Are the recent fires in California exacerbated by global warming?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_wildfires_6

Keep in mind this is the largest fire in all of California's recorded history fought by over 25,000 fire fighters. Weather conditions have been very hot and dry.

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

A reasonable person would certainly consider that a feasible factor.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

"We compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data. Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w21m...

"Fire is the major stand-renewing disturbance in the circumboreal forest. Weather and climate are the most important factors influencing fire activity and these factors are changing due to human-caused climate change. This paper discusses and synthesises the current state of fire and climate change research and the potential direction for future studies on fire and climate change. In the future, under a warmer climate, we expect more severe fire weather, more area burned, more ignitions and a longer fire season."

Answer 3

no its because of years of brush and trees acumalating without fires clearing them out it gave more fuel for the 1 fire which couldnt be contained

Answer 4

you bet! it's dry and windy and hot. it's easy to spread with those conditions. Plus not only that but it's more easy to burn because firefighters before messed up. They thought it was good to stop the fire but the truth is, fires got to do their thing so there can be new growth or else a big one will come and take everything away like that one did. Now there's not even any dirt in some places. only rock.

Answer 5

There is no global warming, so it was not a factor.

Answer 6

Why is everyone focused on California?  There's no Southern California fires (where it's hotter, drier, and naturally more desert-like) and as your article mentions, lightning storms set off fires in the north.  Other than this anomaly, there's no more fires than usual (probably less right now).  

But are these fires natural?  They might not be.  Many in Greece are suspicious of all they're forest fires and the government's lack of action.  Many governments intentionally set fires for financial motives, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening. (I wanted to include a video on the Greek situation, but it won't let me--Y/A censors a lot).

Youtube search:

"Greece 2007 ecological disaster"

pegminer: Then look at your own government instead playing helpless to something that's preventable.  These fires are preventable and trees are not dying of strange bacterial diseases because of global warming.  People aren't getting respiratory problems who live in the hills and away from the city's pollution because of global warming.  People are not finding water absorbing polymer fibers on their cars and bushes because of global warming. Concerned citizens are not having their water tested and finding unacceptable levels of barium, aluminum, and bacterial agents because of global warming.

Answer 7

i think they are causing GW....a billion cars couldn't put out that much pollution

Answer 8

no, not by global warming. Tree farmers are so restricted from culling the forests that brush and dead plant parts build up giving more fuel for the fires to feed upon. If the forests were cut back and the brush removed, the fires would be less intense.

Answer 9

Years of failing to let fires clear the underbrush is to blame for the current fires in California.  If you don't want to let fires clear it out, then you have to get people out there to clear it. That would be considered too expensive, and the environmentalist would probably stop them from doing it anyway.  

All these years of taking preventitive measures has only prolonged the inevitable, and with more fuel, you will have more fire.   Sometimes environmentalism does backfire.  

We pretend to understand nature, but there are more variables than we can imagine at play in keeping the balance.

If we were to just let it burn, the problem will correct itself.

Answer 10

Did you all the suddenly forget about the flooding they had. It must be nice to pick an chose.

Answer 11

Its more proof that certain environmental policies don't work and rather then accept that, lets blame global warming.   To me it proves one thing, any natural disaster today will be attributed to global warming and those who believe in it will use it like a hammer to pound  their ideology down the throats of the people.

Answer 12

Might as well blame George Bush administration. Equivalent cause and effect as global warming.

The fanatics will believe it no matter if there is no scientific evidence.

Answer 13

look global warming doesn't exist. The solar system is just heating up so is earth its a cycle. Now the ozone layer is a bad gas as well so i say global warming no the sun is becoming a supernova and is going to blow up and al gore is a moron

Answer 14

No, I heard on scientist speaking and he said the surface temperatures in the ocean had cooled and less moisture was evaportating and creating rain. The dry conditions are responsible for the fires.

Answer 15

I think it is one of the strongest signals of global warming, particularly because it depends on what the weather has done over the past several years--it's not an individual event like a hurricane.  We used to get fires like this maybe every 30 or 40 years, now they are coming constantly.  And despite what Heretic says, fires and floods go together in the global warming package.  Climate models suggest that the climate of California will be on average drier, but interrupted every few years by strong storms.  That's a perfect situation for flooding: devastating fires have been found to be most likely about two years after heavy rains, due to the increased growth of brush.  Then after the fires come they leave the hillsides barren of vegetation, which increases the flooding chances the next time the rains come.  Fires and floods are a well-known cycle.

dumdum: There are not fires in Southern California right now, the peak season here is in the late summer and fall.  Did you forget that just last fall we had the largest evacuation in US history due to the fires?  Having been evacuated from my home twice in the past five years, and with the largest single fire ever in California coming about 10 feet from my house in 2003, believe me when I say Southern California has had plenty of fires. We don't need to have any more in the near future to convince people of AGW.

Answer 16

"Keep in mind this is the largest fire in all of California's recorded history fought by over 25,000 fire fighters."

25,000 firefighters are not fighting one fire, but several hundred fires.

Thankfully, this fire season has not been as deadly as previous years:

"The number of casualties are much lower than in previous disasters in California, including the series of fires in October 2003 that left 24 people dead and destroyed thousands of homes."

Answer 17

Most certainly global warming, not matter what the cause, has increased the severity of these fires. What is being seen is a 'positive feedback' where a storm triggered by an initial change in an environmental variable, in this case it would have been a temperature change - produced by increased exposure to the sun that heated up the ground/water below the tunderstorm and caused thermals, starting the formation of thunderstorm. That variable (exposure to the suns rays) then deviates further from the 'normal' condition increasing the intensity of the formation of the thunderstorm. Hence, when it came over this area it had more energy than it would have had if this was 1995.

The increased exposure to the suns radiation would have kept the seas warm, and thus inland remains warm and the fire continues to rage.

Once the cold front passes, weather after a storm will be calm. Cooler air temperature and a lowered dew point, also going to have a shift in winds from SW winds to NE winds most likely, this hasn't happened due to the positive feedback - the after effects of the storm have also deviated from the 'normal' condition and likely the weather system behind the storm remained warmer, thus more unsettled with increased windspeeds.

One slight change in a variable over a large area can cause a small 'butterfly effect' which is what global warming is doing long-term. Global warming is changing temperatures, in April 2007, California experienced weather 5c above normal (normal being the average taken from 1961 to 1990).

The location in the article, Redding, is on average 27c with the average high 36c.

It's currently 8pm there and the temperature is at 34c, tomorrow at 5pm it will be 37c saturday is also forecast to be 38c. These prolonged high temperatures are going to continue to fuel the fire. In warmer weather systems don't move as quickly either, so these warm temperatures are likely to stay well into next week.

Such little local-climate changes as described as well as poor forest management is why the fires are this serious, any small temperature variations would have been dangerous but with the state (thickness) of the forest, it's accelerated it further.