Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:57 AM

Why California's Wildfires are America's Future

Sharon Begley

I'm pretty conservative about attributing weird weather and other climate anomalies to global warming: all you can say is that a record-setting hot October, or a string of 70-degree days in January in New York, is consistent with what a greenhouse world would be like. But when scientists go on record with a specific prediction of how climate change will play out, and when it indeed plays out that way, attention must be paid.

Last year, a study in the journal Science found that "large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons." The greatest increases were in forests of the Northern Rockies, but was seen throughout the west The pattern of western fires matched what would be expected not from changes in land use--mostly logging and ranching--but from climate change.

Specifically, a warmer world caused by the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases produces alternating deluges and droughts. The extra heat causes greater evaporation, but the water vapor remains in the atmosphere longer, or travels farther, before falling--in buckets. The result is alternating wet and dry years. In wet years, vegetation grows like mad. In drought years, that vegetation becomes tinder, exactly what southern California is now experiencing. As the scientists said, "an increased incidence of large, high-severity fires may be due to a combination of extreme droughts and overabundant fuels."

Advertisement

And no, it's not just a matter of media attention or the ubiquity of fire video on YouTube. The scientists found that the frequency of wildfires beginning in the mid-1980s was nearly four times that of 1970 to 1986, "and the total area burned by these fires was more than six and a half times its previous level." It's real, and it's going to continue.

. . . and get worse. Just as this season we call summer is now slipping well past Sept. 21, so the fire "season" is busting out of its former bounds. The average time between the reported first wildfire and the last in any given year increased by 78 days (64%), comparing 1970 to 1986 with 1987 to 2003.

Another factor is snowmelt, which has been dissipating in the west (with dire consequences for water supply, but that's another story). The earlier the snowmelt, the worse the wildfire season, because if the snowpack holds on into late spring or summer it releases its water slowly and gradually, reducing the flammability of vegetation. But if the snow has all melted by early in the season, much of it is lost to runoff rather than retained in the soil, where it would dampen the flammability of vegetation. Also, the warmer the summer--another consequence of climate change--the worse the burn: warmer temps, by increasing the rate of plants' evapotranspiration, make brush more flammable.

"This is exactly what we’ve been projecting to happen, both in short-term fire forecasts for this year and the longer term patterns that can be linked to global climate change," says Ronald Neilson of Oregon State University, who is also a bioclimatologist with the U.S. Forest Service.

He and other scientists are careful to acknowledge that there is no way to prove that the increase in wildfires has been caused by climate change--just as every prudent climatologist makes the same disclaimer about a heat wave or intense hurricane. But their conclusion is worth quoting in full: "virtually all climate-model projections indicate that warmer springs and summers will occur over the region in coming decades. These trends will reinforce the tendency toward early spring snowmelt and longer fire seasons. This will accentuate conditions favorable to the occurrence of large wildfires"---as California is seeing all to well this week.

It may soon have a lot of company. Nelson, who has served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific body that periodically assesses climate change research and that shared this year's Nobel Peace Prize, says that other regions of the U.S. may be experiencing a fire-friendly pattern of precipitation: several wet years followed by several that are drier than normal.

The result can be "heavier vegetation loads popping up and creation of a tremendous fuel load," says Nelson, whose climate models accurately predicted this week's California blazes. "But the warmth and other climatic forces are also going to create periodic droughts. If you get an ignition source during these periods, the fires can just become explosive. . . . In the future, catastrophic fires such as those going on now in California may simply be a normal part of the landscape." (The IPCC report released earlier this year also projected worse wildfires, in chapter 14 of the report by Working Group 2.)

How bad might it get? In 2002, OSU's Nelson and colleagues projected that droughts or heat waves made more frequent by climate change would lead to wildfire more frequent and severe than almost any that have occurred since colonial days.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: bdgarrett (October 29, 2007 at 10:02 AM)

"ndreyno"...I think you were correct in the claim that there is a miscommunicating in the "semantics" or vernacular used in this discussion.  

Both of our points stand firm.  I dont believe I have (and if I have, I appologize) discredited Global Warming from being a factor in anything.  All Environmental changes factor into everything that happens on any planet.  Through physics, chemistry and biology everything is interconnected in some way or another.  That is not to say that at any given time or during any singal event, one or two things cannot be the core cause of something else.  In the instances of these wild fires, I cannot see Global Warming through the mountains of Ecological Evidence that have gone up, literaly, in flames.  Even if we were to take global warming out of the picture all together, with humans mishandeling forested lands as we do (especially in highly populated areas) those fires woudl have errupted whether arsen were to blame or not.  Yes high winds fed oxygen to the fires as well increasing their speed through the trees, yes record rains causedtree growth to explode in the area after the 2003 fires, yes record droughts caused those record growths to dry to a dangerous level...etc...but natural fires would have kept that all in check.  That area of the country is a natural desert, so longas we keep pumping water into and encouraging foliage growth without natural burnoff, we will continue to see fires spur up that destroy the forests, the homes, and the malls we have built.  It is as folly as is rebuilding homes and citieis 10 feet below sealevel in a Hurricane Alley.  Call me a pessimist, call me what you will, but for being the most intelligent species on the planet, Humans do some really stupid things.


Posted By: ndreyno (October 26, 2007 at 2:49 PM)

bdgarrett:  Pot. Kettle. Black.   You chastise ashark and languyen for missing your point which was not to try to claim that global warming isn't happening, but to claim that  global warming "...has NOTHING to do with these fires".  Well, clearly you're missing the point of Sharon Begley's lab notes which is that though the direct cause of the fires may be attributed to a history of fire suppressing forest mgmt., the scientific studies she cites have drawn a connection between global warming and the FREQUENCY and SCOPE of fires which obviously means global warming is a contributing factor to the nature of these fires.  Is this a semantics mis-communication?  "Causing" something as opposed to "contributing to/influencing" something are two very matters.  Noone's trying to claim global warming "caused" these fires.  An ignition source of some kind (lightning, a campfire, etc.) "caused" this rash of fires.  However, Global Warming is asserted to "contribute to" these fires--an assertion that appears quite valid.

Furthermore, the only "politicalization" occuring with respect to global warming has been conducted by the fossil fuel energy companies and their government apologists with their feet-dragging and disingenuous climate change denials in the face of OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC evidence that human caused climate change is real!  You know, the most pathetically funny thing about climate change denial in this country by the powers that be is that the consequences of it will have the greatest impact on Red states from whence most of the government apologists were elected.


Posted By: DMVL (October 26, 2007 at 2:37 AM)

SDGWD, I did as you suggested and when I looked at the two maps, and the area where it says, "area previously burned" on the 2003 map looks to be the same area that's burned now.  There are people who lost homes in the 2003 Cedar fire who have lost their homes in this week's fires.  So, your theory regarding the chapparell being burned previously, therefore, those areas did not burn, does not make any sense.  

Your theory leaves out the fact that there was record amounts of rainfall in 2005 and average rainfall in 2006.  This year, there was hardly any rain, so everything that grew in 2005 and 2006 dried to a crisp, especially in August during the heatwave.  Combine that with the Santa Ana winds and there is your disaster.  

FYI, October 2006 we had some fierce Santa Ana's blow through San Diego, but no major wildfires.  Why do you think that happened?  Even though we roasted in record highs in June 2006, enough the average rainfall that year probably kept the brush from getting too dry to ignite easily.


 
The Peek
 
 
SPORTS

Speedo's new and controversial high-tech LZR suit is helping swimmers smash dozens of records. How the company plans to capitalize on Olympic gold.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu