Introduction
The latest study by Robert J. Allen, James Gomez, Larry W. Horowitz, and Elena Shevliakova, published in Communications Earth & Environment, reveals an astonishingly profound discovery: if there is more vegetation to burn, it might burn more. Truly groundbreaking! This study, titled “Enhanced future vegetation growth with elevated carbon dioxide concentrations could increase fire activity“, dives deep into the complexities of models built upon other models to tell us something as obvious as saying the sky is blue. Let’s unpack this genius-level revelation.
Abstract
Many regions of the planet have experienced an increase in fire activity in recent decades. Although such increases are consistent with warming and drying under continued climate change, the driving mechanisms remain uncertain. Here, we investigate the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on future fire activity using seven Earth system models. Centered on the time of carbon dioxide doubling, the multi-model mean percent change in fire carbon emissions is 66.4 ± 38.8% (versus 1850 carbon dioxide concentrations, under fixed 1850 land-use conditions). A substantial increase is associated with enhanced vegetation growth due to carbon dioxide biogeochemical impacts at 60.1 ± 46.9%. In contrast, carbon dioxide radiative impacts, including warming and drying, yield a negligible response of fire carbon emissions at 1.7 ± 9.4%. Although model representation of fire processes remains uncertain, our results show the importance of vegetation dynamics to future increases in fire activity under increasing carbon dioxide, with potentially important policy implications.
The Core Hypothesis: More Vegetation Equals More Fire
The researchers investigate how increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations might influence future fire activity using seven Earth system models. Spoiler alert: they found that enhanced vegetation growth due to higher CO2 levels could lead to more fires. In simpler terms, if you fill a room with flammable materials, the room is more likely to catch fire. Profound, isn’t it?
Modeling the Obvious
The study uses seven Earth system models to project fire activity under increased CO2 levels. According to their findings, the multi-model mean percent change in fire carbon emissions is 66.4 ± 38.8% compared to 1850 levels. This increase is attributed mainly to enhanced vegetation growth, with carbon dioxide biogeochemical impacts contributing 60.1 ± 46.9%. Radiative impacts, which include warming and drying, yield a negligible response of 1.7 ± 9.4%.
Plus or minus 39% and 47%? This is no more accurate than throwing darts at a dartboard and using that for the results. Of course it is well known that hypothetical fires burn the hottest.
Here’s a direct quote from the study for added gravitas:
“Our results show the importance of vegetation dynamics to future increases in fire activity under increasing carbon dioxide, with potentially important policy implications”.
Essentially, the study highlights that more vegetation means more fuel, leading to increased fire activity. It’s like stating that a bigger bonfire will produce more heat—astounding!
Climbing the Intellectual Heights
The researchers emphasize that the increase in fire activity is robust across most land areas, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia. They also note that the models show considerable spread in predictions, with the highest increase in fire activity projected by the GFDL-ESM4 model at 408.6%. This might remind one of the saying, “The fall from the penthouse is greater than the fall from the first floor.” The wealth of vegetation growth leads to a higher potential for loss—brilliantly insightful.
To quote the study again:
“Why do the models, under idealized increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, yield such a robust and large increase in fFire? Quantifying the causes of the fFire response can be difficult, due to the many processes that impact fire activity”.
Translation: it’s complicated, but more stuff to burn means more burning.
The Profound Policy Implications
This study doesn’t just stop at stating the obvious; it delves into the potential policy implications. The researchers suggest that understanding the relationship between CO2 levels, vegetation growth, and fire activity is crucial for future policy-making. Yes, policymakers should definitely consider that more vegetation might mean more fires. It’s like telling a firefighter to expect more work if people start building houses out of matchsticks.
Conclusions: A Masterclass in the Obvious
In conclusion, the study by Allen et al. is a masterclass in stating the obvious with a veneer of scientific complexity. The revelation that increased vegetation growth due to higher CO2 levels could lead to more fire activity is as profound as discovering that adding more logs to a fire makes it burn longer. This study is an excellent example of why we need to critically examine the real-world applicability and necessity of some scientific research. After all, what’s the point of wealth (increasing global greening) if you might lose it to fires? The penthouse might be luxurious, but the fall is much harder.
Let’s leave with a final quote from the study to ponder upon:
“Although considerable uncertainties remain, these models can reasonably reproduce the observed amount, interannual variability and seasonality of fire carbon emissions”.
Ackchyually, “considerable uncertainties” means they probably DON’T “reasonably reproduce…”
References
- Allen, R. J., Gomez, J., Horowitz, L. W., & Shevliakova, E. (2024). Enhanced future vegetation growth with elevated carbon dioxide concentrations could increase fire activity. Communications Earth & Environment, 5, Article 54. Available at: Nature Communications
This post highlights the absurdity and the overly complex modeling to state simple facts, serving as a critical reminder of the importance of questioning the necessity and real-world relevance of a huge number of scientific “studies.”
Link to the “Study” below
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01228-7
Also consistent with the ongoing and increasing failure to manage fuel loads…
Which areas? I’d like to know, because the US isn’t one of them. We’ve got a LOOOOONG way to go to reach the burning activity from the early 20thC.
You are totally wrong on this Jeff. Per USFS inventory figures we have 60% more merchantable timber now than we had in 1953!!!
There’s now a movement to shut down ALL forestry. Just the opposite of what’s needed. More and better forestry will not only produce economic value, it’ll improve biodiversity, improve forest aesthetics, reduce fuel loads and, actually result in MORE carbon in the forest- not to sequester it to save the planet, but to put that wood growth on the best trees for economic reasons. A forestry professor at U. Mass., the late Dr. David Kittredge, wrote a paper once saying that the multiplier effect for forestry is 50-1. That is, the value of every tree on the stump, once cut, harvested and processed will be worth 50 times more. Lots of jobs too- real jobs. A win-win. In some western communities, forestry profits on federal forests helped pay for schools.
Agree with your comment, but the multiplier effect that I heard as a forester was 7. 50 seems out of reason. However, while we let our forests burn, we are importing about $40 billion of wood products; most from Canada. With a multiplier of 7 that would give a $280 billion boost to our economy, while at the same time reducing forest fire risk and improving the health of our forest lands.
I don’t where Kittredge came up with the 50-1. I’ll have to find his paper published in the Soc. of American Foresters Journal. I suppose it depends on the species, quality, and markets. If it’s prime oak, cherry, or maple selling at the stump for say $500/th.bd.ft. and that wood all goes to high quality furniture. That would be different than low grade wood such as knotty pine. And certainly wood going to pulp, firewood or biomass is much lower.
Since I never worked as a procurement forester or in any mills, I have little understanding of the economics of forestry beyond the forest so I can’t estimate the multiplier effect. It probably ranges widely.
Joseph – what is th.bd.ft? Pretty sure I know what bd.ft is but not the other part.
1000
thousand board feet- not a smart way to measure wood, but it’s been this way for centuries- usually expressed as MBF
I think the rest of the world uses cubic feet or cubic meters or whatever.
but board feet makes sense too when you’re used to it
The Communist regulators and bureaucrats think one size fits all. Every forest is different and needs to be treated as such. No species has ever gone extinct due to forestry.
Re “No species has ever gone extinct due to forestry.”
One could mention the Carribean mahogany Swietenia mahogani
But one could hardly claim that harvesting was forestry
It’s not extinct. Google it. And, I don’t doubt it was poor harvesting that endangered it. Despite being a forester for 50 years, I’m one of the biggest critics of forestry because so much of forestry was/is poorly done. The forestry “leadership” has always tried to hide that fact. Then along come critics who decide the best way to deal with bad forestry is to end forestry rather than fix the problem so it’s all good work. It took decades of struggle to get the forestry profession licensed in Wokeachusetts. The “wood products industry” fought against it until 1999- then when the law was passed, it was watered down. There was no requirement that timber harvesting should be managed by a licensed forester. The industry wouldn’t have it. And, what ticked me off is that many old time loggers were grandfathered and got the license, never having taken a single course in forestry. Until recent years, most forest owners got ripped off by loggers and most of the work was poorly done. Slowly, it’s gotten better and by now most of the work in this state is pretty good. It could be much better if they allowed biomass and pellet industries- but the enviros/greens have fought against that ferociously. I’ve had some intense fights with those clowns who are even worse than the climatistas.
The forest situation in W MT is not good. The number of sawmills
has dropped to just a few. Without that infrastructure managing the
forest is not possible. In CA for example the recent wildfires with
a high human death toll is where the infrastructure has been reduced
by the enviros. The wood products industry is not without fault also.
Their financial restructuring into REIT’s has had a enormous impact
on the forest management.
The FS also has undergone some basic management changes and
just by doing a roadside evaluation based on green vs dead trees
has not been very successful. The forest is a mess in my area.
Here is a report on a FS prescribed burn from 2010==>
https://wildfiretoday.com/tag/davis-5-prescribed-fire/
The female in charge of this burn ignored the county sheriff who
had issued a ban on open burning that day. The FS sent a crew in
and started the fire anyway, then later in the day pulled the crew
and left it untended. Amber Kamps the district ranger from the Lincoln
district was in charge. Note how the fire got out of control and damaged
private property, it destroyed the ghost town of Gould owned
by Andy Skinner a local businessman in Helena. He sued for
damages and the federal judge ruled that the FS is immune to damages.
The FS rangers are now mostly female. Totally woke BS. I can
go on at length but you might see a trend from what I’ve cited this
AM. I’m close to a burn project and if the FS screws up I have no legal
recourse. But if I burn some slash and it get out of control I’m
legally responsible to all damages…
“The number of sawmills has dropped to just a few. Without that infrastructure managing the forest is not possible.”
Exactly! You need a certain level of production to have a viable market for wood of all sorts.
As for the females, that’s clearly a woke thing. Nothing wrong with females having an EQUAL chance to get such jobs, but that’s not the case, it’s reverse discrimination. It’s happening to forestry in the fed and some state agencies. Here in Wokeachusetts, most new hires for any state environmental or forestry jobs are female. The top slots are all female. The wood harvest on the state’s million acres (including watersheds) is something like 5% of growth- and even that is too much for the forestry haters and climate nut jobs. A year ago, a bunch of wackos chained themselves to a log skidder to stop a project on a state forest- where a fairly light cut- a thinning in an oak stand- was halted. They kept saying it was going to be a clear cut- it was not.
The National Park Service was taken over by females years ago. A good friend, with several enviro degrees plus a law degree can’t get a full time job after 20 years as a temp. He’s very liberal but when it comes to getting his dream job- he now understands what the far left created against him personally. Most National Parks are now led by women. Of course there was discrimination against women in the past but that’s not solved by reverse discrimination now.
I thought the enviros/greens and the climatistas were the same species. 😉
Some specialize in hating forestry- others specialize in hating ff, but you’re right, now they’re pretty much all together.
One might argue the reverse is closer to being true. If forestry increases diversity of wood species as noted above, the spread of diseases or pests that target particular varieties becomes more difficult.
Bunches of the same species fall pray to such diseases and pests much more easily than individuals mixed with other species.
Good forestry doesn’t always increase tree species diversity. It all depends on region, objectives, quality of mgt. Down in Dixie, they manage forests like an extended corn crop- often with genetically engineered trees. Much of that is on old cotton fields. At least it’s better than growing cotton. Down there they have short rotations. It’s their land- they can do it the way they want. Diseases and pests are a problem but bad forestry is a worse problem- and no forestry is often the worse of all. It’s complicated.
If there is fuel, regardless of how much, a fire still needs a source of ignition (lightning, electric spark, campfire, arson). More fuel does not mean more fires, though it probably means larger fires when ignited. No matter how much fuel, no source of ignition equals no fire.
Every time a greenie head explodes, that’s a spark.
More like a damp squib, with no substance to combust.
“If there is fuel, regardless of how much, a fire still needs a source of ignition”
In Canada we are just entering arson season!!
Thankfully it’s raining and looks set to continue.
Under limited and specific circumstances spontaneous combustion occurs.
not just larger fires … fires that don’t burn themselves out almost as soon as they start means more significant fires.
” This study is an excellent example of why we need to critically examine the real-world applicability and necessity of some scientific research “
Just cut off research grants for anything to do with climate. The crisis will end!
Absolutely agree, although the Climate Crisis clique won’t like the conclusion that “radiative impacts (on fires), which include warming and drying, yield a negligible response of 1.7 ± 9.4%.”
I used to think that science was a difflcult and a hard won skill. Maybe those who do it ethically should be called professional scientists or an entirely new term. What is now done and reported in the name of science and by so called experts and is really just opinion or mass concensus and bears no relation to the truth whatsoever. Those involved in this manner and they are numerous are committing criminal acts. Even more so because so many gullible power brokers and decision makers believe them and ridicule those who at least would like discussion.
Science publishing is a highly lucrative business. The people who write the papers don’t pay for publishing, their employers or backers do. Their employers or backers use number of papers published to rate their efforts (yes really, I visited a medical research facility some years ago and was told exactly that). So authors are encouraged to write any kind of garbage to get their publication numbers up. But it also means that the journals can charge just about anything they like for a paper to be published. Robert Maxwell worked it out years ago – the employer will pay to have the paper published, other scientists will peer-review for free, and then other employers will pay for their employees to read the paper. Money for jam. I checked journals’ author charges a few years ago, looking for one that would publish open-access – one well-known journal charged authors 9,500 Euros per paper.
So that’s probably how this paper on fires came to be published.
The price of publication has come down, especially using color, so competition could arise. Not only do papers cost money, books without royalties do. Also because of the “authoritative peer-reviewed” publications system of evaluation, more local publishers, including state academies of science, are having difficulty. Gulf of Mexico Science went out of business among others over the years. I posted this once, worth repeating, farewell speech quote from president of Sigma Xi, Research Honor Society having troubles with its honor.
https://www.sigmaxi.org/news/keyed-in/post/keyed-in/2024/04/11/passing-the-torch
“But today’s highly competitive landscape has culminated in the creation of a new kind of scientist: the accomplished technician who seemingly publishes a new paper every 37 hours. Such successes—or maybe we should call them abscesses—indicate not so much that certain individuals have mastered the publish-or-perish game, but rather that the standard that society has set for scientists is no longer tenable.”
Academic publish or perish is not just a quip.
Earlier today:
“They” really do want it both ways.
Wildlands management in California and some other places is done by sue-and-settle with Green NGOs, with the Green NGOs taking no responsibility for their disruption of wildlands management.
California gets dry enough to burn every year, so lumbering and controlled burns are needed to control fires. Some of the Green NGOs have as an article of faith that the proper management is to do nothing. Add in CARB restricting controlled burns, and the situation is dire.
Excellent post, CR. Ridiculing the obvious in an overly simple analysis. Let’s summarize: More CO2==>more greening==>more fuel==>more fire. In 6 climate models no less. Duh!
At least for North America, there are several very important additional overlooked fire subtleties to this stupidly simplistic model ‘study’ that needed NO models.
I think you left out the restrictions on cutting out and harvesting deadwood and clearing out dead brush?
Yup.
eff. Not just eff but effin’ eff. I went to Yellowstone National Park for the first time in 1976…when I was 16. The west was burning back then because of so much deadfall and the practice of putting fires out instead of letting them burn when they didn’t threaten anything. At one time we hiked from the shore of Yellowstone lake to a trail about a mile in. We walked along large, dead tree trunks and I don’t think our feet touched natural ground the whole time until we got to the trail. I even think National Geographic (back when it used to be reputable) had a big article around that time on forest fires. Great to know their finally figuring it out…again!
When I went there in ’92, not long after the really big fire- I saw hundreds of standing dead trees right on the edge of the paved roads. But the policy was that they could not be cut. It looked like a big safety problem to me. They could fall on the road at any time.
They left them standing so they could blame the dead trees on “climate change” later. Never let a crisis go to waste.
More worthless claptrap. Fire whoever authorized this study, fire whoever paid for this study, fire the people who did the study and fire the reviewers.
But since they brought it up sounds like it’s time to fire up the chain saws and logging trucks.
Controlled burns are much used to reduced fire hazards.
Was talking to the local RFS (Rural Fire Service) guys the other day.
They have two major problems with burn-offs.
1) they have to get permission, on a particular day, from some pimpled clerk in Sydney, who takes 3-4 days to respond.
2) over the last 3-4 years, everything has been too wet to burn properly…
(yes.. they have tried a few times in different places.)
More climate warming means more CO2 from warmer oceans is produced which leads to more plants which means more fires which lead to more CO2 which….is this some kinda vicious circle?
No. It is a natural carbon cycle.
Smokey Bear in the picture appears to be in deep thought while his fire is very close to that tree….Danger!
Smokey Bear gots 13 toes (may 12, with one kinda deformed).
Speaking of modelling studies-
To find out why it occurred, researchers at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) analysed data from 18 different climate models.
They found Antarctica’s historically low sea-ice levels were a one-in-2,000-year event without climate change but four times more likely under its effects.
Antarctic sea ice is at a record low – and climate change is to blame (msn.com)
At long last we’ve finally cracked communications with penguins and their Dreamtime stories.
1.. Models DO NOT provide data… they provide imaginary numbers to play with.
Made-up numbers should not be confused with imaginary numbers that are useful tools in mathematics, physics, and engineering.
My mistake.. i know what you mean. 🙂
“Fabricated” or “made-up”…..
Thanks for your reply.
I admit that I use imaginary numbers on occasion. At times that is the most efficient way to get past the regulators.
But haven’t ever used ‘i’ for anything real.
Hamilton developed the vector cross product using quaternions. If you use i, j, and k as unit vectors, then you’re using the imaginary part of Hamilton’s quaternions.
The number “-1” is real. It can also be represented as a complex number:
1 + π*i
It’s a vector of length one rotated 180 degrees. The real part is always positive, and you can take the logarithm of this number:
0 + π*i
Laplace transforms are complex expressions. The impedance of capacitor “C” is 1/(C*s), where s is complex. Oscillations are imaginary in the “s” domain.
never had a reason to deal with, or get into quaternions or rotations.
It does seem that the imaginary unit is becoming more prevalent in popular culture over the past decade.
Imaginary politics is not like imaginary numbers. Watch out for those projections!
A negative vote–heh, heh, heh, It’s obviously an ignorant mathematician.
When the value and the standard deviation are about equal, the study means very little. How could they publish this twaddle?
They paid to have it published.
But… aren’t there supposed to be more droughts due to the “Climate Emergency”! Because the “Climate Emergency” is going to make it so we can’t grow enough food. The “Climate Emergency” is going to ruin everything all at once twice as fast as everywhere else.
It seems at this point they are only trying to maintain the brainwashing on the already indoctrinated. Each day, more and more come to realize that it is all nonsense. So their propaganda gets more and more absurd. To those who are not in thrall of it, it is obvious nonsense, it only “makes sense” to those who are still true believers.
I live in an area called the Wildland-Urban Interface. Sometimes pronounced WooE. The Era of Mega-Fires is a presentation produced a dozen years ago. The creators of that should sue the authors of this report. Background reading can be found with the search term “Firewise.”
According to the data highlighted on this site and by Pielkie and others, fire incidence and area burn have been decreasing for decades, that means “climate change” means less fire.
the increasing vegetation index means more growth at the same time as less fire which means even more fuel in the inevitable dry years, like last year in canada.
thankfully it’s raining here this year.
Is there any studies juxtaposing these two trends?
The authors repeat a dumb fallacy that is bedrock for the warmunists – claiming that drying is associated with warming, when it is warming that elevates atmospheric moisture for extremely obvious reasons.
Not surprising. After all, when the temperature trend goes to cooling to an extent that can no longer be hidden by their “adjustments,” this is the same crowd that will be telling you that all that “trapped heat” from CO2 emissions “caused the cooling.”
You heard it here first.
Next new study revelation – Water is WET!
Oh ho! Sau it ain’t so, Joe!
Correction with apologies:
Oh no! Say it ain’t so, Joe!
Uh, let’s see now, where to file this “study”. That would be under “D” for “duh”, no sh*t Sherlock, more fuel will probably result in more fires.
Looks to me like some “scientists” needed to find funding to continue the grift. Yep. Pretty clear.
Clowns to the right…and so on.
More people = more fires
Up to 90% of fires arer manmade
Conclusion: more green is bad? Because that really seems to be what they’re saying.
Get rid of all vegetation and there is no more risk of fire, right?
Green growth is not dry tinder.
Have to have both rain and no rain before the fuel is available, which happens in natural cycles.
I read many years ago that fires are part of a natural cycle. The forest burns. Then a peat bog forms accumulating the nutrients needed for the forest to regrow. Or something like that, been many years and I probably have forgotten some of the important points.
And that was “peer” reviewed!
Therefore it must be absolutely true. (/sarc)
Yes, we covered this in plant physiology class in 1967 and you can’t get much more elementary than this study, but at least they are getting out a story that needs to be told. Now, if we could only educate the public that timber harvesting doesn’t mean clear-cutting. We can use selective harvesting techniques on most lands and create an attractive forest with healthier trees and greatly reduce fire risk at the same time. Additionally, we could create thousands of good paying jobs.
LOG IT; GRAZE IT; OR WATCH IT BURN.
Simple choices.