Global Warming Alarmists Spontaneously Combust

 

As the search goes on to find the missing, and the dead from the devastating wildfires in Northern and Southern California the blame game has ignited.

Global Warming: California once again is burning, with hundreds of thousands of tinder-dry acres going up in flames. Gov. Jerry Brown says it’s global warming. President Trump blames forest mismanagement. Who’s right?

On Saturday, Trump tweeted (November 10): “There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!”

Brown’s take was, well, different: “Managing all the forests everywhere we can does not stop climate change,” he said. “And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we’re now witnessing, and will continue to witness in the coming years.”

President Trump is much closer to the mark. Years of neglect, a lack of management of public lands, and in some cases mismanagement of firefighting resources are far greater contributors to the fires in California, and the rest of the American West, than global warming. The flashpoint for wood is about 572 degrees Fahrenheit, and lower for brush filled undergrowth. Temperatures may be rising, but I don’t remember seeing anything on the news about any location in the country reaching 572 degrees.

Governor Brown, and the endless environmental restrictions, and litigants against the responsible management of state and federal lands are the ones responsible for the loss of life, and property damage wildfires cause in California. The constant lawsuits and judgments brought in court by litigants that in many cases have never even seen the land that so concerns them needs to stop.

Removing fuel by clearing dead trees, and undergrowth is the answer to try and minimize the damage done by wildfires.

Global warming is not the problem:

Approximately 84% of wildfires in the United States that required help by firefighters between 1992 and 2012 were caused by humans according to a recent study. Discarding cigarettes, unattended campfires, and losing control of controlled burns were three of the most common manmade causes of wildfires. Unfortunately, the human element of wildfires has caused the wildfire season across the country to lengthen and become even more dangerous than ever before.

In terms of natural causes, wildfires can be caused by lightning strikes on dry ground. This is the most common cause of fires in the southeast part of the United States and in the dry Rocky Mountain region. In California, the Pacific Northwest, and the forests of the eastern part of the United States, manmade causes resulted in 80% of the wildfires. Although places like Florida have a lot of thunder storms and lightning strikes, 60-80% of fires in this region were started from manmade causes.

Manmade causes of wildfire also include arson.

An example of poor tactical planning and lack of management is highlighted in an excellent article from the Oregonian concerning the Canyon Creek Fire.

Published in Environment
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 46 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Notice Brown does not say that clearing all the dead timber and undergrowth wouldn’t stop deadly fires (because it largely would) but that it wouldn’t stop global warming.

    I’ve been hearing since the first earth day in — what — 1970 that clearing undergrowth, including frequent controlled burns, would prevent the tinder undergrowth from burning so hot that it would ignite trees that in themselves are much harder to ignite (because among other reasons they have a much lower surface to mass ratio) compared to undergrowth and are just harder to get hot in the first place.  And yet I’ve never read of controlled burning being widely accepted and have always read of greenies protesting them.

    • #1
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    They have been talking about the fire risks of dead chaparral on hillsides in California for decades.

    Is Donald Trump diplomatic? Like a 2×4 to the side of a head. Does he possess an exquisite sense of timing? Like a four year old who has just discovered the f-word.

    Is he correct? He’s more correct than Governor Moonbeam.

    • #2
  3. Richard Finlay Inactive
    Richard Finlay
    @RichardFinlay

    If I were a terrorist (I’m not, really) I think I would get the best results by setting fires in the west.  Much more effective (and terrorizing) than a pipe bomb or a mass shooting.

    • #3
  4. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    I’ve been doing agricultural burns and putting out brush fires for over twenty years. It can be a lot harder to start a fire than you might think, but in the right conditions it’s terrifying how fast it can go wrong.

    Bad land management practices combined with the right seasonal weather conditions created this mess.

    The term “perfect storm” is used too often, but in this case it’s appropriate.

    • #4
  5. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Doug,

    You got my hopes up with your headline, but then you let me down.

    • #5
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    but in the right conditions it’s terrifying how fast it can go wrong.

    I’ve never been in a position to do a burn but I always thought that an out-of-control fire burn was less dangerous when done early with less accumulated growth allowed in the first place.  Is this right?

    • #6
  7. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    I’ve been doing agricultural burns and putting out brush fires for over twenty years. It can be a lot harder to start a fire than you might think, but in the right conditions it’s terrifying how fast it can go wrong.

    Bad land management practices combined with the right seasonal weather conditions created this mess.

    The term “perfect storm” is used too often, but in this case it’s appropriate.

    Thank you for your comment. My post is not a criticism of the first responders that find themselves on the front line during a fire. Fire fighters that hold the line so the police, and medical crews can evacuate areas are doing heroic work. Their lives are at risk due to poor management at a much higher level than those on the front line.

    • #7
  8. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    but in the right conditions it’s terrifying how fast it can go wrong.

    I’ve never been in a position to do a burn but I always thought that an out-of-control fire burn was less dangerous when done early with less accumulated growth allowed in the first place. Is this right?

    Absolutely.  

    • #8
  9. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    but in the right conditions it’s terrifying how fast it can go wrong.

    Fire can spread a heck of a lot faster than you can run. An additional hazard to fighting the Camp Fire is that it’s in poison oak country.

    Urushiol volatilizes when burned, and human exposure to [poison oak] smoke is extremely hazardous, from wildfires, controlled burns, or disposal fires.

    One means of brush control is goats; fortunately goats that eat poison oak do not pass the urushiol into their milk.

    • #9
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    The last three major fires in our area were all man (or woman)-caused. The Hayden Fire was started by a forest service worker (insert facepalm) when she burned a Dear Jane letter at a campsite on a hot, windy day. It got away from her. I believe she’s still doing time.

    Both the Waldo Canyon fire (over 300 homes burned and two dead) and the Black Forest fire were started by arsonists. I believe Waldo Canyon was started in a remote area by someone igniting a flare — possibly the most dangerous, easily accessible weapon providing anonymity and devastating effects in fire prone areas. 

    • #10
  11. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    I have been dumbfounded by the Leftists who believe in the ludicrously imbecilic idea that forest fires are caused by Global Warming.  The Global Warming scientists claim that there has been a 6/10 (.6) of one degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over a roughly 150-year period, a miniscule amount so tiny, that no one would have ever noticed it, had the scientists not told us.  If it had happened in the period of one day we still would not  have noticed.

    As Doug Watt pointed out, the minimum temperature required to set wood afire is 572 degrees fahrenheit, or about 300 degrees Celsius.  If a rise of six-tenths of one degree Celsius is enough to cause forest fires, then why aren’t the entire landmasses  of Africa and South and Central America not in flames?  They are some twenty to 50 degrees warmer than the United States.  Since pre-historic temperatures were all much hotter than today, presumably the Earth was one big perpetually burning fireball for at least 4 billion years.

    I’m waiting for some daring and inquisitive reporter to ask such a question to politicians like Jerry Brown, but we all know there is almost no such thing as a daring or inquisitive reporter in our mainstream news outlets.  Heck, they were all too frightened to publish some innocuous Danish cartoons a decade ago.

    • #11
  12. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Doug,

    You got my hopes up with your headline, but then you let me down.

    Randy, you have to read between the lines just a little. As Doug noted, most fires are man-made — not spontaneous.

    So, if what we want is the combustion of global warming alarmists (and, really, who doesn’t?), we’re going to have to step up and do our part. Or wait for a lightening strike, which could be incredibly satisfying but will require a lot of patience.

    (Disclaimer: I am not encouraging anyone to actually set fire to a “climate scientist” — though that was obviously the barely concealed point of Doug’s post.)

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Doug,

    You got my hopes up with your headline, but then you let me down.

    Randy, you have to read between the lines just a little. As Doug noted, most fires are man-made — not spontaneous.

    So, if what we want is the combustion of global warming alarmists (and, really, who doesn’t?), we’re going to have to step up and do our part. Or wait for a lightening strike, which could be incredibly satisfying but will require a lot of patience.

    (Disclaimer: I am not encouraging anyone to actually set fire to a “climate scientist” — though that was obviously the barely concealed point of Doug’s post.)

    Climate “scientists” who promote the idea of catastrophic man made “climate change” are scientists in the same way Google Eyes Cortez is an economist.

    Turn ’em upside down, they’re all commies. 

    • #13
  14. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz
    @drlorentz

    Doug Watt: Gov. Jerry Brown says it’s global warming. President Trump blames forest mismanagement. Who’s right?

    If you have to ask the question, you can’t stand to hear the answer — at least not the correct answer.

    • #14
  15. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I have been dumbfounded by the Leftists who believe in the ludicrously imbecilic idea that forest fires are caused by Global Warming.

    As Doug Watt pointed out, the minimum temperature required to set wood afire is 572 degrees fahrenheit, or about 300 degrees Celsius. If a rise of six-tenths of one degree Celsius is enough to cause forest fires, then why aren’t the entire landmasses of Africa and South and Central America not in flames? They are some twenty to 50 degrees warmer than the United States. Since pre-historic temperatures were all much hotter than today, presumably the Earth was one big perpetually burning fireball for at least 4 billion years.

    The usual line of argument is that Global Warming contributes to more “extreme weather,” in the case of California that is typically interpreted as less rain and longer, more severe droughts.

    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger.  Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    • #15
  16. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I have been dumbfounded by the Leftists who believe in the ludicrously imbecilic idea that forest fires are caused by Global Warming.

    As Doug Watt pointed out, the minimum temperature required to set wood afire is 572 degrees fahrenheit, or about 300 degrees Celsius. If a rise of six-tenths of one degree Celsius is enough to cause forest fires, then why aren’t the entire landmasses of Africa and South and Central America not in flames? They are some twenty to 50 degrees warmer than the United States. Since pre-historic temperatures were all much hotter than today, presumably the Earth was one big perpetually burning fireball for at least 4 billion years.

    The usual line of argument is that Global Warming contributes to more “extreme weather,” in the case of California that is typically interpreted as less rain and longer, more severe droughts.

    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger. Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    The problem with Jerry Brown’s argument is that Global Warming has nothing to do with the lack of effort to start clearing undergrowth, and dead trees and thereby removing fuel to mitigate the damage done by wildfires. It’s about as exciting as filling potholes, unlike promoting bright, and shiny hyperloop trains.

    • #16
  17. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Doug Watt: Discarding cigarettes, unattended campfires, and losing control of controlled burns were three of the most common manmade causes of wildfires.

    In California a common cause is malfunctioning PG&E electrical equipment.  Most of our power lines are above ground, and wind knocks down tree branches onto the lines, which spark and ignite fires.

    • #17
  18. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: Discarding cigarettes, unattended campfires, and losing control of controlled burns were three of the most common manmade causes of wildfires.

    In California a common cause is malfunctioning PG&E electrical equipment. Most of our power lines are above ground, and wind knocks down tree branches onto the lines, which spark and ignite fires.

    This isn’t unique to California.  Underground lines are dramatically more expensive than overhead, have their own collection of failure modes, and cannot be used for very high voltage (high-capacity transmission lines) anyways.  Blaming overhead lines is just an excuse for failures of management.

    • #18
  19. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    The Global Warming scientists claim that there has been a 6/10 (.6) of one degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over a roughly 150-year period, a miniscule amount so tiny, that no one would have ever noticed it, had the scientists not told us.

    I tend to trust Berkeley Earth‘s methodology for crunching the numbers, considering their background as climate change skeptics and their track record of transparency when it comes to areas of uncertainty in the data.  They claim it’s been 1.5° C over the past 250 years.

    The problem, as I see it, isn’t the calculation of how hot it is today.  The problem is the uncertainty calculating how hot it was in the past.  Even Berkeley Earth’s analysis admits that it’s possible it was hotter 250 years ago than their calculated average.

    Imagine if the past 50 years had as much climate variability that is claimed in this chart for the period from 1750 to 1800.  Every year would feel like an apocalypse.

    Also imagine if, instead of predicting a steady increase in temperature, the models predicted that the next 100 years would be as variable as what this chart reports for the period from 1750 to 1850.  Would that be any less terrifying than the current climate change orthodoxy of steady, predictable increase?

    • #19
  20. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I have been dumbfounded by the Leftists who believe in the ludicrously imbecilic idea that forest fires are caused by Global Warming.

    As Doug Watt pointed out, the minimum temperature required to set wood afire is 572 degrees fahrenheit, or about 300 degrees Celsius. If a rise of six-tenths of one degree Celsius is enough to cause forest fires, then why aren’t the entire landmasses of Africa and South and Central America not in flames? They are some twenty to 50 degrees warmer than the United States. Since pre-historic temperatures were all much hotter than today, presumably the Earth was one big perpetually burning fireball for at least 4 billion years.

    The usual line of argument is that Global Warming contributes to more “extreme weather,” in the case of California that is typically interpreted as less rain and longer, more severe droughts.

    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger. Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    I would be astonished if Governor Brown had  enough wits to even grasp that argument.

    • #20
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I have been dumbfounded by the Leftists who believe in the ludicrously imbecilic idea that forest fires are caused by Global Warming.

    As Doug Watt pointed out, the minimum temperature required to set wood afire is 572 degrees fahrenheit, or about 300 degrees Celsius. If a rise of six-tenths of one degree Celsius is enough to cause forest fires, then why aren’t the entire landmasses of Africa and South and Central America not in flames? They are some twenty to 50 degrees warmer than the United States. Since pre-historic temperatures were all much hotter than today, presumably the Earth was one big perpetually burning fireball for at least 4 billion years.

    The usual line of argument is that Global Warming contributes to more “extreme weather,” in the case of California that is typically interpreted as less rain and longer, more severe droughts.

    So I believe Governor Brown’s argument would be: GW causes longer droughts, that in turn increases fire danger. Not that GW directly ignites forest fires.

    I would be astonished if Governor Brown had enough wits to even grasp that argument.

    Nah, Democrats aren’t stupid. Just arrogant. 

    • #21
  22. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    The Global Warming scientists claim that there has been a 6/10 (.6) of one degree Celsius rise in global temperatures over a roughly 150-year period, a miniscule amount so tiny, that no one would have ever noticed it, had the scientists not told us.

    I tend to trust Berkeley Earth‘s methodology for crunching the numbers, considering their background as climate change skeptics and their track record of transparency when it comes to areas of uncertainty in the data. They claim it’s been 1.5° C over the past 250 years.

    The problem, as I see it, isn’t the calculation of how hot it is today. The problem is the uncertainty calculating how hot it was in the past. Even Berkeley Earth’s analysis admits that it’s possible it was hotter 250 years ago than their calculated average.

    Imagine if the past 50 years had as much climate variability that is claimed in this chart for the period from 1750 to 1800. Every year would feel like an apocalypse.

    Your excellent chart points out a factor that Global Warming advocates almost never acknowledge; an honest estimation of the margin of error in land temperature measurements demonstrates that there possibly could be no warming at all.  I’ve done an amateur study of the methods used to calculate Earth temperatures and I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of any statistically significant warming at all.  Because the scientists do not actually report on raw measurements, but on an “interpretation” or “tweaking” of those measurements, we have to trust that their educated guesses are correct, and even that they are honestly guessing in the right direction.

    The satellite measurements and Ocean temperature measurements, which are much more accurate and involve far less human interpretation,  show little to no Global Warming at all.  These results are simply ignored by the Global Warming advocates in favor of the land measurements for which it is far easier to manipulate the data.

    Calculating temperatures before the middle 1800’s when thermometers were not used, by using tree rings and other proxies, is a huge guessing game at best and the results have to be taken with a grain of salt.  The paleoclimatologists have the luxury that their numbers can never be checked until we invent the time machine.  They are free to exaggerate or even make things up if they want.

    Even if we believe the blighters about their .6 or 1.5 degree C temperature rise, it is a minuscule blip on the temperature chart.  Where I  live, in Cleveland, the temperature varies by  68 C (124 F).   There are places on Earth where it varies by more than 100 C (180 F).

    • #22
  23. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: Gov. Jerry Brown says it’s global warming. President Trump blames forest mismanagement. Who’s right?

    If you have to ask the question, you can’t stand to hear the answer — at least not the correct answer.

    Brown is a lame duck soon to become a statesman. It would be unkind to (to easily) remind our listeners of Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a statesman, so I won’t link to it. 

    There is going to have to be a lot of “end use of fossil fuels without allowing fissile fuels” spending to allow any kind of forest and woodland fuel reduction under Newsom, who sees such things as “stopgaps” because the real cause of the fires is global warming and we must address root causes.

    • #23
  24. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    Richard Finlay (View Comment):
    If I were a terrorist (I’m not, really) I think I would get the best results by setting fires in the west. Much more effective (and terrorizing) than a pipe bomb or a mass shooting.

    I heard that Al Que

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

     

    Land-based temperature records are not trustworthy.  Too much heat island and data massaging.  The only thing to trust are the balloon and satellite data.  Those show the earth is same temperature as 1983.

     

    Jerry Brown could stop forest fires, by cutting down all the trees and replacing them with windmills.  Sure it will be expensive, but California is not bound by fiscal constraints.  Choo Choo!

    • #24
  25. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    There is going to have to be a lot of “end use of fossil fuels without allowing fissile fuels” spending to allow any kind of forest and woodland fuel reduction under Newsom, who sees such things as “stopgaps” because the real cause of the fires is global warming and we must address root causes.

    I have no idea what to expect from Newsom, who managed to get himself elected governor without so far as I’m aware committing himself to a single policy position.  My hunch is that he wants to run for President next, so he will try to thread the needle and keep in good standing with the Progressive wing of his party without doing anything so “moonbatty” as to make himself unelectable in the swing states.

    • #25
  26. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Sal the Agorist strikes again.

    And one of the comments is good:

    https://twitter.com/PastaJim/status/1063652673889529858

    • #26
  27. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Flicker (View Comment):
    And yet I’ve never read of controlled burning being widely accepted and have always read of greenies protesting them.

    Interesting… controlled burning also returns organic matter to the soil faster, making it richer and better for new growth.

    You know, I think I need a fire pit in my yard.

    • #27
  28. Misthiocracy, Joke Pending Member
    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending
    @Misthiocracy

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Your excellent chart points out a factor that Global Warming advocates almost never acknowledge; an honest estimation of the margin of error in land temperature measurements demonstrates that there possibly could be no warming at all.

    Also, in order to believe that this chart is an accurate representation of the past one has to believe that the climate was wildly variable prior to 1850 but somehow magically became remarkably stable in 1850 for some reason.

    In order to make an informed judgement on how “abnormal” the current climate trends are, one needs much better data about how climate behaved in the past.

    I read recently (caveat: I have no citation for this claim) that the IPCC defined “climate” as the average global temperature over 30 years.  That seems like a remarkably short period.  I also read that the IPCC has changed its definition so now “climate” is the average global temperature from the last 15 years until the next 15 years.  So, not only is it still a remarkably short period of time but half that time hasn’t even happened yet and is based on predictions by models rather than actual observed temperatures.

    This might be perfectly reasonable from a research point-of-view, but it’s wholly inadequate for making public policy decisions.

    • #28
  29. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):
    This may be perfectly reasonable from a research point-of-view, but it’s wholly inadequate for making public policy decisions.

    Oh, no, I don’t believe it’s reasonable in either case! #climatemodelssuck

    • #29
  30. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Misthiocracy, Joke Pending (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    Your excellent chart points out a factor that Global Warming advocates almost never acknowledge; an honest estimation of the margin of error in land temperature measurements demonstrates that there possibly could be no warming at all.

    Also, in order to believe that this chart is an accurate representation of the past one has to believe that the climate was wildly variable prior to 1850 but somehow magically became remarkably stable in 1850 for some reason.

    In order to make an informed judgement on how “abnormal” the current climate trends are, one needs much better data about how climate behaved in the past.

    I read recently (caveat: I have no citation for this claim) that the IPCC defined “climate” as the average global temperature over 30 years. That seems like a remarkably short period. I also read that the IPCC has changed its definition so now “climate” is the average global temperature from the last 15 years until the next 15 years. So, not only is it still a remarkably short period of time but half that time hasn’t even happened yet and is based on predictions by models rather than actual observed temperatures.

    This may be perfectly reasonable from a research point-of-view, but it’s wholly inadequate for making public policy decisions.

    Indeed. And here’s a citation for you, from the invaluable Watts Up With That website.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.