees were mostly on private land, but the State or the local community could have addressed the problem through legislation of by local ordinance. Hindsight is 20/20 , but at least let’s get rid of the dead trees across the West a.s.a.p. before another town burns next year. Sure, the little feathery and furry critters need a place to live, but people are dying.
When trees aren’t thinned by fire, the total number of trees per acre goes up rapidly.
As a result the trees begin to compete with each other for available water and other nutrients.
This exacerbates the impact of drought.
MarkW,
And when the tree density increases, it makes it easier for the bark beetles to infest the nearby trees. So, it isn’t just a matter of drought as T Port suggests. Everything is interconnected.
It happens when lots of houses are close to trees and the weather conditions are ripe-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Canberra_bushfires
A 15 year old schoolgirl understood it a century ago-
http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm
Data for the San Francisco and Los Angeles rain shows cyclical pattern which on decadal scale are currently at the low ebb.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SF-LA.gif
(LOD – variation in ‘length of day ‘ determined by rate of change in the Earth’s rotation)
SE Asian monsoon has identical 29 year periodicity.
IMO, it is the SE monsoons that are responsible for the LOD changes rather than the other way around (change in angular momentum by transfer of large mas of water from equatorial ocean to the north)
From the mountains to California arrives dry and cold air.
