There never have been wildfires here....

[mike2810]

Not all of Arizona is experiencing 100°F+ for 145 contiguous days either. The part of Arizona that is experiencing those temperatures for that duration are the deserts, where there are no forests to burn.

Actually, I mentioned the overall national average based on NASA's GISS data. From the data they collected there have been two distinct 30-year warming periods and two distinct 35-year cooling periods. From 1880 until 1915 was the first 35-year cooling period, followed by a 30-year warming period from 1915 until 1945, then another cooling period from 1945 to 1980, and another warming period from 1980 to 2010.

Which is why I said another cooling period began in 2010 and will likely last until 2045, if NASA's GISS temperature cycles holds true. Two periods of warming and cooling is barely a trend, but it is the only data we have.

Glitch.
I will say it one more time. I do not know if it is climate change or some normal long term weather pattern that is influencing the fire behavior on wildfires.
Temperature is one component. Some other components are: (but not all inclusive)
Moisture (precipitation amount in form of rainfall or snow)
Fuel moisture (dead and live)
Wind
Relative Humidity
Terrain (slope, aspect, elevation)
Fuel load (continuity, type, arraignment, etc)

There are a lot of factors that are driving the fire behavior we are experiencing today. Our forest in some areas are in poor health. We need to do a better job in forest management. Some of the fires have occurred in brush/grass fields. Wildland Urban Interface in some areas add to the complexity.

Fuels is one thing we can work on. Weather not much we can do about.

 

[longview]

You did not answer my question.
What do you know about wildfire behavior?

Is temperature one component that effects fire behavior? Yes or No.

You did not answer my question.
What do you know about wildfire behavior?

Is temperature one component that effects fire behavior? Yes or No.

Was that your question, I thought it was,
"I am not contributing higher temps to more fire. Do you understand anything about fire behavior?
Answer that and we can proceed. "
And yes, I have be in two forest fires in my life, in the 1960's we had bad fires on our farm twice.
Minor fires compared to those big fires, but we were out in it trying to break up the lines and remove the fuel.
I was only about 8, but remember what the forest service guy said, as he was dropping fire balls on the ground ahead of the fire.
"You have to fight fire, with fire" I did not fully understand it at the time, but later realized he was burning up the fuel the advancing fire needed.

 

[mike2810]

Was that your question, I thought it was,
"I am not contributing higher temps to more fire. Do you understand anything about fire behavior?
Answer that and we can proceed. "
And yes, I have be in two forest fires in my life, in the 1960's we had bad fires on our farm twice.
Minor fires compared to those big fires, but we were out in it trying to break up the lines and remove the fuel.
I was only about 8, but remember what the forest service guy said, as he was dropping fire balls on the ground ahead of the fire.
"You have to fight fire, with fire" I did not fully understand it at the time, but later realized he was burning up the fuel the advancing fire needed.

I would suggest you read up on wildfire fire behavior. There are a many sources of information on the web. I also suggest don't take msm articles as the truth. Check and verify. MSM tend to sensationalize fires.

(me: 30 years wildfire fire management, BS Forest Management, MS - Wildland Fire Science)

 

[longview]

I would suggest you read up on wildfire fire behavior. There are a many sources of information on the web. I also suggest don't take msm articles as the truth. Check and verify. MSM tend to sensationalize fires.

(me: 30 years wildfire fire management, BS Forest Management, MS - Wildland Fire Science)

So you know that wildfires were much worse in the 1930's yet still persist in promoting the line
that recent fires are linked to climate change.
History us US forest fires

 

[mike2810]

So you know that wildfires were much worse in the 1930's yet still persist in promoting the line
that recent fires are linked to climate change.

If you understood my post I have already addressed your question.

How are you defining "worse"? Is it just acres? Is it acres and severity of the burn? Is it lives and property loss?
There were some very large wildfires in the US in the past. The US did not have the same firefighting capability as it does in more modern times.

What do you believe is causing the fires of today to get to the size they are?

 

[longview]

If you understood my post I have already addressed your question.

How are you defining "worse"? Is it just acres? Is it acres and severity of the burn? Is it lives and property loss?
There were some very large wildfires in the US in the past. The US did not have the same firefighting capability as it does in more modern times.

What do you believe is causing the fires of today to get to the size they are?

The question is are the fires of today burning more area, than in the past, and the answer is clearly no!
More property loss, is simply a function of more people, and more people living in wooded areas.
How else can your compare the 51 million acres burned by more than 187,000 fires in 1931.
Since 2000, the highest year was 2015 with 10 million acres burned by 68,000 fires.
The 2020 total is clearly not finished, but will it be more than 50 million acres?

 

[bluesmoke]

CO2 is not a climate problem. And drought hasn't really been an issue either.


New Video Demolishes Claims of Megadrought in U.S. West
Drought April 24, 20200
Tony Heller, who operates the website RealClimateScience.com, has posted a powerful four-minute video absolutely destroying claims that the western United States is currently experiencing...

No, Warming Is Not Causing a Megadrought in the U.S. West
Drought April 19, 20202
The establishment media is hyping a new paper claiming climate change is contributing to a megadrought throughout the western United States. Federal government data...

If you don't believe CO2 is a component of AGW, then what is?

I did not say anything about drought being caused by AGW.

 

[longview]

If you don't believe CO2 is a component of AGW, then what is?

I did not say anything about drought being caused by AGW.

I must have missed where Jack said that CO2 is not a component of AGW.
Could you cite and quote where he said that?

 

[Jack Hays]

If you don't believe CO2 is a component of AGW, then what is?

I did not say anything about drought being caused by AGW.

Your use of the word "drier" suggested drought.
Of course CO2 is a component of AGW, but AGW itself is not as important as you believe.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Our nephew and his team have already been stood down for the season.

That's a shame.
The fire season itself is not over, and won't be until (or unless) it starts to rain. The forests are still tinder dry, and lots of areas are still overgrown and full of dead trees. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The question is are the fires of today burning more area, than in the past, and the answer is clearly no!
More property loss, is simply a function of more people, and more people living in wooded areas.
How else can your compare the 51 million acres burned by more than 187,000 fires in 1931.
Since 2000, the highest year was 2015 with 10 million acres burned by 68,000 fires.
The 2020 total is clearly not finished, but will it be more than 50 million acres?

Fires that stay on the ground and burn up the brush and dead wood are quite different from the ones that crown, that is to say, get in the tops of trees and go from tree to tree, and that create "firenadoes." The one in California ripped mature trees out of the ground due to strong winds created by the fire.

This is a scary sight:

 

[longview]

Fires that stay on the ground and burn up the brush and dead wood are quite different from the ones that crown, that is to say, get in the tops of trees and go from tree to tree, and that create "firenadoes." The one in California ripped mature trees out of the ground due to strong winds created by the fire.

This is a scary sight:

Your comment does not state if earlier fires from the 1930's were worse or better.
What we do know is that they burned a lot more area.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's a shame.
The fire season itself is not over, and won't be until (or unless) it starts to rain. The forests are still tinder dry, and lots of areas are still overgrown and full of dead trees. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

It's all about budget.
Meanwhile, our nephew plans to use this time to transition to his new career as a pilot.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's all about budget.
Meanwhile, our nephew plans to use this time to transition to his new career as a pilot.

There should be a demand for pilots again after the COVID.

 

[Jack Hays]

There should be a demand for pilots again after the COVID.

There's already been some interest from a small intermountain outfit.

 

[bluesmoke]

I must have missed where Jack said that CO2 is not a component of AGW.
Could you cite and quote where he said that?

See my post #132, which incl Jack’s post to which I replied, it was stated by Jack “CO2 is not a climate problem”. If so, it must not be a GW problem, natural or AGW, whether he said so directly or not.

 

[Jack Hays]

See my post #132, which incl Jack’s post to which I replied, it was stated by Jack “CO2 is not a climate problem”. If so, it must not be a GW problem, natural or AGW, whether he said so directly or not.

Quite dishonest of you. Of course CO2 is a component of AGW. AGW is not a problem.

 

[bluesmoke]

I must have missed where Jack said that CO2 is not a component of AGW.
Could you cite and quote where he said that?

.....

 

[bluesmoke]

Your use of the word "drier" suggested drought.
Of course CO2 is a component of AGW, but AGW itself is not as important as you believe.

Just a note, you've used the term "drier" before as applied to a season. I didn't take it as meaning "drought".

Then you believe that CO2 is a climate problem, as opposed to your saying in previous post that it was not. Correct?

 

[Jack Hays]

Just a note, you've used the term "drier" before as applied to a season. I didn't take it as meaning "drought".

Then you believe that CO2 is a climate problem, as opposed to your saying in previous post that it was not. Correct?

No. CO2 is the main driver of AGW. AGW is not a climate problem.

 

[joko104]

The Democratic Party is the party of science deniers - extreme science deniers.

The claim EVERY expert in the world is wrong and always have been. They claim that wild fires are never started by lightning, that Democratic officials in California suing and fining power companies for causing fires are all Democratic liars, and reckless campfires never start wild fires and that the person who admitted starting fires to facilitate burglaries is a liar and he is an innocent man being prosecuted. They claim history books claiming lightning caused fires would burn off land to prompt new growth are all also liars.

To the NEW Democratic Party, every expert in the history of the world are all wrong - even their own California Democratic officials are all liars too. Wildfires never happened until the last few years, caused by the earth's atmospheric temperature rising 0.03 degrees is causing the USA (only) to burst into flames. Another 0.01 degree increase and the USA (only) will turn into molten lava.

Why do Democrats so furiously hate all scientists and all historians? Because they have been ordered to by the richest people on earth who will make trillions upon trillions of dollars by science denial.

 

[Rosie1]

Wildfires were a problem in the past. That is one reason the US Forest Service came about and many were trained as firefighters. Recent times, have trended toward a style of, rather than putting fires out, "managing" them by letting them burn, in Wilderness areas. In Oregon, they watched the Beechie Creek fire burn for several weeks in the wilderness, until temperatures and a wind event came along and blew it into a populated canyon; result devastation. There is no doubt, our areas are now growing warmer, more droughts, etc. When mistakes are made in wildfire prevention and management, policies need to change. That's not happening enough. And, of coarse, people are building homes closer to, and in the forests, more than in the past.

Another huge, devastating, Oregon fire this year, started at a BMX track, in southern Oregon. I'm sure they will be allowed to reopen that facility.

 

[Jack Hays]

Washington Post, Here Is the Truth About California Wildfires
WILDFIRES OCTOBER 23, 2020

". . . .The data are clear, the western United States are not in the midst of a mega-drought, nor is it more arid now than historically. And temperatures are only modestly higher now than they were in the late 19th century. Humans are partly to blame for the intense, large wildfires the United States has experienced in recent years, but not because we are causing dangerous climate change. Instead, the fault lies with federal and state governments unwisely ceasing to actively manage fuel loads, even as more and more people have moved into areas historically prone to wildfires."

 

[Jack Hays]

“Colorado Climate Scientists Say”
Posted on October 24, 2020 by tonyheller
Colorado Public Radio reports that “scientists say” the fires in Colorado are caused by climate change and will get worse unless we reduce carbon emissions.

Colorado Wildfires Are Climate Change ‘In The Here And Now’ — And A Sign Of Summers To Come | Colorado Public Radio
There has been no trend in Colorado precipitation since 1895. Most recent years have been above average.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
NOAA shows that maximum temperatures have increased in Colorado, but this is entirely due to their own data tampering.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

 

[Buzz]

Oh, goody.... more cherry-picked and misleading data from the idiot liar who got himself banned from youtube!!

“Colorado Climate Scientists Say”
Posted on October 24, 2020 by tonyheller
Colorado Public Radio reports that “scientists say” the fires in Colorado are caused by climate change and will get worse unless we reduce carbon emissions.

Colorado Wildfires Are Climate Change ‘In The Here And Now’ — And A Sign Of Summers To Come | Colorado Public Radio

Nothing wrong with this. But that is only because it came from a real scientist. And then every single thing Tony says in this post of his is just stupid.

There has been no trend in Colorado precipitation since 1895. Most recent years have been above average.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

What kind of idiot uses a 124-year trend when considering what AGW has been doing to precipitation? Most of the effect from AGW have happened in the last few decades. All Tony is doing by using such a long trend is hiding the recent and immediate effects of AGW on precipitation:

So... Colorado has been seeing a decline in precipitation in recent years.

NOAA shows that maximum temperatures have increased in Colorado, but this is entirely due to their own data tampering.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Saying that this is entirely from "data tampering" is a lie! Again... looking at the last 40 years of this data instead of the ridiculous 124 years shows much more warming:

And that is warming Tony Heller can't make go away no matter if he only uses raw data or not.