Scientists Disagree With Media Blaming Wildfires on Global Warming

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

As media outlet after media outlet blame the burning of parts of Southern California on climate change, it was rather shocking to see a headline in Thursday's Los Angeles Times that read "Global Warming Not a Factor in Wildfires."

Maybe this is just another example of how folks should rely on local media closest to events rather than national press members.

Regardless, the Times piece, although it employed climate models to make the case that global warming could be a problem in the future, cited a number of scientists and studies suggesting today's natural disaster shouldn't be used by media to pat Nobel Laureate Al Gore on the back (emphasis added throughout):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Are the massive fires burning across Southern California a product of global warming?

Scientists said it would be difficult to make that case, given the dangerous mix of drought and wind that has plagued the region for centuries or more.

Imagine that: an article with the term "global warming" in it actually considering climate history before the 20th century. Somebody pinch me.

But that was just the beginning:

In a study published last year in the journal Science, researchers looking at Western federal forests found nearly seven times more land burned from 1987 to 2003 than in the previous 17 years.

The analysis mainly attributed this to a 1.5-degree rise in average spring and summer temperatures. With spring arriving earlier and snow melting faster, the forests dried out sooner, extending the average fire season by more than two months.

The study, however, found Southern California was different from the rest of the West, with no increase in the frequency of fire as temperatures rose.

"In Southern California, it's hot and dry much of the year," said Anthony Westerling, a climate scientist at UC Merced and the study's lead author. In other words, Southern California was already perfect for fire.

"That is a fire-prone environment regardless of whether we are in a climate-change scenario," said Tom Wordell, a wildfire analyst at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. "I don't want to be callous, because many people are homeless and suffering, but if you live in a snake pit, you're going to get bit."

In fact, the history of this region indeed shows an area quite prone to such disasters well before that awful carbon dioxide began expanding in the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution.

For instance, a January 2003 report from the United States Geological Survey gives readers a reference that none of the national media outlets will bother sharing with the citizenry, as it quite debunks the global warming connection (emphasis added, h/t NBer ahusser):

Written documents reveal that during the 19th century human settlement of southern California altered the fire regime of coastal California by increasing the fire frequency. This was an era of very limited fire suppression, and yet like today, large crown fires covering tens of thousands of acres were not uncommon. Analyzing these historical records, USGS scientist Dr. Jon E. Keeley and colleague C. J. Fotheringham from the University of California, Los Angeles, evaluated possible causes for periods of variation in area burned in a recent synthesis published in a new book on fire and climate change.

One of the largest fires in Los Angeles County (60,000 acres) occurred in 1878, and the largest fire in Orange County's history, in 1889, was over half a million acres. Collectively, the 1920s, 1940s, and 1970s were high decades for acreage burned, and the 1930s and 1960s were low. Explanations for these patterns are that they (1) result from decadal scale variation in climate, (2) are natural cycles resulting from fuel buildup, and (3) are driven by human demographic patterns. The scientists discussed in detail evidence for and against these in the book chapter.

Among their conclusions are the following: Throughout much of the shrubland landscape humans play a dominant role in promoting fires beyond what was likely the natural fire cycle. Future climate change is expected to have a minor role in altering fire regimes on shrubland landscapes relative to other global changes such as population growth and habitat fragmentation. Future fire management needs to take a strategic approach to prefire fuel manipulations and move beyond evaluating effectiveness strictly in terms of area treated. Fire management should consider designing strategies tailored to different regions as there are marked differences between the central coastal region and southern California in source of ignition, season of burning, and historical patterns of population growth and burning.

Think the authors of this piece will be interviewed by major media outlets any time soon?

Yes, that was a rhetorical question.

Related NewsBusters Post: CNN Searches for Climate Cause of Wildfires, Predicts ‘Century of Fires' Due to Warming

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I wonder if CNN will do an

I wonder if CNN will do an "oops". After all, they were pushing the global warming thing for the sake of Anderson Cooper. Kinda puts a kink in the "push the global warming angle".

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

AGW should reduce Santa Ana Wind Effect

Did a little research on the origin on the winds.  Found the following:

"Another popular misconception that the winds are hot owing to their desert origin. Actually, the Santa Anas develop when the desert is cold, and are thus most common during the cool season stretching from October through March. High pressure builds over the Great Basin (e.g., Nevada) and the cold air there begins to sink. However, this air is forced downslope which compresses and warms it at a rate of about 10C per kilometer (29F per mile) of descent. As its temperature rises, the relative humidity drops; the air starts out dry and winds up at sea level much drier still. The air picks up speed as it is channeled through passes and canyons"

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/ASother/mm5/SantaAna/winds.html

If AGW were true, I would think with the increased amount of CO2, the ability of the troposphere to retain heat would be enhanced.  Therefore, the heat loss rate would be diminished,  the rate of cold air decent would slow and therefore, the driver of the fires would, i.e. the winds would be reduced.  Ergo, AGW would actually reduce a major fire factor,  

OR, perhaps the reality is, CO2's heat retention capability is insignificant and has little to no effect.  Water vapour is the most significant retainer of heat.  The lack of water vapour over the dessert allows for rapid cooling of the air and the rate of air decent will not change one little iota.

Of course, CO2, that intelligent little bastard, is selective in how and when it retains heat.  It drives up temp over the coast, but doesn't do it over the desert.  Just things that make you go, hmmmmm. 

*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.

Now, you stop that, Mike!

You're gonna make their heads bust with all this "logic" stuff...

(excellent post, though)

You beat me to it

You beat me to it RJ!

Excellent post Mike...excellent.

Insult To Logic and Reason

Blaming these fires on global warming is an insult to logic and reason.  If these fires are the result of global warming, where are all of the other fires?  The whole world should be ablaze by now!  Whenever I see this type of idiotic logic from the left I'm always reminded of the claims of various liberal politicians that they belong to the party of logic and reason.  Give me a break!

I also find it telling that Big Media will entertain such ludicrous claims by the far left but never seem to explore claims by conservatives that extreme environmental policies enacted by the government are to blame since they prevent the proper care needed to prevent fires from getting out of hand.  These extremists don't want the wilderness to be touched by man since we only cause problems for it.  The irony of course is that it all goes up in flames which easily causes much more devastation to the environment.  How much C02 has been emitted by these fires I wonder?

C'mon, Dave, you know full

C'mon, Dave, you know full well that an isolated local incident is proof of whatever agenda du jour the media is spinning that day. Chicago may experience a record high for a particular day, and it is "proof" of global warming, even though 25 other cities throughout the country and hundreds of cities in the southern hemispheres may experience record lows.

Also, you know if it can't be blamed on Bush, it'll be blamed on global warming, which is also Bush's fault because he won't ratify Kyoto. Arrrrgh!

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan

Drought caused by cooling ocean..

Oh for goodness sakes. Even CNN knows a bit about this. La Niña leaves states high and dry. This was from 2000 - and we're in La Nina yet again. The drought is caused by cooling ocean waters. My bold. 

The rest of spring and summer will be warmer than normal in most of the United States, and many Midwest and Great Plains areas will continue to suffer dry days..

[...]

The persistent La Niña effect is the meteorological explanation for the warmer, drier conditions, he said.

"The La Niña pattern, which has dominated the United States for the past two years, has created a serious moisture deficit in many areas.

[...]

Unlike El Niño, which produces unusually warm ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific. La Niña is characterized by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the Pacific.

Let me guess - somehow, somewhere, someone is going to say that global warming creates cooler oceans - except for when we're talking about hurricanes, that is.

(;~/

Current technical data: As of mid-October 2007 SSTs in the eastern equatorial Pacific are much below average, indicating La Niña conditions. The cold anomalies extend from the coast of South America to the dateline, with peak anomalies of -3C between 140W and 130W. Easterly wind anomalies increased dramatically during September, increasing both the spatial extent and strength of the SST anomalies and associated sub-surface temperature anomalies. The coupling exhibited between the thermocline, SSTs and easterly winds led to substantial coupled growth of the La Niña conditions during late September and early October. From early to middle October, SST anomalies within the NINO3.4 region dropped by 0.5C, from a level already indicating La Niña conditions. All these elements taken together indicate the development, and probable maintenance, of La Niña conditions in the equatorial Pacific.

If Newsbusters' goal is to

If Newsbusters' goal is to expose the liberal media, why is it continually using the LA Times to pose issues - putting the caveat of 'I can't believe it was from the LA Times but here was the piece' may work once, but the more times it's used the more the liberal media bias seems to begin to wear off. 

mgeradn, like it or not,

mgeradn, like it or not, the LAT is a becon of liberal bias. Oh, and Spiderman is not real, either. I know both of those facts are going to come as a shock to you, but you really need to know.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

The people who believe the

The people who believe the LA Times is Liberal are the same people who believe Fox News is Fair and Balanced, so it's tough to take that perspective seriously.

 

Save a SeAL, club bassndude!!

So there's no bias if there is more than one story with

something other than the liberal view? That is crazy. No bias would be 50/50 on the issue. Are you saying that 50% of the LA times stories on GW are critical of the hysteria? I'm sure that probably less than 25% are critical of the Gore created myths.

The LA Times is liberal,

The LA Times is liberal, the LA Times is liberal.  Here's a right wing story in the LA Times, let's use it to show left wing bias in other newspapers.  The LA Times is liberal.