Wildfires and global warming

[mrgybe]

Do you actually believe that I advocate for coal fired power plants? Please! As for "increased fire risk" you may wish to look at the attached. It seems that fires have not increased, it is people near fires.

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

[coboardhead]

Mrgybe

True to form, you cherry picked the data to make your point.

The fire data from prior to 1983 and expressly prior to 1960 were compiled using suspect data gathering techniques. In addition, land in the South East was cleared using fires in the early parts of the previous century.

There is clear correlation that wildfire intensity and size has increased over the past 15 years.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires

Since you don't advocate coal, maybe you meant to compare wind power to natural gas? Natural gas is still 40 times as carbon intensive.

[mrgybe]

[coboardhead]

Mrgybe

The comparison of natural gas to wind was in the same source as the comparison of coal to wind. If you are really interested, I am happy to repost that source (if this site will let me)


The NIFC, in your link, actually states the same thing about the data prior to 1983. The source I used, directly, quotes the NIFC officials. The information on historic fires does not relate to today's fires both in methodology of the survey of the fire and what was included in the fires.

From your source (did you read your own source?)

[mrgybe]

I did read the caveat before posting the link, but I was comfortable that their data would be a reasonable indication of activity over the past century. I think we can agree that the NIFC has extensive knowledge and data of wildfires in the US. That's their job and posting their findings is not cherry picking. The data that they have chosen to publish indicates that, many times in the last century, wildfires consumed 5 to 10 times the acreage consumed in recent years. That contradicts your assertion that wildfires have increased. So, I ask again, do you believe that the data they have presented is completely detached from reality and uses a different basis for older years than for recent years? It would be utterly irresponsible of them to publish data that is wildly inaccurate and misleading. Why would they do that?

I'm not sure which source you are referring to which asserts that NG has 40 times the carbon footprint of wind power. Perhaps you can direct me.

[vientomas]

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/six-trends-to-know-about-fire-season-in-the-western-us/

[coboardhead]

[coboardhead]

OK About 1/2 the time I try a link this site kicks me out and it does it on every device I have....

Mrgybe. My source on the carbon effects of wind vs natural gas was provided in the link by Fact Check. About 5 posts ago.

Yes, I take the NIFC at their word not to use the older data. Is it irresponsible to publish data that is not gathered the same as current data? Of course it is IF they indicate that the data is not reliable but may have historical use. What is irresponsible is using suspect date to draw conclusions.

[coboardhead]

To elaborate.

The tools and the accuracy to measuring wildfires has changed significantly over the past century. This is in line with the changes in surveying, increases in access and more accurate maps.

One example. Current wildfires are not measured by the perimeter of the fire. The fire size deducts the areas within the perimeter that did NOT burn. This can be substantial. It took a bit of time, locally, to define the extent of the fire that we had here since there were large tracts of unburned forest within the perimeter of the fire. ie the reported fire size was smaller after the fire was over and the area could be evaluated to determine, really, how large the fire was.

That would have been a difficult task in 1930. And, there would have been no reason to gather accurate information.

Mrgybe. Why the push to use inaccurate data? Shouldn't we be looking at trends during the time we DO have accurate data?

[mac]

Why does he spin? He is a shill.