Total Pageviews

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Analysis of 2019 California wildfire season, along with the usual myths, and BS

I saw a show on TV
called Live Rescue
about a month ago 
that featured 
firefighters
photographed 
live in action,
fighting California
wildfires.

Live action was
much better than
fake stunts
in a movie.

I actually felt sorry
for the firemen, 
working long hours,
completely defeated
by high winds, 
much of the time.

I've seen some large 
fires in New York,
as a teen -- we drove
to fires, as our
"entertainment"
when large old wood 
structure hotels
had "going out
of business" fires,
right after the busy
summer season ended!

But there were no 
high winds like
the California
wildfires. 

California's 2019 
wildfire season 
is usually said to last 
until winter begins, 
but the next month 
is usually not too busy.

Winter is when 
about 90% 
of the state’s 
rain and snow falls.

The state’s bone-dry season 
was delayed in 2019, but it 
was not eliminated. 

Very low humidity levels 
combined with high winds 
rolling down mountain sides
 -- the “Santa Ana” winds 
in Southern California, 
and the “Diablos” 
in the north -- 
remain a threat 
for wildfires this year.

About 163,000 acres
burned so far in 2019,
versus 632,000 
in the same period 
last year. 

Last year a wet, snowy winter
led to a widespread greening 
in the spring, which became 
tinder after a hot, dry summer. 

PG&E Corp. 
is "suggesting"
its blackout of
2 million people 
earlier this month 
may have helped. 

PG&E crews inspecting 
more than 27,500 miles 
(44,257 kilometers) 
of power lines, 
after the blackout, 
found wind damage 
that included trees 
tangled with power lines 
and utility poles 
knocked to the ground, 
according to spokesman 
Jeff Smith.

After the cutoffs, 
PG&E found
more than 
100 instances 
of wind-driven e
quipment damage 
that could have 
caused fires.

More than 100 !

That just means 
trees are too close
to the wires, and 
only fixing that
will solve 
the problem -- 
cutting electric power 
is an unpopular "crutch",
but may be around 
for a long time.

“Had we not shut off power, 
this type of damage 
could have sparked a fire,” 
PG&E Chief Executive Officer 
Bill Johnson said in 
an opinion story in the
San Francisco Chronicle. 

“In fact, vegetation 
contacting lines 
was the very cause 
of a number of fires 
in the North Bay 
two years ago.”

This year 
serious heat 
didn't show up 
until August. 

That helped.


In December 2017, 
the Thomas fire covered 
281,893 acres in Ventura 
and Santa Barbara counties, 
destroying more than 
1,000 structures.



There are 
147 million 
dead trees 
still standing 
in California’s 
forests 
that were 
killed by 
a six-year 
drought earlier
in the decade and 
infestations of 
bark beetles.

That's an accident, or two,
waiting to happen, probably
next year.

The 2018 fire hitting Paradise, 
California, killed 85 people
-- the deadliest and 
most destructive wildfire 
in the state’s history. 



“The reason 
these wildfires 
have worsened 
is because of 
climate change,” 
said Leonardo DiCaprio.

“This is what 
climate change 
looks like,” 
said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.


Two nitwits.


President Donald Trump tweeted, 
“The Governor of California, 
@GavinNewsom, has done 
a terrible job of forest management,” 

And Trump was right.


Dr. Jon Keeley, a US
Geological Survey scientist 
who has researched the topic 
for 40 years, thought 
the 2018 Paradise fire
had nothing to do
with climate change.

“It’s almost certainly 
not climate change,” 
he said. 

“We’ve looked at the history 
of climate and fire 
throughout the whole state, 
and through much of the state, 
particularly the western half 
of the state, we don’t see 
any relationship between 
past climates and the
 amount of area burned 
in any given year.”

“The media haven’t gotten 
the idea that we have 
two very different 
fire problems,” 
Keeley said. 

“And so the politicians 
haven’t been reading 
about the two very different 
problems.”

The first is the 
wind-driven fires
on coastal shrub land, 
or chaparral, where most 
of the houses are. 

Think Malibu and Oakland. 

Nineteen of the state’s 
20 most deadly and 
costly fires were there.

The second is the forest fires 
in places like the Sierra Nevadas 
where there are far fewer people.

Mountain ecosystems 
have the opposite problem 
from coastal ones. 

There are too many fires 
in the shrub lands and too few
prescribed burns in the Sierras.

Keeley refers to the Sierra fires
 as “fuel-dominated” and 
the shrub land fires as 
“wind-dominated.”

The on solution 
to fires in the shrub land
is to prevent them and/or
harden homes and 
buildings to them.

Before Europeans arrived, 
fires burned up woody biomass 
in forests every 10 to 20 years, 
preventing the accumulation of 
(wood) fuel, and burned i
n the shrub lands 
every 50 to 120 years.

But for 
the last 100 years, 
the US Forest 
Service (USFS), 
and other agencies 
put out most fires, 
resulting in the 
accumulation 
of wood fuel. 

The result can be fires 
that burn so hot
they sometimes kill 
the forest, turning it 
into shrub land.

Keeley published a paper 
last year that found 
that all ignition sources 
of fires had declined 
except for power lines. 

“Since the year 2000 
there’ve been 
a half-million acres 
burned due to 
powerline-ignited 
fires, which is 
five times more 
than we saw in the 
previous 20 years,” 
he said. 

“If you recognize that 100% 
of these [shrub land] fires 
are started by people, 
and you add 6 million people 
[since 2000], that’s a good 
explanation for why 
we’re getting more 
and more of these fires,” 
said Keeley.


“I don’t think 
the president is wrong 
about the need 
to better manage,”
said Keeley. 

“I don’t know if you 
want to call it ‘mismanaged’ 
but they’ve been managed 
in a way that has allowed 
the fire problem to get worse.”

In 2017, Keeley and a team 
of scientists modeled 37 different 
regions across the US and found 
"humans may 
not only influence
fire regimes 
but their presence
can actually override, 
or swamp out, 
the effects of climate.”

Of the 10 variables, 
the scientists explored, 
“none were
as significantly 
significant
… as the 
anthropogenic 
variables.”

“Climate captures attention.

 I can even see it 
in the scientific literature.

Some of our most 
high-profile journals 
will publish papers 
that I think 
are marginal. 

But because they find climate 
to be an important driver 
of some change, they give 
preference to them. 
It captures attention.”