I received this message from USDA yesterday; it reminded me of some other adjustment costs of climate change.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced that wildland fire suppression costs for the fiscal year have exceeded $2 billion, making 2017 the most expensive year on record. Wildfires have ravaged states in the west, Pacific Northwest, and Northern Rockies regions of the United States this summer.
That’s just USDA; it doesn’t include Interior Department expenditures.
Below are annual and year-to-date (14 September) data on acres burned.
Figure 1: Acres burned (blue) and acres burned year-to-date 14 September (red). Source: NIFC1, NFIC2.
Total acres burned (through 2016) and fire suppression costs (USDA-Forest Service, Department of Interior), deflated by CPI into 2016$, are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Acres burned (blue, left scale) and total Federal firefighting expenditure in 2016 dollars (orange, right scale). Source: NIFC1, NFIC2, and author’s calculations.
But remember: “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”!!!
I guess our ability to accurately measure acres burned in 1960 (pre satellite era) was just as good as it is today. Move along now, nothing to see here.
Wildfires and floods have been negatively impacting folks for hundreds of years, no make that for millennia, for reasons that are entirely unrelated to climate change/global warming.
If people CHOOSE to live in flood plains or if people CHOOSE to dump their garden waste on the edge of their properties or if people CHOOSE to live in low-density suburban sprawl in semi-arid country, bad things will happen.
Now we have climate change to make it easier to coax compensation from the government and charity from others. Why take out expensive insurance when there is always a helping hand to bail you out and reconstruct your home?
Climate change might increase the probability of more extreme weather events but the core problem of arrogantly and stupidly ignoring mother nature has been with us for a very long time.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5281464
Controlled burning used to be a common practice. Farmers and local towns would set fire to brush areas and forest floors to get rid of the tinder and insect pests. Then do-gooders came along with their “all-natural” approach to the environment… except they gladly supported quickly putting out any fires that occurred. The result: forests become major fires waiting to happen. http://news.psu.edu/story/270206/2013/03/26/research/suppression-naturally-occurring-blazes-may-increase-wildfire-risk
Sure, controlled burning causes smoke and pollution, but that’s only bad for humans who decided that these areas made great places to live and didn’t want any fires around them. You are going to have fires in wilderness areas. The only question is do you want frequent small fires or infrequent gigantic fires?
Also, loggers took out the big fire resistant trees. Small scrubbier trees replaced them, and these burn easily, rapidly, and very hot.
True, but not a universal situation. Logging of old growth forests in the 1800s usually meant replacement by farms, not “scrubbier trees”. Any old growth forests replaced with reforestation methods prior to 1900 are now equivalent old growth. Managed forests tend to be healthier regardless of age; proper spacing of trees to promote maximum growth, keeping brush and other tinder materials cleared, maintaining adequate fire breaks, and controlling pests that cause trees to die off. These are not necessarily more susceptible to forest fires.
However, not all replacement forests are adequately maintained, so your point is well taken.
“Humans—not lightning—trigger most wildfires in the United States. According to a study published in February 2017 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 84 percent of the blazes that firefighters were called to fight between 1992 and 2012 were ignited by people.”
I suspect, as population increases, particularly in Western states, which are dry or have little water, fires will increase.
PeakTrader I think you’re confusing two different things. Nowhere did Menzie’s post claim that climate change caused more fires. It might have, but that’s not what Menzie’s post is about. What Menzie’s chart shows is the number of acres burned, which very likely is related to climate change because acres burned is clearly related to how dry the vegetation is. I don’t think there is any reason to believe that humans cause more fires today than they did 25 years ago, but there’s every reason to believe that drier forests cause more acres to burn.
2slugbaits, more acres will burn with more people, since people account for 84% of fires. Also, people don’t want fires and vegetation may accumulate to worsen fires. Moreover, use of water, including ground water, creates drier conditions.
Is climate change the main cause expanding the Gobi Desert?:
“The expansion of the Gobi is attributed mostly to human activities, notably deforestation, overgrazing, and depletion of water resources…The expansion is particularly rapid on the southern edge into China.”
With the exception of Montana, the U.S. is nearly clear of drought conditions.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Menzie, Just wondering. Did you run an ADF or KPSS test along with temp and/or ENSO data for the same period? Have you run a test to compare peaks? Was there a lag period? What was it?
If climate change can be blamed for almost everything, then how can we be assured it is the cause of anything?
BTW, when you use the term climate change to just what are you referring in the climate that has changed”?
CoRev: I did in this post, which you commented on, so I assume you remember. I don’t know what your point is; for me I use these tests to figure out what’s the best way to describe the trend in a series, either using (usually exponential) deterministic trend or stochastic trend – latter estimated using first difference of logged series.
Menzie I’m pretty sure that CoRev does not understand the difference between and I(0) and an I(1) time series, or why it matters.
CoRev Here’s a study that did look at how much of the recent droughts in California are due to manmade global warming versus how much is due to natural variation:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/full
Here’s the money line: …this analysis illustrates the general fact that the anthropogenic drying trend, while still small relative to the range of natural climate variability, has caused previously improbable drought extremes to become substantially more likely, consistent with the conclusions of other recent studies
Figure 4 in the report shows the relative contributions to drought.
But lack of moisture isn’t the only problem; it’s the kind of moisture that’s also a problem. Recall that a few years ago California and the mountain west got tons of rain during the winter months. The problem is that rain is transient. What you really need is snowfall, not rain. Snow is what provides moisture year round.
2slugs 2 things. 1) Menzie’s link to the other article But remember: “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”!!! clearly implies a relationship.
2) “What you really need is snowfall, not rain. Snow is what provides moisture year round.” I guess you forgot the Winter headlines for 2016-17.
Why must you be so arrogant and so often horribly wrong. eg “Menzie I’m pretty sure that CoRev does not understand the difference between and I(0) and an I(1) time series, or why it matters.” Just what does this snark add to the conversation?
CoRev Just what does this snark add to the conversation?
Determining whether a time series is I(0) or I(1) is exactly the reason for running those ADF and KPSS tests that you asked about. You cannot (or at least should not) regress variables that are integrated of a different order.
Yes, after many dry winters last winter finally saw a lot of snow in the west, and without that extra moisture the fires would probably be even worse than they are. But have you looked at a drought monitor lately…especially around Montana? A heavy snow in the winter will only help so much if it’s followed by a severe drought. According to the NIFC two-thirds of all active large fires (44 out of 66) are in Montana (22), Oregon (14) and Washington (8). Those are also the places where severe drought is the worst:
http://i2.wp.com/droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/png/20170912/20170912_usdm_home.png
The lesson here is that even if you have a good snowfall, you’re still going to have fire problems if you don’t get precipitation during the summer.
2slugs, too often you try to use statistical tests llogically. Intuitively you say: “…if it’s followed by a severe drought. According to the NIFC two-thirds of all active large fires (44 out of 66) are in Montana (22), Oregon (14) and Washington (8). Those are also the places where severe drought is the worst:…” It appears that you run tests not to test the data but your intuition.
That is not a bad thing, but when we see claim after claim that Global Warming (there’s never any precision, AGW, CC, CO2, ACO2, etc) in the definition of the cause, no number of test will prove anything as the variables are not defined. If the ill defined variable causes nearly everything then it can not be shown to cause anything.
Why did I do this evaluation? Because Menzie referenced: “But remember: “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax”!!!, and you completely accepted it by overlooking its presence.
When you say: ” you’re still going to have fire problems if you don’t get precipitation during the summer.” you are talking about weather. While you think you are talking abou/claiming manmade global warming (AGW) : “Here’s a study that did look at how much of the recent droughts in California are due to manmade global warming versus how much is due to natural variation:…”
BTW, Figure 4 in that reference is not empirical data but just outputs from more GCM runs. And yet you believe in manmade global warming and think: “You cannot (or at least should not) regress variables that are integrated of a different order. ” it’s done all the time in climate science.
Where’s the logic?
As a little observation, we hiked the Tahoe Rim Trail last year (the 165 miles on the peaks around Tahoe Lake) and in many areas it looked like 20-25% of the pines were dead or dying, from drought and the pine beetle. I have only lived in Reno for two years, so I asked hikers about it and they confirmed that most of the die-off occured during the drought of the last few years.
This winter’s awesome snow pack could not save dying trees of course, and consequently this has been one of the worst fire years in a long time from Reno up to Washington. We went to Crater Lake two weekends ago and you couldn’t see Diamond Lake from our lodge room 100 feet from the lake. From the Crater rim, you could see the fire 10 miles away that stretched for what looked like 40 miles. The smoke was like the “London fog” that Dickens described in Bleak House (completely natural, to be sure; nothing to do with coal emissions; the models completely got it wrong.)
In short, the previous drought years created plenty of fodder for Northern California and the Pacific Northwest to burn for several more years. Sad.
Fires are good for the environment and ecosystem. What’s sad is when people lose their lives or assets, including because of fire suppression, which can eventually worsen fires.
Menzie, my point was to establish whether there were trends, the level of correlation for them and if one, ENSO or Temps, was better correlated to wild fires than the other. If they were well correlated was there a lag time? You have the tools more readily available than I.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160722-why-we-should-let-raging-wildfires-burn
The Silver linings:
The hurricanes may have destroyed significant social economic wealth but the reconstruction will stimulate local economies and increase measured real GDP.
People will feel better once they see the real GDP numbers. The less they know about economics, the better.
This is the popular broken window theory of economic value. It explains in part why voting Americans are so happy with wealth-destroying military engagements in the Mid- and Near East. The infamous military-industrial complex will also be happy but frankly it does not have the votes to perpetuate questionable policies.
The not-so-silver lining: Any increase in reported GDP will be used by the sitting president to claim that he is doing a ‘great job’.
Is it rational or religious to believe the hype re: Global Warming? To believe it you need to accept that the warming since the LIA is bad. To accept AGW is the cause you need to believe that the ?bad warming? was caused by mankind. Both are illogical and not supported by empirical evidence. If you believe these things support it with logic and not scientific references, because scientific references may just be circular logic by the religion’s priests.
An example of the failed logic, is the recent hyperventilation re: climate change (however that may be defined), the claims that 12016 set new temperature records without acknowledging they were mainly due to the 2015-16 El Nino, a natural weather event. Another is the band wagoning of climate change due to the recent US hurricanes, another set of natural weather events. Were they intensified due to AGW? Maybe or coulda, shoulda woulda if the science is any where near correct, however, without irrefutably defining mankind’s part of the at great ?bad warming? since the LIA. And, that bus is still sitting at the station.
So corev no longer wants scientific references as evidence. And he wants to argue the latest high temps are due to the latest El Niño, so they should not be accepted as evidence. Except that the strength of the El Niño also seems to be increasing with time.
Dave, you asked why i give the “good folks” such as corev a hard time in another post? Look no further than his statement here. There is a reason towns chased snake oil salesmen from the town square. Spreading falsehoods and misinformation is simply bad.
Baffled, you/your comments exemplify the unthinking believer (religious) status of your acceptance. Those beliefs lead you again into creating another false narrative. It takes some special kind of religious fanatic to deny the ENSO impacts. It takes some kind of special intellect to deny that climate changes. It takes a religious fanatic to use name calling when confronted with questions regarding their religion.
Yes, any logical person would look at the evidence and accept these new record temperatures are partially due to the El Nino. Partially because it overlays the underlying warming since the LIA. Even scientists admit it!
“With a boost from El Nino, 2016 began with a bang. For eight consecutive months, January to August, the globe experienced record warm heat. With this as a catalyst, the 2016 globally averaged surface temperature ended as the highest since record keeping began in 1880, according to scientists from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).”
From here: http://www.noaa.gov/stories/2016-marks-three-consecutive-years-of-record-warmth-for-globe
Please explain just what I presented was a falsehood. El Nino? Nope it occurred. Warming? Nope it has been occurring since the LIA. Warming since the LIA is *bad*? Nope, only those with undying belief in AGW think that.
So other than threatening your religious beliefs, what was in error?
Corev, you continue to become more incoherent with time. You are all over the place in your responses lately.
Baffled, my incoherence is directly related to width and depth of my climate science knowledge as compared to your own. You should also understand my comments appear incoherent because you can not answer any of the questions threatening the pillars of your religious belief in climate science. Your fear of those small doubts that might be generated by considering them obstructs your ability/willingness to understand.
Your carping is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing La,La,La…. Just another defense mechanism.
corev, i am a scientist. and your responses are incoherent to any scientist. they make no logical sense, and simply float from talking point to talking point. they appear to come from a rather disorganized mind.
Baffled, stay in your own field. Climate science is definitely way outside you expertise. You’ve tried all kinds of ploys, incoherence, inconsistent, angry name calling, but never have you talked any science. When you have even come close to talking climate science, you’ve been grossly wrong.
Perhaps that’s why things seem incoherent, but I thinks it’s more likely because I’ve been following the several who wished to discuss climate science.,and the variety of points THEY tried to make.
Corev, i am perfectly able to follow and understand the issues of climate science. There are folks on this blog who articulate their points very well, and further the readers understanding of climate change. I have benefitted from those discussions. Your comments are not discussions, first because you cannot articulate your argument, and second because you do not have a full understanding of the science you are trying to discuss. They tend to evolve into incoherent ramblings and random links to denier sites. When you do actually discuss some science, it tends to be random pockets of information without an understanding of how that information fits into the big picture of climate behavior. At those points, your comments simply become incoherent.
Baffled, uh huh! You definitely got me with your superior scientific knowledge. Oh, wait, you have yet to use any science, while only showing emotion that your beliefs are not universal.
corev, i know science when i see it. your denier arguments are not science. simply incoherent rants. i doubt you could even complete a freshman physics lab.
Baffled, Your carping is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing La,La,La…. Just another defense mechanism. Or is it waa, waa, waa, sniffle, cough.
corev, just an observation of an incoherent argument and its source. in math and science, there are things called well posed and ill posed problems. yours tend to fall into the latter.
baffling wrote:
“Dave, you asked why i give the “good folks” such as corev a hard time in another post? Look no further than his statement here. There is a reason towns chased snake oil salesmen from the town square. Spreading falsehoods and misinformation is simply bad.”
I have advocated for action against the trolls on the board. Menzie seems to think that there is value to retaining the trolls, because the counter arguments presented by board contributors are valuable to readers.
I strongly disagree for two reasons.
First, I believe the board loses the contributions of readers who look through a few of the trash-strewn comment threads and decide never to return.
Second, allowing trolls creates an asymmetric battle to ensure that readers get quality information from the comments. It takes little time or effort for a troll to post comments constructed of inconsistencies, straw men, unsupported assertions, nonsense, lies, punditry, irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and so on. The burden of countering even half of the garbage with well constructed arguments and quality sources is high. The burden of correcting the same nonsense over and over and over again is absurdly high when it is simple enough to rid the board of it.
It is Menzie’s pool, and he wants to let everyone swim in it, even the few who routinely poop in the pool. I prefer to attend pool parties where everyone is mature enough not to crap in the water.