Wildfires and global warming

[coboardhead]

After Mrgybe's snarky comment about the problems with fires in the West, I did a little bit of research. I had a memory of a really bad fire in Tennessee a few years back. So, I looked it up.

In Gatlinburg, TN, there was a fire in 2016 that destroyed 2400 structures and killed 14 people. Is this possible, Mrgybe with your area's commitment to preventing fires? Isn't Gatilnburg just over the hill from your house?

Techno and Mrgybe. Are you guys sure you aren't living in fire prone areas? I wouldn't guess about it if I were you. The Eastern US is subject to widespread fire risk...

https://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/wild-fires-dc-virginia-maryland-forest-service-budget

[boggsman1]

[mrgybe]

[coboardhead]

Mrgybe

You're the one who claimed that they do a better job with forest management on the East Coast than the West Coast. I contend that your area has the same issues; although, to a lesser extent.

You make my point about the poor having more difficulty managing fire around their lands. That's why we need to fund fire prevention as a national strategy. Not for my rich clients. But, for the folks that cannot afford to mitigate the effects of a warmer climate that are exacerbated by carbon loading.

Techno's strategy would have those poor folks in W. VA and VA buying more insurance or moving. That's just not feasible or fair. Unless they sell my client a barn, many don't have a lot of capital to work with.

[mac]

Nobody that actually knows anything about the west and fire and silviculture is arguing "...that immediate meaningful forestry management " should not take precedence. Indeed, mrgybe has avoided any recognition that California has put additional money into their budget for meaningful forestry management--while the Federal government under a man who makes fun of the disabled has cut the budget for meaningful forestry management.

Anyone who thinks that California has the capacity to compel Trump and Moscow Mitch to put more money into California programs is either practicing sophistry or magical thinking. Indeed, since Trump will lose California by millions of votes, and is uninterested in governing both red and blue states, his only use for California is to rile up his base.

Mrgybe doesn't take much riling. He'll repeat Trump/Hannity/WSJ talking points without bothering to actually learn anything.

[techno900]

Coboardhead said:

[coboardhead]

So far you don't have much of a problem in your area. I live at 9000 feet. Typically, the start of our high mountain bike riding when the snow is off the trails above 10000 feet is late June and the higher forests WERE not clear by the 4 th of July. Then the Monsoons came in not long after that. They USED to call the forest surrounding my community the "asbestos forest". The reason was that by the time the snow melted, there was less than a month before the rains started.

That's not the case now. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that there is over grazing on Native American lands west of here. That causes wind storms to deposit dust on the snow which causes faster melting. The dust is increased when the desert southwest is subject to extended droughts.
Another is that the warmer weather (Colorado is already subject to some of the greatest warming in the nation) causes the summers to be warmer and longer.

The area where I am is notably warmer. Since the ecosystems here vary so dramatically by elevation (it is 5 degrees cooler for every 1000 foot elevation change) we see that 2 to 3 degree change causing stresses to the forests quickly. Bark beetles, in particular, are thriving on this warmer weather and moving into forests that would not support them before.

So, the areas that are subject to wild fires is getting larger. Fires are now able to spread over ridges that were previously too wet to support a fire. That imperils the next lower area that would have been protected by topography from fires before. So, that causes fires to grow into populated areas on more "fronts" and stretches fire fighters resources.

Now, we have larger populations subjected to greater risks and longer fire seasons. And, the fires are larger because more terrain is potentially engaged in a single fire.

Don't bet that your area will be immune from similar effects.

[mac]

But that change is not climate change, eh? Especially if you made your living developing propaganda about how wonderful petroleum is. Petroleum, a product like tobacco, that when used according to design, kills people with cancer.

[techno900]

[boggsman1]