"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.

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.

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.

Fires in California are in our future but not for the reasons you think.

Fire have always been a part of our part of our past but increases in the threat level are not be because of rainfall but because of the urban incursion of housing into foothill and mountainous area of Southern California.

Images of homes burning play well in the TV, print and online media so we can expect to see much more of this on our front pages as the seven county area of southern California increase in population from 18.7 million to 21.5 million people. Much of this growth is occuring in fire prone counties of San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and San Diego.  

Our fire risks increase significantly as housing developments move up into the foothills and mountains and those areas inherit manmade risks. Dropped power lines, greater vehicular traffic on roads increase the chance odf fires as will the prohibition of normal fire thinning techniques in the proximity to new housing.

Is global warming the reason for todays mega-fires or is it mankinds incursion into historically uninhabitied regions? It's the later. Really!

Great report explain the So Cal fires and how they are NOT related at all to Global Warming.

http://ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=393&Itemid=94

This Newsweek article is very concerning in its attempt to mislead the public.

"ashark" and "languyen":  you two are missing the point.  Global Warming is occurring, true, but it has NOTHING to do with these fires, and if you think it does, then you need to take an Introductory Ecology Course.  

Global Warming doesn't start fires, and even in a world where the temperatures get warmer doesn't mean it gets drier!  The Earth has been through many periods of cooling and heating.  Think about the temperature (heating) differentials that had to exist to melt down "The" Ice Age, and vice-versa.  

Yes, humanity needs to stem the tide of emmissions and lower the use of fossil fuels, but the fires happened due to forest/landscape management...NOT GLOBAL WARMING.  Educate yourself about a subject before you talk about it.  ALSO...Global Warming isn't something you sense in your heart!  It is a trend in annual global temperatures...not a gut feeling.  Science People...not Philosophy!

I know in my heart global warming is occuring right now in our back yard, and around the world.  I have noticed every year for 20 years, winter kept getting milder, and milder.   We need to stop being in denial,  wake up to the reality of global warming,  start taking action for our mistakes,  build a safer future for our children, and save this wonderful planet earth.   I am sick, and tired of all those greedy politicians, and oil companies making tons of profit off of oil, and energy sources. They all know in their heart it's happening, they chose not to do anything about it, and kept putting money in their greedy pockets.  Here is the reality advice to those greedy politicians, and oil company.  You can't take money with you to the grave, and the money you left behind for your children to enjoy.  There is nothing for your children to enjoy when this planet earth is covered under water.  There are concrete scientific proofs to global warming.  We, as the People of The United States, and around the world need to stand up as a whole nation, fight these greedy politicians & oil companies, and start taking action now before it's too late.

rsdod, it's obvious you have no scientific training or are misleading people on purpose. You use incomplete facts and then make very broad generalizations based on those incomplete facts. The global cooling theory of the 70s was based on the large amount of aerosols that humans were dumping into the air at the time, absorbing solar irradiation and causing Earth to cool slightly. However as soon as laws were passed to pan aerosols and aerosols all ready in the atmosphere were allowed to diffuse, mostly into the ocean and topsoil, global temperatures began to rise once again. Yes, man made CO2 emissions are a small fraction of total CO2 emissions on this planet, HOWEVER, for every natural source of CO2, i.e. a volcano, there is a natural CO2 sink to absorb that CO2, i.e. the ocean of any type of plant. It's all part of the natural carbon cycle that has developed over millions of years and that we are now overloading at an alarming and dangerous rate. That's why we should worry about man made CO2 emissions, they are a very real problem. Man made global warming is the overwhelming consensus of the climate science community, no matter how many random, rebel scientists you cite looking for the limelight. Thank you Newsweek for highlighting that if humans don't change their behavior fast, we are in for a world of hurt that we aren't prepared to deal with.

The reason we're experiencing the fires has nothing to do with supposed man-made global warming.  The sole and only reason is that we are not allowing natural fires to occassionally clean-out the under brush and debris.  

Much of the chaparrel that's burning in San Diego hasn't burned in 50 to 100yrs.  Take a look at the stuff - after 15-20 yrs, the stuff gets all knotted up and ties itself up into clusters, essentially setting itself up to burn.  It thereafter dies-off, ready to burn and set the stage for the next generation of plants.

Take a look at some old pictures of San Diego from the mid-late 1800's.  You'll see very little tall chaparrel, as it historically always burns off.  Well, we consider fire bad and good fire management of course requires you to put out all fires immediatly.  This policy of the past 100 years has led to the current crop of chaparrel that basically liquid gasoline sitting there ready to go.

Compare the two fire maps:

2003 Cedar Fire:

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20031030t1

Current Witch Fire:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/firemap/

Though difficult to do, if you overlay the two maps, you'll note that none of the areas in the Cedar fire burned in the Witch Fire.  Coincedence?  Wind direction?  No, the reason is the Cedar fire cleared out all the old, 50-100 year old chaperral and left no fuel to burn this time around.  If we had proper fire management, you wouldn't have had the severity of the fires you see today.

It's that simple.  It has nothing to do with this supposed Global Warming.  The alarmist are again pointing this as an example.  It's BS.

In 2003 San Diego had a "100 year fire".  Are we are now experiencing a "500 year fire"?  Perhaps it's now time that we need to create a comprehensive national policy to deal with climate change that makes sense.  Knee jerk reactions are what sends people chasing their tails in every direction.

Regardless of what your view on "climate change' might be I think we can agree that it's time to enter into a dialogue to deal with the issues of sustainable civilization.  Humans are living in places that 50 years ago were remote "wilderness". Now we have subdivisions with 5000 S.F luxury homes built into the landscapes.  Let's tell the truth.  Rebuilding homes in the lower areas of New Orleans is folly.  The waters will continue to rise and within 30 years New Orleans will be one of the abandoned cities in North America.  If the water in Southwestern United States will run dry in 20 years why are we not doing anything to curb the growth there?  Las Vegas will run out of water in less than 20 years if they don't locate a sustainable source of water.  There aren't any and the water wars have only just begun.  There are now over 2 million people there and they are continuing to fuel the growth.  Comparing urban and suburban growth policies to the fateful voyage of the Titantic is apt.  

I read a story the other day about an aviation disaster that occurred in England.  A jet that had landed at the airport had one of the engines catch fire.  The captain instructed the passengers to remain in their seats.  2/3 of the people followed these fateful instructions while the survivors had to crawl over these people to escape.  All of the people that stayed perished even though they had plenty of time to escape.

I saw a man on TV yesterday that lost his home in the 2003 fire and lost his home for the 2nd time yesterday and he said he intends to rebuild.  Imagine what he would say if someone told him that he wouldn't be allowed to rebuild...

I rest my case.

These wildifres have more to do with the mismanagement of forests and the environment that it does global warming.  

For decades, even centruies, humans have thought of fire as bad and that any flame on the land should be put out.  Those slow burning fires that we have been putting out only increase the fuel and kindling for greater more catastrophic fires that we have seen in Greece and in the Western US.  

Fire is a NATURAL thing and if left alone, kills off the undergrowth and smaller kindling that has been used in these recent Wildfires to ignite the larger taller canopy trees.

Make no mistake, this has human errror written all over it!  But has little to do with human influence in global warming.

Science has been tainted by politicians to push agenda's and build platforms upon.  The "politicalization" of global wamring and environmental science is at the heart of the public's ignorance in such matters.

Since your mag wrote in the mid-70's that an ice age was soon to be upon us you can imagine how some feel about the latest "predictions.: More importantly, there may be warming, but why the clammer to blame man-made CO2? I don't recall names, but the PhD at Wisconsin [Father of Climatology] says it's a myth he first thought might be worth investigating. So many others now agree. If man-made CO2 is less than 1% of greenhouse gases then why worry about it? So often in scientific circles it takes time to work through the nonsense, especaiily when those who propose an agenda are receiving grant money. I work in these circles and like all businesses money is the engine that drives the train. That means nothing as to truth however. Until responsible people start reporting the truth, the public will continue to buy this nonsense.  You might also research the colling cycle from 1940 throught the 70's ..... and correlate the increase of man-made CO2 throughout that cycle while temperatures dropped.