GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASH
In case you haven't noticed, Southern California is on fire ... and it's bad. By some estimates, over 500000 people evacuated their homes during the height of the disaster. And should you falsely assume that Santa Barbara was spared this recent tragedy, we received a not so gentle reminder of our own Zaca Fire when Santa Ana winds whipped-up a bunch of ash, which inspired health officials to insist we stay indoors for several days. Cough!
On 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago, there was a great segment on the increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires over the last few years. In the show, it was pointed out that what would have been considered extreme fires a decade ago are common place today. And the key question it seems people are still a little afraid to ask is whether or not the cause is global warming. The 60 Minutes report definitely implied that was the case, although the "liberal media" couldn't avoid making the disclaimer that these "particular" fires couldn't necessarily be linked to climate change. Whatever. The thing I found the most telling, however, was the point at which Scott Pelley asked the lead firefighter about global warming skeptics, and his response was something to the effect of, "Well, you won't find any in our profession." If the 9/11 heroes believe it, shouldn't everybody?
The facts are overwhelming. If you read Joseph Romm's Huffington Post entry last week, you will see that this is exactly what has been predicted by many scientists in their climate change models. He starts off by pointing out that ....
Global warming makes wildfires more likely and more destructive -- as many scientific studies have concluded. Why? Global warming leads to more intense droughts, hotter weather, earlier snowmelt (hence less humid late summers and early autumns), and more tree infestations (like the pine beetle). That means wildfires are a dangerous amplifying feedback, whereby global warming causes more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide, thereby accelerating global warming.
Yet, unbelievably, there are still deniers out there who are determined to bury their heads in the ash and blame natural weather patterns or immigration or some such nonsense. None the less, the proof keeps mounting. In his post, Romm goes on to quote the August 2006 Science cover story, "Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity" ...
... virtually all climate-model projections indicate that warmer springs and summers will occur over the region in coming decades. These trends will reinforce the tendency toward early spring snowmelt and longer fire seasons. This will accentuate conditions favorable to the occurrence of large wildfires, amplifying the vulnerability the region has experienced since the mid-1980s ... If the average length and intensity of summer drought increases in the Northern Rockies and mountains elsewhere in the western United States, an increased frequency of large wildfires will lead to changes in forest composition and reduced tree densities, thus affecting carbon pools ...
This leads me to everyone's favorite Santa Barbara topical topic: The Light Blue Line Project. If you don't know, this was a nice, minimal cost effort to paint a blue line around the city showing where water levels might be if computer models predicting sea level rise were to play out. Good idea, right? I thought it was, and so did many of us who think it's important to raise awareness of global climate change. But sadly, the project was killed by a vocal group of people who thought the line might affect property values. In fact, some people were so angry that it apparently inspired all five Santa Barbara City Council challengers to jump into the race and oppose it. Here's what I said on Blogabarbara regarding the topic ...
Doesn't the blue line project really show the problem with the global warming debate in general? ... People are concerned about it, but they don't want to take any action if it adversely affects them in any way. In this case, it's just the "idea" of global warming's effect on SB that has these people up in arms. Shouldn't they (and all of us) be more worried about the real effects?
Here's the lesson, folks ... you could ignore the line but you could not ignore the fire. And you will not be able to ignore the other effects of global warming. So, let's stop ignoring and start doing.
Labels: california, light blue line, wildfires
13 Comments:
Hello t.l.,
How dare you talk about GW deniers and not mention my guy?
Edgar - You're totally right: How could I talk about global warming deniers and not mention Inhofe?
Anonymous (7:20 AM) - I don't even know how to repsond to this except to quote from that site ==> "Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com ... and a columnist for FoxNews.com ... Mr. Milloy is a frequent advocate for free enterprise/free market principles and policies ..."
junkscience.com is aptly named, since it promotes such junk science as denial of global warming.
Trekkie, I think you're right on here... No, climate change doesn't CAUSE fires, but it will create conditions where fires are worse than they have been before. My family has lived in San Diego for almost 100 years, but only had to evacuate for fire twice (the Cedar Fire and the Witch Fire) despite having a home in the backcountry since the 20s (which seems a vote against the "they're only dangerous because people are building into dangerous places" argument)...
You got it goin on, trekking left! People won't take action until they are directly and undeniably effected--like getting their house burned down or, let's say, running out of water. But even then, they won't get it. They'll blame the government and not their own actions or consumer based lifestyles. Yet, its cumulative actions of all of us, so its so murky to point fingers. Yes to blue line and yes to doing everything in our power to slow climate change.
Seriously- you folks crack me up. You remind me of the religious fundamentalists who insist that god made the universe in six days - and if you challenge them - they respond by name calling and denigrating advocates of opposing positions. And you think you're the tolerant enlightened ones, huh? You folks REALLY crack me up. Instead of dismissing junkscience.com - maybe you could muster a modicum of courage to look at the site. I'm sure your guys also have some less-than-impressive credentials.
Noelle: You've got it right. Just like in this town, since nobody was directly affected by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they're like, why should we do anything about it?
Anonymous (12:36 PM) - Did I not quote from the site directly? And my "less-than-impressive credentials" are 99% of scientists in the world.
McConfrontation - No, we do want to do something about it. For example, it would be nice to actually catch the person who was responsible instead of, say, attacking a coutry that had nothing to do with 9/11 OR terrorism. I would argue that we want to do more than you do. We just want to do stuff that works.
No terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001: it's working.
DUH.
Bending over and touching your toes is not an effective way to fight terrorism.
Just to chime in on this repeated "99% of scientists" claim that you guys are always chirping on and on about... If you can come up with a hard number like that, then you must have at your disposal the actual total number of scientists in the world that have an opinion on this subject, no? So if that's the case tell me this: how many scientists do I have to come up with to get over that 1% hump to prove you wrong? Is it 12 scientists? 47 scientists? How many scientists are there in the world guys?
How about this: hGlobal warming 'unequivocal,' U.N. says.
Dude, there is no debate. Temperatures are warming unnaturally, and our emissions are the cause. I don't understand why you're fighting it so hard.
Yes but how many scientists are there? And how many exactly is 99% of them?
Please, for arguments sake, please use the term "vast, overwhelming majority" when referring to a problem as pressing as this.
All this fearmongering makes me scared that the Earth will explode in about a million years, and each generation that comes after us should be even more scared than the last. We should all make changes in our lives right now if we don't want our great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren to have to deal with what is obviously a prescient armageddon situation.
Funny, that sounds remarkably like your argument for why we should bomb the hell out of Middle Eastern countries that might, someday, get one nuclear weapon.
Post a Comment
<< Home