The video examines the extensive scientific flaws and false conclusions in the published research “Wildfire Response to Changing Daily Temperature Extremes in California’s Sierra Nevada”. Despite the bad science a multitude of media outlets like NY Times and CNN falsely promoted the paper as evidence that climate change cause more wildfires
A transcript of the video is available at https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2021/11/media-promotes-badly-flawed-science.html and posted below.
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
I received emails about a flawed published paper on wildfires in the Sierra Nevada that was being over-hyped by the media. Having spent 30 years doing ecological research in the Sierra Nevada, I was appalled by Gutierrez’s paper blaming summer temperatures for an increase in wildfires and rashly predicting a 59% increase in burnt areas by 2040.
I refer to this paper as corrupted science because in order to blame a variable like average summer temperature, it requires controlling for and accounting for, the other known factors that could also be causing increased fires.
But the media is eager for clickbait news, and blaming climate change attracts the anxious public who are steeped in climate crisis fears. Wildfires provide the perfect propaganda optics, as the so-called proof that CO2 warming has the world on fire.
So the New York times, which long ago, abandoned good investigative climate journalism quickly highlighted Gutierrez paper is adding to the body of work that climate change is increasing wildfire risk,
Lesser news outlets, and university media, also lacking journalists knowledgeable in the science, quickly echoed the New York Times. And not to be outdone by the Times, CNN fear-mongered that the burnt area in the Sierra Nevada will increase by up to 92% by 2040. CNN created that scary number by adding the 59% to the plus or minus 33% uncertainty factor, but without ever noting that, according to Gutierrez’s uncertainty, it was equally possible that there would only be a 26% increase.
Bad scientific papers, use bad average statistics, and gutierrez’s paper on wildfires is guilty of using a misleading average statistic. An average statistic is only meaningful if it measures the variations within the exact same phenomenon. But if you average different phenomenon, like apples and oranges, you get useless averages like meaningless imaginary “Orpples”.
The significance of an average can also be grossly misrepresented as seen in the graph of average female heights around the world. By only displaying the difference in the average heights on the y-axis Latvia women who average four inches taller, appear to be giants, while women in India all appear to be Lilliputians.
An accurate representation of the women’s differences requires the Y axis encompass a full five feet, six inches of height, to put any differences into the proper context.
Now, suppose you wanted to scientifically determine the effect of diets of various rich fruits and vegetables and how it affects women’s average height. Averaging all heights of all women from birth to maturity for each country would provide a worthless average. The category height doesn’t mean you’re measuring the same dynamics.
Height needs to be separated into mature heights and still actively growing heights. Including shorter heights before maturity, corrupts the usefulness of the resulting averages.
For example, in Latvia, zero to 14-year olds comprise just 15% of the population. Whereas in India, zero to 14-year olds comprise up to 31% of India’s population. That higher proportion of still growing girls would bias India’s average height much lower.
And likewise, averaging maximum and minimum temperatures creates a meaningless number. The maximum and minimum temperatures are driven by different dynamics and have very different effects on wildfires.
Now, here is why Gutierrez’s analysis, using the average summer temperature, was bad science
In 2014, Rapacciulo published the difference between California’s temperatures for each region, comparing the 1900 to 1939, forty-year average to the 1970 to 2009 average. Surprisingly, the maximum temperatures for two thirds of California has significantly cooled.
Of critical importance to fire managers is maximum temperatures, that dry out the ground fuels and raise the risk of wildfires.
In contrast, the average minimum temperatures have warmed across 99% of California. This stark difference is due to the different dynamics affecting the two measurements. Maximums measured the extent of daytime heating versus minimums that measured the extent of nighttime cooling .
Fire experts do not use minimum temperatures when issuing red flag warnings, because even if there’s an increase in the minimum temperature, the temperatures may still be below the dew point, which causes water vapor to condense, and moisten the ground fuels.
This dynamic is firmly etched in my mind from doing research in the Sierra Nevada Meadows for 25 years, I was in the field at sunrise and my pants would be soaking wet during the time of minimum temperatures, and only dried out as temperatures heated towards the maximum.
But by averaging the maximum plus the minimum together, it falsely appears that most of California is warming. By using that “orpple-like” average temperature Gutierrez argued that climate warming was drying out the fire fuels and raising fire risk. Even though the average was driven by minimum temperatures, they were likely moistening the ground fuels each morning.
Now other scientists have published on the different temperature dynamics of maximum and minimum temperatures. Thomas Karl, past director of Noah’s Center for Environmental Information, published a paper in 1988, showing how maximum and minimum temperatures react very differently to growing populations
Relative to weather stations located in rural areas with populations below 2000 people, stations in regions of growing populations steadily increased their average annual temperature by up to 2.5 degrees Celsius as populations grew to 10 million people.
However, the maximum temperatures decreased as populations greew, while minimum temperatures dramatically increased by 5.1 degrees Celsius. Averaging hides these impactful contrasting dynamics.
Tis is just one reason why when evaluating any changes in California, the effect of its dramatically rising population must be considered
California’s state climatologist, James Goodridge, also recognized the population effects. He measured temperatures in counties with over 1 million people, with counties below a hundred thousand, and counties in between.
Th highly populated counties showed a warming trend, similar to what’s expected from CO2 warming theories, but more rural country counties with populations, less than a hundred thousand people exhibited no significant warming trend. Instead, temperatures oscillated as would be expected from the effects of El Ninos in the Pacific decadal oscillation.
Now, despite weather stations near the ignition sites of major California fires that showed cooling maximum temperature trends since 1930s, Gutierrez argued the average warming trend was “increasing fire risk by drying fuels and making them more flammable and prone to ignition”. Gutierrez simply failed to do her homework
Maximum temperatures from Ukiah, near the ignition site of California’s third largest wildfire, the Mendocino complex fire, had been cooling since the 1920s. Still she argued when a rancher’s spike struck a rock causing a spark that ignited surrounding grasses, the grasses had been readily ignited due to the average warming trend.
She also seems ignorant of the fact that ALL fire experts classify dead grasses as one- hour lag fuels meaning grasses become highly flammable in just one hour on a typical warm dry summer California day. Any climate trend warming or cooling, is irrelevant.
In the Sierra Nevada, Yosemite shows a similar maximum temperature cooling trend, where California’s seventh largest fire, the Rimm fire, was ignited. It was ignited by an escaped campfire near Yosemite
Nor is there any support for using average summer temperatures in the criteria for red flag warnings issued by the National Weather Service.
The primary criteria are
1) relative humidity of 15% are lower and winds gusting to 25 miles per hour. And
2) widely scattered thunder showers
The contributing factors to those primary criteria are
higher than normal, maximum temperatures,
Thunderstorms generating lightning that naturally ignite fires; and cold fronts that typically promote thunderstorms in high winds.
Low humidity is a function of drought, usually associated with La Nina
Droughts also cause low fuel moisture, as well as minimizing available moisture to condense into dew during the nighttime that would help suppress fire activity.
And finally, they look at the Energy Release Component, which refers to the amount of flammable fuels in the region that typically accumulate due to fire suppression,
Low humidity is the primary risk factor, which is why the Western USA experiences more fires than the east, simply because the west is naturally drier
During the winter, most of the west and the east experience high relative humidity represented by the dark green. The cold air is holding as much water vapor as possible. So the atmosphere generates no drying effect.
As the summer approaches, temperatures warm across the country, so the air can hold much more water, but the transport of water from the ocean to the land differs across the country.
The Atlantic pressure system pumps almost enough moisture into the eastern USA to maximize the amount of moisture the warmer air can hold, and maintaining a fairly high level of relative humidity plus no drying effect.
But the Pacific pressure system blocks most of the transportation of moisture. So the region’s warming air now receives much less moisture than it can hold, reducing relative humidity and exerting a strong drying effect; and this is illustrated by the brown and yellow colors. The lower the relative humidity, the higher the fire risk.
Now we can see this dynamic as local weather stations in the west at Yosemite national park as summer. Temperatures rise as the amount of moisture reaching Yosemite drops, creating the summer drought and the dry fire weather.
In the east at Shenandoah national park, the summer temperature similarly rises, but the amount of moisture also rises creating higher relative humidity and less of a drying effect and thus reduces fire risk in the east.Now the transport of moisture to the Western USA is modulated strongly by El Nino and La Nina cycles and the Pacific Decadal oscillation between 1980 and 1999. The Pacific decadal oscillation was mostly in the positive phase, promoting more El Ninos in a warmer, warmer wetter, California. After 1999, the Pacific decatal oscillation switch into the negative phase, promoting more Latinas in a stronger blocking high pressure system causing drier conditions that are more conducive to bigger fires.
But Gutierrez did not account for this natural effect,
Gutierrez’s results in Table 2 provide the crux of her argument. Average summer temperatures in the Sierra Nevada are modeled and based on rising CO2. The model predicts temperatures will steadily rise every decade. I’ve added a few Fahrenheit temperatures in blue for those who are more familiar with that scale. Accordingly her model suggested the number of fires will increase in lockstep with model temperatures.
But in reality, the number of observed fires has varied decreasing in the 1990s, rising in the t200, and again, decreasing from 2011 to 2020.
Similarly, modeled results for the extent of burnt area rises in lockstep with model temperatures. But in reality, there was no change during the 1980s and 1990s, then there was a large jump in burnt area from 2000 to 2020.
And that increase is due to the drying effect that one would expect from the switch to the negative Pacific Decadal Oscillation. There are many factors other than summer temperature that affect the number of fires and the extent of burnt area.
Valid science requires factors must be accounted for and removed before examining any correlation with summer temperatures. Not doing so, corrupts the scientific method.
However, it does allow fitting modeled results to a climate change narrative.
Now good science demands of research, and must also account for changes in human caused ignitions before correlating summer temperatures with the increase ignitions.
But again, Gutierrez failed to do so. Now lightning causes the majority of fires at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada, despite temperatures between 20,000 and 50,000 degrees Celsius. Lightning rarely ignites struck trees, even though it can split the tree trunks. Lightning scars are often seen on living trees in the Sierra.Nevada
Lightning typically starts a fire by igniting dry ground fuels at the bottom of the tree is lightening passes to the ground.
Now studies such as Balch 2017 show that during the peak lightening season from June to September human ignitions still account for a greater proportion of wildfire ignitions. The 600 to 800 degree heat from a single match also provides enough heat to ignite fine fuels, even when fine fuels are only partially dried. Balch’s data also contradicts Gutierrez’s narrative that warm summers are required for more ignitions.
The greatest number of fires are ignited by humans during the cooler months in the Sierra Nevada, such as around lake Tahoe, March temperatures are seven degrees Celsius cooler than goodie heiresses, average summer temperature.
Furthermore, there’s no apparent climate change trend in natural lightning strikes and this is seen in the medium blue data series here
Now increased human ignitions are another impact of California’s growing population. As people increasingly moved into the Wildlands, the electrical grid follows and the accidental sparking increases.
The deadliest California fire, the Camp fire, and the second largest 2021 Dixie fire were both ignited by an electrical spark
More people promotes more camping in the beautiful Sierra Nevada, but results in more escaped campfires. California’s seventh biggest fire, the Rimm fire ,was ignited by an escaped campfire.
And humanity always has a small percentage of bad people. So a growing population generates more bad people. Gary Maynard, a professor, was just arrested for lighting four fires, adding to the Dixie fire. Fire officials estimate that 20% of all California fires are lit by arsons.
Now Gutierrez also failed to account for other purposefully human ignited fires, and how they have contributed to the changes in the extent of burnt areas.
To reverse the problems caused by fire suppression, Sequoia National Park, and Yosemite began igniting prescribed burns by 1970. However, those prescribed burns would not add to the trend of increased burned areas. Out of fear of reducing National Forest timber harvest, the National Forest managers more slowly adopted prescribed burns. Sequoia, Stanislaus, Sierra Inyo, and Plumas national forest only began igniting prescribed burns during the last two decades. And that would indeed add to the observed trend of increased burnt areas.
What’s more difficult to measure is the 1970 switch from fire suppression to a “Let it Burn” policy, that also increased the burnt area relative to the mid 20th century. Now calling their policy “Let it Burn suggested to nearby communities ,that their fire managers were not doing their jobs. So it is now called Wildfire For Resource Benefits or WFRB.
The policy is limited.
Any unnaturally ignited fires were still required to be immediately put out. Similarly WFRB policies could not let natural fires burn, wherever human populations were threatened. The greenish colored areas are where WFRB Let it Burn policies can be enacted. And those areas are unpopulated areas, mostly in the Sierra Nevada.
Lastly, fire suppression initiated decades ago set the stage for larger and more intense fires today.
Fire suppression allowed ground fuels to accumulate which more readily carries fires across the land. Additionally, fire suppression allows more ladder fuels, comprised of larger shrubs and younger trees to accumulate. Ladder fuels carry fuels from the ground into the forest canopy. And canopy fires create more embers that are carried by the winds. Firefighters had great trouble containing the huge 2021 Dixie fire because the burning embers would travel past their fire lines and start spot fires up to four miles away.
So I advise everyone to ignore Gutierrez’s and the media’s alarmism.
The average temperature they used was a bad statistic.
More fires can be ignited even in cooler temperatures.
We can reduce fires ignited by electrical ignitions.
We can reduce burnt area extent with better fuel management.
And we can only accept that natural Le Ninos and La Ninas and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, all control the humidity extremes that lead to fires,
But we can adapt
And natural wildfires can be beneficial when intelligently managed
Up next, maybe: An analysis of dubious climate change attribution’s of floods and droughts.
And until then, as always embraced renowned scientists, Thomas Hartley’s advice that skepticism is our highest of duties and blind faith, the one unpardonable sin.
Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle.
Dixie Lee Ray
Technically, the average person has no testicles. It depends on what ‘average’ you employ.
The average politician? They have no testicles and no intestinal fortitude. No lack of avarice, though, and willing to jump through hoops of fire for a buck.
Take the Hi and Lo station temperature for the day and compute the average. Then compute the average station temperature for year. Then take that annual average station temperature for all the stations in the world and compute an average global temperature and claim it means something.
You left out the ‘adjustment’ and ‘infilling’ steps, Steve.
“…averaging maximum and minimum temperatures creates a meaningless number.”
Amen! And not just for predicting wildfires!
As Lord Nigel Lawson recently pointed out, the average annual temperatures of Singapore and Finland differ by about 22C yet both countries seem to be doing pretty well.
Surely that’s an inaccurate quote.
Doesn’t the average person have one breast and one and a half testicles?
Or is it just me with 3 balls?
It appears that my name is on Facebook’s & Youtube’s algorthim to counter what I present. As soon as I post something that’s skeptical of the climate alarmism, Youtube and Facebook immediately attach their disclaimers as seen here, linking to a site pushing climate alarmism .
Yes, but those sites provide good examples of misleading graphics and word craft.
Hold them up for ridicule at every opportunity.
Thanks, once again, for all the fine work you have been putting into your videos!
Having Facebook and YouTube trying to censor or suppress you will someday be seen as a badge of honor from a trouble time! Keep up the good work!!
I lived in California for several decades. There are two notable heat events in my experience.
On July 3rd, 1968, my wife, my brother, and I were camping on the North Fork of the American River, North of Auburn. It was so hot that we spent the entire day in the river to keep cool. Occasionally a gust of wind would blow up the canyon and flash evaporate the water, and all three of us would cough as though we were in a steam sauna. At one point I went up to my truck to listen to the radio to see if I could hear a weather report. I found one that reported 120 degrees in Sonora. This was one of the typical Summer California days when the isotherms followed the elevation contours of the Mother Lode. We were due north of Sonora.
In the late-1970s, I and a couple of lady friends (I was now divorced) had been day-hiking on Mount Lassen. When we left the high elevations it was about 85 degrees. When we got down to the valley in early afternoon, I stopped for gas in Red Bluff. The thermometer in the gas station said 117 in the shade. As I was driving south towards the Bay Area at the first overpass I came to, my ’70 IH Scout started to hesitate and buck. Not knowing what else to do, I reached for the manual choke. The engine smoothed out. I surmised that it was starting to vapor lock. I had to repeat that every time I came to an overpass for about the next 3 hours before it cooled enough to not need it, around the Delta area, where a marine air incursion made it noticeably cooler. I had never before or after experienced that problem, despite driving the Scout in the Sonora Desert when I lived in Phoenix for a couple of years. It was probably over 120 that day!
The point of all this is that neither in 1968, or later in the ’70s, were California wildfires the problem they have been recently, despite exceptionally high temperatures. It isn’t just ‘warming’ that is causing problems.
Congratulations. You have joined the many who tell the truth and are censored for it. Remember any mention of Wu Han lab origin was censored. Remember any positive mention of Rittenhouse was censored. Remember showing the statistics on Ivermectin and HCQ were censored. Remember quoting CDC and NIH statistics was censored.
That’s because you’re the worst sort of denialist: a traitor to the cause…
When attempting sarcasm, you need to be far cleverer.
clearly, should’ve added /s
I know a man who drowned in a river that has an annual average depth of 6 inches.
They should have used this image in the article:
I prefer the one about the statistician who drowned while crossing a river that averaged 3’ deep.
We can look at other nations afflicted by wildfires in recent years – especially this year.
we see a consistent increase in fires across the N hemisphere…
and if you look very many of those places have excellent forest management and the only factor to account for an increase is higher temperatures, summer drought.
Finland and Sweden in particular show this.
so I don’t think you can make a case for US being exceptional and NOT affected by a changing climate
griff, how about the Kalifornia Professor arrested for setting 4 arson fires in Kalifornia? Not my kind of hero, care to denounce him?
Climate change anxiety made him do it – honest!!!!
griff won’t denounce him.
griff – give me dry tinder and a spark and I will light you a fire at the North Pole. Absent either of those two things I cannot light you a fire anywhere on the planet.
Air temperature is irrelevant. The argument that warmer = more fires is infantile — another example of the hard-of-thinking “Stands to Reason, dunnit?!” syndrome.
Perhaps you would care to explain why the peak time for wild fires in the UK is Easter!?
As another paper recently published pointed out, once tinder has dried out, temperature is completely irrelevant.
Also grasses can dry out in a few hours and branches can dry out in a few days.
There is nothing unusual going on in the weather.
And right on que griffie toddles in to spread more lies just as the lie spewing liar always does.
On the previous post you claimed cold weather was “a one off”.
Now you claim we can look at a few years and determine wild fires are on the increase.
Where’s your proof going back a 100 year or so?
Can you show there were less wild fires in 1800, 1900, or are you just showing we have the capability of spotting more fires due to population and technology?
Think about it, mate
The griffter has a serious case of myopia; he can only see events from the last 50 or 60 years! Apparently his programming is not complete yet; but blind faith beckons!
You mean his assimilation is incomplete?
Why only the northern hemisphere? If global warming was the cause, the whole globe would experience the effects. You guys always fail on that point alone, regardless of all the other gibberish you spout. If region A is warming and region B is cooling, then there can be no such thing as “global warming”, by its very definition.
In other words, all climate is regional and local, not global.
Also, all continents across the Earth, except for Antarctica, as seeing large increases in population, and particularly extremely large increases in urbanization which create effects on local climate as well as wildfire susceptibility entirely unconnected to CO2 or the alleged global warming.
“Also, all continents across the Earth, except for Antarctica, as seeing large increases in population,…”
I have to disagree! By the relative change in population on Antarctica, in the 1850’s there was one listed ship landing – we’ll call it 50 people for the decade, so 5 people per year at pre-Industrial times. In 2020, there were around 1100 people living on Antarctica. That is an increase of 22000%! That has to be faster than any other continent.
I learned “science” from East Anglia.
Griff, how long is your record?
The needle is stuck in one groove.
And at 78 speed
More like 33 and a 3rd.
Where is this data and what periods do you compare to? Just because you have a bigger wild fire count than last year does not make it unusual.
Uh…no. Here is the actual data (not hyperbolic headlines) for 2021 in the US:
Total Fires: 52,085
Total Acres: 6,619,632
Ten-years running average (2011-2020) to date Total Fires: 53,064
Ten-years running average (2011-2020) to date Total Acres: 7,056,217
If you have trouble interpreting this actual data, this means that in 2020, both number of fires and acres are down.
In all the wildfires across Europe this year there was a large proportion of arson. In Italy, for example,the government minister said that some 57% of the fires had been set deliberately and both the Greek and Turkish governments remarked on the amount of arson.In Turkey some large fires were also started by Kurdish separatists.
You may recall a few years back the several fires in the Pennines in the UK many of which had been set either deliberately or caused by people having barbecues in unsuitable places.
In griff’s world, if the climate alarmists declare that forest management is excellent, then it is.
Who cares what the people who actually do the work (when allowed) have to say.
BTW, I’m still waiting for evidence that the areas where the fires occurred were actually warmer than normal. So far the claims have been on the order that the temperatures must have been higher because the models say so.
Why is it that you only correlate wildfires with ‘climate change’ when there are other things such as population change, percent of buildings in the urban-wildland interface, and antisocial behaviors increasing as well?
Griff doesn’t take questions, provide data or justify preposterous claims.
Yes, he copied that tactic straight from the Al Gore playbook.
(and judging from his most recent d1ckhead performance, David Suzuki should too)
Judging by the current political climate, David Suzuki (Dr. Fruit fly) should be arrested for inciting civil unrest and terrorism towards vital public infrastructure … (gas lines).
Yes, I don’t believe he has ever answered any of my questions. However, I continue poking him as a form of ridicule.
Yes, ridicule is always fun and can be effective. I do it for a somewhat more venial reason … he’s an easy target and I find it cathartic. A guaranteed win – win for me.
Reply to Grief ,We have a lot of people like you in New Zealand and they are all greens .
They are the Green Party which have far to much power in our parliament they support stupid green initiatives .
They are just like you Grief, they can not be told that what they propose could be wrong and they will never learn because they believe all the nonsense that is spewed from the news media.
This article is about wild fires in California but the absolutely crazy ideas that the Greens are pushing here in New Zealand will result in wild fires which will then be blamed on globull warming .
What I am referring to is carbon farming .How do you farm carbon? You buy up rolling to hilly sheep and cattle farms and plant them in pine trees . Thats is all that they do ,and they call that farming .
The trees will never be harvested and the theory is that our native bush will establish under the pines and become a carbon sink.
This theory is fatally flawed because 20 to 100 year old pine trees die and fall over and are extremely flammable .Large areas will burn and the fires will be blamed on globull warming ,not gross stupidity .
The government is spending a lot of money in the South Island removing wilding pines from the hills and mountains but they are encouraging investors to buy up farms in many outlying areas mainly in the North Island for carbon farming .
These farms that they are buying produce wool ,and supply lambs ,mutton and beef to other farmers or direct to export meat plants .
Directly and indirectly many people earn a living a present but once the land is planted the only jobs will be fire fighting and pest control.
The investors will be paid in carbon credits with much of the money flowing overseas to the investors instead of money flowing from overseas to New Zealand for our exports.
Well Grief don’t you think this is a grand scheme to bankrupt a country?
“…the only factor…is higher temperatures”
Except for the other factors.
Today excellent forest management is not, what it was when I was a child. The Tree huggers are everywhere so are the educated idiots. A lot of said educated idiot are now in control. I don’t think most forest anywhere today are well managed.
It is probable the writer of this piece never even visited the Sierra Nevada mountains . Junk science presented by NYT, what could go wrong . The New York Times, a former newspaper, long ago gave up any semblance of Journalism in favor of advocating Leftist Green philosophy .Thanks for this exposure of their pseudo scientific trash.
Any particular argument or refutation of the data?
Good assembly of data, as usual, by Jim Steele. I wonder what other motivation the arsonists have in addition to pushing forward the global warming/increased fires narrative? No other motive? Mainstream media complicit in the arson?
IMHO, the entire global warming pseudoscience, driven by funding to find global warming under every rock, is part of the plan for one-world-government. Conspiracy theory? Consider that Covid-19 is essentially a plan to impose medical tyranny on the world population, and it’s working in places like Australia, Austria, Germany, etc. Why is it medical tyranny? Because safe drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been deliberately suppressed despite mountains of evidence for their safety and efficacy. https://ahrp.org/how-a-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative-was-created/ Why was that done? So that Covid vaccines could have EUA, which they wouldn’t have if there were safe drugs to treat Covid. Why did they want Covid vaccines? Well, for one thing, huge $$$. For another, vaccine passports, which seems to be the real goal of this. What’s wrong with vaccine passports? These essentially force people to take the jab or lose participation in society, jobs, etc. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong is that these coercive measures were never necessary and were only made necessary because safe drugs were suppressed. https://brownstone.org/video-podcast/protests-and-rage-against-lockdowns-and-mandates-all-over-the-world/ Pick up a copy of RFK, Jr’s, new book on Fauci. It spells out everything in damning detail. The theory of CO2 warming appears to be something else to beat the people over the head with, in order to install “necessary” measures that will in fact be measures to control the population: to install global tyranny, made possible by vaccine passports linked to digital IDs linked to your digital bank account residing in the central bank. They’ll be able to monitor and manage everyone. This plan has been going on for some time. The media is controlled because the globalists have all the money and have been paying them off. Think about it. And, get the book.
Some people just love to set fire to stuff and watch it burn, with the feeling I did that.
A bit like Griff making an inflammatory Comment here.
I like women who have inherited lots of goodies
Widow of Tim-Brooke Taylor. Graham Gardner & Bill Oddie are still alive.
Oops, I transcribe my video but sometimes it gets it very wrong. I thought I caught all the mistake but…Should be “Gutierrez’s”
As in Goodwife (Goody)?
Et tu, “goodie heiresses”! Cave idus Martias …
“Media Promotes Badly Flawed Science Spreading It Like Wildfire”
All dissenting voices including respected scientists have been silenced and airbrushed out of the picture. There is nobody to call it out, they’re not allowed to call it out – remember what happened to those who stepped out of line, and that continues to this day; from Dr David Bellamy to Dr Ridd.
So it’s a free field to make any outrageous claims unchallenged save for places like WUWT. Take today’s Grauniad:
“Climate crisis pushes albatross ‘divorce’ rates higher – [Royal Society] study
Researchers say warmer waters mean birds are travelling further for food and becoming more stressed, triggering relationship breakdowns”
And it’s mainly people who disagree with the narrative who go to the alternatives. True there’s the odd ones like Loydo and Griff who pop up but they are really just distractions designed to make you keep repeating yourself.
I wish I had an answer to the censorship problem, but I don’t.
Perhaps the Royal Society’s motto should now be: Accipe verbum nostrum – Take our word for it.
Bene dictum, fretslider!
I thought albatrosses were renowned for travelling very long distances.
According to National Geographic “a parent albatross may fly more than 10,000 miles (16,000kms) to deliver one meal to its chick”
I was struck by the amount of unsupported speculation reflected in the article. Science it is not.
They always take forest fire data from the 1970s when records go back to 1916 and indicates they were far worse in the 1930s. page 48- Figure 16-1. “Total acreage burned” .https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/docs/national-reports/2010/2010-sustainability-report.pdf
Moreover invasive grasses are taking their toll – “SignificanceOne of the most notorious impacts of nonnative, invasive grasses is the alteration of fire regimes. Yet, most evidence of these impacts comes from local-scale studies, making it unclear whether they have broader implications for national and regional fire management. Our analysis of 12 invasive grasses documents regional-scale alteration of fire regimes for 8 species, which are already increasing fire occurrence by up to 230% and fire frequency by up to 150%. These impacts were demonstrated across US ecoregions and vegetation types, suggesting that many ecosystems are vulnerable to a novel grass-fire cycle. Managing existing grass invasions and preventing future introductions presents a key opportunity to remediate the ecological and economic consequences of invasive species and fire”
“4,430 brush, grass, and forestfires on July 4 th, more than five times the daily average of 840. An average of 2,550 fires average on July 5 th was three times the daily average. Almost two -thirds of the brush, grass and forestfires started by fireworks occurred in July. Many of these involved playing with fireworks”
Cheatgrass and Wildfire
Nice report. Great data and very useful maps. I plan on digging into it even further. Thanks.
Arson – Revenge, Sextual stimulus, profit. Men different than women. Accidental – camp fire, warming fire, cooking fire. 1990’s traction created the spotted owl slowdown of commercial logging. First on Government owned, with close behind private timber. Red Emmerson a private timber holder was most commonly found in the West during debates “government” vs private timber management concepts. ‘Old Grown’ vs ‘2nd Growth’. Spotted Owl farse. Government was slow to take sides – at least in public. The art of sustained yield harvesting did not happen by a stroke of penmanship. Took many decades to clearly define. 55% yield harvest Federal lands and eventual some private lands. Exception – steep-poor soil ground regardless of ownership. Western Sierra – Cascade mountains with different limitations than the western Coast timber harvesting. Burn vs let burn vs No burn. Physics drove these concepts. Most effective application would have been in the foot print of sustained yield harvest ground fuel accumulation. Checkerboard appearance, ridge tops that supported mechanized harvesting – Cat’s -bull dozers, existing harvest road management. Opine – The biggest change occurred with Grazing Allotment reductions. Headcount per Allotment. 2nd Yield Harvest reductions from 55% down to 1-5 %.
Here is an excellent article on the Media – namely the BBC
How the BBC is crushing the climate debate
BBC News is equating criticism of the green agenda with conspiracy theories and science denial.
As I said before, it’s free field to make any claims they like – unchallenged.
Somehow a space got added to the link
And who was it that said something like: You can’t argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
The BBC is now a mouthpiece for environmentalism. Nothing that challenges environmentalist viewpoints gets any airtime. The BBC is about as biased and partial as it gets – up there with the Guardian.
The BBC mandated an editorial policy in which a team of 28 department heads and editors were to convene to set policy on AGW so all departments would be message o promote AGW propaganda.
BREAKING: The ‘secret’ list of the BBC 28 is now public – let’s call it ‘TwentyEightGate’https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/
I love it when the transcript with graphics is provided.
Jim Steele’s presentations are great stuff!
An excellent article Mr. Steele. In addition to your ladder fuel explanation of getting a crown fire, I would add that you also need adequate lower fuels to sustain a crown fire. Fire researchers have shown in research plots and observations of fire boundaries that as a crown fire burns across into an area with little ground or mid-story fuels it quickly burns out. It needs the added heat source from underneath to keep it going for any distance, even in high winds on hot days.
Nancy Pelosi has been crying out sea level rising, Yet she just bought a Ocean front property in Florida, Obma has two sea level mansions, Leonardo DiCaprio has a ocean front home… This climate scam has gone to far.. Also, the U.N and WHO are pure cancer
Oh Sunny, how could you? You missed out Empire – aka Al Gore.
Tagged in Rentzhog’s “lonely girl” [Greta Thunberg] tweet were five twitter accounts: Greta Thunberg, Zero Hour (youth movement), Jamie Margolin (the teenage founder of Zero Hour), Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and the People’s Climate Strike twitter account (in the identical font and aesthetics as 350.org)
“I would highly recommend people who are looking to divest from carbon take a look at Generation,’ says Larry Schweiger, a longtime conservationist and a board member of the Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit founded by Gore to promote education and initiatives about climate change. Schweiger was president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation from 2004 to 2014; under his watch the NWF became a Generation investor. ‘It was one of the best-performing investments in our portfolio.’ he says.” — September 8, 2015, “David Blood and Al Gore Want to Reach the Next Generation, Institutional Investor”
“[Gore] and his colleagues are aiming at a small audience within the financial world that steers the flow of capital, and at the political authorities that set the rules for the financial system. ‘It turns out that in capitalism, the people with the real influence are the ones with capital!’ Gore told me during one of our talks this year. The message he hopes Generation’s record will call attention to is one the world’s investors can’t ignore: They can make more money if they change their practices in a way that will, at the same time, also reduce the environmental and social damage modern capitalism can do.”
You get the picture…
You can make alot of money at subsidy mining. But once the subsidy “vein” peters out investors are left with a hole in the ground while the scamsters are living high.
The problem is that real wealth comes out of the ground. If you’re not going to mine the earth for materials to make things, then you aren’t going to have anything to invest in.
If only the Republican Party could stop being the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz!
If they would stop walking around saying, ever so politely; “If I only had a brain!” they could campaign on the incredibly destructive and hypocritical policies of Communist DemoKKKrats!
Personally, I think Obama’s and Pelosi’s real estate investments should be front and center of the climate change debate, but the Republican establishment is almost as corrupt as their supposed opponents; they’d rather lose politely, than fight hard for the American people!
“media” spreading lies? How is this news, lies are all “media” ever tells.
The cancer of leftist ideology long has grown among “media”, “journalists”, “academics” and “entertainers”. It ain’t going to get any better till they are forced to.
Some of us can remember when it didn’t seem as bad as it currently is — especially with UK news outlets.
I have said before I depended for years on bbc international service when I was places a long way from The World. VoA ain’t what it should be anymore, either.
As always Jim presented a great paper, but I am disappointed that there is no mention of wind in his paper nor in any of the comments. I spent several summers as a smokejumper and while on the line wind was always on our mind. It was the single most important factor in attacking the fire and our safety. Also, a cursory check of most recent large fire show that most had extreme wind.
I agree that wind is veery critical and it only got a brief mention when listing the NWS’s primary criteria for red flag warnings or that embeers get carrier 4 miles past fire lines. I have focused on winds in other analyses especially regards how human ignitions intersect with the Santa Ana and Diablo winds during the cooler season.
However this analysis was focused on revealing the flaws in Gutierrez’s summer temperature attribution claims, so analyses could not cover everything
I’m idsappointed he didn’t address racism.
Thank you for your stellar explanation.
“The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.”
The Earth is cooler with atmosphere/albedo not warmer.
To perform as advertised the GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. (TFK_bams09.pdf (ucar.edu)
As demonstrated by experiment such a scenario is not possible.
“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
LWIR wavelengths are too long to interact on the molecular level. Planck
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or global warming.
Again Mr Schroeder :
Tis verboten per Blog rules …
“As demonstrated by experiment such a scenario is not possible.
“New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts
9 years ago Anthony Watts
As readers may know, Dr. Roy Spencer and I have had a long running disagreement with the group known as “Principia Scientific International” aka the Sky Dragon Slayers after the title of their book. While I think these people mean well, they tend to ignore real world measurements in favor of self-deduced science. They claim on their web page that “the Greenhouse gas effect is bogus” and thus ignore many measurements of IR absorptivity in the atmosphere which show that it is indeed a real effect. Rational climate skeptics acknowledge that the greenhouse effect exists and functions in Earth’s atmosphere, but that an accelerated greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 emissions doesn’t rise to the level of alarm being portrayed. Yes, there’s an effect, but as recent climate sensitivity studies show, it isn’t as problematic as it is made out to be.”
Unlike other sites PSI let me post my experiment write up unmolested.
Ad hominems and appeals to authority don’t count.
Can you refute my points? Cooler not warmer & “extra” BB energy.
Once upon a not so long ago time published, peer reviewed, main stream, scientific consensus included:
water filled Martian canals,
four elements of matter,
And they all turned up wrong.
RGHE theory is going to join them.
“Radiative forcing” is a current version of caloric and phlogiston.
Nick, you clearly dont understand radiative heating.All objects radiate heat which can add energy to the other object regardless of its temperature. There are countless experiments showing this.
Regard the earth’s temperature, its warmer surface radiates heat away at a greater rate than a cooler object/atmosphere. Nonetheless the radiation emitted from the cooler objects, or atmospheric greenhouse gases, add enough energy to the earth’s surface that its surface cooling rate slows. This is portrayed as warming by alarmists and that is what confuses so badly.
You constantly confuse a slowing of a cooling rate vs heating
Again hijacking a Thread to spout scientific nonsense. Mods?
“Media” is too innocuous euphemism for members of the Democrat Marxist Propaganda Transcription Corps. Someday we will have to come up with a properly descriptive nickname.
A nickname for the Communist News Network, or MSLSD!?
How about the lapdog media? Never attacking their wealthy owners, they only bite the hand that feeds them!
The Goodridge plot is telling proof of UHI effects on the climate observation data. I bet if he further divided the 0-100K down to 0-50K and 50-100K the 0-50 K line would be flat. Climate change kooks hand-wave the UHI issue and assume the models somehow manage it by computerized homogenization adjustments but if most of the stations are in >50k the homogenization is bound to still bias the models towards the moderate UHI affected areas as being the norm. The question is how much is this systemic bias: if it is on the order of the middle graph (100K-1M = 0.1F/decade) then that is like 50-70% of the supposed observed warming (depending on which data set you believe). If it is half that, 0.05F/decade, that is like 25-35% still quite significant bias error for such important policy decisions. And put that on top of the fact that the model averages they use to prognosticate the future have consistently overstated warming trends by at least 1.5x when put to the test 10 years later.
“As the summer approaches, temperatures warm across the country, so the air can hold much more water”
This a myth; the air does not hold water. The water vapour that enters the atmosphere does not depend on the make-up or state of the atmosphere but depends on the partial pressure of the water vapour. It’s just another air molecule. When water vapour cools and reaches its dew point it will convert back to liquid again.
Evaporation will even take place in a vacuum so no air needed..
Warmists use “the warm air caused by a warming planet holds more water” argument. The atmosphere behaves like a big sponge soaking up the water. Then it is released and causes floods. Sheesh!
At least this metaphor works to get across the idea.
For every 1 deg. C increase in temperature, a saturated air mass will have around 7% more water vapor.
That according to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
Warmist or no Warmist….metaphor or no metaphor…….it’s rock solid physics and meteorology.
Warmer air masses are always more capable of having more/higher precipitable water values than cooler ones.
Not just “potential or theoretical either”…..it’s what happens in the real world based on observations and what us meteorologists use in forecasting precipitation.
This guy has some wonderful explanations:
Here’s one on the C-C equation:
“There are two version of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and one relates the vapor pressure to the dewpoint and the other relates the saturation vapor pressure to the temperature. The equation to use in order to determine how much moisture is in the air outside is to use the equation that relates vapor pressure to the dewpoint. The other version of the equation is used to determine what could be the maximum amount of moisture in the air for a given temperature. Note both versions of the equation are equivalent when the relative humidity is 100%. If the air is unsaturated, then use the dewpoint to determine the amount of moisture in the air.”
Max water content vs Temp
There is no mention of air in the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. It is a relationship between the saturation vapor pressure of water, the latent heat of vaporisation, the gas constant of water vapour and the temperature.
So it’s a metaphor and rock solid physics?
A causes B and C.
The planet, heated by Increased insolation, causes air temperature to increase and evaporation.to increase.
An increase in air temperature does not cause evaporation to increase. An increase in evaporation does not cause the air temperature to increase.
A causes B and C.
That’s why an increase in water temperature in a vacuum produces an increase in evaporation. Nothing to do with air.
“us” meteorologists are simply using the correlation between increased air temperature and increased evaporation to forecast precipitation. That’s fine.
But it’s not rock solid physics.
The owner of this blog is a former meteorologist. He believes back radiation from the atmosphere is a real forcing. He doesn’t have any evidence to back this claim but continues to promote the myth.
Sorry, meteorologists don’t do it for me.
If object A heats object B then object B cannot heat object A at the same time.
An object cannot heat the object that heats it.
Otherwise, runaway global warming. 🙁
You obviously do not understand radiative heating at all. Both heated objects A & B radiate heat, adding heat to each other. A hotter object clearly sends out more heat, but that doesnt mean the cooler is not adding heat to the hotter object and slowing its cooling
leit you seem very confused and twist a few concepts around to get things all wrong. The specific humidity of air is the ratio of water vapor to the total mass of a volume of air. The higher the temperature, the greater water vapor’s kinetic energy and the higher the probability it remains as water vapor. As temperatures cool, the higher the probability the vapor condenses to liquid and precipitates out. Thus the warmer the air the the greater the amount of water vapor and thus the higher specific humidity.
You are the only one here pushing myths, Sheesh!
“Out of fear of reducing National Forest timber harvest, the National Forest managers more slowly adopted prescribed burns.”
Good to hear NF managers are starting to actually do their jobs
I may be naive but if we brought in loggers to harvest about 20-30% of mature trees per acre in a homogeneous fashion within designated areas and in the process mandate them to thin out the understory not only in the harvested area but in surrounding areas (for example if harvested area is 1 mile diameter, thin out understory in a 2 mile diameter) could that work out as an economically viable solution? Especially with the skyrocketing lumber prices it could be a win-win.
As I understand you don’t have to totally haul out the stuff you clear it is adequate to consolidate the cleared stuff into a bunch of spaced out medium sized piles.
I have years experience with silviculture and wildlands fire fighting. Any attempt by US Forest Service or state forest agencies to properly manage forests in my state is now blocked by environmentalist law suits.
Thank you for your most-excellent rebuttal to the alarmist propaganda that attempts to link wildfires to “global warming”.
One seldom sees such a relatively concise, factually supported article written with such a wonderful use of logic and the English language.
Beware of (G)orapples and pee review.
Did you hear the one where a statistician drowned wading a river which he calculated had an average depth of 3 feet?
Jim ==> Nicely done — thank you.
Here in Los Angeles I can’t go a single day without the radio traffic report saying that a slowdown is caused by a fire at an offramp or on the side of a freeway, or in the river bottom. What is the common denominator? Homeless camps. According to the L.A. Times this summer: 54% of the fire department responses are caused by homeless people.
Obviously global warming causes homeless people. /s/
Thanks so much.
This is one of the most awesome displays of using authentic science/data to obliterate a never ending false narrative.
Our best opportunity to significantly reduce the drought out West would come from global warming kicking in again, along with another moderate to strong El Nino……positive temperature anomalies in the E/C Tropical Pacific Ocean.
The current La Nina, by definition, features negative/cool water anomalies in that area. That, in combination with the cold/-PDO have the complete opposite affects of global warming…. man made or otherwise.
But we hear that everything bad that happens everywhere is being caused by man made climate change………even when its the total opposite effect or total opposite reason for it.
Congratulations. You have joined the many who tell the truth and are censored for it. Remember any mention of Wu Han lab origin was censored. Remember any positive mention of Rittenhouse was censored. Remember showing the statistics on Ivermectin and HCQ were censored. Remember quoting CDC and NIH statistics was censored.
Oops! Meant as a reply to Jim Steele. Somehow the position jumped.
It’s the fuels, stupid. The “climate” hasn’t changed, but the fuels sure have. Evidently many so-called scientists like Aurora Gutierrez are completely ignorant of the fact that forest trees and plants are ALIVE and that they GROW.
In CA forests many tons per acre of biomass grow each and every year, accumulating over the decades in question, not merely as grass but also as trunks, branches, needles, litter, dead logs, brush, new trees, and other fuels fine and coarse.
The bizarrely ignorant warmunista quacks fail utterly to measure or account for the massive increase in fuel quantities and continuity in their stupid models. That profound and deliberate scientific malfeasance and fraud has led directly to our megafire crisis. It is appalling that so much money is wasted on criminal quackery and so little used is for forest stewardship.
Also, bravo to Mr. Steele for his condemnation of Let It Burn policies in their various disguises. The very agencies tasked with stewardship have failed in that and substituted catastrophic wildfire as their goal — in complete disregard for NEPA, ESA, and the other laws which govern their existence. They are arch criminals, not mere incompetents.
Well a lot of California which burns now isn’t forest… and there is at least some forest management and there’s a lot of recently burned stuff too. and of course the ‘fire season’ is longer and there Is drought and there ARE high temperatures and there are many trees killed off by beetles thanks to warmer winters…
It defies rationality to blame only accumulated material and say it is only because that now reached a peak we see more fires…
Your ignorant trolling “defies rationality”
The common belief is the MSM bias is on purpose to sell news. I disagree. I think the underlying purpose of MSM today is to support a narrative. Different news outlets have always had a slant to their reporting but in the past two decades it has become blatantly divisive. Slowly and stealthily the Marxists have gained control of media …. worldwide. The internet put a roadblock in their total control. Support of Marxist ideology is their goal. Pravda lives on.
This is just daft: there is no Marxist infiltration of the media.
If anything media has got more right wing…
Says the commie “griff”ter
“A growing body of work” also contributed to Eugenics and Lysekoism. Thanks New York Times for reminding us.
Great stuff as always Jim
But whoever is doing the transcripting needs a spellchecker
Who cares, fire is good. These plants need it to reproduce and fire improves biodiversity.