An article in The Los Angeles Times (LA Times) published on September 4, 2023 makes the claim that a study by a Berkeley think tank proves “Climate change has ratcheted up the risk of explosive wildfire growth in California by 25%.” This is false. The study ignores other more important factors, and real-world data shows the moisture in the regions of California most affected by wildfires has actually increased, rather than decreased as the study claims.
The LA Times cites a Nature study titled “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California.” In the abstract of the paper the authors make an important admission: “Some portion of the change in wildfire behavior is attributable to anthropogenic climate warming, but formally quantifying this contribution is difficult because of numerous confounding factors and because wildfires are below the grid scale of global climate models.”
They also say: “We find that the influence of anthropogenic warming on the risk of extreme daily wildfire growth varies appreciably on a fire-by-fire and day-by-day basis, depending on whether or not climate warming pushes conditions over certain thresholds of aridity, such as 1.5 kPa of vapor-pressure deficit and 10% dead fuel moisture.”
The study fails on these two points because later in the study they cite global climate models using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to tease out relationships that can’t be accounted for in the grid-scale climate models to produce predictions. Models, and especially AI enhanced results are not actual data – they are projections based on the assumptions built into the models and the AI.
The models fail to account for the myriad confounding factors the authors themselves previously acknowledged, such as the increase in arson caused wildfires. In fact, the word “arson” is not mentioned anywhere in the study nor is there any detailed discussion of the actual contributions to increased wildfires of the so-called “confounding factors” in the study.
Ironically, the answer lies in an LA Times article from 2021 which stated: “Electrical equipment accounted for about 12% and lightning 6%. But arson was also a factor, sparking about 9% of fires in 2019, and roughly 8% to 10% of the state’s wildfires in any given year.”
The authors also ignored a 2017 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which looked at actual data instead of computer models and concluded that in the United States, humans accounted for 84% of wildfires:
Our analysis of two decades of government agency wildfire records highlights the fundamental role of human ignitions. Human-started wildfires accounted for 84% of all wildfires, tripled the length of the fire season, dominated an area seven times greater than that affected by lightning fires, and were responsible for nearly half of all area burned.
A second problematic aspect of the study relates to their use of, “vapor-pressure deficit and 10% dead fuel moisture.” Leaving aside the study’s use of AI enhanced modeling to sift for correlations between small scale moisture changes and wildfire, the researchers also used a novel and little-known approach to link the so-called drought and heat to fossil fuel emissions: Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD). The VPD is similar to, but not the same as, the more commonly known relative humidity seen in daily weather reports. In layman’s terms, VPD measures how much water is in the air versus the maximum amount of water vapor that can exist in that air. This atmospheric metric is hardly ever used. Climate Realism has refuted the use of VPD to understand drought and wildfire previously.
Most egregious of all, the Nature study itself ignored actual published data about VPD drying. The 2020 paper, Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit, examines actual data for the western U.S., specifically in the mountains of California, and shows VPD has decreased, indicating more moisture. These areas show VPD values that indicate more moisture, rather than less, and completely contradict the claims of drying made in the Nature study. This is seen in Figure 1 below, with both the U.S. and an expanded magnified panel showing the western area of the study. The green colors indicate wetter conditions.
Not only are the authors of the Nature study ignoring the easily available and contradictory VPD evidence in their paper, but they also used global scale climate models to support their assertion that climate change induced VPD deficits are driving wildfires in California, while at the same time admitting the models aren’t suitable for purpose at that scale. Instead, they use AI to tease out fire projections they believe are there but really aren’t.
This is a classic example of the overreliance on models (and now AI) in climate research, instead of actual data. Models are not data, nor do they define reality as actual data does. It is shameful that science and the LA Times present model outputs as such.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
What the models ignore is that California gets dry enough to burn every year.
The real issue with wildfires is sue-and-settle footsie by the state and feds with Green Blob NGOs interfering with any sensible wildlands management program, from logging to grazing to controlled burns. CARB also acts like wildfires are of no concern, compared to controlled burns. Lawyers and fundraisers for the Green Blob are the group actually responsible for forest and wildlands management in California, but that has not affected their default choice of “leave it alone”.
Lawyers and Liars. Often one and the same.
(I say this as a lawyer myself having dealt with enough of them).
I did see a law school advisory, that advised prospective lawyers away from a major that was in a scientific field.
Apparently knowing any science cramps one’s arguments. Ralph Nader was very persuasive in “Unsafe At Any Speed”, as long as the reader is ignorant of chassis tuning. I wonder if Saint Ralph knew he was putting out a preposterous claim.
I doubt he would have cared either way.
His goal was in discrediting big auto and like most leftists, any argument will do, even bad ones.
Yeah, but claiming any vehicle that oversteers is unsafe is a idiotic claim.
Having driven cars with legendary oversteer for the past forty-five years I heartily agree.
Remember, the left are all about destroying FUN !
A powerful engine, some oversteer, tight suspension, and a dirt road. 😉
Yeah, baby!
There is no evidence Saint Ralph ever even knew how to drive.
Yes, but you were driving the car, rather than just holding the steering wheel. You know how to drive.
Models….call me a sexist pig, but I remember the good old days when models were curvy young ladies in minimal clothes.
California has been having wildfires for millions of year. Some of the vegetation need them to sprout their seeds, it has been going on for so long. Also the number of wildfires overall have been declining, not increasing. There are more cameras everywhere taking pictures and videos of wildfires, that’s for sure.
In case it wasn’t already fire-prone, California has quite a few Australian Eucalypts as well.
I’m just so tired of this rampant BS! There was a term used a while ago about this, The Hive. Drones spreading propaganda.
Every year Schools of Journalism produce graduates that must produce propaganda articles for their employers….just saw an article about “Hottest City in USA’ …and “What the Hottest Month in History was Like” ….it is an industry of scientific studies and propagandists writing about the studies and the Cause. Bring back the beavers….the USA once had millions of beaver and bison….can’t bring back bison but the beav have been reintroduced in Nevada and eastern Oregon to make wetlands…which don’t burn.
Thanks Anthony.
Those of us that live in the US West (Dry Side of WA for me) in fire prone areas are well aware of the fire danger. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and fuel build-up are two of the concerns. Note that compared to the 10 year average, the National Interagency Fire Center reports . . .
Year-to-date statistics:
2023 (1/1/23-9/08/23) Fires: 40,683 Acres: 2,106,507
10-year average Year-to-Date
2013-2022 . . . . . . . . . Fires: 42,498 Acres: 5,534,893
In WA State, several agencies cooperate and immediately respond to human caused fires. Two near me this year were trucks catching fire
on I-90, then pulling to the side of the pavement. Not a wise action.
I understand that the fire-loving Australian eucalyptus tree is widespread in California,
There is speculation/research that it could be responsible for increasing fires in many parts of the world. See the Australian ABC News article.
Only at the end of the article do they mention fuel load, and only in passing. The
Greens are running the forests and its a mess, note they are ignoring the
fuel load and pointing at “cllmate change”. The forests in CA were shut down
with the spotted owl hoax and many of the timber workers have moved on and
there is a void in that entire sector. Thank you Mr Watts for giving this a good
evaluation.
It’s the fuels. Fuel is biomass. Biomass is biological. Biomass grows. Biomass accumulates. There is more fuel today than in previous years because the biomass grew and accumulated.
Any model that seeks to explain fire extent and/or fire severity over time (comparing those variables in a time series — in this case two decades), and that DOES NOT include the change (i.e. growth) in fuel quantity and contiguity is BLIND to reality and not worth a penny.
This peculiar blindness to fuel growth is widespread, common, and utterly foolish. The academics are decidedly blind. So is Artificial Ignorance. No doubt about it.
Intensive forestry and controlled burns in open, grassy areas will stop most wild fires. It’s that simple. They seldom have big wild fires in Dixie, the “wood basket” of the world. I recall driving through Georgia decades ago on a secondary road and saw a fire ahead of me. I didn’t know what was going on until I saw some men blocking the road. They said it was a controlled burn. That was before I read about this kind of work in forestry school. Managing the land this way not only prevents wild fires but is also profitable, something lunatic environmentalist can’t stand- OMG, making profit from the Earth!
“Controlled Burns” often get out of control in a big way causing enormous
damage. The Davis Fire In the Helena National Forest back in 2010 is only one
example. There was another big one in NM not long ago.
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/officials-ignored-warnings-before-davis-fire/article_05368b6c-b8a1-11df-8c46-001cc4c03286.html
After it was put out the private landowners that were damaged were denied compensation
of any kind. It was run up the legal flagpole and a federal judge ruled in favor for the national forest. But if a private citizen had caused the fire they would be sent the bill, there
have been suicides’ from such situations..
https://wildfiretoday.com/2015/04/09/court-rules-in-favor-of-the-forest-service-over-escaped-prescribed-fire/
The FS is full of women running things and they seem to not have a clue about anything
related to managing the forest. But they are products of the University Systems.
The Woke Forest Management Green-tards. Oh I have an aunt who was a forest ranger
during the transition time and I know some things.
At one time each FS unit was self financed, eg timber sales, grazing fees and mineral
royalties from activities on each FS unit is what paid the management of each unit.
Now it’s all run from Washington DC, and those in the Ivory Towers back there think
they know more than the people who actually are on the ground in the forests. Just
spend a little time in the woods and you will see the facts up close. It’s a mess but
the enviro’s make a lot of money with their lawfare.
The excess fuels could be turned into diesel via a portable Fischer-Tropsch plant
on the landing like they do in Sweden and parts of the US & Canada on private ground.. 80+ gallons per ton at a cost of around $80cents per gallon@ 20+tons/acre
You think the greens would allow that? There is a federal law that won’t allow that
to be done.
Have you seen the VLAT’s used today? Follow the money up the ladder on those and see where it goes.. I can go on about this for hours…
Some controlled burns have gotten out of hand- in the west- rarely in Dixie because there they’ve been intensely managing forests for many decades. The fact that sometimes it failed doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea- what’s necessary is to be more careful so it doesn’t fail. How about the first airplanes? Many failed but planes got better.
“The FS is full of women running things and they seem to not have a clue about anything related to managing the forest.”
You’re absolutely right and I know some of them- they know next to nothing about the real world of forestry- instead, they can talk all day about ecosystem blah, blah- and carbon blah, blah.
Some of the excess fuels could be turned into biomass- idealy as chips and if not chips, then a biomass combined heat and power.
Yuh, I could go on for hours about forestry issues too having just completed doing it- IN THE FORESTS for 50 years. I certainly don’t believe most of what’s published by forestry organizations including government agencies, academics and the professional associations like the Soc. of American Foresters. They’re nothing but BS. The real world of forestry as seen by those of us who actually work in forests is nothing like what those paper pushers talk about. It’s difficult, low paying, and not appreciated.
Back when the FS units were locally controlled and a timber unit was put up
for bid, no money changed hands till the logs were delivered at
the mill. The government, federal, state and county got their cut
first and what was left over went to the logger with the high bid.
That how the local communities financed their roads, schools and such.
Now with the centralized system the logger with the high bid
has to pay up front. So on say a beetle killed unit that has a value
over $1M gets hit with a enviro lawsuit that stops the harvest for
years what was worth $1 million+ is now worth maybe $50K as it
looses value as it decays. It has happened here recently.
You want to pay up front and risk getting hit by enviro lawfair?
There are a number of prescribed burns scheduled in my area
but if one goes bad and someone is wiped out it’s tough luck sucker.
The government doesn’t owe you anything. See the prescribed fire that got away in NM in 2022, wiped out 1000’s of people, they lost everything. It
burned over 350K acres.
Anthony ==> Very nicely done. A perfect example of ‘computational hubris’ now combined with ‘AI hubris’ — over-confidence in digitally processed data without any scientific evidence that it is, or even could be, correct.
VPD ?! It should be clear to Anthony that CC results in improved weather, therefore more pleasant days for arsonists to drive further afield with their matches and gas cans. A positive climate feedback if there ever was one….
…bwaahaaahaw….