Calling Out Media ‘Misinformation’ On Wildfires & Global Warming
With wildfires engulfing over 620,000 acres of California, there’s been a concerted media campaign to single out man-made global warming as the primary force behind the deadly blazes.
But that’s not what the data suggests, according to University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass.
“So there is a lot of misinformation going around in the media, some environmental advocacy groups, and some politicians,” Mass wrote in the first of a series of blog posts analyzing the California wildfires.
“The story can’t be a simply that warming is increasing the numbers of wildfires in California because the number of fires is declining. And area burned has not been increasing either,” Mass wrote.
Firefighters are struggling to put out the largest fire in recent decades, the Mendocino Complex fire, that’s consumed over 300,000 acres in northern California. Environmentalists and some scientists have pushed a media narrative that blazes across the state to global warming.
“Climate change is making wildfires more extreme. Here’s how,” PBS Newshour warned viewers on Monday, quoting Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.
“You warm the planet, you’re going to get more frequent and intense heat waves. You warm the soils, you dry them out, you get worst drought,” Mann said. “You bring all that together, and those are all the ingredients for unprecedented wildfires.”
The San Francisco Chronicle ran with similar coverage: “Scientists see fingerprints of climate change all over California’s wildfires.” The Chronicle also quoted Mann, who further argued global warming weakened the jet stream, causing extreme weather patterns to persist.
“These factors work together to produce the sorts of persistent extreme weather events — droughts, floods, heat waves, wildfires — that we’re seeing across the Northern Hemisphere right now,” Mann said.
However, Mass combed through California wildfire statistics, finding state figures showed a decrease in acres burned in four out of five regions. U.S. Forest Service data for public forests and lands in California shows mixed trends, with some regions having just as big of fires as in the 1920s.
“The bottom line of the real fire data produced by the State of California and in the peer-reviewed literature is clear: there has been no upward trend in the number of wildfires in California during the past decades,” Mass wrote on his blog.
“In fact, the frequency of fires has declined,” he wrote. “And in most of the state, there has not been an increasing trend in area burned during the past several decades.”
“Clearly, climate change is only one possible factor in controlling fire frequency and may not be the most important,” Mass wrote.
While the seasonal weather is an important ingredient for wildfires, it’s not the only factor, making it particularly hard to attribute fires to global warming. Land management and population growth are also major factors since most fires are started by humans.
A recent study found the risk of fire increased in once-rural areas as populations increased, putting more buildings, plants, vehicles and other ignition sources in fire-prone areas that were once sparsely populated.
“This is a people problem,” U.S. Geological Survey fire scientist Jon Keeley told The San Jose Mercury News. “What’s changing is not the fires themselves but the fact that we have more and more people at risk.”
Mass authored a similar analysis of California’s 2017 wildfire season when many media outlets suggested the blazes were driven by man-made warming.
“Those that are claiming the global warming is having an impact are doing so either out of ignorance or their wish to use coastal wildfires for their own purposes,” Mass wrote in 2017.
“Wildfires are not a global warming issue, but a sustainable and resilience issue that our society, on both sides of the political spectrum, must deal with,” Mass wrote.
Read more at Daily Caller
Trackback from your site.
Carl
| #
Remember that the human caused global warming hypothesis asserts that human activity is making the atmosphere more humid, which increases cloud cover, and it is that increased humidity and cloud cover that is causing most of the anthropogenic global warming vis vi the “positive water vapor feedback” hypothesis.
They never explain though how higher humidity and more cloud cover can dry out the soil and cause the drought conditions that make wildfires more likely.
Reply
Squidly
| #
There are only 3 possible ways to start a wildfire
(1) Lightning
(2) Volcano
(3) Human
#3 causes more than 95% of all wildfires on this planet. Despite the increase in world population during the past centuries, wildfires worldwide have declined precipitously, both in numbers and burn area. There are several reason for this, not the least of which are better suppression and agriculture.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
Where did you get the 95%? While I am not claiming its wrong but I do question if it is correct. What I do not know is where on this planet wildfires frequently occur. I know that the native American burned the Willamette Valley each year so there were not wild fires like that which can occur. I know that Oregon hill sides now covered with juniper trees were not covered with juniper trees a hundred years because fires naturally caused by lightning regularly burned the dry grass that covered them so the juniper were killed and the grass was not. A question is: Were these grass fires lit by Indians or by lighting a wildfire when there were no buildings to be burned?
My point is before humans there were wildfires regularly caused by lightning. Relative to forests, I know during times of high fire danger, when there are lightning storms, the next day the forest service is checking for smokes from fire towers or air planes.
Given my experiences and readings, I question 95% because I don’t know.
Have a good day, Jerry. .
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carl,
You keep repeating the general content of the first paragraph. Could you quote the specific statement (s) to which you are referring or provide a link to the specific information to which you are referring?
For the statement: “it is that increased humidity and cloud cover that is causing most of the anthropogenic global warming vis vi the “positive water vapor feedback” hypothesis.” seems to be not consistent. First it is “increased humidity [water vapor] and cloud cover” that is causing most of the anthropogenic global and then it is only the “positive water vapor feedback”. The mechanism (scattering) by which cloud cover influences the incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation being emitted by the earth’s surface according to its temperatures is totally different from the mechanism of the absorption by water vapor (molecules) and the proposed warming of the atmosphere by sensible heat.
I hope that you will respond to this comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Squidly
| #
What is “sensible heat” vs. “non-sensible heat”
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Squidly,
This question is easily answered and I am amazed you seem unfamiliar with the term ‘sensible’ heat which is the result of the absorption of radiation by matter as evidenced by the matter’s increased temperature. Non-sensible heat is termed latent heat for the absorption of radiation by matter does not increase the matter’s temperature but it changes the phase of matter (liquid to vapor (gas), solid to liquid, etc.)
And most important (relative to the GHE) is Einstein’s seldom considered absorption of radiation by matter without either of these changes occurring during what is termed stimulated emission.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply