From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Cliff Mass
Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story that was blatantly false, with the Seattle Times featuring it as well.
The claim: that Western Washington will experience more “megafires” due to human-caused global warming (climate change).
Unfortunately, the writer of this story (a Washington State stringer for the NY Times) failed to examine the historical record or the best science, getting the essential facts wrong.
How do I know the writer got it wrong?
Because for the past two years, I have researched this very issue and just published a paper on this topic in the peer-reviewed literature (here). I have read every paper and report on this issue.
So exactly that did the NY Times (and the Seattle Times) get wrong?
The article defines megafires as ones that involve hundreds of thousands of acres.
How many such fires have occurred since 1900 in western Washington?
ONE. The Yacolt Fire of 1902 (238,000 acres), just north of the Columbia River.
Has there been an increase in the number or size of large western Washington fires during the past 50 years, a period in which the Earth and our region have warmed?
The answer is no, which alone should make one doubt the NY Times claims.
If global warming contributes to big fires, we should be seeing increases in the number of big western Washington fires due to such climate change. We are not.
The reason for this lack of correlation between warming and big local fires is clear.
Big western Washington fires are very different animals from the small localized westside fires, such as the current Bear Gulch fire on the Olympic Peninsula (about 4000 acres now).
To have a “megaburn” burn in western Washington, one needs strong, sustained easterly (winds from the east. No matter what the temperature, no matter what the prior rainfall, without strong easterly winds we do not get westside megafires.
It is very difficult to produce large wildfires in the very moist environment of western Washington forests. Only strong easterly winds make it possible.
How do I know this?
Because in my research (again published), I looked at EVERY large western Washington and Oregon fire of the past 150 years, examining all available weather observations and simulating most of them with a modern high-resolution model (see sample below of near-surface winds for the 1902 Yacolt fire, colors indicate wind speed).
Every one of them was associated with strong easterly flow.
So what does this have to do with climate change and global warming?
It turns out that strong easterly winds are REDUCED in our area under global warming/climate change.
You read that right. The threat of the necessary strong easterly winds is LESSENED by climate change.
I can tell you why.
Anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is greater in the interior of continents than over the slower-to-warm oceans. Virtually every climate simulation shows this…it is not controversial (see example below from regional climate runs made by my group)
Warm air is less dense than cold air, which results in preferential pressure declines inland than over the slower-to-warm coastal areas.
If pressure falls more inland (where it warms more), then winds tend to move from west to east (air tends to blow from a high-pressure area to a lower-pressure pressure).
Onshore flow like this is just the OPPOSITE of that needed for big western Washington wildfires.
To put it succinctly: the NY Times and Seattle Times not only got the story wrong, they got it REVERSED. Global warming will reduce the potential for western Washington mega-wildfires because the necessary easterly winds are weakened.
The writer of this story did not bother to examine the frequency of local megafires nor understand the meteorology that drives them.
Such sloppy and poorly researched “journalism” misinforms readers and leads to poor decision-making. Very disappointing.
Right enough, Cliff, but if the “journalist” concerned had written what you have just written it wouldn’t have been published and he wouldn’t have been paid.
Think of his poor children running about without shoes and dressed in rags.
/S.
I learned as a smokejumper that without wind we can control any fire, with high wind we can’t control any fire. Other conditions are minor but major contributor to spread is fuel size. Cheat grass accelerates spread.
“/S” not needed, that’s exactly what the “journalist” was doing and to hell with the truth
Western Washington will experience more “megafires”…
…due to humans starting fires, whether by accident or by design…
“University professor is charged with starting four California wildfires as deadly Dixie blaze raged nearby: He faces 20 years in prison and $250,000 fine for each count of arson” – WUWT
Palo Alto Woman Alexandra Souverneva Charged With Starting Fawn Fire; She’s Being Investigated For Starting Other CA Wildfires – WUWT
Did the NYT and Seattle Times factor that sort of lunacy into their calculations? Somehow, I doubt it.
In 2022 a report from the European Environment Agency Mediterranean Region, covering Portugal, Spain, France , Italy and Greece noted that 96% of wildfires in the region were caused by human actions, ie accidental or deliberate.
The Climate Change Kooks are always on the loose and will stop at nothing in trying to start problems that can be blamed on excessive fossil fuel use.
If their houses were to catch fire, the firetrucks with big Diesel Engines using Diesel Fuel will come very quickly to put out there fires. What are these young people thinking about fossil fuels, which in winter keep them from freezing to death.
OK, are The New York & Seattle just making it up out of thin air?
Hot air?
Montgolfier journalism?
more than likely the overused “scientists say” or “experts say” was the source…
Or they got it from the Climate Propaganda organizations and published it without reading it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/
Gotta juice those numbers somehow …
I think I would call it lying
Business as usual.
As most do, Cliff makes the mistake of attributing laziness to obvious malice. Journalism and research weren’t the goals of the piece.
Cliff, nice to see some actual science, well done.
If the forests were well managed- that would reduce fires. How come we don’t hear of many megafires down in Dixie? I think it’s because most of that forest is intensely managed. The owners don’t want fires and lose their valuable asset.
Just how do you manage the enormous forests in Northwest and Canada, a great portion of which have rugged mountains and no access forest service roads?
Two ways: 1) regularly harvesting timber. Clear cut where appropriate. In steep terrain, thinning and or helicopter harvesting. In the old days they rain cable lines like my grandfathers did. 2) Controlled burns. Dr Jim Steele has a lot more knowledge in this area if he cares to comment.
I live in BC where forestry is still the main industry followed by mining. I recall seeing on TV some docs about forest crews cutting lines of firebreaks on the low slopes mountains.
In the mid 90s there was out break of mountain pines which went on to wipe out the interior lodgepole pine forests. This was due the lack of really cold winters (ca. -30° C) which usually kill the overwintering larva diapausing under the bark of infested trees. This vast forest of dead trees were quite susceptible to forest fires started by lightning. Presently, there are over 100 forest fires in BC.
Great work Cliff!
Once you accept that most journalists today are biased, lazy and incompetent, articles like this are no longer disappointing, but expected.
The Seattle Times is a worthless rag and has been for decades. Businesses are leaving Seattle, and the sensible people are following suit. Meh…
The carbon tax is another reason to leave.
The alarmists are trying to claim the current wildfires in western Canada are also due to climate change until a few facts are considered. Evidently smoke pollution in the Winnipeg area just a few days ago was the worst on record, eclipsing the former extreme set in 1961.And this phenomenon is hardly restricted to that city since numerous others including a number in the northern US have been experiencing the same. Except back then no one was going into hysterics about human-induced climate change caused by excessive fossil-fuel use even though leaded gasoline was more commonly used in motor vehicles and coal was more frequently consumed for heating. In addition, forest management practices were rarely employed. Yet somehow forest fires managed to be ignited and air quality negatively affected. So maybe the above occurrences were never factors then and still aren’t now, but the alarmists just hadn’t thought of making a big deal about them and attribute them to human activities and the supposed need for new taxes, laws and mandates.