×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Studies: Wildfires Worse Due To Global Warming

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 379

An anonymous reader writes "According to scientists we can look forward to more devastating wildfires like the ones scorching Southern California because of global warming. "The fires in California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade," said University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck. "It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future.""

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"According to scientists" (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47033753)

Ya, well others say just the opposite. Hell, some say we are all space aliens..

Being a 'scientist' doesn't mean you are right.

Re:"According to scientists" (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#47034109)

Ya, well others say just the opposite.

You're right. Here's a photo of one:

http://www.constantinereport.c... [constantinereport.com]

Re:"According to scientists" (3, Insightful)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 6 months ago | (#47034119)

Very true and very few scientists would ever suggest that.

What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe and study, test and discuss the various theories surrounding this area.This means that you can be considered an expert on the subject.

The "others" are a bunch of people who pull opinions out of their arse at best or purposely malign the truth for their own ends at worst.

For you to say such things betrays a level of ignorance that is truly awesome to behold - assuming you are not just trolling for the sake of it which just makes you a common garden variety douche bag. Regardless of your own insignificant thoughts and motivations the thought process you describe appears to be a relatively common one.

But fear not, the reasons for your ignorance and/or troll-like behaviour is something studied, tested and discussed in the field of psychology by scientists!

Re:"According to scientists" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034451)

"What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe"

When did this happen? If your definition is correct, today's scientists are not the same as yesterdays.

Its Global Warming (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033773)

Global Warming is the nickname of the guy who started the fires.

Re:Its Global Warming (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 6 months ago | (#47034173)

Yeah, and he could also be the guy responsible for sinkholes that show up an alarming rate lately because the wildfires he sets make Earth crust softer thus more likely to sink.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

http://www.viralnova.com/huge-... [viralnova.com]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics... [go.com]

I thought weather was not climate... (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#47033775)

Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".

Well who does not remember years and years of past California wildfires. Guess what, drought happens. You can't declare one "climate change" just because it's scary.

And you can't even see that climate change makes drought more likely without way more data than we have. A warmer climate could mean some areas are dryer, others wetter. But actually overall it would mean more moisture in the system, not less...

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47033905)

I can see that for years climatologists have been saying that drought-stricken areas will become even drier [washingtonpost.com] with more warming. And according to the article there has been a three-decade pattern of fires getting worse in the West: "Since 1984, the area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a year, according to an April study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."

One winter is not a long-term pattern. Something that gets worse over the course of decades, in contrast, is a long-term pattern.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (1, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 6 months ago | (#47033979)

Did global warming also cause the fact that there weren't any wildfires last month?

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47034073)

Is a period of one month: a) short-term, or b) long-term?

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (2, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | about 6 months ago | (#47034117)

A month lasts longer than a fire. How about we just stop pretending singular events like fires are climate?

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47034129)

We don't, do we? We measure the number of them, and their severity, over a period of months.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 months ago | (#47034391)

In terms of climate, anything shorter than a decade is short-term. And no one is calling a singular event climate. Climate is the average weather over a period of decades. The increasing wildfires over the past several decades in the Southwest are a result of increasing temperatures and drought conditions over decades. That's climate change.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (1)

satch89450 (186046) | about 6 months ago | (#47034399)

And where do you get your information? A wildfire may not be burning above-ground, but the fire can continue underneath the topsoil. Forest fires are not considered "out" until they have been thoroughly soaked with water over a period of months. In the Sierras, that's after the first big snowstorm of the season. Snow captures the heat and melts, and the resulting water will go into the root tunnels and snuff what's left of the fire. And the loss of coverage *can* affect climate, but only in a local area and not on a continent, let alone the planet. But that doesn't affect your premis: a single fire does not "climate" cause.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034369)

Well, global warming probably contributed to these fires.

After all, the globe usually warms once a year, usually in the spring season.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (1, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#47034009)

There can be many reasons why there are more fires - chief among them is simply there are lots more people, also more in the wilderness now than before and people start fires.

Note they just said fires are getting worse, not that droughts are... and even the fire things is mostly true of California, not the west in general.

But I see from my moderation that truth is unpopular today, so I will let you call continue to wail and gnash teeth while the sane among us roll our eyes...

Re: I thought weather was not climate... (2, Insightful)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 6 months ago | (#47034321)

Love how your claims are "truth" by simple declaration, and others' are of course merely claims, even when they're agreeing with a peer-reviewed study.

Why don't you try and rebut the actual study, if you're so sure it's wrong? Or at least attempt toprovide a modicum of evidence to make your own claims look a little less like yet another soapbox rant.

Facts are there (1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#47034397)

You may not care to look at facts, but they exist [wattsupwiththat.com] (search for droughts).

I love how your response contained no links refuting what I said... because you are not basing your arguments from data, but from emotion.

I expect your response to be something about the source of the link, without any more real facts on the matter. Good luck with that approach in life...

Re: I thought weather was not climate... (1)

satch89450 (186046) | about 6 months ago | (#47034419)

I suggest you increase your range of research. Specifically, find the study for the Tahoe Basin showing how the suppression of forest fires has increased the fuel load in the forests of the basin for the past 30 years. More fuel means hotter fires. Also, add "fire ecology" to your search parameters. In this one respect, man *has* affected the ecology, by suppressing limited fires that eat up the excess fuel that can lead to large crown fires and "firenados."

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (2, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 6 months ago | (#47034221)

Yeah, but California has ALWAYS been drier than it was for the last century. 500 year droughts were not uncommon. Using a drought in the fucking Sahara as evidence for your theory shows that your methodology is very, very flawed, and should bring closer scrutiny. But it doesn't, because the field is 100% politicized and no-one is REALLY interested in science.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (3, Informative)

gtall (79522) | about 6 months ago | (#47034449)

Yes, well, when it comes to the Sahara, it's been marching south for awhile, and faster more recently.

Re:I thought weather was not climate... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033995)

"Weather is not climate" when weather doesn't do what you want ... ie this exceedingly cold winter was weather, floods in the east... weather, moderate to absolutely beautiful temps across the plains...weather. But the minute it coincides with the crackpot climate theory of the day, then it's climate!

I've heard some compare the current drought in the west by saying it's as bad as it was in 1980's ... just a year or so after the 'global cooling' panic from the bitterly cold winters of '78-'79. Not sure if the 80's was better or worse than the '50s or '30s. They didn't call it 'the dust bowl' for nothing.

Point is, the west is basically a desert punctuated by brief wet spells. The most recent wet spell (wherein the population has doubled in some locations) has come to an end. Politicians rarely look beyond the next election, so now they are in a bit of a predicament from assuming 'wet is the way it will always be' just because there has been some moisture for the past decade or so.

Man is responsible for larger wildfires ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 6 months ago | (#47034103)

First off, I am *not* a climate change denier.

That said, wildfires are a very complicated topic and man is responsible for their increased size and devastation. However the man made activity that has a huge impact here is fire fighting. This has been known for many decades. The problem is that the natural cycle of fires leads to smaller fires. These smaller fires prevent fuel from accumulating and they provide a patchwork of natural firebreaks to a degree. Our habit of stomping out every single fire as it starts just leads to more and more fuel accumulating over larger and larger areas. The result is the larger and more devastating fires.

Preventing the natural burn cycle sets us up for larger fires. We need to be more strategic about our fire fighting in rural and wilderness settings.

Re:Man is responsible for larger wildfires ... (5, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#47034323)

Preventing the natural burn cycle sets us up for larger fires. We need to be more strategic about our fire fighting in rural and wilderness settings.

Great idea, back in the 80's when I used to visit Socal, they'd burn out the hills every summer. Worked like a charm to keep the fires down, then the environmentalists, idiots with the mansions in the hills, and nimby's started throwing a hissy fits on every pro-active burn program out there. Everything from "it's making the air bad," to "it's not natures way."

Especially When... (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#47034121)

Any time someone says "look how bad winter was" they are (rightfully) chided for treating a variation in weather as being "climate".

Especially when it is very localized. [wordpress.com]

That's the mean of temperatures at all Historical Climatology Stations in the U.S., for Jan. 1 - May 17 2014. So even when the warmth in CA and AZ is included, on average the U.S. has still been experiencing record cold this year.

Weather vs. climate, indeed.

Re:Especially When... (1, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#47034161)

Just to clarify my comment: I wasn't referring to winter. I was referring to the characterization of California fires as caused by "global warming", when the warm temperatures there are localized and far from true in the rest of the U.S.

It illustrates exactly how alarmists have grasped at anything out of the ordinary and tried to attribute it to "climate change". But when looking at climate, one has to look at the larger picture. Neither short-term phenomena or localized events are "climate". And in fact extreme weather events have been on a downward trend since the earlier part of the 20th Century, despite the predictions of the "alarmists".

Another record that was set recently was the time it has been in the U.S. since a major hurricane. It has been longer than at any time since records have been kept. (And FYI, before you jump to correct: Sandy was not classified as a major hurricane. It just hit more populated area than usual.)

Re:Especially When... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034331)

The normal pattern of weather here in southern california over some number of years is that May and June are typically overcast months. The temperatures are mild, mornings are often cloudy (from ocean fog), and it often burns off in the afternoons. The winds, if any, are from the ocean. The weather that we are seeing now (dry air, with hot winds blowing in from the deserts in the east) is more typical of August or September. It's too soon, of course, for me to say if this is the new norm. People with a better understanding of the larger-scale weather patterns, and how they would be affected by the complicated effects of 'global warming' would be in a better position to know if this is an anomaly.

Accoeding to arsonists (5, Informative)

drainbramage (588291) | about 6 months ago | (#47033783)

We would like to give our heartiest thanks to the politicians that have made it illegal to clear under-brush or to provide any reasonable wildfire suppression activities.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033795)

Wow first four comments are global warming deniers and all post within six minutes. Earn that pay, boys!

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (2, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 6 months ago | (#47033865)

The first post criticising a "denier" is made by an anonymous coward. Remarkable.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033989)

How appropriate that the first smug counter-reason post is made by a wine.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034081)

yeah, tell me about it. Back in the old days, ole AC would have blamed burning down California on the niggers.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034355)

Go back to Arkansas, Hilary. Your racism is showing.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (2)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 6 months ago | (#47034193)

In all fairness, yes, there are clearly fossil fuels shills at work on /., but the post you replied to does not seem to be one of them. There are many places in the world where certain forestry-related policies are under heavy controversy because they are now generally accepted to increase the incidence and severity of wildfires. While in my opinion, there is enough independent evidence to cautiously suggest that global warming (which itself is not in dispute in scientific circles) is more likely to make bush fires worse than better (dry areas getting dryer and all that), forestry practices such as underbrush cutting have a rightful place in any discussion about wildfires. I know the shills have worn our patience very thin, but let's try to have a fair and balanced discussion, even if there are forces at work that don't want us to.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 6 months ago | (#47034411)

In all fairness, yes, there are clearly fossil fuels shills at work on /.,

And to balance that, there are clearly AGW manics as well.

Deniers of science ... (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 6 months ago | (#47034217)

Wow first four comments are global warming deniers and all post within six minutes. Earn that pay, boys!

Sorry, AC. But the deniers of science here are those who deny the effect of fire suppression policies and land management policies. Sometimes it really is the politics.

The huge factors here are (1) fire suppression policies not allowing natural burn cycles to occur, fuel unnaturally accumulates and it does so over larger areas and (2) land management where people are allowed to build in fire prone areas but not allowed to clear brush to a "safe" distance. The result is larger fires and fires that are a high risk to homes.

CO2 is only one of many man made problems and it is not always the leading contributor.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033803)

YUP, this has no correlation to bad land management , no sir, none at all.....

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033811)

But try letting fires burn to clear underbrush when politically-connected people build million dollar homes in the same forests. It suddenly becomes much tougher.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (2)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 6 months ago | (#47033841)

But clearing the underbrush causes CO2 to be produced causing temperatures to rise...

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1)

satch89450 (186046) | about 6 months ago | (#47034483)

Clearing the underbrush can *reduce* the amount of CO2 to be produced. Pull and chip that brush, don't burn it. Use the chips as ground cover to better protect seeds and hold water, both which promote good tree growth. Chips can be used in playgrounds instead of sand or dirt, particular chips from softwood brush. When my father was in the forest service, they cleared out brush "by hand"; the only time they lit any fires was when they needed to set a backfile to halt or steer a moving path of flame.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1, Troll)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 6 months ago | (#47033845)

Precisely the problem. The Greens have prevented the kind of land management you need in order to prevent brushfires spreading. The end result? More , bigger and more deadly brushfires. Crazy loons.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (-1, Troll)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 6 months ago | (#47034311)

The problem with deniers and the oil companies' paid shills is that they don't understand (or fake that they don't understand) complex systems.

For example, it is well known that if forests are not allowed to have some small fires whenever they would occur, then when a fire does come, it will be significantly larger and more energy-intense. Simple, intuitive land management techniques, like fuel clearing, thinning, and forest fire fighting prevent small fires, and prematurely extinguish those that do occur. So these well intentioned techniques actually contribute to the number of large and more destructive fires. Counterintuitive to most, unfathomable to a dumbass, but true nonetheless. It's all about power law distributions of events of different amounts of stored-energy-release, in connected systems.

As another example, deniers and shills seem to not understand what statistics is all about. They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.

It's almost as if these deniers and shills had an agenda. It's almost as if there was inconvenience and loss of profit at stake. It's almost as if they were insulting peoples' intelligence by appealing to the lowest common denominator with drunk barroom argument level logic.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 6 months ago | (#47034415)

They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.

So don't exploit specific current events to promote your "scientific claims". Then, when you're not saying fires "like the ones scorching Southern California" this week are caused by global warming, you won't have to deal with the fact that these particular fires were not caused by global warming. If you want to be understood as a statistician, don't talk like a used car salesman.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 6 months ago | (#47034459)

Technically, they are "like" the ones scorching Southern California. Hot, yellowish red, smoky.

Besides, it could be that as temperatures get hot, arsonists get ornery/horny. Just saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034357)

You have it 100% backwards. In general it's property owners who are resisting the efforts of local fire departments and governments to require brush clearance on their properties.

Re:Accoeding to arsonists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034461)

Absolutely true in Australia, too. Everytime there is a devastating bushfire, there is the inevitable inquiry/Royal Commission. And every time they report, a lack of back burning over many years leading to a buildup of dry material is found to be the cause. Back burning plans are put in place, but are not carried out.

In addition, Greens-dominated local councils are known to ban landholders from clearing vegetation on their own properties.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/vegetation-clearing-rules-to-be-eased-in-fireprone-parts-of-nsw-20131113-2xf7t.html
Note this quote from the article:
-------------
""Residents in designated bushfire prone areas will not need to seek permission to sensibly clear vegetation from around their property that is posing a fire risk," Premier Barry O'Farrell said in a statement.

"This will need to be done in an environmentally responsible manner."
---------------
Clearing in an environmentally responsible manner? You either clear or you don't. And this is from a right-of-centre politician speaking AFTER the devastating bush fires. It goes to show how spooked politicians are by the green lobby.

Finally, a mate who is a firey went down to the Blue Mountains to assist and brought back story after story of homeowners who asked repeatedly if they could clear scrub on their own land, but were threatened with fines if they did.

Sorry this is posted as AC but I've forgotten my PW. Again. And I couldn't be stuffed recovering it. Again.

Arson is blamed on Global Warming now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033819)

Geez we blame everything on global warming now...

Re:Arson is blamed on Global Warming now? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 6 months ago | (#47033999)

Yep, everything. [motherjones.com]

-jcr

Re:Arson is blamed on Global Warming now? (1, Flamebait)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 6 months ago | (#47034269)

Yep, because without arson, there would be no wildfires. Oh wait, no, there would [wikipedia.org] .

Or are you going to tell us that plants that are evolutionary adapted to fire [wikipedia.org] or even need it to procreate [wikipedia.org] were really created by God who knew there would always be humans around to start the necessary fires since the earth was created 10000 years ago?

Re:Arson is blamed on Global Warming now? (4, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 6 months ago | (#47034367)

In case it wasn't clear, wildfires are predominantly caused by accumulation of a sufficiently large amount of sufficiently dry combustible material. Once it's there, it will inevitably catch fire one day or another, arson or not. And climate change has the potential to modulate that "sufficiently dry" attribute. It is equally true that humanity is actively modulating the "sufficiently large amount" attribute (for example by suppressing small undergrowth fires and by not cutting the undergrowth that would otherwise be removed by these fires), which doesn't make things any better. But arson has relatively little to do with it.

Re:Arson is blamed on Global Warming now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034445)

It's climate disruption, and this is most certainly anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. As long as Republicans are allowed to continue to destroy the environment that they hate with fire, these things will never stop.

No, no it's not. (2, Interesting)

Etcetera (14711) | about 6 months ago | (#47033837)

First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.

Secondly, droughts happen. The history of California is the history of water politics mainly because most of SoCal is a semi-arid desert. San Diego in particular has a giant desert separating us from the rest of the country -- even LA.

Thirdly, unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.

Fourthly, there's good reason to believe that at least some of the ones this week were started by (d-bag) arsonists.

It's over-broad statements like this from "scientists" that give credence to the assertion that climate scientists are thinking with the social policy side of their brains instead of the factual side. /signed
Native San Diegan; MRC/former CERT member; non-scientist.

Re:No, no it's not. (-1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 6 months ago | (#47033881)

Also these prognostications are based on "models" which have absolutely zero skill.

Re:No, no it's not. (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#47033973)

Climate change is consequence of global warming. And that "warming" is not one that you would easily notice (a few tenths of degrees in the average global temperature each year), but still have effects everywhere, including (and changing) the climate. And if you want, that warming is caused in a good degree by human activity, incrementing the percent of some greenhouse gases (like CO2) in the atmosphere. And it have more consequences than just incrementing temperature, like ocean acidification.

How you make people aware of slow, hard to notice small changes in global trends? Pointing out some of the most visible consequences as they are being discovered/correlated etc. If i tell you that CO2 in atmosphere increased a 100% and you see the air around you normal, you won't worry about it. If i tell you that the average global temperature increased 1-2 C, you see local weather events, see that nothing really big changed (or worse, that in some regions were colder than in other years) and still won't care/do anything about it. So the effort is showing you that there are visible things that hits you that are consequences of those otherwise hard to see (in a short time span, in a narrow geographical sense) trends.

Re:No, no it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034069)

wildfires are NOT visible consequences though, especially when their is evidence they were intentionally lit by arseholes that get off seeing things burn. Pointing at such events as evidence of climate change hurts the credibility of the scientists in this area.

Re:No, no it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034149)

So, are there any positive impacts from global warming/climate change/climate disruption/what have you? Ever single consequence that I ever see people talking about is negative--drought, fire, sea level rise, spread of disease, extinction, etc.

Are there any possible positives looking ahead?

Re:positive impacts (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 6 months ago | (#47034353)

Yes. The Northern part of the Canadian prairie provinces might make a shitload of money selling wheat and corn to the USA, whose own production will drop considerably. However, it's still illegal in Canada to sell you clean fresh water in large amounts, so start building those desalination plants now.

Re:No, no it's not. (1)

Moridineas (213502) | about 6 months ago | (#47034159)

(Accidentally posting as AC, so, reposting)

Are there any positive impacts from global warming/climate change/climate disruption/what have you? Ever single consequence that I ever see people talking about is negative--drought, fire, sea level rise, spread of disease, extinction, etc.

Are there any possible positives looking ahead?

Re:No, no it's not. (1)

rHBa (976986) | about 6 months ago | (#47034231)

Unlikely for our species, the cockroaches on the other hand...

Re:No, no it's not. (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 6 months ago | (#47034439)

You mean other than the news that production has increased, biodiversity is on the increase and so forth?

Re: No, no it's not. (4, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 6 months ago | (#47034393)

Sure. Look at the IPCC AR5 WGII report, it discusses benefits as well as costs.

It's just that the costs and risks appear to greatly outweigh the benefits, or the benefits are long-term enough that the short-term costs of adaption will outweigh them for a very long time.

Re:No, no it's not. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 6 months ago | (#47034487)

The problem of changes is when you depend on things that requires stability, like, i.e. agriculture. Farming requires that for a lot of time (i.e. a whole year) you won't have floods, drizzles, hailstorms, droughts and so on. And if well we can cope with losing isolated crops, if that becomes widespread a lot of people will die, and in a not pleasant way exactly.

But yes, could be upsides from that changes. Eventually we will reach a new balance. Life will prevail in a way or another. And one of the most destructive species that ever existed in this planet could vanish. Maybe even that would lead to really intelligent beings in this planet at last.

Re:No, no it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034389)

Hey, the globe is warming faster than that...it usually warms 40 or 50 degrees, especially in the spring,

Re:No, no it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034025)

First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.

Secondly, droughts happen. The history of California is the history of water politics mainly because most of SoCal is a semi-arid desert. San Diego in particular has a giant desert separating us from the rest of the country -- even LA.

Thirdly, unless you've just moved to San Diego, you're quite aware of the 2003 and 2007 fires. These were (also) not the result of global warming.

Fourthly, there's good reason to believe that at least some of the ones this week were started by (d-bag) arsonists.

It's over-broad statements like this from "scientists" that give credence to the assertion that climate scientists are thinking with the social policy side of their brains instead of the factual side. /signed
Native San Diegan; MRC/former CERT member; non-scientist.

Which of "longer" and "more" you do not understand?

Re:No, no it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034065)

Soooo true

Re:No, no it's not. (4, Informative)

Dorianny (1847922) | about 6 months ago | (#47034101)

First of all, it's "climate change" now and not "global warming"... some spots are having much cooler temperatures instead.

Global warming refers to the rise of the average temperature of Earth's climate system. The effect of global warming is climate change, a change in global or regional climate patterns.

Re:No, no it's not. (1)

BobandMax (95054) | about 6 months ago | (#47034111)

Yes, and I remember some really strong "Santa Ana" conditions (like the one in which these recent human-set fires occurred) in the late seventies when we were said to be slipping into a new Ice Age. Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption is terribly convenient. You can blame or explain everything within its context.

Re:No, no it's not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034401)

Santa Ana conditions normally happen in late summer and in fall, not in late winter or spring. What's been happening in the last six months is somewhat out of the norm.

Weather vs. climate (1, Troll)

neglogic (877820) | about 6 months ago | (#47033839)

All weather supports global warming until it doesn't. Then it's just weather.

It's just Disney preparing to promote... (1)

Powercntrl (458442) | about 6 months ago | (#47033855)

...their rumored sequel to Frozen:

Anna the Fire Princess [deviantart.com]

Hey, fans of the movie already blamed the exceptionally cold winter on Elsa [wikia.com] .

"Global Warming" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033861)

You know summer is coming when they talk about "global warming". You'll know winter is around the corner when they switch back to "climate change".

Global Warming is the solution! (3, Funny)

Zargg (1596625) | about 6 months ago | (#47033871)

Make the ice caps melt faster, flood San Diego to put the fires out!

Global warming causes everything (2, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | about 6 months ago | (#47033883)

Here is the list [numberwatch.co.uk] .

I support Global Warming ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033943)

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian.

Common Sense says Environmentalists to Blame (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033955)

This just in, wild fires worse when you can't clear brush and make fire breaks ahead of time due to environmental nutjobs. I have lived in San Diego County my entire life, and we used to be able to clear large swaths of brush and other fuel around people's homes. We USED TO have controlled burns during the rainy season to clear large accumulation of dead fuel safely. These days the city and county will fine your ass if you do because of environmental regulations. Preserved habitat is all well and good, but the law of unintended consequences lets it all burn along with whatever endangered kangaroo mouse (or whatever the f*** they were trying to protect). Dont believe me? They have regs that require you to have 100ft of defensible space, but you are only allowed to clear half of it... so it is really 50ft of shit that burns like gasoline that you cant clear. Brilliant.

While we're on the topic, environmentalists are also responsible for millions of malaria deaths around the world by banning DDT spraying over the concern that bird egg shells might be getting a little bit thin... Environmentalists nuts are mass murdering monsters or idiots, depending on how much they know.

And yes, I do want clean air and clean water, but the enviro-nuts have taken it far beyond the realm of sanity. Putting animals and plants ahead of human beings makes you a sociopath and a monster not fit for society.

Re:Common Sense says Environmentalists to Blame (2)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 6 months ago | (#47034395)

On the other hand, putting human beings (specifically, the shareholders of your company) ahead of entire eco-systems makes you a suicidal+ecocidal idiot and a nihilistic life-hater; kind of a super-villain.

Global warming causes tooth decay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033963)

Latest study provides conclusive proof

Re:Global warming causes tooth decay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034043)

And crotch rot.

But this is a light fire year (4, Informative)

weiserfireman (917228) | about 6 months ago | (#47033971)

Every year there are devastating fires somewhere. But we have to look at the acreage and number of fires.

Last year was a light fire year. About 20% lighter than the 10 year average.

So far this year, we are about 15% behind the 10 year average in the number of wildland fires. And we are about 50% behind in the number of acres burned.

http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/n... [nifc.gov]

Honestly, I still expect overall the world's climate will be getting wetter with global warming. There might be some regions that will get drier, but warmer oceans mean more evaporation. Warmer temperatures mean the air can hold more moisture resulting in higher humidity. Eventually that higher humidity has to result in more rainfall somewhere. But even if higher humidity doesn't result in rain, higher humidity does result in less aggressive fire behavior.
      I am not a climate scientist. I have a lot of people scoff at me when I say this, but they never explain how I am wrong. I can read the projections but the projections never seem to include the increased levels of ocean evaporation that I expect.

Re:But this is a light fire year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034071)

Increased levels of ocean evaporation are (surprise) mostly over the oceans. Why would current desert or dry areas, which are probably not downwind of nearby lakes or oceans, experience higher humidity? As I see it, areas that are currently dry will become dryer with global warming, moist areas will likely become moister, and areas in between could go either way. And seasonal effects will confound a lot of naive predictions...

Ever watch a weather forecast? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#47034113)

Increased levels of ocean evaporation are (surprise) mostly over the oceans.

How many times have they talked about moisture "streaming in from the gulf".

Did you think that meant it was piped over? Perhaps by the same tubes carrying your internet?

I wonder what you think the combination of ambient moisture and winds do...

photos are shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47033987)

saw some photos of the wildfires outside of San Jose. Wow. Fires look worst than the ones outside of Los Angeles (Santa Claria or Ventura City, I think) that happened last year. seems every year the wildfires in Cali and Arizona keep getting worse.

plus, the drought and high winds aren't helping.

WMD on credit MANufractured 'weather' firestorms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034029)

leaving us a thin atmostfear of breathless anticipation http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+manufactured+weather pretense of imaginary chosenness is obsoletely fatal still. when even one innocent spirit is treated poorly anywhere we really all 'feel' the discomfort & must return to pretense to continue to 'function' in a spiritdead capacity

Perhaps in part (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 6 months ago | (#47034107)

Okay, so I accept that the expansive worsening of fire season may be at least in part caused by global warming, climate change, or whatever we are calling it this week. But I squarely point my finger at the logging industry and decades of mismanaging re-forestation as a substantial contributor that is just now catching up with us.

Perhaps in part (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034179)

story [mnn.com]

Other than being completely factually wrong 100%, you make a good point.
Tip: When a leftist gives you a "fact" that can be looked up, please look it up. Its amazing what you can learn, such as there are significanly more trees in the US today than 100 years ago, despite what wjcofkc claims. There are also more polar bears today then a few decades ago, and they can actually swim!

Re:Perhaps in part (0)

lazy genes (741633) | about 6 months ago | (#47034423)

The trees that were planted were fast growing and weak. They rob the nutrients from the soil die and burn,

My Farts cause global warming too (0)

bswarm (2540294) | about 6 months ago | (#47034137)

Waiting for the Clean Air Resources Board to tax me for that too.

Re:My Farts cause global warming too (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47034305)

If you filter them through a layer of pants you should be fine.

Awk. Awk. (-1, Flamebait)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#47034139)

Just the Chicken Littles sqwauling again.

The fires are devastating because (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 6 months ago | (#47034209)

Maybe the fires are devastating because people choose to build on steep hillsides among tinder dry brush that is not allowed to burn naturally. Just sayin.

More like "Eco mismanagement" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034241)

Prevent clearing of brush to protect an endangered snail and you get wildfires that endanger multiple species. Ecoterrorism FTW!

lol (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#47034251)

Oh come on... is anyone going to sit here and seriously believe this garbage? The climates what? 1 degree warmer maybe?

The wild fires are caused by man. But not through global warming. For decades western states forest services put out every fire. As a result underbrush and dead trees build up. 1/4 of the country is a tinder box just waiting to go off now. They've since realized their folly and have more controlled burns now, but there's still a lot of fuel out there. But global warning? No wonder so many people think climatologists are idiots.

Re: lol (0)

Namarrgon (105036) | about 6 months ago | (#47034405)

So says the guy who hasn't read the study and has no idea what the climatologists are actually saying.

Don't believe this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034277)

California has been a hot bed of wild fires since before I can remember. Attributing everything to "global warming" is crap.

Let's make a deal (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47034287)

Let's make a deal, global warming (or climate change, or whatever the buzzword of the week) deniers: You can keep your SUVs, your ACs turned to 60 degrees and all your other toys. And once the waters rise you drown like good old idiots and don't try to climb up on my mountains.

Deal?

Re:Let's make a deal (1, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 6 months ago | (#47034425)

Let's make a deal, global warming (or climate change, or whatever the buzzword of the week) deniers: You can keep your SUVs, your ACs turned to 60 degrees and all your other toys. And once the waters rise you drown like good old idiots and don't try to climb up on my mountains.

I don't own an SUV and I have yet to turn my AC on this year and I live 650 miles away from the nearest ocean and I still think this article is utter bullshit. Failed forest management policies cause wildfires. End of story. Any signal from the climate is completely overwhelmed by the policies of clowns who think the "natural" way is by definition better.

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

—Alfred Lord Tennyson

Re:Let's make a deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034427)

When do you expect this to occur?

Bullshit. (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 6 months ago | (#47034309)

As someone that has been in regions where these wildfires have happened, I can tell you it is actually bad forest management.

Here's the thing. In nature, forests burn on occasion. Always have. Its part of the natural process. Some species either actively encourage the fires or rely upon the fires as part of their life cycle.

Okay, now that it is established that if left alone the forests will occasionally burn... what happens if you don't cut trees down and cut brush back on occasion and instead just leave the whole thing to take care of itself.

It burns.

I live in California and that has been the cause of most of our wild fires. We used to have forest management to the extent that we would subcontract logging companies to go through the forests and thin them out a bit so there was room for new growth and the whole forest didn't go up like a roman candle every 10-30 years (depends on the plant species and local climate).

Well, that was stopped and the logging companies aren't allowed to operate in our forests anymore because they're not environmentally friendly.

Fine... you're now putting nature in charge. And nature is going to burn that fucker down on its own schedule.

Global warming might have something to do with this sort of thing but it is NOT what is causing the vast majority of forest fires in the US. They are caused by moronic forest management that is itself guided by crystal rubbing mystics that will say out of one side of their mouth that the environment is harmed by direct human management and then say out of the other side that nature's natural processes are all our fault.

These people are idiots.

And just to preempt the first fucktard that responds to this post saying I have his misguided asshattery wrong... I don't. I live here. I've seen this happen over years. I saw was we were doing before. I saw what you did, I watched the forest prime itself like a coiling spring, I saw the fires, I watched the clean up, and I've been listening to you same slack-jawed halfwits ever since point fingers at anyone besides yourselves.

Do the Earth a favor and listen more and talk less.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

lazy genes (741633) | about 6 months ago | (#47034467)

You are somewhat correct, but you falsely assume that humans are an intelligent species. I live in a forested area and we get forest fires every year. I built an 200 tree irrigated orchard around my house to protect it. By the time they solve the riddle as to what is causing the fires, it will be to late.

No Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47034455)

The weather is changing. Though there is no global warming. C02 talk is a big scam. C02 sinks to the ground. C02 makes the plants grow better which makes more oxygen. It's like a see saw. This hogwash is all political.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?