Scenes of residents and tourists cowering on beaches to escape ferocious wildfires engulfing all before them are, undeniably, of great concern to us all. And seeing such scenes on the eve of the publication of an IPCC assessment report that focuses executive attention upon increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events only adds to their poignancy. We know already that scientists are obsessed with the necessary role that climate change plays in events such as the recent Greek forest fires. The fact that a warming planet must, perforce, lead to extended burning seasons is difficult to deny. So surely there is nothing left to be said.

Except, when it comes to forest fires, there’s always plenty more to be said. You might not suspect so when reading the typically simplistic reports emerging from the mainstream media, but trends in such fires are always a result of a complex interplay between climatic change, availability of combustible material and human activity. The Greek fires are no exception, so let us look under the hood a little to see what the full picture looks like.

Source material

I have taken as my main source of information an analysis of Greek forest fires provided by the Climatechangepost website. This is a site dedicated to the promotion of the various adaptation measures deemed necessary to deal with climate change. The site does not entertain sceptical views regarding anthropogenic climate change, and so you may be assured that no part of the analysis was written specifically for the benefit of those with a sceptical mind-set. Nevertheless, I choose here to highlight those elements of the analysis that place the Greek fires in their broader context, since this may be of interest to the curious. If you wish instead to make up your own mind, then by all means consult the Climatechangepost analysis directly. If you are happy to accept my summary of highlights, then please read on:

1) The number of fires and areas burnt is correlated with rainfall and not temperature

Looking back at the historical trend between 1900 and 2010, the analysis states:

“During the period 1961–1997 there was a statistically significant increasing trend and a positive correlation between the number of fires and area burned and the annual drought episodes in Greece (1,2). Summer drought episodes did not show any particular trend for the same period. The average number of fires and area burned were significantly higher in Greece during the sub-period 1978–1997, when Greece entered a prolonged period of drought, compared to the previous sub-period 1961–1977 (1). From a statistical analysis of fire occurrence in Greece during 1900–2010 it was concluded that total area burned at the national scale is controlled by precipitation totals rather than air temperature (3).”

The distinction between increased temperature and drought may seem academic, but the two do not necessarily correlate and this has implications for Detection & Attribution studies that attempt to attribute local drought events to global warming.

2) The recent wildfires are by no means unprecedented and have been less destructive than the 2007 wildfires

The favourite quote presented by the media regarding the 2021 fires is that “we have never seen anything like it”. For example, there is this from Nikos Hardalias, Greece’s civil protection chief:

“Over the past few days, we have been facing a situation without precedent in our country, in the intensity and wide distribution of the wildfires, and the new outbreaks all over [Greece]”

People have short memories. Admittedly, it is early days but the forest fires of 1998 and 2007 were actually much more destructive and resulted in a much greater loss of life than the 2021 fires. Regarding the 2007 fires:

“The estimation for the cost of the damages for the 500,000 people affected was close to 3 billion euros according to European sources (4), while other moderate estimations have found it to be close to 2.2 billion US dollars (5). During the 2007 summer period, 68 people were killed, while another 2,094 people were injured (6). More than 100 villages and settlements were damaged; the burned forest and agricultural land constitutes about 2 % (190,836 ha) of the total area of Greece (7,8).”

It is also worth pointing out that the main reason for this particularly extensive set of forest fires was an over-accumulation of combustible material:

“The large burnt areas of 2007 fires season in Peloponnese Peninsula appear to be more sensitive to fuel availability and vegetation density than to vegetation dryness (9).”

It remains to be seen what role this has played in the 2021 fires.

3) The recent trend regarding Mediterranean wildfires is not that of an uninterrupted rise

Whilst it is true that the period 1900-2010 has seen a gradual increase in the numbers and extent of forest fires, the trend has been by no means straightforward as patterns of drought and fuel availability have taken their effect. This is not just true for Greece but for the Mediterranean in general. For example:

“A study on the Mediterranean region on fire trends in Portugal, Spain, southern France, Italy, and Greece in the period 1985-2011 revealed a general decreasing trend of the total annual burned area in all countries, with the exception of Portugal (10).”

4) Rural depopulation of northern mountain areas has been a key factor in recent wildfires

I have already mentioned the relevance of surface burning material to the 1998 and 2007 fires. This is a recurrent factor, however, and it is largely determined by human behaviour. With regard to the 1998 and 2007 fires, the analysis states:

“These fires most likely have had more surface burning fuel to propagate compared with those in previous decades because of rural depopulation in northern mountains of the Mediterranean, thus resulting in (a) reduced harvesting of biomass and (b) longer periods of fire exclusion (during which burning fuel accumulated) because of lower human activity (12).”

The analysis warns of worse to come if the current socioeconomic trend continues:

“Mediterranean mountainous areas may face a very large threat from wildfires in the twenty-first century, if socioeconomic changes leading to land abandonment and thus burning fuel accumulation are combined with the drought intensification projected for the region under global warming (4).”

5) The fire risk season can be expected to lengthen in most (but not all) Mediterranean countries, but the removal of accumulated dead biomass will mitigate the risk significantly

The future trend of forest fires in the Mediterranean is expected to be of an increase, resulting from a lengthening burn season:

“Forest fire danger, length of the fire season, and fire frequency and severity are very likely to increase in the Mediterranean (13), and will lead to increased dominance of shrubs over trees (14).”

But not for everyone:

The islands of Crete, Sardinia, Sicily (southernmost Italy too), Peloponnese, and Cyprus see no increase or decrease. Cyprus may even see a small decrease every month.

However, trying to reduce the lengthening of the fire season by cutting carbon dioxide emissions is not a cost-effective risk reduction strategy. The key to controlling the risk lies in adequate risk assessment tools, effective forestry management and keeping on top of the accumulation of surface burn material:

“Developing fire risk assessment tools that enable long-term fire danger prognosis (15) and battling the accumulation of burning fuel should be a top priority to reduce fire spread, especially if rural depopulation further continues in northern mountains of the Mediterranean (14).”

“Thinning and pruning may significantly reduce the risk of developing active and passive crown fires, giving the opportunity for successful countering of a possible fire from ground and air forces, since the fireline intensity of the front is significantly reduced, as a result of the fire’s confinement to the surface.”

Unfortunately, a major tool in the forest fire fighter’s armory is not available to the Greek authorities:

“Controlled or prescribed burning as a means to reduce surface fuel is not allowed under Greek legislation (7).”

Perhaps this last point should have been made more of by the media.

Conclusion

I have not written the above in order to dismiss the importance of the 2021 Greek wildfires, nor to deny that climate change will play a role in the outbreak of future forest fires. However, as is always the case, the reality on the ground is far more complicated than one might think given the shrill remonstrations made by those who demand an urgent transition to net zero carbon emissions. Risk may be reduced in a number of ways and the determination of the most cost-effective risk management strategy requires a full understanding of the factors leading to previous wildfire events and any underlying trends. Putting it all down to rising temperatures that can only be mitigated by reductions in carbon dioxide emission is both simplistic and misleading. I’m guessing, however, that will not be the message delivered by the IPCC’s AR6 executive summary.

References:

1. Dimitrakopoulos et al. (2011)

2. Camia and Amatulli (2009); Hoinka et al. (2009); Costa et al. (2011); Koutsias et al. (2012), all in: IPCC (2014)

3. Xystrakis et al. (2014)

4. Davidson (2007), in: Mitsakis et al. (2014)

5. Statheropoulos (2008), in: Mitsakis et al. (2014)

6. USAID (2007), in: Mitsakis et al. (2014)

7. Xanthopoulos et al. (2006), in: Zagas et al. (2013)

8. Koutsias et al. (2012), in: Xystrakis et al. (2014)

9. Gouveia et al. (2016)

10. Turco et al. (2016), in: Silva et al. (2019)

11. Christopoulou et al. (2013), in: Sarris et al. (2014)

12. Sarris et al. (2014)

13. Santos et al. (2002); Pausas (2004); Moreno (2005); Pereira et al. (2005); Moriondo et al. (2006), all in: Alcamo et al. (2007)

14. Mouillot et al. (2002), in: Alcamo et al. (2007)

15. Sarris and Koutsias (2014), in: Sarris et al. (2014)

295 Comments

  1. John, thanks for that thoughtful and sensitive piece.

    I am sure that nobody here will downplay the seriousness of the fires. However, I had suspected that the hysterical media reporting lacked both context and serious analysis. Thank you for supplying both.

    When the history of climate alarmism comes to be written, I think one of the most serious charges to be made against those in charge of policy (and those agitating for GHG reduction policies) will be the extent to which they ignored alternative sources/causes of problems, and failed to take serious steps towards adaptation. Time and again, it seems to be mitigation or bust, and never mind the consequences.

    Like you, sadly, I hold out little hope for any serious or thoughtful consideration of those issues when we are due to be met with the shrill Cassandras in the media and among the usual suspects, when tomorrow’s great press release takes place.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Surely another major factor controlling the severity of new wildfires is the extent and the timing of previous wildfires. Areas recently burnt cannot burn again until regenerated. This of course is another aspect of fuel availability, but clearly indicates that we should not expect an uninterrupted increase in wildfires.

    Like

  3. Alan,

    >”Areas recently burnt cannot burn again until regenerated”

    Indeed. I guess that is the implication of “longer periods of fire exclusion (during which burning fuel accumulated)”.

    But it isn’t just about the harvesting of combustible biomass, it is also a question of what replaces it. A couple of relevant points also made in the ClimateChangePost analysis are:

    “In addition, forest fires are expected to encourage the spread of invasive species which in turn, have been shown to fuel more frequent and more intense forest fires.”

    But then, if broadleaf species move in:

    “…the progressive enrichment with broadleaf species might increase the moisture content in these positions and further reduce the risk of a forest fire spreading.”

    It is also worth mentioning that drought does not straightforwardly increase the risk of fire. It can also reduce it in the longer term by reducing combustible biomass:

    “…the frequency and intensity of fires in subtropical forests will eventually decrease after an initial phase of increase once rainfall has decreased so much that less grass fuel is available to support fires.”

    Like

  4. Today the BBC is reporting that 56,000 hectares have been burnt in this year’s wildfires. That’s an impressive figure but still a good deal short of the 191,000 burnt in 2007. Unprecedented is still a word to be kept in reserve. Watch this space.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I don’t think climate change has a role here. Summer drought is the norm for the garrigue/maquis/chaparral shrubby community that you get in these areas, without which they would not exist. Photos appear to show crown fires in trees rather than shrubland burning but there is an obvious contribution of understorey biomass/necromass to fire propagation likelihood. (In fact one of the references given mentioned that a particular fire spread from shrubland into Aleppo pine forest (I seem to remember)).

    Even if you might suppose that climate change increases the chance of ignition, then you still don’t get anywhere. Why? Because this habitat always burns in the end. If a drier climate made it burn every 4 years instead of every 6, then yes you’d have a larger area burnt per year, but it would be burnt with less intensity – particularly if a prolonged drought season meant that biomass accumulated more slowly over time (think how slowly biomass accumulates in a desert; does it burn?).

    Now, it may be that if you could keep fire away from this type of habitat long enough, you’d end up with a forest of broadleaf trees as mentioned above by John. These cast more shade, so that the type of shrubs that burn easily are in the end outcompeted by shade-tolerant species (that are less tolerant of incredibly hot days with direct sunlight), so lowering fire risk. But that might take a hundred years.

    Final points: 1) were these fires started naturally, i.e. by dry lightning? and 2) wildfires don’t matter unless they affect places where people live. The more people who move into the “Wildland-Urban Interface” the more trouble we will have, because we will have more arson and accidental fires, and we will be forced to constantly put fires out because of the threat they hold, thus increasing standing fuel, and making it harder to put them out next time, and making human loss more likely next time too.

    Like

  6. Jit,

    Thanks for your contribution. Some very interesting and valid arguments made there. However, I have a question. The analysis claims that both the frequency and burn areas of forest fires has increased over the 1900-2010 period (albeit unsteadily). If this is true, how do you account for that, if it isn’t due to a steady increase in the fire risk season?

    The depopulation of the northern mountain areas was an interesting point made by the analysis, I thought. It is fair to say that human activity is a major factor in the frequency of fires, and yet inactivity is what leads to more intense fires when they eventually happen. As you suggest, there is an inevitability to the fires and all that may be at stake is the pattern of occurrence and severity. Whatever the case, the explanation for any particular trend or fluctuation has to be more complex than the media and certain climate scientists are making out.

    Like

  7. According to this article,
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/08/how-akp-cronyism-let-turkeys-forest-fires-get-out-of-control.html#more
    the forest fires in Turkey have nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with Erdogan’s vendetta against the Turkish Aeronautical Association (THK) set up by during the post-Ottoman revolution by the secular leader Kamal Ataturk and reportedly too close to the secular opposition parties. Following “reorganisation” and the resignation of experts, the THK lost its firefighting contract with the Forestry Ministry and was replaced by a company with no specialist Canadair firefighting planes, but only inefficient helicopters.

    I’ve no idea whether it’s true or not, but the sources are obviously Turkish. It’s the sort of “not a lot of people know that” story which any serious newspaper would have loved once upon a time.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. I really feel for the many bone-dry-vegetation areas planetwide uncontrollably burning. As a lifelong resident of southwestern B.C., the unprecedented heatwave here in late June, described by meteorologists as more of a ‘stalling heat dome’, left me feeling I could never again complain about the weather being too cold.

    Neo-liberals and conservatives are overly preoccupied with vociferously criticizing one another for their politics and beliefs thus diverting attention away from the planet’s greatest polluters, where it should and needs to be sharply focused. (Although, it seems to be conservatives who don’t mind polluting the planet most liberally.)

    But there’s still some hope, mostly due to environmentally conscious and active young people, especially those who are approaching/reaching voting age. In contrast, the dinosaur electorate who have been voting into high office consecutive mass-pollution promoting or complicit/complacent governments for decades are gradually dying and making way for voters who fully support a healthy Earth thus populace.

    Like

  9. For two years I lived in Contra Costa County, just inland of the Berkley Hills in The Bay Area of California. Our hilltops became golden in the dry summers and a serious fire risk. Each property had a bit of hillside, and our property deeds stated that we were responsible for reducing the fire hazard by cutting and removing the bone dry tall grass every year. So I purchased a fossil fuel powered monster whipper-shipper and climbed to the peaks of my domain there to remove over several weekends what seemed to be several tons of necromass (what an evocative word; I had quite a few more words for the stuff before I had finished). I was much less enthusiastic the following year, because I found few of my neighbours had removed any of their hilltop vegetation. Thus we were still at risk.

    I never worked it out, but Jit must be correct. Eventually (unless removed) it must burn. Some, of course gets eaten.
    So I never directly experienced a wildfire in California, although elsewhere in the County, small fires did occur.

    Oddly the only fire that could have burnt us out occurred in Norfolk. We lived in a converted barn complex. One year my immediate neighbour learned to read his deeds. A deliberate fire in a field of stubble got out of control and my neighbour’s immaculate garden was trashed by several rampaging fire trucks on their way to the fire – they had a right of way which explained an oddly-placed gate that my neighbour had permanently closed. The fire took more than a day to put out and set off small satellite fires, all illustrating the “fact” that climate chaos could hit Norfolk badly, unfortunately not converting it into a Greek paradise on the way.

    Like

  10. It is certainly possible that frequency and area burnt has gone up. One thing I did not mention is that recovery after a severe fire might be slower because the intense heat penetrates the ground and kills even the fire-adapted oily shrubs. Moderate or quickly-moving fires only remove the above-ground material and the shrubs reshoot from the base quite quickly.

    In Britain on the moors where prescribed burning is the order of the day, this results in a kind of hamster wheel of fire. Regularly-burnt areas regenerate their heather fast and soon become dangerous, thus necessitating another burn, which causes rapid regeneration, etc.

    Ecologists often argue for removal of burning but have to admit that there would be an increased risk of wildfire year on year. Eventually trees would outcompete the heather and the wildfire risk would shrink. But you have to reach that stage.

    No easy answers but I wonder whether there are fewer goats around in Greece than in former times. It sounds dumb and inconsequential but grazing at certain times of the year might well ameliorate the risk and reduce the intensity of fire.

    Like

  11. Alan, I think stubble burning is no longer permitted. I also saw a stubble fire get out of hand once, as a teenager. The field whose fire got out of hand is now a housing estate.

    Like

  12. With all this emphasis on wildfires, especially in areas of summer drought, the fact that fires are natural events and are curtailed/delayed by human intervention (making them more severe) is being ignored. Once I flew from Darwin to Perth overnight. Looking down we saw lines of fire stretching from horizon to horizon. Not just one, but a succession of them, for hundreds and hundreds of miles. That was in 1981, but I can still picture it. Apparently if you flew by day, the fires were all but invisible.

    Like

  13. repeat post by me from NALOPNT –

    I notice the BEEB are covering the fires in Greece as another “extreme climate event”

    but I remember this happening almost every year (I think) & the BEEB covering it !!!

    The only quick link I found for fire season in Greece from 2000 – http://www.fao.org/3/ad653e/ad653e64.htm

    Last para – “Of course, these changes in the Forest Service will require additional funding compared to the current low level,
    but in the long term will reduce damage and the cost of firefighting .
    Otherwise, given the natural flammability of Greek forests, the problem may become worse in spite of spending more money in the battle against forest fires.”

    PS – When the MSM report the fires they tag on at the end
    “worst heatwave for 30 yrs”
    .. almost as an afterthought/means nothing !!!

    (Comment edited on request by SG)

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Just read the latest from the BBC. The apology from the prime minister that blames the “supernatural forces” of the “climate crisis” I’ll leave to others. I was struck by the ending:

    Three people have been killed by the blazes, including a volunteer firefighter hit by a falling pylon, and an industrialist who was found unconscious at a factory near Athens last week. A third man was killed on Monday when his bulldozer fell into a cliff during a fire.

    Several others have been taken to hospital after suffering from smoke inhalation and burns.

    …

    But the president of Evia’s village of Monokaria, Klelia Dimitraki, said she was concerned the area would never recover.

    “Ιt is a holocaust. All the villages, the whole area is finished, finished,” she said.

    “All we are saying today, is that we are fortunate to be alive.”

    Three people killed and the term holocaust. As a climate ‘denier’ that really got to me.

    Like

  15. Richard,

    Since ‘holocaust’ is by definition destruction by fire, I suppose we have to grant the use of such language. We should just be grateful that no one has yet thought to label those of us who take the time to look at the statistics as holocaust deniers.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. John: I’m assuming Klelia Dimitraki was speaking in Greek with the BBC doing the translation and understanding the allusions. It’s black humour on my part but three really isn’t that many, even if you take the lives the Shoah put paid to just from Greece. And three will hardly make a bump in Lomborg’s next ten-year running average:

    Let’s get the analogies in the right ball park numerically, shall we?

    James Smith meanwhile I’ve heard say that genocide has killed far more, ahead of their time, than any other cause since 1900. I’ve been meaning to email him about that.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. DFHunter,

    Thank you very much for the link. That Xanthopoulos paper is a real corker. Where do I start? Let’s go with:

    a) It seems from the data that the 1998 outbreak mentioned in the ClimateChangePost analysis was only the start of a three year season, each year of which far exceeded the current destruction figures for 2021. It just re-emphasises how much one cannot trust the present-day rhetoric, even from supposedly reliable sources such as Greece’s civil protection chief.

    b) Wow, all that data and analysis regarding causation and not one mention of climate change? How refreshing. Instead, there is a sober summary of what weather one should always expect in Greece. In particular, “In the summer, maximum temperatures occasionally reach 42-45oC at various inland locations.” Do they really?

    c) Then there is man’s influence, such as: “The influence of man, active in the area for more than three thousand years, is also reflected in the distribution and usually degraded condition of the forests.” I presume they are not referring here to three thousand years of global warming. No, that would have to be a modern-day trend. Does it get a mention, however?

    “The increase in the number of fires in the 1980s can be attributed to many factors, one of which is a more thorough effort to record forest fires. However, a large part of this increase is due to increased activity of people in or near the forests and forested lands. New roads and an ever-increasing number of private cars offered easier access to forests. The number of people leaving the cities in the summer, seeking cooler places along the coastline and in the mountain villages for their vacation, has gradually increased, increasing the probability of accidental fires. The same is true for international tourists who visit Greece every summer at the peak of the fire season. Most importantly, a trend that started in the late 1970s of building secondary summer housing along the coasts, accelerated in the 1980s. These housing areas were poorly planned, creating a troublesome urban/wildland interface and increasing the risk of wildfires. The activities of these people, starting with construction and continuing with their everyday activities (barbecues, burning debris, parking cars on cured grass, etc.) have very frequently resulted in accidental wildfires.”

    That would be a ‘no’ then.

    d) And to answer Jit’s question: “Grazing of sheep and goats, traditional in the country, in recent times has become one of the main causes of wildfires. Many areas are overgrazed. Shepherds react to the resulting reduction of feed for the animals by burning to stimulate new growth of shrubs and grasses.”

    e) And then there is the thorny subject of arson. We all know this is fake news promulgated by deniers and their bots, don’t we?

    “Another factor that led to increased forest arson in the 1980s and 1990s is a spin-off of the demand for land to build secondary summer housing and to develop tourist accommodations…”

    Yes folks, arson can trend, didn’t you know? And I don’t mean just on twitter.

    And the list of problems just goes on and on. Degradation of fire services, depopulation of mountainous areas, the expansion of urban/wildland interface areas, etc. Maybe it would just be better if you were to read the paper yourself. The bottom line is this: Yes, an extended fire season caused by climate change may be a factor in the increased numbers and severity of forest fires in Greece, but there are so many other factors that can explain the numbers, all of which are a much stronger influence on them. So much so that, when it comes down to a serious analysis of the situation on the ground, climate change doesn’t even warrant a mention. Where’s a BBC journalist when you need one?

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Dougie/John

    That article offers some much-needed perspective. If only someone in the media would realise that there is this thing called the internet where you can find out about things that happened more than a week ago.

    Interesting points:

    1. the human-caused fires outnumber the natural fires by more than 10:1 (although there are plenty more without an attributed cause, in text these are described as likely arson). Natural causes (lightning) are responsible for <3%.

    In terms of importance, arson fires for land use change, fires from burning garbage dumps and power line fires are considered to be the worst since they usually occur on days with high wind. Shepherd fires are also a problem, both due to the cost of fighting them and to the fact that even when firefighting efforts are successful the shepherds merely wait for more difficult conditions and try again.

    2. fires occur in every month but as might be expected, July-August-September are the worst months.

    3. the number of plane crashes associated with wildfire fighting is extraordinary.

    In the past, resin collectors contributed to safer forests (mainly those of Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia) by maintaining forest trails for their need to move from tree to tree and by managing the forest, selectively removing older trees that were useless to them in order to favour regeneration. Furthermore, since the forests were their field of production and the storage area of their product, they exercised maximum fire prevention care and immediately suppressed any fire. Unfortunately, by the end of the 1970s this profession started to slowly die out as the demand for resin decreased, income dropped, and no subsidies were provided by Greek or European Union policies.

    I think I know how to help, or at least make myself feel good about doing nothing to help. Drink more retsina. (Although after one particular incident, I vowed never again.)

    Forest flammability is generally high. The most flammable types are the pine forests (Pinus halepensis, Pinus brutia) and the shrublands at the lower elevations, by the sea, in the middle and southern part of the country. This vegetation is also adapted to fire either through cone serotiny (pines) or re-sprouting (shrubs).

    Like

  19. Oh, and it’s interesting that the effects of goats are seemingly the opposite to what I expected. My theory was that spring grazing would lead to less dry vegetation in the summer. But according to the article, the shepherds burn off the dead stuff to stimulate a nice green “bite”. Also mentioned is the observation that such fires lead to soil erosion, which presumably favours drought-tolerant flammable species. Oh well.

    Like

  20. Jit: To be fair, that’s not the goats but the goatherds. Man-made yes (as part of a highly complex multivariate situation), concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere nothing to do with it. But it sounds like a fascinating doc.

    Like

  21. Richard,

    >”But it sounds like a fascinating doc.”

    It most certainly is, and I would heartily recommend it to anyone who is spouting the mantra regarding climate change and wildfires. For example, I caught the back end of a BBC 1 article this lunchtime, in which (judging by the accent) Californian wildfires were being discussed. I paraphrase, but the concluding statement made directly to camera was along the lines of, “You’re going to have to face it. These wildfires are caused by climate change and that is no longer deniable. Period”. To which I would say, “Just shut up and read this. Exclamation mark.”

    Incidentally, Xanthopoulos is one of the authors cited by the ClimateChangePost analysis, though, judging by the dates, the paper found by Dougie predates the one that they cite. Whatever the case, it provides detail that only serves to further emphasize the point of my own article – only when you look beyond the obvious do you start to understand.

    There’s a lot of willful ignorance out there at the moment.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. The BBC (inevitably) has an article about wild fires and climate change today. Its first heading is “Are wildfires getting worse?”, but when you click on the link, it turns into “Wildfires: How are they linked to climate change?”. It’s a “Reality Check” article:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/58159451

    First, California:

    “The acres burned across the US in 2021 so far sit below the 10-year average, with some other states not being as badly hit as California.

    But experts are warning it is still very early, in what is looking like an exceptionally dry and long fire season.

    Climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.

    Dr Prichard says: “Extreme fire weather events including increased lightning and strong winds, are also becoming more common under climate change.””

    Next Turkey:

    “The wildfires in Turkey have been labelled ‘the worst in its history’ by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    More than 200 have affected western and southern Turkey, although the authorities say the majority of these are now contained.

    About 175,000 hectares have been burned so far this year, according to the European Forest Fire Information System.

    That’s more than eight times the average for this time of year – measured between 2008 and 2020.”

    Greece:

    “Greece has also seen record-breaking wildfires – with 12 times as much land being burned than average.”

    Siberia:

    “The average burnt area in Siberia for the last decade (2011-2020) was more than double the previous one, according to data from the Sukachev Forest Institute.

    The Sakha Republic (or Yakutia) in the north-east has faced severe fires since mid-June. This type of high intensity fire emits more carbon dioxide.

    The volume of carbon released by fires in Sakha this year far exceeds recent years. However, some neighbouring regions haven’t endured such a bad season.”

    Brazilian Amazon:

    “So far in 2021, the area burned is less than last year, according to satellite data analysed by Dr Michelle Kalamandeen, a tropical ecologist.

    But the Cerrado, a vast grassland or savannah used to farm crops and cattle, has seen an increase in land affected by fires.

    In 2020, fires were particularly destructive at the southern edge of the Amazon, such as in the states of Mato Grosso and Pará. Here the forest meets the more fire-prone savannah.

    Current conditions and the rain forecast suggest another drought, meaning “we could see large fire conflagrations again in this region”, says Kátia Fernandes, Assistant Professor of Geosciences at Arkansas University.

    In other sections of the rainforest in Brazil – and in Peru and Bolivia – a more “average” season is expected. Overall, forecasts suggest climate conditions will be less conducive to the type of severe fires seen in 2020.

    Human activities such as deforestation also pose a major fire risk.”

    I love that final sentence, added as though it’s almost an inconsequential afterthought. And the inevitable conclusion?

    “And alongside these human activities, the impact of climate change on the Amazon is significant, says Prof Fernandes.

    “We have seen evidence the dry season has increased in length, and severe droughts are occurring more frequently due to natural variability exacerbated by climate change.””

    How does one Fact Check the Fact Checkers? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Like

  23. “Algeria forest fires: Dozens killed in Kabylie region”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-58165169

    “At least 25 Algerian soldiers and 17 civilians have been killed in wildfires to the east of the capital Algiers, the country’s prime minister has said.

    Several more soldiers were injured fighting the fires, in the forested Kabylie region.

    Temperatures of up to 46C were forecast for Tuesday and Wednesday.

    Fires have caused devastation in several Mediterranean countries in recent days, including Turkey, Greece, Lebanon and Cyprus.

    Climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.

    The world has already warmed by about 1.2C since the industrial era began and temperatures will keep rising unless governments around the world make steep cuts to emissions.

    More than 100 fires have been reported across 17 Algerian provinces, the country’s official news agency APS said on Tuesday evening.”

    Far from the headline, deep in the article, is this:

    “Interior Minister Kamel Beldjoud said that about 50 of the blazes were “of criminal origin”.”

    But that’s irrelevant, obviously. Read on!

    “Earlier this week, a major UN scientific report found that human activity was changing the climate in unprecedented and sometimes irreversible ways.

    The landmark study warned of increasingly extreme heatwaves, droughts and flooding, and a key temperature limit being broken in just over a decade, but scientists say a catastrophe can be avoided if the world acts fast.”

    It’s a strange world when RT might offer more balance than the BBC:

    “Algerian officials launch probe to find arsonists behind 50 ‘horror’ fires as firefighters battle blazes”

    https://www.rt.com/news/531671-algerian-government-arsonists-deadly-fire/

    “Algeria’s government has announced an investigation to identify the “criminal hands” responsible for 50 “horror” fires that destroyed swathes of forest to the east of the country’s capital city and killed more than 20 people.

    Speaking on Tuesday, Interior Minister Kamel Beldjoud declared that the government would launch an inquiry to find the “criminal hands” who are “behind the simultaneous outbreak of about 50 fires across several localities of the province.””

    Yes, the article mentions other blazes around the world, but not a mention of climate change! Compare and contrast….

    Like

  24. Mark,

    This isn’t a question of whether or not climate change has influenced the frequency and severity of forest fires. It is a question of the extent to which observed trends can be explained by climatic changes, given that there are several other factors that can be expected to reproduce a similar trend. It is a classic question of attribution and, as such, it requires being able to answer counterfactual questions. In this instance, the key question is: If there had been no increase in global temperatures over the period, would we still have seen an increase in frequency and severity of forest fires and, if so, to what extent? Unfortunately, no one in the climate science community appears to be in the least bit interested in providing answers to that question. This is part of the willful ignorance I referred to earlier. The media reports you quote are just icing on the cake.

    As a case in point, let us talk more about the situation in Algeria. If you search beyond the online media hype you will find this paper on the internet: “Wildfire Management Policies in Algeria: Present and Future Needs”

    *ttps://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr245/psw_gtr245_382.pdf

    It is a paper that does not deny the relevance of climatic change to Algeria’s wildfire problem, but the following statements are worthy of note:

    “As in the entire Mediterranean basin, forest fires in Algeria are mostly human-caused, whether by negligence or voluntary.”

    “…for the 1985 to 2010 time series, for which we have almost complete information, the fire cause cannot be identified in 80% of the cases…In Algeria, it is commonly accepted that at least half of the fires attributed to unknown causes are either arson or security fires, which are purposely set by the Algerian Army as a counter terrorism measure; making it a rather difficult topic to address.”

    So, Algeria has a major, major problem with arson. It turns out that army personnel are not just heroically losing their lives fighting fires, they are also the ones deliberately starting them. Not a detail that appears in your average BBC coverage.

    Further down, there is:

    “…the number of fires has significantly increased in the last two decades. In contrast, area burnt has shown some stabilization. At the same time, there has been a significant increase in the availability and allocation of firefighting resources for surveillance and suppression actions.”

    The point here is that little progress has been made in reducing the number of outbreaks (hard to do when the army is responsible for them) but fires are being kept under better control because of investments in fire detection and firefighting equipment and personnel.

    So I return to the question of causal analysis and the importance of counterfactual questioning. With such major influencing factors to consider, how can one possibly be able to discern the climatic influence? For example, if the army were to stop their ‘security’ practices, or the Algerian authorities had not invested in fire management, what would the resulting picture look like? And even if we were able to discern the climatic influence, how much of an increased risk will we be talking about, given that Algeria has always had a climate and flora that is perfect for forest fires? Surely the law of diminishing returns would operate here.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Mark,

    I’ve just read the BBC Reality Check item for myself, and I must say that, for a report that claims to be presenting the case for attributing wildfires to climate change, it contains very little that goes anywhere near doing so in anything like a scientific manner. All I could find was:

    “Parts of the western US have seen record-breaking temperatures this year, which – along with severe drought conditions – have triggered a series of major wildfires.”

    A bold statement here that heat and drought ‘trigger’ wildfires rather than merely increase the risk. No mention at all, of course, of the actual triggers. But then there is:

    “Climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.”

    More incorrect use of terminology here. Hot dry weather doesn’t fuel anything. Combustible material is the fuel. No mention at all, of course, about the non-climatic factors that affect fuel availability. Enter Dr Prichard:

    “Dr Prichard says: ‘Extreme fire weather events including increased lightning and strong winds, are also becoming more common under climate change’.”

    What Dr Prichard forgets to say is that lightning is only a relatively minor trigger for forest fires compared to human activity. But then there is Dr Yusuf Serengil:

    “Dr Yusuf Serengil, from the Faculty of Forestry at the University of Istanbul, says: ‘It’s a very bad year all over the Mediterranean region. We believe that this is caused by an above-average hot July in the region’.”

    Beware anyone who talks of a single cause for such a complex issue, particularly when expressed as a belief. Where’s the science? As for Greece:

    “Greece has also seen record-breaking wildfires – with 12 times as much land being burned than average.”

    More than the average what? Bear? Speaking of bears:

    “A study found Siberia’s record breaking heatwave in 2020 was impossible without climate change.”

    Indeed, only a less intense heatwave would have been possible. However, the key question is whether or not the wildfires would have still been possible with this less intense heatwave. This is another classic attempt to construct a causal argument based on necessity alone whilst completely ignoring matters of sufficiency.

    Finally, and only for Brazil, we at last get a mention of the relevance of human activities:

    “And alongside these human activities, the impact of climate change on the Amazon is significant, says Prof Fernandes.”

    Not good enough. Tell us what the relative attribution is Prof Fernandes. But you can’t, can you?

    In summary, there is no recognition in the BBC’s article of the many factors that have to be carefully analysed before drawing any conclusions. Also, there is not a single reference here to an attribution study that discerns and quantifies the relative causal influences. And that, of course, is because no one has ever attempted one. Until then, we have to put up with arm-waving and vague, unquantified references to what is actually a favoured subset of risk factors.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. I’ve just finished watching the evening news on BBC, where George Alagiah announced that ‘hundreds of thousands of hectares’ have now been destroyed in the Greece forest fires.

    Blimey, I thought. That’s shot up from the 50,000 of only a few days ago. Even the devastating fires of 2007 only managed 190,000 – and that was 2% of the area of Greece! These fires are now truly apocalyptic if they are already running to ‘hundreds of thousands’. So I searched on the internet to find out just how many hundreds we are now talking about. Here’s your answer:

    Very nearly 1.

    https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210811-almost-100-000-hectares-of-forest-burned-in-greek-fires

    That’s numberwang!

    Liked by 1 person

  27. gotta love BCC “numberwang” – I sometimes do the same with my pension pot, until the fact checker (the wife) brings me back down to earth.

    Like

  28. There are a number of ‘communications’ outfits out there purporting to provide assistance to those who need an update on the latest in climate change science. One of those is Climate Communications, who, amongst other things, have developed a number of fact sheets for journalists to consult. So I looked up their fact sheet on wildfires and climate change.

    https://www.sciline.org/climate/wildfires/

    It lists a number of ‘Facts for any story’. I won’t give a blow-by-blow appraisal of their ‘facts’ but I will pass comment on their final point. Under the heading of ‘Pitfalls to Avoid’, they have the following warning for journalists:

    “Many factors contribute to wildfire occurrences, and human activities are by far the leading source of wildfire ignitions even as climate change has contributed significantly to wildfire size and intensity. (From 1992 to 2012 in the United States, humans ignited 84 percent of wildfires.) Instead of asking whether climate change “caused” a wildfire, it’s better to ask:

    • How is climate change influencing the likelihood of wildfires such as these?
    • To what extent was this wildfire larger and/or more intense because of climate change?
    • How has climate change made the U.S. more vulnerable to large fires like this one?”

    Okay, but there is a far more important pitfall to avoid, and one that the scientists at Climate Communication have signally failed to avoid. The better questions to ask are actually:

    • How are factors other than climate change influencing the likelihood of wildfires such as these?
    • To what extent was this wildfire larger and/or more intense because of factors other than climate change?
    • How have factors other than climate change made the U.S. more vulnerable to large fires like this one?

    By including the above questions one can avoid the cognitive bias known as the Focussing Effect. With advice such as that provided by Climate Communication it is no wonder our journalists are sleeping on the job!

    Liked by 1 person

  29. “Greece plans to name heatwaves in the same way as storms
    Personalising the ‘silent killer’ hot spells could raise awareness in time to avert loss of life and property, say scientists”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/21/greece-plans-to-name-heatwaves-in-the-same-way-as-storms

    “Spurred on by this summer’s record temperatures, Greek scientists have begun discussing the need to name and rank heatwaves, better known for their invisibility, before rampant wildfires made the realities of the climate crisis increasingly stark.”

    It strikes me that it’s simply another way of creating the impression that things are worse than they are, as with the naming of storms in western Europe, some of which would barely have caused a raised eyebrow in the past. The Met Office’s increasing use of weather warnings seems to be part of the same strategy.

    Yesterday, when I looked at the weather forecast for today (online, via the BBC website) I saw an exclamation mark, indicative of a weather warning. Oh dear, I thought, that doesn’t look good. And yet, the forecast was for light rain at first, turning dry with fluffy white cloud, light winds and a maximum temperature of 19C. Why the exclamation mark? It’s disappeared on this morning’s forecast for the rest of the day, by the way.

    Like

  30. The BBC has returned to the fray to publish the following piece on the Algerian forest fires:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-58269789

    It’s a piece that typifies how the BBC goes about dealing with the thorny issue of causation, inevitably concluding that climate change is the real issue. So we have this:

    “Both Prime Minister Aymen Benabderrahmane and President Abdelmadjid Tebboune said that the origin of the forest fires were criminal, while failing to produce concrete evidence for the claims.They blamed separatist groups fighting for self-determination in the Kabyle region around Tizi Ouzou, and also said it would ‘review’ diplomatic relations with Morocco, which it accuses of backing the groups.”

    The BBC journalist seems pleased that ‘concrete evidence’ was not forthcoming but perhaps had he done his job properly he might have discerned for himself the reason for this. I’m no journalist, but it took me very little time to unearth the fact that academics who study the history of Algeria’s forest fires have compiled statistics on causation. According to General Technical Report PSW-GTR-245 of the Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy, lack of concrete evidence is not really the issue. Just to remind you:

    “…for the 1985 to 2010 time series, for which we have almost complete information, the fire cause cannot be identified in 80% of the cases…In Algeria, it is commonly accepted that at least half of the fires attributed to unknown causes are either arson or security fires, which are purposely set by the Algerian Army as a counter terrorism measure; making it a rather difficult topic to address.”

    Having missed the point regarding evidence, the BBC journalist continues by claiming irrelevance:

    “However, such accusations ignore the fact that countries around the Mediterranean have also struggled with forest fires in recent weeks, including Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Italy and France. Climate change in the region is likely to be causing an increase in the conditions in which wildfires occur.”

    Well, yes it is, and the fires can’t all be blamed on fighting separatist groups, but once again the point is missed. There are still many common factors that have contributed to the scale of these fires, and the heatwave is only one of them.

    Forlornly, the BBC reporter finally states”

    “Unfortunately, global warming is not yet a significant part of Algerian public discourse.”

    Well maybe if the BBC got off its fat arse and did some proper journalism for once, it might understand why there are very good reasons for this.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. “The climate science behind wildfires: why are they getting worse? – video explainer”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2021/aug/20/the-climate-science-behind-wildfires-why-are-they-getting-worse-video-explainer

    “We are in an emergency. Wildfires are raging across the world as scorching temperatures and dry conditions fuel the blazes that have cost lives and destroyed livelihoods.

    The combination of extreme heat, changes in our ecosystem and prolonged drought have in many regions led to the worst fires in almost a decade, and come after the IPCC handed down a damning landmark report on the climate crisis.

    But technically, there are fewer wildfires than in the past – the problem now is that they are worse than ever and we are running out of time to act, as the Guardian’s global environment editor, Jonathan Watts, explains”

    Interesting final paragraph. There’s a 4 minutes 34 seconds video, which looks like the usual propaganda, though I do notice that they confirm in the video that there are fewer fires in the past. If you can’t stand to listen to it, you can mute it and watch with sub-titles.

    Like

  32. Mark,

    I’ve looked at the video and I have to say that it is pretty dumb. But firstly, I like his use of the word ‘technically’. It is a word that is usually employed to downplay significance. In this instance, presumably, wildfires are only technically fewer in the rather limited sense that their numbers are lower.

    In fact, his analysis is twee at best. He seems to be putting down the increase in severity to there being more monoculture nowadays (plantations). How this effect can be separated from the effects of climate change is left as an open question, other than he introduces a somewhat tenuous concept of the feedback loop between fires and climate. Honestly, that is four and a half minutes I’ll never get back.

    Like

  33. An interesting concept: watching eco-lunacy with the sound off and subtitles might be more acceptable to sceptics. I suppose if the subtitles get too much you can always shut your eyes.

    Like

  34. Alan,

    If you turn the sound down you don’t get to hear the professorial tones to go with the professorial beard. Actually, Jonathan Watts’ beard is as qualified to talk about climate science as he is, since his qualifications seem to amount to little more than a degree in Oriental and African Studies. Even so, his journalistic prowess gives him just enough understanding to follow all of the highly technical stuff (like lower numbers implying fewer fires) whilst knowing just how much he needs to dumb it all down for our benefit. The truth is that his presentation was half-baked, self-contradictory and mired in cognitive dissonance. He was so desperate to shoehorn in the dreaded feedback loop and to implicate man’s impact on biodiversity that he forgot to think about logical consistency.

    Like

  35. John, apologies for depriving you of that 4 minutes 30 seconds. Still, I think we need to be aware of what’s going on in the world of climate alarmism.

    Alan, it might be worth watching with the sound muted and your eyes shut….

    Like

  36. “Greece’s deadly wildfires were sparked by 30 years of political failure
    Yanis Varoufakis
    The climate emergency and state neglect caused this disaster”

    Of course, he mentions climate change (it’s de rigeur, after all) but there’s also a lot of stuff like this:

    “To grasp why this is happening, we need to understand the trajectory of urban and rural development in Greece. War and poverty caused a mass exodus from the countryside that began in the late 1940s. Villagers who did not migrate to countries such as Germany, Canada and Australia descended upon Athens. Combined with lax urban planning, this surge of humanity quickly turned the Greater Athens area into a concrete jungle. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the same people dreamed of a partial return to the countryside, of a summer home in the shade of some pine trees, close to Athens and, preferably, in some proximity to the sea.

    To these petty-bourgeois dwellings, which by the 1980s were strewn all over Attica, the mid-1990s added middle-class suburbia. Villas and shopping malls gradually invaded inland wooded areas bordering Athens, at a speed that reflected the economic growth fuelled with money borrowed from EU banks or provided via EU structural funding.

    It is as if we were looking for trouble. Fire is a natural ally of Mediterranean pine forests. It helps clear the ground of old trees and allows young ones to prosper. By helping themselves to the wood daily and by employing tactical burning every spring, villagers once prevented these fires from running amok. Alas, not only did circumstances force the villagers to abandon the forests but, when they and their descendants returned as atomised urbanites to build their summer homes inside the untended forests, they did so bearing none of the traditional communal knowledge or practices.”

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Mark,

    That piece by Yanis Varoufakis echoes what Xanthopoulos said in his paper and what was said in the ClimateChangePost analysis regarding rural depopulation of northern mountain areas. It appears to be a well-documented issue, though clearly not well-documented enough to appear on the MSM radar.

    Like

  38. Mark do you have some high-falluting device (or have had mystical eastern training) that allows you to watch with your eyes shut? I suspect some of my students in the past had this ability.

    Like

  39. Alan,

    If you are to conquer climate change, grasshopper, you must learn to see without looking, hear without listening and know without thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. DFH
    “ If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else.
    It will spread into your work and into your life.
    There are no limits.
    There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. “

    Mighty saying of the great Bruce Lee

    Like

  43. OK, it’s California, not Greece, but I suspect some of the issues are the same.

    “‘It’s a reality’: Biden calls for urgency in California as climate crisis fuels wildfires
    President calls year-round fires an emergency country can no longer ignore as he advocates for rebuilding plan”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/13/california-wildfires-biden-trip-climate-crisis-links-extreme-weather

    “Joe Biden travelled to California on Monday to survey wildfire damage as the state battles a devastating fire season that is on track to outpace that of 2020, the state’s worst on record.

    The president is using the trip to highlight the connection between the climate crisis and the west’s increasingly extreme wildfires as he seeks to rally support for a $3.5tn spending plan Congress is debating.

    Biden pointed to wildfires burning through the west to argue for his plan, calling year-round fires and other extreme weather a climate crisis reality the nation can no longer ignore.”

    He ‘travelled’ to California, did he. On a magic carpet or in Air Force One? If the latter, there’s certainly an irony in a jet-setting President making a jet-setting trip to draw attention to climate change and the apparent need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

    Like

  45. Mark,

    There is a quite comprehensive entry in Wikipedia on the subject of Californian wildfire history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires

    In it you will read that:

    “During the 2020 wildfire season alone, over 8,100 fires contributed to the burning of nearly 4.5 million acres of land.”

    This would be quite alarming if one hadn’t just read:

    “Pre-1800, when the area was much more forested and the ecology much more resilient, 4.4 million acres (1.8 million hectares) of forest and shrubland burned annually.”

    As with all these wildfire news stories, the long-term wildfire history tends to be downplayed and the reality is that attributions to climate change are much more difficult than is made out. Besides which, in the case of California, one can read this (ref. Jin-Ho Yoon et al. 2015):

    “However, what is not yet fully understood is the extent to which the projected wetter climate in California towards the latter part of the 21st century (Neelin et al. 2013) could affect wildfire risk in the future.”

    What? Projected wetter climate? So that would mean that Biden is trying to make matters worse for California by stopping climate change.

    Doh!

    Liked by 1 person

  47. The Guardian is still at it:

    “‘It’s like a war’: Greece battles increase in summer wildfires
    Prevention and suppression are crucial as climate change creates stronger heatwaves, say experts”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/30/its-like-a-war-greece-battles-increase-in-summer-wildfires

    “Forest fires are an annual occurrence in the Mediterranean, but climate change has caused stronger heatwaves and a longer, more intense, annual fire season. On average, 80% of the burned area across Europe occurs in the Mediterranean region, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

    This summer was also one of the worst on record. Wildfires tore through the entire region, from Tunisia and Algeria in the south to Spain, Italy and Greece in the north. In southern Turkey and Greece, residents and tourists fled areas ablaze as authorities struggled to deploy firefighting planes to battle the worst affected areas. The fires caused at least 86 deaths, 69 of which occurred in Tunisia and Algeria.”

    But then, remarkably:

    “Two decades’ of data from the European Forest Fire Information Service (Effis), provides some grounds for hope. “We are seeing a decrease in the number of burnt areas, but that is because of an increase in firefighting units,” said Jesús San-Miguel-Ayanz, a specialist in fire risk management and an Effis coordinator.”

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Mark,

    Yes, it’s the conflagration that just keeps on giving. The remarkable thing is that a decrease in the number of burnt areas is so readily associated with an increase in firefighting units, and yet the media find it so difficult to countenance the idea that an increase in burnt areas could be associated with a decrease in units. This is despite the fact that such a correlation has been observed in all cases.

    Liked by 3 people

  49. Unwittingly, I suspect, this piece in the Observer/Guardian, although it seeks to make a big thing about climate change causing wildfires, actually says many of the things that sceptics have been saying:

    “Current approach to wildfires risks lives and wastes money, say experts
    Researchers call for new firefighting techniques that focus on managing landscapes, as global heating sees increase in blazes”

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/oct/24/current-approach-to-wildfires-risks-lives-and-wastes-money-say-experts

    “A new approach is urgently needed to tackle global wildfires as current methods are no longer working, draining the public purse and placing lives at risk, according to experts….

    …Guillermo Rein, professor of fire science at Imperial College London, said efforts to tackle wildfires wrongly focused on suppression techniques. Hundreds of firefighters spend weeks tackling blazes, with millions of pounds spent on equipment, including bulldozers, retardants, helicopters and airplanes.

    “Fighting a fire with hundreds of people and tankers is the last thing we should be doing. It’s a desperate attempt when everything else has failed,” he said….

    …But, Rein said, firefighting should be the final line of defence against wildfires: “They are the last layer that protects us from a catastrophe.” Dealing with the growing threat of wildfires involves prioritising fire prevention and landscape management.

    Not all wildfires are bad.

    “Fire is a natural process and many landscapes around the world need fire,” said Cathelijne Stoof, an assistant professor specialising in wildfires at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. “Plants need fire to regenerate. Some need heat, some need smoke. A calm, mild fire can clear the forest understories underneath trees so when a big fire comes along, it doesn’t do as much damage to the ecosystem or people.”

    Prescribed burns, intentional off-season fires that burn leaves and old wood and create breaks in the forest, can mitigate risk.

    Stoof, along with Rein and Quinn-Davidson, has called for more funding for fire prevention and education into how to manage landscapes to prevent fire from getting out of control.

    Quinn-Davidson said that despite some progress, such as a bill in California to provide insurance for people wanting to do this work, more was needed.

    She said: “We need more people to make this work. We have a fraction of the people and resources we need to tackle this problem, not just for fighting fires but for doing all the work the rest of the year, such as prescribed burns and thinning [vegetation]. We need to hire and train more people, so we have a skilled workforce to do this work. That needs funding.””

    Like

  50. thanks for that Mark – notice it ends with –
    “We need to hire and train more people, so we have a skilled workforce to do this work. That needs funding”

    maybe wrong but I thought in the old days people/towns etc were capable of doing this (and did) until Environmental laws stopped them doing it ?

    the locals know the place best – as they have been saying this for years, but have to now “fund a skilled workforce” !!!

    Like

  52. There is an implied logic behind such articles: Why is the situation worse than it used to be? Answer, climate change. What can we do to regain the previous status quo? Improve the resources and processes required for fire prevention. In short, we were doing fine until climate change came along.

    There is no recognition that, actually, we were doing fine until we stopped doing what we used to do and changed our exposure to fire risk without doing anything about it. Climate change may have had an impact but it is layered upon a set of more fundamental and self-inflicted problems. Unpicking the causal effects requires that answers be given to questions regarding the counterfactual, e.g.:

    What if the Turkish authorities had not decommissioned the major part of their arial fire-fighting fleet?

    What if the Algerian army had not conducted a campaign of deliberate fire-starting to combat insurgent terrorism?

    What if the folk of California had not been allowed to build homes in areas of traditionally high fire risk?

    What if the Russians had not introduced a policy of only combatting fires once they started to encroach upon populated areas?

    What if the Greeks had not engaged in the systematic depopulation of the northern territories leading to dereliction of forestry fire management in that area?

    What if there were not a ban on preventative burning in most Mediterranean countries?

    What if arson wasn’t such a big problem as it is in countries such as Australia?

    And, finally, what if we had not emitted as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as we have?

    Liked by 2 people

  53. Well it seems that it is Colorado’s turn to carry the torch, as it were:

    “Colorado wildfires: Tens of thousands evacuated as blazes spread”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59834897

    I do not dispute that wildfires in Colorado have become an increasing problem since the latter half of the 20th century but, as is always the case, one has to be very careful before drawing conclusions regarding trends and causation, since urbanisation, forest management and other factors that determine fuel availability have to be considered:

    https://oceanblueproject.org/the-cause-and-effects-of-the-burning-colorado-wildfires/

    The BBC, however, has no doubt regarding causation – it’s a drought thing:

    “Colorado has been experiencing extreme droughts in recent years. Climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.”

    This may be so, but a longer historical perspective may still be useful here. How about:

    “A 1,200-year perspective of 21st century drought in southwestern North America”

    https://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21283

    “In particular, during the medieval period, ∼AD 900–1300, the Northern Hemisphere experienced temperatures warmer than all but the most recent decades…This was a period of extensive and persistent aridity over western North America. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests drought in the mid-12th century far exceeded the severity, duration, and extent of subsequent drought.”

    And:

    “However, major 20th century droughts pale in comparison to droughts documented in paleoclimatic records over the past two millennia.”

    Okay, so we may need some of Mann’s dodgy statistical analysis to get rid of that pesky Medieval Dry Period.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Sometimes evidence just doesn’t cut it. Take the following BBC article, for example:

    ‘Surreal’ January wildfire shuts California highway

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60092300

    “The National Weather Service (NWS) reported a ‘surreal fire behaviour given the wet Oct and Dec’.”

    You would think that the presence of a wildfire in the absence of hot, dry weather would cause people to reconsider whether they had previously over-estimated the Probability of Necessity (PN) for such conditions, and underestimated the Probability of Sufficiency (PS) of a lighted match and inadequate forestry management. But no, the NSW statement goes on to say:

    “Anecdotally it seems as though the long term drought is acting like a chronic illness where even recent rains and cold winter weather isn’t helping to keep fires from developing.”

    Well, anecdotally, water has memory and that is how homeopathy is supposed to work, so maybe soil has its memory of former dryness.

    Seriously though, it isn’t anecdote we need here but a better understanding of the prevailing conditions following the recent cold, wet weather. Also, when your best understanding is leading to ‘surreal’ conclusions you should take a step back. However, there will never be any retreat from the good-old BBC, as they go on to remind us all in the article that:

    “Climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires. The world has already warmed by about 1.2C since the industrial era began and temperatures will keep rising unless governments around the world make steep cuts to emissions.”

    Wet is the new dry, so it seems.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. John, clearly it’s the wrong sort of water in deepest, darkest California.

    Like

  56. Alan,

    Yes, and the wrong sort of cold. Although, it should be said that forest fires correlate better with drought than they do with hot weather.

    Like

  57. Indeed fires correlate with drought, certainly in Northern California (San Francisco Bay area and points north) but droughts occur in the summer which are hot (except for San Francisco itself which tends to be cold and moist when fogs roll in (every late afternoon)). In the hills east of Berkeley and Oakland (where I lived) there would be no rain in late Spring and Summer. The vegetation would turn golden – beautiful but potentially deadly.

    Like

  58. “‘A deranged pyroscape’: how fires across the world have grown weirder
    Despite the rise of headline-grabbing megafires, fewer fires are burning worldwide now than at any time since antiquity. But this isn’t good news – in banishing fire from sight, we have made its dangers stranger and less predictable”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/03/a-deranged-pyroscape-how-fires-across-the-world-have-grown-weirder

    It’s one of the Guardian’s long read series, so settle down for a …. long read. Including things like this, which I never thought I’d read at the Guardian:

    “…With headlines reporting enormous fires from Sacramento to Siberia, it’s easy to feel that we’re already on the brink of a devastating global conflagration.

    The truth, though, is stranger. Satellites allow researchers to monitor wildfires around the world. And when they do, they don’t see a planet igniting. Rather, they see one where fires are going out, and quickly. Fire has a long and productive place in human history, but there’s now less of it around than at any point since antiquity. We’re driving fire from the land and from our daily lives, where it was once a constant presence. What used to be a harmonious relationship between humanity and fire has become a hostile one.

    Fewer fires burn today, but the ones left are formidable. Our pyroscape has become deranged, with fire taking on new shapes, visiting new places and consuming new fuels. The results are as confounding as they are unsettling, and our instincts are poor guides. Although we often hear about fires where rich people reside, such as in Australia’s south and the US west, fires kill the most – by far – in places where poor people live, like south-east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The deadliest fires aren’t the largest and most spectacular ones, but the smaller, regular ones that are rarely reported by global media. They kill by smoke rather than flame, and their main cause isn’t global heating. Many are kindled by corporate-driven land clearance….

    …Our rapid economic growth has taken fire from old places and carried it to new ones….

    …nfernos blaze hot on our screens. And yet overall, as scientists have repeatedly noted, the amount of land burning yearly is going down. By a lot. Between 1998 and 2015, it decreased by a quarter, according to a 2017 study in the journal Science. Even flame-addled California, where fires have increased in the past two decades, is still markedly less fiery than it once was. Stephen Pyne, a brilliant chronicler of fire’s history, estimates that before Europeans arrived in California, fires, natural and anthropogenic, burned twice the area that they now do….”.

    Like

  59. Despite the article in the Guardian just 2 weeks ago offering a dose of reality about wildfires (they are declining, not increasing), today the Guardian offers us this:

    “‘Loading the dice’: climate crisis could increase southern California wildfires”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/17/california-wildfires-increase-study##

    “Global heating will cause ‘megafires resistant to fire suppression practices’ with 25% of land being burned by 2040”

    And much, much more in similarly alarmist vein.

    Like

  60. Never mind the fires the, trees are getting hit by storm Duddly or some other name (now that they name every one)

    saw a pic of uprooted tree & thought not much root to hold it in the ground ?

    Like

  62. “Global warming and land use change to drive more extreme wildfires”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60483431

    “Extreme wildfires are set to become more frequent, increasing by around 50% by the end of this century, according to a new UN report.

    The report finds there’s an elevated risk in the Arctic and other regions previously unaffected by fires.

    The scientists define extreme fires as extraordinary conflagrations that occur roughly once in a hundred years.

    Researchers say that rising temperatures and changes to the way we use land will drive the increase.

    The new study calls for a radical reallocation of financial resources from fighting fires to prevention.”

    There’s an embedded linl to this:

    “Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires”

    https://www.unep.org/resources/report/spreading-wildfire-rising-threat-extraordinary-landscape-fires

    That takes you to a site where you can download the full report.

    Like

  64. It’s difficult to know what to say here. Matt McGrath has got his headline, and there is never a shortage of good pictures to bring the threat vividly to life. However, the report makes it clear that the problem is a combination of changing land use, declining investment in fire prevention and warming temperatures; although, of course, it is the last-mentioned that steals the show. The prediction is simply an extrapolation from current numbers. Without a more detailed appraisal of the causative factors one should not be attempting a single takeaway message, but Matt knows that is exactly what his readers will be doing.

    Like

  65. “‘It wiped us out’: history of US forest mismanagement fans the flames of disaster”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/08/new-mexico-wildfires-us-forest-service

    “…Before a tsunami of flames ripped through this canyon in Tierra Monte, the canopy was so thick that it was impossible to see the nearby mountain. But two prescribed burns set by the US Forest Service (USFS) – one on Hermits Peak, the other in Calf Canyon to the south-west – have changed all that.

    When the blazes merged to form the biggest wildfire in state history, flames engulfed nearly 160 acres (65 hectares) of riparian forest that once belonged to her father. “It wiped us out,” Lopez said.

    Like so many in the devastation zone, she squarely places the blame on the USFS, not only for starting a prescribed burn in the windy month of April – when gusts reached 70 mpg – but for a century of conflict with rural communities. Known locally as La Floresta, the USFS is often seen as a feudal lord, a faraway government entity that has accumulated vast holdings with little idea of how to properly steward them or enough funds to do the job.

    The community’s fury runs almost too deep for words, says Antonia Roybal-Mack, a Mora native whose family lost hundreds of acres to the fire. “Really pissed off is literally an understatement.”

    In nearly two dozen interviews with people affected by the Hermits Peak and Calf Canyon fires, the same sentiments emerge: the USFS has a history, locals argue, of mismanaging the forest. In particular, they say the agency has limited or prohibited people from the long-held tradition of collecting firewood and other timber, the kind of maintenance the forest needed. If they had been able to tend to it the way they had for generations, they believe the conflagration would have been far less devastating.

    “The prescribed burn was the match,” says Roybal-Mack. “But the fuel was there for decades when they wouldn’t let people into the forest to collect vigas or firewood.”…”.

    There’s much more. Worth a read, IMO. No doubt normal service will be resumed at the Guardian shortly, and it will be climate change wot dun it.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. “Biden faces anger over huge New Mexico wildfire sparked by federal burns
    President visits state beset by Hermits Peak Calif Canyon fire, result of two accidental fires that merged”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/11/biden-new-mexico-wildfire-federal-burns

    “Joe Biden landed in New Mexico on Saturday amid anger and frustration from wildfire survivors as he visited the state to review efforts to fight its biggest blaze in recorded history – which was started by federal officials….

    …“This is not a natural disaster, this was man made by a government entity,” said Ella Arellano, whose family lost hundreds of acres of forest around the village of Holman. “It’s a mess, just a big mess that will take generations to recover from.“

    With more than 320,000 acres of mountains blackened by the Hermits Peak Calif Canyon fire, communities are preparing for mudslides, ash flows and flooding.

    Before departing for New Mexico, Biden said he supported full federal funding to compensate for the cost of firefighting and recovery but added that it needed congressional approval….”.

    Not climate change, then. But of course we also get this:

    “Another fire in south-west New Mexico is the second-largest in state history, underlining concerns that climate change is intensifying fires that overwhelm firefighters and threaten to destroy most forests in the US south west.”

    Like

  68. Not directly relevant, but possibly of interest, so it may as well be posted here, if John doesn’t mind:

    “Earliest evidence of wildfire found in Wales”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61929966

    “The oldest evidence of wildfire has been identified in South Wales.

    It takes the form of some truly ancient, charred remnants trapped in some truly ancient mudstone.

    And by ancient we’re talking 430 million years ago, during the Silurian Period of Earth history.

    Back then, only a few pioneering plants had made it on to land, so what was it that caught fire and produced the charcoal? Most likely it was a forest of giant fungi.”

    Like

  69. “Heatwave: Are wildfires happening more often?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-62200929

    The answer, as we know, is that they’re not. But you wouldn’t think it from the headline and accompanying picture. You have to dig quite a way into the article (past stuff like this: “Experts say that “extreme fire weather” – weather that creates tinderbox conditions for wildfires – is getting more frequent and more extreme, in nearly all regions of the world. Climate change, they say, is making vegetation more inflammable and soil dryer, which makes fires more likely, and often, when they occur, larger and more severe”) to get to the truth:

    “…However, in African savannahs the number of wildfires decreased over the same period, because of land use changes, including the expansion of farming. And this, experts say, is bringing down the overall number of wildfires worldwide, and the total burned area.

    “Savannahs are becoming patchy and that is why they are seeing less fire,” says Dr Niels Andela, senior remote sensing scientist at BeZero Carbon. “And because they make up 70% of the world’s wildfires, we are seeing a decline in the global total of wildland fire incidents.”…”.

    Liked by 1 person

  72. Mark,

    So what are you telling me? That the risk of forest fires has just increased by 10%?

    It’s worse than we thought 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  74. I’m still puzzled. The press seem happy to put the outbreak of fires down to record temperatures but they seem quite incurrious as to why there were no wildfires the day before the records were broken. As far as fire risk is concerned, nothing climatological of any significance changed yesterday, and yet…

    It is noticeable that nearly all of the fires occurred in urban settings. To get to the bottom of causation we need to start with that observation and then factor in social attitudes.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62232654

    Liked by 3 people

  76. From what BBC News last night informed me, fires affecting buildings in London originated at the interface between areas of grass and the buildings. Mind you, as I discussed with “she who must be listened to” flying over London reveals just how different our capital is, with areas of green (possibly straw coloured now) sprinkled throughout.

    Like

  77. Alan,

    Yes, I think the same applied outside of London as well. One has to keep an open mind, but it is fair to say that a building/grass interface is also a human/grass interface, so human activity would seem to be factor. But what? As with all causation puzzles, the key question is ‘what changed?’

    To make me sound like an expert, I’ll repeat that in Latin:

    Quid mutatum?

    Like

  80. Bill,

    You beat me to it. I was going to post it as a comment on my article “Global Cooling”, but here will do nicely.

    Like

  81. I see BBC have this – “North Woolwich fire: Blaze breaks out in tower block”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62241173

    with this comment –
    “‘Real inferno’
    A man who lives “just a few metres” from the high-rise flats described the scene as “a real inferno”.
    Rolly Apao, 45, was told by police to keep clear of the fire, with the grass next to his back garden also alight.
    The healthcare assistant said “firefighters were able to tackle the fire quickly”, adding he was scared “but I have to pay attention of my surroundings for my safety”.
    “We just had the heatwave yesterday which we [have had] to deal with mentally and physically… the heat is too much to bear.”

    what can I say, sad about the fire, but it’s just using people to promote an agenda.

    Like

  82. We are used to wildfires in Canada but the question about the cause of the ignition is always asked. Fires don’t spontaneously combust unless someone is leaving magnifying glasses around. In Canada most wildfires are started by lightning strikes. All others are assumed to be human caused.
    As John notes above, the UK press don’t seem interested in the origin of the urban fires except, as usual, to blame climate change. Though there is one quote in the BBC article linked by John:

    “The mayor has advised Londoners not to have barbecues in parks or private gardens over concerns they could set alight grass.”

    Liked by 1 person

  84. Potentially, apologies, comment trapped in Spam for no obvious reason. I have released it now.

    Like

  85. It seems everyone is now programmed to say what the establishment wants them to say:

    “Northamptonshire fire chief says heatwave is ‘a glimpse into the future'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-62243623

    “A chief fire officer said the heatwave was “a glimpse into the future” with more fires caused by extreme heat.

    The UK saw record high temperatures on Tuesday and 15 fire services declared a state of emergency due to the number of blazes they were attending.

    Northamptonshire’s fire chief Darren Dovey said climate change was “going to change the type of incidents we go to”…

    …Mr Dovey said although Northamptonshire did not declare a major incident, it was “up to six times busier than normal”.

    “The surrounding counties were in the same position to us, some were in a worse position,” he said.

    Climate change meant “there’s going to be more wildfires, more water-related incidents, with people swimming where they shouldn’t be”, he added….

    …Mr Dovey said as well as heatwaves in the summer, the service would have to tackle more flooding in the winter due to climate change.

    He said: “The last few days have given us a glimpse into the future over the next five to 10 years, because this is likely to become the norm.

    “Lots of services are based on what happened 20 years ago and we need to look forward to 2030.”…

    Like

  86. “Europe wildfires: Are they linked to climate change?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/58159451

    Cue scary accompanying photo and scary graph early in the article. However, read on:

    “What is the overall trend?
    This fire season is something of an outlier, according to experts.

    “We’ve actually seen a decline in the area burned by fires in the Mediterranean and across Europe more widely over the last couple of decades, in a way that doesn’t marry up with the rapidly changing risk of fires,” says Dr Matthew Jones, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia.

    It is a complex picture, experts say, and hard to pick one reason for this trend for the whole of Europe.

    Over 95% of the fires in Europe are caused by human activity, according to the EFFIS….

    …Are fires linked to climate change?
    “Heatwaves and droughts are exacerbated by climate change and are absolutely the defining factor in years with massive wildfire outbreaks, like the present one,” Dr Jones says.

    But he says other factors such as forest management can affect the likelihood of fires in years with more typical weather.

    In high-risk areas of Europe, authorities are increasingly burning down some vegetation, under carefully managed conditions, to make it harder for wildfires to spread….”

    The article ends by telling us that:

    “Studies show increasing fire risk for central and southern regions of Europe over the past couple of decades.”

    Follow the link to a single study:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14480-8

    And it tells us that:

    “A complex picture is already emerging due to the interaction between weather changes and human practices, so while the global trend for burned areas is declining due to socioeconomic factors, some areas of the globe are already experiencing larger and more devastating fires. Particularly, Southern Europe has been long identified as a key hotspot area for risks induced by climate warming, including summer fires, droughts and heat wave events. However, increased fire danger projected for this region currently contrasts with realized fire impacts, which have been consistently decreasing over the last five decades mainly due to increasing fire prevention and suppressing capacities, among other complementary factors”.

    Like

  87. Mark,

    >”But he says other factors such as forest management can affect the likelihood of fires in years with more typical weather.”

    What a bizarre thing to say. It is precisely when the weather is atypically hot and dry that good forest management will have its greatest impact on fire risk. Methinks this is a man struggling with cognitive dissonance.

    I live in a high crime rate area so should I stop locking my house up at night? After all, security can be effective in typical areas but not, it seems, in mine.

    Like

  88. >”The UK saw record high temperatures on Tuesday and 15 fire services declared a state of emergency due to the number of blazes they were attending.”

    Again I ask, why did the fires all break out on the day the records were broken? Is there significance in the fact that Tuesday was the day that we were all told would be the day of highest risk and also the day we let the children stay off school?

    Anyway, there is one consolation. If records have to be broken before fires can break out, we should be safe now for a number of years to come 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  89. “Low winds stopped what might have been new ‘great fire of London’, says expert
    More than 40 houses were destroyed by fires on Britain’s hottest day. Now there are calls for an urgent rethink on building safety laws”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/23/low-winds-stopped-what-might-have-been-new-great-fire-of-london-says-expert

    A couple of interesting points to take away from the article (though I’m sure they’re not the points we are supposed to take away from it):

    “Most fires are started by people, usually accidentally, through sky lanterns, or by barbecues or camp fires that are thought to have been put out but continue to smoulder.”

    And:

    “Paul Bussey, a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects’ fire expert advisory group, said: “Our legislation does not cover anything about external fires spreading from one building to another. We’re not used to it. But we really need to start thinking about it.

    “When you’re also dealing with a carbon-zero economy where we’re trying to use more timber and less concrete, it’s a challenging question.”

    Green living walls, such as one at the ExCeL building in London, could be considered a vector for a fire to spread, he added.”

    Like

  90. Headline from 4 days ago:

    “Scenes from hell: Trail of destruction across Doncaster as 40c record sparks wildfires”

    Headline yesterday from the same paper:

    “More deliberate acts of arson across Doncaster city last night”

    I’m saying nothing.

    Liked by 2 people

  91. “Major fire incident declared in Surrey and Londoners urged not to barbecue
    Firefighters continue to tackle ‘significant’ weather-related blazes, with several fire engines sent to large blaze on Hankley Common”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/24/major-incident-declared-surrey-fire-hankley-common

    How can the Guardian, with a straight face, call them weather-related blazes, while the article (well down, of course) says:

    “…Although the immediate cause of the fire is unknown, Surrey fire and rescue service also issued a plea to the public, saying: “Please help keep our outdoors safe: pack a picnic instead of a disposable barbecue and dispose of cigarettes correctly.”…”.

    Like

  92. >”How can the Guardian with a straight face call them weather-related blazes…?”

    Because, had it been pouring with rain outside, the blaze may never have happened. What we would have instead is a weather-related flood.

    Like

  94. Mark Twain wrote “never let the truth get in the way of a good story”

    Like

  95. “Wildfires: Why they start and how they can be stopped”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-41608281

    “Over the years, wildfires have become more frequent, widespread and intense, and 2022 has seen some countries – including the UK – record their highest temperatures in decades.”

    Except that’s not true. Where’s the BBC Climate Misinformation Specialists when you need them?

    “Experts believe this is due to the long-term impact of climate change.” – “this” being the wildfires that they claim are becoming more frequent, but which aren’t, as the BBC acknowledged itself here:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-62200929

    Liked by 1 person

  96. Finally the ignition source for many of the fires in England during the recent hot, dry spell has been identified. It wasn’t climate change and high temperatures after all but rather disposable barbecues.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/29/disposable-barbecues-must-be-banned-in-england-says-fire-chief

    London’s fire commissioner has joined calls for a total national ban on disposable barbecues after they were blamed for starting wildfires in England during the recent spate of dry weather.

    Disposable barbecues were cited as the cause of several of the fires, including a serious blaze in Lickey Hills park near Birmingham. National Trust properties including Morden Hall Park, south London, were hit by large areas of scorched earth after fires from disposable barbecues, and the cliffs of Torbay in Devon were set ablaze.

    He said: “Despite our grass fire warnings, we have still seen some people behaving carelessly and recklessly. On Saturday, firefighters prevented a serious blaze at Wanstead Flats [east London] caused using a disposable barbecue.

    “We need urgent action now to see a national ban on the sale of disposable barbecues. They can be bought for as little as £5 and can cause untold damage, especially when the grass is as dry as it has been over the last few weeks.”

    Liked by 1 person

  98. Potentilla,

    Please accept our apologies for the vagaries of WordPress. I have searched and found your comment lurking in Spam. There is no justification for this, but regrettably it happens from time to time. I have released it from its prison, and it should appear shortly, as soon as the website catches up.

    Like

  99. And now we have some idea about how a lot of French wildfires started:

    “Adrenaline-seeking firefighter started French wildfires, say prosecutors
    Unnamed man in his 30s with ‘a need for social recognition’ faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/29/firefighter-chasing-adrenaline-hit-started-french-wildfires-say-prosecutors

    “A firefighter from the south of France is responsible for a series of wildfires in the region which he started in a quest for adrenaline, French authorities have said.

    The man, a volunteer firefighter from the Herault region, was arrested on Wednesday, regional prosecutors said.

    The case of the man called the “pyromaniac fireman” by French media has sparked a keen interest in France, which was shocked by a swathe of wildfires during last week’s heatwave that forced the evacuation of thousands of people.

    Montpellier prosecutor Fabrice Belargent said in a statement that the man had admitted starting fires with a lighter on 26 May, 21 July and most recently over the night of 26-27 July….”.

    Like

  100. Google using search terms like California wildfire arson and the number of articles about arsonists starting the fires in California, over a prolonged period of time, are legion.

    Liked by 1 person

  101. Hot and dry weather (especially the dry) is obviously a factor since it is a necessary component. However, it is rarely sufficient. When analysing an increase in fires it is simplistic to assume it is purely down to weather trends. This matters because it is important that all factors are identified to know what to do about it. I can see that banning disposable barbecues would be beneficial. I can also see a benefit in not reporting every fire as though it were unprecedented. Human fascination with fire is already dangerous enough as it is.

    Like

  102. Here is an interesting paper published in Nature Sustainability on the subject of California’s wildfires:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7.epdf?sharing_token=NCV5E4qMH8mlTYjMHk0PU9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MFFZ2VbYeLo9xqBNRf6IQJNZu3BLvCqiaae3MufgS-rtzgSybEYHJXuwI7AMbngOyqT0fiYuvGBNkmBiLfktnjQP_DN4MicVx7KWiQtEN4oOyY_NQjC9tc6AU5UMSySoSIa442CcL8YZ2nnjWBHtydWMMXEho79G2CGrU3QJDEoRQoCvVKK4gudf96ZppEENOqhHi4SMezcq3x4Pxi998FzsiLvYFVrCCcNUIE5lHUES0QaRag_ikYjkCY_Sc7TNWe75enqLVno87zn0UYWLar&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com

    In it the authors state:

    “Catastrophic wildfires have increased in the Western United States in recent years, and particularly in California. These fires stem from a combination of climate change that has heightened hot and dry conditions, historic fire suppression policies that have enabled nearly a century of fuel (wood and other plant material) accumulation and insufficient fuel treatments that have removed too few of the accumulated fuels from the landscape.”

    As a consequence they advise:

    “Fundamental shifts in prescribed-burn policies, beyond those currently under consideration, are needed to address wildfires in California and worldwide.”

    And yet when conservative columnists picked up on this, the authors wrote the following rebuff in Scientific American:

    “In recent opinion pieces, they acknowledge that climate change might play a role in these fires, but they blame Democratic leadership for exacerbating fuel buildups through poor land management. As proof, they reference a study from early this year in Nature Sustainability. We wrote that study. These columnists are wrong…

    …fuel treatments alone are not the solution; we cannot disregard that our contributions to climate change continue to aggravate our risk.”

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-central-to-californias-wildfires/

    What part of the word ‘exacerbating’ did these authors not understand?

    Liked by 1 person

  103. Nothing like having a study appropriated by deniers to draw out a panicked scramble to display the authors’ good ol’ “climate conformist” badges.

    Climate change didn’t do it; didn’t have anything to do with it, at least not in France or California. These places get dry enough to burn every year. What exact role did the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere have? None that I can see. The dry weather is there anyway, and the other two must-haves are fuel and a spark. The spark has been coming from humans, by design or accident. The fuel comes from the habit of putting fires out when they start, and not allowing controlled burns.

    Meanwhile people are invading fire-prone habitats, plonking their houses there, and screaming climate change when they get burnt out.

    Liked by 2 people

  104. Not exactly JIT. I lived for three years in Contra Costa County, across the Bay from San Francisco and I across the Berkeley Hills. Every late Summer and early Fall the hills would turn a gorgeous gold. Gorgeous but dangerously fire prone. When we bought our house we had to sign a covenant promising to remove dried vegetation from our bit of the hills so reducing the fire risk. This was quite an onerous task but it’s value became evident the last fire season we were there. Some neighbours who had not cleared their hilltop had fire sweep down into their gardens and in two cases into their houses. Thank goodness most of us had swimming pools.
    You don’t always need controlled burns, if you are prepared to physically remove the potential fuel.

    Liked by 1 person

  106. As a further aside, the article in Scientific American cites a paper that purports to show that over half of the Californian fires, and their extent, can be attributed to climate change. I’ve seen this paper before and I was intrigued to know how they could perform such a calculation. The answer is, of course, that they can’t. What they actually do is demonstrate a very high correlation between aridity and forest fires in California. From that they deduce aridity to be the primary causation factor. They then do the usual trick of running CMIP5 with and without anthropogenic influence to demonstrate that over 50% of the increase in aridity is due to climate change. The rest is a non sequitur. There is no attempt to model with and without controlled burning, for example.

    Like

  107. “‘Wake-up call’ for climate-sceptic Czechs as blaze devastates national park
    Sentiment is shifting among politicians and public as beloved region of forested mountains goes up in flames”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/30/wake-up-call-for-climate-sceptic-czechs-as-blaze-devastates-national-park

    “…Police are investigating suspicions that the fire was sparked by human negligence. But its rapid spread at a time of record-high temperatures, and similar blazes elsewhere in Europe and beyond, has increased acceptance that the emergency is real even in circles that were once hotbeds of denial….”.

    What do Reuters say?

    https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/czech-german-firefighters-battle-blaze-national-park-2022-07-26/

    “Prime Minister Petr Fiala on Tuesday visited the area where authorities suspect the blaze was ignited by a negligent park visitor over the weekend. ”

    OK so no proof, but a good chance it was caused by human action, whether accidental or deliberate. Has climate change made it worse than it would have been? Maybe, maybe not. I’m not convinced that the Guardian successfully makes the link, whatever the Guardian thinks.

    Like

  108. Mark,

    These people will think what they want. We are just in that ‘circle’ that they dismiss as a hotbed of denial.

    Like

  109. BBC Spin again – Ade Adepitan visits the Greek Island of Evia one year on from the devastating forest fires caused by climate change. He meets locals looking to resuscitate the struggling tourism industry, and finds out how they hope to give the island its own Happy Evia After.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0019tqj/the-travel-show-31-happy-evia-after

    watched it (1st 15mts) and the title does not reflect what was said, it was the usual “scientists say MMGW has made this more likely” or along those lines.

    Like

  110. ps – BBC News
    Ban disposable BBQs, London Fire Brigade urges
    “Andy Roe said: “We need urgent action now to see a national ban on the sale of disposable barbecues.
    More than 30 grass fires in London required at least four fire engines to attend last week.”
    “Last week is another example of how we are increasingly being challenged by new extremes of weather as our climate changes and we’re developing long-term strategies to deal with more incidents like this in the future.”
    “His call comes just a few days after LFB was found by a watchdog to require improvement by every measure it is assessed on.
    The 11 areas highlighted include understanding and preventing fires and other risks, making best use of resources and ensuring fairness and promoting diversity.”

    not a lot I can say.

    Like

  111. Bill McGuire, the vulcanologist who penned Hothouse Earth (maybe from inside a volcano) has a useful insight on the UK wildfires: Soon it will be unrecognisable’: total climate meltdown cannot be stopped, says expert
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/30/total-climate-meltdown-inevitable-heatwaves-global-catastrophe

    “Who would have thought that a village on the edge of London would be almost wiped out by wildfires in 2022,” says McGuire. “If this country needs a wake-up call then surely that is it.”
    “That is the trouble with writing a book about climate breakdown,” says McGuire. “By the time it is published it is already out of date. That is how fast things are moving.”

    The country needs a wake-up call to stop throwing away disposable barbecues when it is hot and dry outside.

    Liked by 1 person

  112. dfhunter and potentilla, apologies once more. Comments now released from Spam.

    Like

  113. Mcguire, you will recall, is the guy who said that global warming will lead to an increase in earthquakes and tsunamis. I wonder if he is still peddling that nonsense in his latest book. And as for being one of the country’s leading scientists, give me a break.

    Like

  115. Mark,

    I’ve just finished writing this in a reply to Richard following his posting of the Fenton interview with Bret Weinstein:

    “In the meantime, all I’ll say is that the narrative is all, and woe betide anyone who reveals any facts that run counter.”

    And then I read this Anthony Watts quote given in the Spiked article you have now posted:

    “This wholesale erasure of important public data stinks, but in today’s narrative control culture that wants to rid us of anything that might be inconvenient or doesn’t fit the ‘woke’ narrative, it isn’t surprising.”

    It’s all very worrying. As for the recent increase in tree cover burn in Russia, all of it is easily explained by two factors:

    a) An increase in fires deliberately started by criminal loggers, as well-documented by the authorities.

    b) The introduction of a new policy in which fires are allowed to burn and are only tackled when they approach populated areas. This is a cost-cutting policy rendered necessary by the failing Russian economy.

    Both of these facts are readily available to Matt McGrath but neither fits the narrative that he is paid to promulgate. I remember his BBC ‘news item’ well. I just sighed.

    Liked by 1 person

  116. “The Fact-Checkers Are Piling on Again – This Time About Forest Fires”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/23/the-fact-checkers-are-piling-on-again-this-time-about-forest-fires/

    I did like the concluding words:

    “But wildfires are a natural, and vital, part of the Earth’s ecosystem. Humans do not cause fires by warming the planet, although they do ignite a vast number of them, either accidentally or on purpose. Biblical incantations of fire and damnation have always been popular with religious cults – the climate Thermogeddonites are just the latest in a long line.”

    Like

  117. The guy piling on is called David Vetter. He has degrees in archeology and journalism and believes this qualifies him to say when others demonstrate scientific illiteracy.

    https://www.davidrvetter.com/about

    These fact checkers really are legends in their own lunchtime.

    Like

  118. Elsewhere on this website I have declared the view that inoculation theory, as plugged by Messrs Lewandowsky and Cook, is just dangerous junk science. I present below a good illustration of its dangers, and the reason I choose to do so here is because the example I provide relates to bushfires and their causation. Firstly, I link below to an article that Lewandowsky uses to ‘inoculate’ against misinformation:

    https://theconversation.com/bushfires-bots-and-arson-claims-australia-flung-in-the-global-disinformation-spotlight-129556

    The above article maintains that attempts to form a link between the recent bushfires and arson were part of a disinformation campaign aimed at distracting from the ‘true’ cause, i.e. climate change. Understanding that there is no legitimate evidence for a trend in arson that could be used to suggest an alternative causation is an essential part of the article’s debunking, and hence the pre-bunking of similar denialist talking points.

    Now here is the link to the peer-reviewed study that provides the legitimate evidence for the growing problem of arson within Australia:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6762153/

    I know I keep going on about Lewandowsky and Cook, but I do so because they are a menace to science who seem to have cornered the market in the application of pseudoscience within policy support.

    Liked by 1 person

  119. Further to the above, it is worth pointing out that the article investigating trends in arson in Australia was posted in the National Library of Medicine, under the category of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. It is a fine example of what psychologists can do when they put their mind to it and concentrate upon the data. It uses knowledge regarding mental illness, substance abuse and other psychological and sociological problems to discern causative factors behind patterns of arson.

    With their own background, this is the sort of scientific investigation Lewandowsky and Cook should be contributing towards, rather than dicking around in a propaganda battle that has as much to do with scientific rigour as do astrology and homeopathy.

    Liked by 1 person

  120. Extracts from the New York Times:

    In 2020, more than 16 million homes in the West were located in fire-prone areas near forests, grasslands and shrub lands, where the risks of conflagration are highest. That’s a rise from roughly 10 million homes in 1990, according to research published Friday from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the United States Forest Service.
    “That’s the perfect storm,” said Volker Radeloff, a professor of forest ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who helped lead the research. “Millions of houses have been built in places that will sooner or later burn,”
    The state now has roughly 5.1 million homes in what’s known as the “wildland-urban interface,” the term for areas, often on the outskirts of cities, where houses and other development are built near or among flammable wild vegetation. The foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains have seen especially fast growth.

    “By and large, most new development housing construction in California has been going on in the periphery of existing urban areas,” said Karen Chapple, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-author of a report on rebuilding after wildfire disasters. “It’s happening because that’s where the land is cheap. So we end up putting housing in these very vulnerable areas.”

    Similar trends can be seen throughout the West. In Colorado, the number of homes built in the wildland-urban interface has nearly doubled to more than 1 million since 1990. Some of the fastest growth has unfolded along the Front Range, where the number of large, high-severity fires has increased in recent decades.Texas now has 3.2 million homes in the WUI and saw the fastest growth of any state over the past decade.
    The rapid growth of housing in flammable areas is a key reason wildfires have become more destructive over time. Not only are the homes themselves more likely to burn, but when more people live near forests and grasslands, there’s also a greater chance that fires will start in the first place. While wildfires are often sparked by lightning, humans themselves cause the vast majority of ignitions, often by accident: a cigarette thrown out the window, or a vehicle’s muffler setting fire to dry grass.

    Liked by 1 person

  121. potentilla – thanks for a sober report on the fires which we in the UK would never hear from our MSM.

    Like

  122. From Denierland:

    Worse, local authorities allow development in the heart of what they know to be fire-prone habitat. The Camp Fire in California in 2018 destroyed 95% of the buildings in Paradise, Butte County. No doubt Paradise was a beautiful place to live. But its population had more than trebled since 1960, and it was not as you might imagine, a large clearing in the woods. The buildings had been dropped in amongst the trees, clearing only enough to make room for the building footprints and roads. It was a recipe for disaster. Good conditions for wildfires will be there every summer; with more and more houses and people living among the trees, there will inevitably be more houses and people at risk. For this reason the effects of wildfires are likely to get worse year on year without any intervention from climate change.

    It’s refreshing at least for the NYT to put the blame somewhere other than carbon dioxide emissions for once.

    Liked by 1 person

  123. This reminds me of the old joke about when a local was asked why they had built the airport on the outskirts of the city. The answer was because that’s where the aeroplanes land.

    Similarly, people are not building where the fires are happening; the fires are happening where the people are building.

    Also, Jit, after a Californian town was recently hit by a wildfire, I looked on Google maps to see what the area looked like. It was exactly as you describe – a whole town of properties embedded in woods.

    Like

  124. You don’t need woods for towns to be fire-prone. My house in Moraga (Contra Costa County, near San Francisco) was set in tall-grass covered hills which turned golden and tinder-dry in the summer and very susceptible to fire. Home owners were supposed to cut their bit of hill but few did.

    Liked by 1 person

  125. “The inconvenient truth about France’s forest fires
    Politicians are desperate to blame climate change”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-inconvenient-truth-about-france-s-forest-fires

    From Bordeaux to Brittany to the Ardeche, investigations swiftly concluded that the majority of fires had nothing to do with climate change. In the 15 departments that comprise France’s Mediterranean region there have been 36 fires this summer that destroyed more than ten hectares of forest: 26 were man-made, of which 17 were started on purpose.

    Éric Brocardi, the spokesman for the National Federation of Firefighters, told the current affairs magazine Marianne that 90 per cent of fires in France are of human origin, compared to 60 per cent in North America, where fires caused by lightning or dry storms are more common.

    Like

  126. Currently stuck in hospital I don’t have access to nor probably the patience to read newspapers cover to cover. I am reliant upon “she who must be listened to” to bring me cuttings that she feels might interest me. A few days ago she brought me an article cut from the Guardian but copied from the Australian Associated Press which I thought would be of interest here but which I have not seen mentioned. If it has been discussed my apologies.

    The article was titled “Helicopter sparked bushfires on toilet break, inquest hears”. As you will hear climate change gets nary a mention- remember this is from the Guardian.

    The fire burned for five weeks and consumed 87,923 hectares of the Australian Capital Territory. Ange21 (the helicopter, at the height of the Australian summer, was on a scouting mission to identify helipads to be used by firefighting teams when it’s searchlight set the ground afire.

    Reasons for the inquiry need not concern us, but the cause of the fire precluding any involvement of climate change, and the story within the Guardian of all places (take note Mark) and the irony of the helicopter’s mission and the nature of that mission I found of interest and thought that others here might. I’m afraid I cannot supply a date for the cutting.

    Liked by 1 person

  128. not sure best post to drop this into –

    as I was flicking for something to watch today, stumbled on this –
    American Forest Fires: The Untold Story
    “Are government policies and bureaucracy the REAL fire starters in America? Are answers to a major crisis staring us in the face? Learn what brought us to this point, and the innovative solutions which could keep disaster from setting nature ablaze.”

    4 part docu & sounds good as it tackles many things brought up on this blog re forest fires.

    unfortunately I can’t find a vid link

    Like

  129. just watched – American Forest Fires: The Untold Story (2022)
    just proves what level headed people have been saying for years.
    can’t find a vid link, but worth a watch IMHO (made by earthx tv)

    Like

  131. Clearly, and unarguably, the situation with regard to the Canadian wildfires is very serious, and I wouldn’t wish to downplay it.

    My beef, as so often, is with the way in which the BBC is choosing to report on the issue:

    “Is climate change fuelling Canada’s wildfires?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65837040

    We look at the role a changing climate has in what is happening….

    Very fairly they report:

    …Most of the more than 2,000 fires that Canada has seen this year are thought to have been started by humans.

    Some, particularly in Quebec, were sparked by lightning strikes.

    Dead trees left to stand and poor forestry management have also previously been blamed for causing a serious fire risk.

    Experts say the modern practice of trying to totally suppress fires can stop forests creating natural firebreaks that would historically have reduced wildfire spread.

    Each wildfire cannot automatically be linked directly to climate change. The science is complicated and human factors like how we manage land and forests also contribute….

    Despite that, they then go on to blame climate change:

    …But scientists say that climate change is making weather conditions like heat and drought that lead to wildfires more likely.

    Robert Scheller, professor of forestry at North Carolina State University, says: “The climate signal is very strong. We are seeing both a larger area burned, and more severe fires.”

    Spring in Canada has been much warmer and drier than usual, creating a tinder-dry environment for these vast fires.

    In Halifax, in the eastern province of Nova Scotia, temperatures last week reached 33C, around 10 degrees higher than normal for the time of year.

    Parts of the country, including Alberta and Saskatchewan, have been in drought since 2020.

    “The vegetation in the forests is exceptionally dry,” says climate scientist Daniel Swain at UCLA, which has meant that a higher fraction of lightning strikes has resulted in forest fires.

    Experts link the high temperatures to record-breaking spring heat seen in other parts of the northern hemisphere, including Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Algeria and Siberia.

    Last year scientists concluded that high temperatures exacerbated by climate change made drought in the northern hemisphere more likely….

    Scene set, they then reproduce a graph, with carefully cherry-picked data to 31st May 2023, starting in 2013. The source is said to be the Canadian Wildland Fire Information Service (note to Beeb, it’s actually the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System). If you visit their website:

    https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb

    you find a chart showing the number of fires and the area burned in Canada year by year, from 1980 to 2020. This provides a completely different impression, with the trend regarding numbers of fires in obvious decline over that period, and the area burned showing no obvious trend but stand-out bad years being 1981, 1989, 1994 and 1995. All pre-date the BBC’s cherry-picked graph,

    Admittedly the 1980-2020 graph is subject to caveats:

    Note that the data contained in the CNFDB are not complete nor are they without error. Not all fires have been mapped, and data accuracy varies due to different mapping techniques. This collection includes only data that has been contributed by the agencies. Data completeness and quality vary among agencies and between years.

    Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling that the BBC is seeking to manipulate the data to create the impression it wishes the public to take away, and that impression may well be far from being the full picture.

    Liked by 1 person

  133. BBC Verify will soon correct this I’m sure, they would never push eco-anxiety.
    But if you have “eco-anxiety” BBC can help with our multiple BBC web links.

    Like

  134. old link – “Feeling overwhelmed by the existential challenge of climate change? You’re not alone
    Dave Fawbert 27 March 2019”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2e7ee32-ad28-4ec4-89aa-a8b8c98f95a5

    snippet –
    “”I’ve noticed a great increase of clients needing to talk about eco-anxiety since the IPCC report at the end of last year,” says Mary Jayne Rust, a British eco-psychologist. “Mostly, they are in need of talking it through with a therapist who is knowledgeable about the issues. I think it is a massive thing to live with the suspicion that (as some of my younger clients have said), ‘We’re completely screwed’. I suspect it might be part of the reason for binge-drinking epidemics, and other addictions, for example. There is a general feeling that the future is so uncertain and it’s extremely hard to live with.”

    Like

  136. The Canadian wildfires are not unusual or unprecedented in the historical context. What does appear to be unusual is that they all appear to have started simultaneously, suggestive of arson, even organised arson. The only other feature of note is that prevailing weather conditions have swept the smoke from the fires down the densely populated eastern seaboard of the US – giving the media a perfect excuse to promote claims of a ‘crisis’. Being of an ideational conspiracist nature, I wonder to myself whether the fires were started deliberately, knowing that the smoke would drift towards the eastern US.

    Like

  137. “Is Justin Trudeau right to blame Canadian wildfires on climate change?”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-justin-trudeau-right-to-blame-canadian-wildfires-on-climate-change/

    …As is so often the case when it comes to extreme weather, the real world data doesn’t support the catastrophist narrative. Trudeau should have consulted his own government’s national fire database before spouting forth. There he would have seen that actually there has been a general downward trend in the number of wildland fires in the past 40 years. The database also records a metric relating to the total area of Canada burned in wildfires each year. This offers a less obvious trend. The ‘best’ years (i.e. smallest area burned) seem to be getting a bit worse, while the ‘worst’ years are seeing fewer hectares burned. The six worst years of the past four decades all occurred in the first half of that period….

    Like

  138. Jaime/Mark. I wouldn’t rely too much upon the comparative data about Canadian wildfires because the attitude toward these phenomena over the years has varied greatly. Some governments have been gung-ho for tackling all wild fires, others were blasé about the entire matter only tackling those threatening settlements. Older data were also greatly influenced by the lack of necessary portable fire-fighting equipment.

    Like

  139. Alan,

    Of course, many caveats must be applied to the data. My point was two-fold. First, the BBC cherry-picked a data graph to give a misleading impression of a worsening situation. Secondly, although the data must be treated with caution, it certainly doesn’t provide the clear “signal” of a worsening situation due to a climate crisis, that the media would have us believe.

    Like

  140. Alan, Mark,

    What’s interesting is that since 1990, the number of fires in Canada has been steadily decreasing, but there appears to be no discernible trend in acreage burned.

    What is noticeable is that in the early 1990s and the first few years of the 2000s, the number of fires was large in relation to the acreage burned, perhaps suggesting that they were dealt with more effectively or were in areas where they could be dealt with more effectively, or maybe better land management policies were in place. 1994 and 1995 buck this pattern – huge areas burned compared to the number of fires started. In the last 10 years, even though the number of fires started has declined, the acreage burned is relatively large. This suggests to me that either land management policies are making it more likely that larger areas burn or the fires themselves are not being dealt with as effectively.

    Liked by 1 person

  141. “But the question remains: Are all these wildfires due to “climate change,” as AOC and her ilk would have us believe?

    And the answer already appears to be: No. As the Toronto Sun reports: “Quebec police are investigating the possibility that the smoke creating poor air quality in southern Ontario and making downtown skylines disappear may have been the result of arson. ‘There is an investigation because the cause is suspect,’ said Surtee de Quebec media officer Hugues Beaulieu.”

    Choking on Canada’s ‘Climate Change’ Smoke

    Arson. A malign opportunity no doubt made more effective by poor forest management practices. Result: NYC has worst air quality of any major city in the world right now. Climate change fanatics and advocates of eco-communism pile in.

    Choking on Canada’s ‘Climate Change’ Smoke

    Like

  143. “Wildfires And Climate Change: Narrative Ever More Detached From Actual Evidence”

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-6-16-wildfires-and-climate-change-narrative-ever-more-detached-from-actual-evidence

    …While these data may be far from perfect, there is no mistaking that the major trend is a dramatic decline in fires, with most of the decline having taken place from about 1930 to 1960. The recent uptick still leaves the amount of acreage burned annually in the range of one-fifth what it was in the early twentieth century. These data are rather obviously inconsistent with a narrative that wildfires are on a rapidly increasing trend due to warming temperatures from “climate change.”…

    …Atmospheric CO2 goes continuously up; acreage burned in wildfires goes continuously down. How can that negative correlation be explained? Yang, et al., have many theories as to causation, some of them contradictory. But this one may be important:

    CO2 can suppress fire occurrence by retaining more water in the soil [Nelson et al., 2004] through reducing transpiration [Ainsworth and Rogers, 2007].

    In any event, whatever the underlying causal mechanisms (which may be complex), there is no denying that the simplistic “climate change causes increased wildfires” narrative cannot be right.

    The remarkable thing about this is the extent to which the Washington Post, CBS News, Chuck Schumer, and dozens more of like thinkers just repeat a narrative that is clearly wrong, and see no need to ever look at actual data to try to understand what is going on.

    Like

  144. But Mark people like you mention or who work for organisations like you mention are not interested in the “science “; they believe this has already been carefully done and they believe it. They are confident that contrary data is either wrong or will eventually be dismissed by those more erudite than themselves (they have experienced this countless times before). We tend to dismiss them as deliberately blind-sighted, but they’re not, experience has shown them they are on the correct side and they believe deniers are mistaken or deliberately trying to mislead others. Forest fires worse in the early twentieth century; who can document this with first-hand evidence? Fires worse this year evidenced by everyone from New York to Florida..Suck on that!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  145. “Canada’s fires are getting fiercer – and rebuilding is becoming a challenge”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/19/canada-wildfires-reconstruction-lytton

    …This year’s spring wildfire season has been the worst on record in Canada, with more than 5m hectares of land burned – a figure higher than the entire 2016, 2019, 2020 and 2022 seasons combined….

    I am intrigued by this claim, given that it doesn’t seem to be borne out by official data series. Normally the Guardian provides a link to back up its claims, even if that’s only a link to an earlier Guardian article, but no such links are offered in support this time. Is the answer in the reference to the spring wildfire season? It’s also interesting that they say it’s cumulatively higher than 4 seasons which they quote from the last decade (not four consecutive years, note). Those four years presumably saw small burns in order to produce the claim that this year has already seen more land burned than in those four years combined. That would seem to point to lower levels of burn recently. As we’ve seen, the 1980s, for instance, saw huge areas burned.

    Is this just a case of cherry-picked statistics?

    Like

  146. “Biden’s efforts to clear wildfire fuel in US forests are falling short
    Mixed early results from administration initiative as federal land managers skip at-risk communities for less threatened areas”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/27/wildfire-prevention-west-forest-thinning-control-burn-biden

    Using chainsaws, heavy machinery and controlled burns, the Biden administration is trying to turn the tide on worsening wildfires in the US west through a multibillion-dollar cleanup of forests choked with dead trees and undergrowth.

    Yet one year into what is envisioned as a decade-long effort, federal land managers are scrambling to catch up after falling behind on several of their priority forests for thinning even as they exceeded goals elsewhere. And they have skipped over some highly at-risk communities to work in less threatened areas, according to data obtained by the Associated Press, public records and congressional testimony.

    With the climate crisis making the situation increasingly dire, mixed early results from the administration’s initiative underscore the challenge of reversing decades of lax forest management and aggressive fire suppression that allowed many woodlands to become tinderboxes. The ambitious effort comes amid pushback from lawmakers dissatisfied with progress to date and criticism from some environmentalists for cutting too many trees.

    Administration officials in interviews and during testimony maintained that the thinning work is making a difference. Work announced to date, they said, will help lessen wildfire dangers faced by more than 500 communities in 10 states. But they also acknowledged finishing the task will require far more resources than what is already dedicated….

    …Most areas identified as hotspots where forest fires have high potential to burn into populated areas will not be addressed for at least the next several years, according to government planning documents. And computer models project up to 20% of areas that need thinning will be hit by fires before that work occurs…

    …The increased logging needed to reach the government’s lofty goals has gained acceptance as the growing toll from wildfires softens longstanding opposition from some environmental groups and ecologists.

    “Gone are the days when things were black and white and either good or bad,” said Melinda Booth, former director of the South Yuba River Citizens League. “We need targeted treatment, targeted thinning, which does include logging.”..

    …Hindering the Forest Service nationwide is a shortage of workers to cut and remove trees on the scale demanded, government officials and forestry experts say. Litigation ties up many projects, with environmental reviews taking three years on average before work begins, according to the Property and Environment Research Center, thinktank based in Bozeman, Montana.

    Another problem: thinning operations are not allowed in federally designated wilderness areas. That puts off limits about a third of national forest areas that expose communities to high wildfire risk and means some thinning work must be carried out in a patchwork fashion….

    Liked by 1 person

  147. What I find amazing is that they should finish off a lengthy article that is catagoric in pointing the finger at failed forest management policies with this:

    “What’s driving all of this is insect infestation, drought stress, and all of that is related to the climate,” said Wild Heritage’s chief scientist, Dominick DellaSala. “I don’t think you can get out of it by thinning.”

    The Guardian just can’t help itself.

    Liked by 2 people

  148. The Climate Crisis is supreme, omnipotent, omniscient, the One true driver of all drivers, the ultimate Cause which lies behind all causes and effects.

    “With the climate crisis making the situation increasingly dire, mixed early results from the administration’s initiative underscore the challenge of reversing decades of lax forest management and aggressive fire suppression that allowed many woodlands to become tinderboxes.

    “The forests as we know them in California and across the west, they’re dying. They’re being destroyed through fire. They’re dying from drought, disease and insects,” said the forest supervisor Eli Ilano. “They’re dying at a pace that we’re having trouble keeping up with.”

    The inventory will be used to craft new rules to better protect those woodlands from fires, insects and other side-effects of the climate crisis.”

    But it’s science damn it. Not religion.

    Liked by 2 people

  149. I thought both these were very witty. Many a true word …

    Cf Billy Joel

    Liked by 1 person

  151. Arson and carelessness are almost certainly responsible for the vast majority of these fires. Between the two, it is debatable which is the more significant, but arson must play a significant role, given the distinctly non random patterns of emerging wildfires which we are seeing, not just in Greece but across the world (Canada was particularly concerning). Then comes the question, are these fires being set by rogue individuals under the influence of some form of social contagion, or is this more organised? The latter introduces the very sinister possibility that people with an agenda are setting these fires deliberately; the same people who care so passionately for the environment I wonder? Maybe not such a far-fetched idea when we consider that these ‘environmentalists’ are quite willing to sacrifice pristine natural wild places and the wildlife which exists within those places for the greater good of ‘clean energy’ which will save the planet from climate breakdown. We know for sure that many are extremist fanatics; perhaps we should just call them ‘mentalists’.

    Like

  152. Quoth the Daily Sceptic:

    Stop Press: The more likely cause of the fires in Greece is arson. Firefighters in Rhodes have indicated arson may be to blame, while local officials in Corfu say the fires in Corfu were started by arsonists. Not surprisingly, the BBC is still trying to argue that global warming is to blame: “There are reports that some fires may have been started by arsonists, but southern Europe’s extended heatwave has helped create the dry conditions that make it easier for flames to take hold and spread,” writes Justin Rowlatt, the Beeb’s Climate Editor. Careful with that straw you’re clutching, Justin. It might catch fire.

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/24/the-fires-in-greece-are-more-likely-to-have-been-caused-by-arsonists-than-global-warming/

    Have not read their links yet.

    Like

  153. “Vassilis Vathrakogiannis, from the Rhodes Fire Department, told reporters that the blistering heatwave may not be to blame for the heartbreaking blaze.”

    He said: “Fires are set by human hands. Whether it is due to negligence or fraud will be seen (but) people have been summoned for statements and others will be summoned.

    “As soon as we have complete information – because the investigation is in full swing, we will make announcements.”

    ‘Fraud’ is an odd word to use in the context of deliberate arson.

    Like

  155. Sorry Jaime, I just found this comment in Spam. There is no logic to it.

    I suspect “fraud” is perhaps a clumsy translation of a Greek word that perhaps has no direct English equivalent. Perhaps he means “deliberately” or “maliciously”?

    Liked by 1 person

  156. Perhaps “fraud” triggered the spam filter? And he could potentially be referencing people burning their own property to claim on insurance?

    Liked by 1 person

  157. Authorities in Corfu are investigating a ‘group of people’. All I can say is I hope the investigations are very thorough and transparent and, if they do point towards organised arson, that revelation is going to be potentially explosive. I say hopefully transparent because the Greek Prime Minister is in no doubt that it is climate change wot dunnit, therefore blaming arsonists might be viewed as an unwelcome ‘distraction’:

    “Greece’s prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, told parliament: “For the next few weeks we must be on constant alert. We are at war, we will rebuild what we lost, we will compensate those who were hurt.”

    “The climate crisis is already here, it will manifest itself everywhere in the Mediterranean with greater disasters,” he said.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jul/24/greece-fires-wildfires-rhodes-corfu-evia-latest-updates?page=with:block-64bea76f8f081d44d14a832e

    Like

  160. “Posts denying link between wildfires and climate change spread online”

    Tweets wrongly suggesting that wildfires in Greece have nothing to do with climate change have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times online.

    Dozens of accounts on social media have criticised “climate alarmists”, and have highlighted comments from a spokesperson for the Hellenic Fire Service who said “fires are set by human hands”.

    While wildfires can start naturally (for example, when ignited by a lightning strike), most wildfires in Europe are caused by humans deliberately or by accident, according to the European Environmental Agency.

    But the hot, dry weather that has hit parts of southern Europe – linked to the Cerberus heatwave – has created ideal conditions for wildfires to take hold and spread.

    Scientists say that, in a rapidly warming planet, heatwaves are becoming more frequent and more intense.

    “We’ve had, we have and will have fires, which is also one of the results of the climate crisis that we experience with increased intensity,” Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said last week.

    LOL, as the young folk say. I would say something more unkind, but that ain’t me.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66287208

    Like

  161. Sorry to lower the tone but Ian Woolley sent me the first tweet because he’s become intrigued by the tone adopted by the laughing Spaniard. (He mocks much more alarmist rot than just emission-attributable heatwaves.) The follow-up satire seemed about right too. Ruder than John Cullen was advocating on the Bim thread but I think there should be a wide space for the sceptic resistance to fight.

    Like

  162. I despair. One would think that a modicum of intelligence would be required to become a climate scientists and yet when it comes to matters of causation they seem incapable of grasping even the simplest of concepts. In their need to attribute 100% to climate change, they disregard all other causative factors, such as acts of arson, as being irrelevances introduced by deniers. This might be a valid thing to do if they could provide the data that shows that such factors have been held constant and so could not account for any trends. But they couldn’t point to such data because the data actually points to a number of variables that need to be taken account of. As a consequence, we only have this:

    “ But the hot, dry weather that has hit parts of southern Europe – linked to the Cerberus heatwave – has created ideal conditions for wildfires to take hold and spread.”

    When they could also be saying this:

    “But the hot, dry weather such as that hitting parts of southern Europe – linked to the Cerberus heatwave – has created ideal conditions for idiotic arson to take hold and spread.”

    I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. I live near woods that have been increasingly subject to wildfires in the summer, but only ever during the school holidays. In this case, the trend over the years is entirely down to an increase in arson.

    The ‘100% climate change’ meme is not just wrong, it is puerile.

    Liked by 1 person

  163. I forgot to mention this headline from the same page linked to earlier – possibly an all time great:

    “Climate change making these fires worse – scientist”

    [18.59 24 July]

    The scientist in question being Prof. Betts.

    Authorities on the Greek island of Corfu say arson is to blame for the extreme fires across Rhodes.

    But Prof Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impact and Research at the Met Office, says it doesn’t matter what started the fires – climate change has made them worse.

    He says human activities – like burning fossil fuels and deforestation – have put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, warmed the planet and resulted in weather more conducive to fires across the Mediterranean.

    “It doesn’t really matter how the fire started, whether it’s an accident or whether it’s deliberate arson”, he says.

    “The fact is that once the fire started, it will be more severe when the weather is hotter and drier. And human-caused climate change has made the weather hotter and drier in that part of the world,” Betts adds.

    Like

  165. We seem to oppose statements that hot dry weather is conducive to wildfires, preferring those that draw attention to arsonists. Why not incorporate both? There can be no doubt that arson attempts in wet, cold weather commonly fail, whereas hot dry conditions commonly allow fires to get out of control. I have heard comments such as “wildfire weather” long before climate change became all the rage.

    Like

  166. Jit,

    Betts is an idiot. Yes of course it matters what started the fire. If that cause is on the increase then it will be a contributor to the trend.

    Alan,

    Agreed. That is the point I am making. A trend can have more than one cause.

    Liked by 1 person

  167. Regarding climate change as a contributor to wildfires, I reject almost any role for it. The reasoning is very simple. You need three things for your wildfire: fire-supportive weather, fine fuel, and an ignition source.

    The problem with invoking climate change regarding fire-supportive weather is that fire-supportive weather occurs every year in Greece, and for large stretches of every year.

    Final point: for Betts to blather on as he does, it shows to me that he simply has not thought about the topic, but has made the assumption that climate change has an important role.

    If I was the Greek government, I would not be pinning my hopes for reducing wildfires on international action to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fire breaks or controlled burns might be more useful.

    Liked by 1 person

  168. Jit,

    Exactly. Just what is the increase in risk between a normal 30c and an abnormal 35c? A damn sight less, I would wager, between staying silent or telling arsonists its the perfect conditions to go out and start a fire. I wonder if Betts includes himself in his causal model. I suspect not.

    Like

  169. Betts: Hot, dry weather (not exactly an unusual feature of the Mediterranean climate) is the cause of wildfires because man-made climate change has made it hotter and drier (no ifs, no buts, that’s ‘settled science’). Arsonists intentionally setting fires, carelessness and changes in land management and use – even if they have contributed significantly to an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfires – are to be disregarded. He truly is an idiot whose main intention is to sell us the global warming snake oil.

    Liked by 1 person

  170. I saw a clip on the Channel 5 news last night in which a climate scientist said something to the effect, “This is 100% down to climate change. The studies have yet to be completed but the results are a foregone conclusion.”

    I didn’t catch her name, but she is another idiot. The studies would require a causal model with data to indicate the strength of link between each element of the model. They have no such model and are not in the least bit interested in collating the necessary data. They just have a notion of how hot it would have been if AGW were not a thing, and they take it from there.

    Scientists? Don’t make me laugh!

    Liked by 2 people

  171. John, maybe the presenter ought to have asked something like, “if the results are a foregone conclusion, what is the point of undertaking the studies?”

    People are willing to believe anything that comes out of a “climate scientist’s” mouth, no matter how logically incoherent, hysterical or simply unutterably stupid. The 100% claim does not stand up to a moment’s scrutiny on a middle school playground. It implies that we could remove humanity entirely from the scene, change only the atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels, and obtain the same result.

    [Under the thought experiment outlined above, wildfire intensity would be higher than in the real world under both the 280 and 420 ppm CO2 “no humanity” versions of the world. That’s because there would be fewer fires, with the implication that they would be more severe because of the increased fuel loads. However, this would not matter to the planet, or to the holidaymakers, who would not exist.]

    Liked by 1 person

  172. Just to add to the above, the thing that frustrates the hell out of me is that there doesn’t seem to be a journalist in the land who has the gumption or wherewithal to call out these ‘scientists’ when they say such things. They are like besotted little teenagers meeting their idols. ‘Ooh, scientists have said. We’d better listen then’.

    It’s not that I am anti-science. Actually, I think it would be a damn good thing to have some science now and again. But what is also needed is a journalistic profession that can tell the difference between respectable and thorough science and what we are being offered. Instead, journalism nowadays seems dedicated towards protecting these half-baked scientists from nasty and dangerous misinformers like me.

    Liked by 1 person

  173. Jit,

    John, maybe the presenter ought to have asked something like, “if the results are a foregone conclusion, what is the point of undertaking the studies?”

    This is how extreme weather attribution rolls nowadays. They’ll do the rapid extreme weather attribution which, if you bother to dig into it, will actually NOT demonstrate conclusively that a long term rise in global or even regional surface temperature contributed significantly to the heatwave. But, by statistical sleight of hand, the authors will STILL manage to conclude that climate change made the heatwave x number of times more likely to occur, which the MSM will immediately pick up on and the news will have travelled twice around the globe before you’ve even had your cornflakes. Thus, the perfunctory rubber stamp of scientific authority will have been added to ‘expert opinion’ which tells us that the role of climate change in the event is a ‘foregone conclusion’.

    Like

  174. Jaime,

    I should have made myself clearer. The scientist was not saying that the heatwave was 100% down to AGW, which would have been bad enough, but that the wildfires were. But since you bring up heatwave attribution, there is this:

    “Deadly global heatwaves undeniably result of climate crisis, scientists show”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/25/deadly-global-heatwaves-undeniably-result-of-climate-crisis-scientists-attribution

    Of course, what they mean is that the heatwaves would not have been quite as bad without recent global warming. Or, as they put it:

    “The results make it crystal clear that human-caused global heating is already destroying lives and livelihoods across the world, making the need to cut emissions ever more urgent.”

    Who needs a structured causal model when you have such rhetoric to fall back on?

    Liked by 2 people

  175. John,

    Aha! What I said has already happened. Otto has just published (today) a ‘compound’ attribution analysis of the extreme heat events in China, North America and southern Europe and the Guardian has immediately picked up on it as ‘undeniable’ evidence of the role of climate change.

    https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/extreme-heat-in-north-america-europe-and-china-in-july-2023-made-much-more-likely-by-climate-change/

    I’ll be working my way through this ‘scientific’ study in due course in order to see whether it lives up to the headline claims.

    Like

  176. Of course, I should also mention that the distinction between wildfires and heatwaves doesn’t exist, according to Betts. Arson, carelessness and land management are presumed to be non significant stationary influences on frequency and severity. So, if you attribute heatwaves to climate change, then you automatically attribute wildfires too. Neat.

    Liked by 2 people

  177. One of the features of wildfires is that, even without arsonists they are a natural feature of lands with seasonal hot and dry climates. One of the images of my past that I can vividly bring to my mind’s eye is of flying over Australia’s Northern Territory at night and seeing continuous lines of fire stretching from horizon to horizon. Not just one but several each winding their way across the country. Fire must be a very important feature of such landscapes. I suspect some of the fires were deliberately set to drive out game, but once started continued because conditions were favourable- climate and fuel load.

    A year later I moved to California and bought a house in Contra Costa County (other side of the Bay from San Francisco). This had a severe Mediterranean climate with hot and dry summers. One of the local by-laws was to prevent wildfires by removing dried out scrub from our part of hilltops. Fortunately we never experienced a fire, but other towns nearby did. I always worried because most of our neighbours didn’t bother clearing their plots.

    Like

  178. First impressions: they seem to have cherry-picked three different event definitions for the three heatwaves and I can see no rational justification for their choices (which they usually justify when attributing a single event by citing ‘impacts’). As we know, the choice of definition can critically affect the outcome of the attribution. Far be it from me to suggest that the team of researchers chose these varying definitions simply in order to maximise the attribution to climate change. I wouldn’t dream of suggesting such impropriety.

    Liked by 1 person

  179. Oh God, I’m getting old. Going back on this thread I discovered that my stories of night flying over Australia and having to remove dried vegetation from Californian hilltops had already been told (in one case more than once). My apologies.

    Liked by 1 person

  180. Alan,

    No need to apologise. It’s a good story and good stories can stand retelling.

    Like

  181. As a prime example of the type of journalism I was referring to earlier, I offer this:

    “Why climate change does make wildfires worse – and how tourism will have to adapt”

    https://inews.co.uk/news/climate-change-make-wildfires-worse-tourism-adapt-2501825

    It has it all. First there is the prejudicial language used when referring to sceptics:

    “…some have seized on reports…”

    Note that we ‘seize’ upon reports rather than just take note of them.

    Then there is the straw man:

    “…that the fires were started by arsonists to cast doubt on the link to a warming climate.”

    Sceptics do not ‘cast doubt’ upon the link to a warming climate by referring to arson. But a trend in arson would be relevant because it would show that climate trends must be placed in a context – and journalists seem to be doing their level best not to do so.

    Then there is the flippant belittling of that highly relevant factor:

    “There’s a grain of truth in this: wildfires really are sometimes started by humans…”

    And finally there is the massively missed point, of which all of the climate scientists and their apologists seem to be guilty:

    “But this is sleight of hand: nobody claims that climate change per se is what starts the fires (the main natural cause of wildfires, incidentally, is lightning strikes). Instead, the claim is that climate change makes already-started fires worse: it makes them easier to get going, and helps them spread further.”

    That may very well be true in many instances, but any trend in causes of ignition, fire risk warning effectiveness, firefighting policies, land use, urban/rural interface, and forest management should also be calculated and factored in rather than just being ignored. It is hardly a sleight of hand to say so.

    I’ll grant you this, however. The article does reference (or should I say ‘seizes upon’) a report that is well worth reading:

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

    Liked by 2 people

  182. Then there is this:

    “How bad are the wildfires – and what caused them?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/how-bad-are-wildfires-in-greece-what-caused-them-visual-guide-heatwave

    “Many things can spark a wildfire: campfires, cigarettes, lightning, even sunlight.”

    But not arson, apparently.

    “But how far it spreads depends on the weather.”

    And other things, of course, but we won’t be mentioning them.

    And then it is straight into the mantra:

    “By burning fossil fuels and destroying nature, people have heated the planet by 1.2C – and Europe by 2C – above pre-industrial levels, making the hot, dry conditions in which wildfires thrive more common across the continent.”

    So by the time it comes to what scientists can know, it all comes down to heatwave attribution studies:

    “Scientists cannot know exactly how big a role the climate crisis has played in the Greek wildfires until they carry out an attribution study.”

    No! Scientists cannot know exactly how big a role the climate crisis has played in the Greek wildfires until they construct a structured causal model that identifies all contributory factors, and then populate it with relevant data.

    Like

  183. Alan: You say:” One of the features of wildfires is that, even without arsonists they are a natural feature of lands with seasonal hot and dry climates. ”
    Agreed. And in fact they are a critical part of ecosystems that have evolved over millions of years. for example the South African Fire Lily only germinates in the presence of smoke. There are many plants that depend on fires for their survival. What has changed is that humans have built houses and hotels in fire-prone areas and have been suppressing fires. Fire suppression often makes subsequent fires much more extensive as the forest fuel has had more time to build up.
    Here in British Columbia most fires are started by lightning strikes. In the absence of human habitation some fires are just left to burn out. And “controlled burns” are being used more and more to reduce forest fuel:

    https://www.washingtonnature.org/land/fire#:~:text=You%20know%20the%20saying%2C%20%E2%80%9CFight,smoke%20fires%20burn%20through%20periodically.

    “You know the saying, “Fight fire with fire.” In our Eastern Washington dry forests, this is exactly the approach we are taking to reduce the risks of future large wildfires. Controlled burns are used to help set the forest back into a rhythm where smaller, low-intensity, lower-smoke fires burn through periodically.”

    Liked by 1 person

  184. Thank you Potentilla. I had originally meant to mention the evolution of plant species that require fire to propagate but somehow failed to do so. We should also mention the California Redwood. I recall trying to burn this wood when I lived in California) with a total lack of success. I couldn’t even sing it. I later discovered that this was an adaptation that allowed the trees to outcompete other species (which burnt during wildfires) and so be allowed to grow to great age (and height).

    Like

  186. A strange BBC article. Reading the headline, I assumed that their “climate disinformation reporters” were going to tell us the wild fires are nothing to do with arson, but no, they equivocate (“But why would anybody provoke a deadly fire?”), and do quote a lot of locals saying that arsonists are the problem. They seem to cast a little doubt and be a bit sceptical, but they don’t actually come out and say that arson isn’t behind the fires.

    “Are arsonists behind Italy’s devastating wildfires?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66332399

    Are arsonists behind Italy’s devastating wildfires?

    Like

  187. Mark, that BBC article concludes by firmly coming down on the side of arson as the cause of the fires in Calabria:

    “In Calabria, the smouldering evidence of arson is all around – now a permanent feature of a once-stunning landscape.”

    Even the BBC cannot deny the truth.

    What is even more interesting is this:

    Still, some man-made fires are not necessarily a result of criminal intent.

    “We have images, for example, of farmers clumsily starting fires in an attempt to clear weeds,” Mr Occhiuto said. But he admitted that drones had also shown images of “organised arson squads”.

    Organised arson squads. What could be the motive for such organised crime? Land grabs? Insurance claims? Maybe. Or something even more sinister?

    Liked by 1 person

  188. Mark,

    The BBC can acknowledge the arson quite freely because it does not detract from their position that it is the severity of the resulting fires that has been worsened by climate change:

    “Extreme temperatures and a lack of rainfall – which are serious issues in southern Italy and are linked to climate change – ensure that “petty pranks” turn into devastating blazes, he said.”

    As long as they don’t mention the two elephants in the room:

    a) Greece has long suffered summer temperatures and aridity that would cause uncontrollable fires, were they to be started. The effects of climate change on top of that are largely redundant, except in as far as the fire season may be extended.

    b) The causes given for the arson clearly point towards societal trends that have therefore caused more fires to start, and that is the real problem here.

    Liked by 1 person

  189. “Most fires in Greece were started ‘by human hand’, government says
    Official blames arsonists for the majority of 667 blazes that have spread in the extreme weather”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/28/greece-fires-arsonists-extreme-weather

    Most of the 667 fires that have erupted across Greece in recent weeks were started “by human hand”, the country’s senior climate crisis official has said.

    As the Mediterranean country emerges from an unprecedented, 15-day period of heatwave-induced infernos, the scale of the destruction is finally being laid bare.

    While weather conditions have been different from any other year – with experts calling the first three weeks of July the hottest on record – most of the fires could have been prevented, the government claimed on Friday.

    Vassilis Kikilias, the Greek minister of climate crisis and civil protection, told reporters: “During this time 667 fires erupted, that is more than 60 fires a day, almost all over the country. Unfortunately, the majority were ignited by human hand, either by criminal negligence or intent.

    Kikilias said that, in certain places, blazes had broken out at numerous points in close proximity at the same time, suggesting the involvement of arsonists intent on spreading fires further….

    Unfortunately he then goes on to say (inevitable, I suppose, given his job title):

    …He added: “The difference with other years were the weather conditions. Climate change, which yielded a historic and unprecedented heatwave, is here. There were very few days where the extreme weather was not combined with strong winds.”…

    But, as John said above:

    a) Greece has long suffered summer temperatures and aridity that would cause uncontrollable fires, were they to be started. The effects of climate change on top of that are largely redundant, except in as far as the fire season may be extended.

    b) The causes given for the arson clearly point towards societal trends that have therefore caused more fires to start, and that is the real problem here.

    The Guardian article also says:

    With the exception of islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas, 15-year highs were reached.

    Which doesn’t sound as though the temperatures were quite as extreme as claimed (and certainly not record-breaking).

    Liked by 2 people

  190. “Kikilias said that, in certain places, blazes had broken out at numerous points in close proximity at the same time, suggesting the involvement of arsonists [plural] intent on spreading fires further….”

    This is evidence of organised arson by groups of people, just like in Canada in June. Criminal conspiracy. Not social contagion. Not random pyromaniacs. Why? What’s the motive?

    Like

  191. Jaime, I don’t know, but have you seen this?

    “Italy: Drone spots suspected wildfire arsonist”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-66343164

    A man has been detained after he was spotted by a drone near a recently started wildfire in Calabria, Italy.

    The footage was released by authorities in the region, who said a number of recent wildfires were a result of arson.

    Complete with 45 second video.

    Like

  192. Mark,

    Betts looks pretty silly now, claiming that arson was irrelevant in these wildfires, that it’s climate change making it hotter and drier which is the real culprit. That agricultural, well tended landscape looked pretty green to me, not parched and dessiccated.

    Liked by 2 people

  193. Let us just for a minute reflect upon what Kikilias has just said. He says that the only difference this year is the record breaking weather. Which means that last year about 60 fires a day were still being started but they can’t have taken hold because temperature records were not being broken.

    Do these people ever listen to themselves?

    Liked by 2 people

  196. That’s the same Varoufakis who (as I pointed out above) 11 months ago wrote this:

    To grasp why this is happening, we need to understand the trajectory of urban and rural development in Greece. War and poverty caused a mass exodus from the countryside that began in the late 1940s. Villagers who did not migrate to countries such as Germany, Canada and Australia descended upon Athens. Combined with lax urban planning, this surge of humanity quickly turned the Greater Athens area into a concrete jungle. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the same people dreamed of a partial return to the countryside, of a summer home in the shade of some pine trees, close to Athens and, preferably, in some proximity to the sea.

    To these petty-bourgeois dwellings, which by the 1980s were strewn all over Attica, the mid-1990s added middle-class suburbia. Villas and shopping malls gradually invaded inland wooded areas bordering Athens, at a speed that reflected the economic growth fuelled with money borrowed from EU banks or provided via EU structural funding.

    It is as if we were looking for trouble. Fire is a natural ally of Mediterranean pine forests. It helps clear the ground of old trees and allows young ones to prosper. By helping themselves to the wood daily and by employing tactical burning every spring, villagers once prevented these fires from running amok. Alas, not only did circumstances force the villagers to abandon the forests but, when they and their descendants returned as atomised urbanites to build their summer homes inside the untended forests, they did so bearing none of the traditional communal knowledge or practices

    Liked by 1 person

  197. Once again this year, Algeria finds itself affected by wildfires:

    “Algeria wildfires kill dozens of people including 10 soldiers”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/24/algeria-wildfires-deaths-people-soldiers-heatwave

    Followers of this thread will recall the relevance of this document:

    “Wildfire Management Policies in Algeria: Present and Future Needs”

    Click to access psw_gtr245_382.pdf

    Just to remind you:

    “As in the entire Mediterranean basin, forest fires in Algeria are mostly human-caused, whether by negligence or voluntary.”

    “…for the 1985 to 2010 time series, for which we have almost complete information, the fire cause cannot be identified in 80% of the cases…In Algeria, it is commonly accepted that at least half of the fires attributed to unknown causes are either arson or security fires, which are purposely set by the Algerian Army as a counter terrorism measure; making it a rather difficult topic to address.”

    No mention of any of that in the Guardian article, of course. Just lots of talk of a ‘climate crisis supercharging extreme weather across the world’.

    Liked by 1 person

  198. Old News, but I’m Sure BBC – https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2022/bbc-news-launches-new-programme-context
    Will dial down the “boiling planet” with –
    “We are incredibly excited to launch Context, bringing a wide range of opinion and analysis to the hottest topics from around the world… The show will provide lively debate as we welcome a different panel of experts every day, ensuring we leave no stone unturned.— Christian Fraser, presenter”

    never watched it, but sounds like he gets “experts” on the show, must watch at some point/maybe.

    Like

  199. What caused the Hawaii wildfires?

    Hawaii has experienced wildfires before, but none like this.

    Governor Josh Green earlier today said this is most likely “the largest disaster in state history”.

    We don’t yet know exactly what sparked the blazes, but we do know a combination of conditions – which authorities say are exacerbated by climate change – have made them worse.

    Hurricane winds and dry weather helped fuel the flames.

    And drought or abnormally dry conditions across large parts of Hawaii – including the entire island of Maui – also played a role.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66461158

    Scroll down to the entry at 6.04.

    Appalling.

    Like

  200. “Hurricane winds and dry weather, however, helped fuel the flames.

    Drought or abnormally dry conditions across large parts of Hawaii – including the entire island of Maui – also played a role.

    Around 14% of the state is suffering from severe or moderate drought, according to the US Drought Monitor, while 80% of Hawaii is classed as abnormally dry.

    Scientists also note that some parts of the Hawaiian islands are covered with non-native grasses that are more flammable than native plants.

    This, coupled with dry conditions, can cause a spark to ignite a fire that can spread quickly.

    Maui itself was also under a red flag alert – meaning warm temperatures, very low humidities, and stronger winds were expected to combine to produce an increased risk of fire danger – before the fires broke out.

    Strong winds from Hurricane Dora, which passed Hawaii’s coast on Tuesday, helped fan the flames even further.

    Wildfires were once uncommon in Hawaii, ignited largely through volcanic eruptions or lightning strikes. But in recent decades, human activity has made them more common and extreme.”

    The BBC and climate alarmists would have us believe that “human activity” equates to burning fossil fuels when the reality is the bleedin’ obvious which is staring everyone in the face – arson and carelessness.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66470118

    Liked by 2 people

  201. When discussing the UK National Risk Register and whether wildfire would be better handled as a security issue rather than a natural disaster risk, I cited the Hawai’i Wildfire Management Organisation (HWMO):

    https://www.hawaiiwildfire.org/news-center/tag/arson

    The site comprises a series of articles related to recent wildfire incidents. Here are the headings. I have not cherry-picked these. None have been left out:

    “Police Identify Suspect Arrested in Connection with Maili Wildfires in West Oahu”

    “2018 Has Been a Wild Year for Wildfires, Far Surpassing Numbers Since 2015”

    “Leeward Farmers Rebuild as HPD Continues Search for West Side Arsonist”

    “Kauai Firefighters Respond to 4 Back-to-Back Brush Fires”

    “3 Brush Fires Started by Fireworks Along Highway 190”

    “Authorities Investigate 3 Suspicious Brush Fires Along Waikoloa Road”

    “58 Acres Scorched in Paʻia and Haʻiku Brush Fires”

    “Officials: Kihei Brush Fires Appear Suspicious”

    “$5K Reward Still Offered for Info Leading to Arrest, Conviction in Arson Cases”

    “Three Fires Near Upper Road Suspected Arson”

    “Paia Brush Fire Considered Suspicious, Homes Threatened”

    “12 Fires, 1 Injury During 4th of July Holiday on Maui”

    “The Conversation – HWMO Interview June 2, 2017”

    “HFD Suspects Arson in Recent String of Hawaii Kai Brush Fires”

    “What’s the Leading Cause of Wildfires in the U.S.? Humans”

    “Highway Reopens as Firefighters Battle Five Fires Along Highway 190”

    “Firefighters Call Brush Fires Along Route 190 ‘Suspicious in Nature’”

    “’Good Neighbors’ Help to Fight Fires in Remote Kahikinui Homestead”

    So Governor Josh Green doesn’t know the cause? Maybe he needs a word with the HWMO.

    Liked by 1 person

  202. Jaime,

    I’ve just read that BBC article again and it seems to be hopelessly confused, no more so than when it says:

    “Scientists also note that some parts of the Hawaiian islands are covered with non-native grasses that are more flammable than native plants. This, coupled with dry conditions, can cause a spark to ignite a fire that can spread quickly.”

    No. No one is talking about sparks. Arsonists are not people who give off sparks.

    Like

  204. Jaime,

    I read it that way at first, but then I realised it was just very bad English. What they mean is that it causes a spark to result in fire when otherwise it wouldn’t. Nevertheless, all this talk of sparks is just a way of avoiding the obvious, even though it leaks out in the last paragraph. To protect the narrative, the only relevant human behaviour has to be the burning of fossil fuel.

    Liked by 1 person

  205. The first Maui fire started when power lines fell down near a bird sanctuary during high winds (NYT yesterday). They fell down somewhere in the linear clearing (what’s the proper name for that?) shown in this 2011 pic:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@20.8080007,-156.2822804,3a,75y,101.03h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF7vzYJ5UNdW6ktJmFG9dcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4?entry=ttu

    To my untrained eye, the power lines are so low and so close to trees (or they were in 2011) that I’m surprised they need to fall down to start fires.

    Power lines on that stretch also fell down and started a fire near the bird sanctuary in June 2017 (The Maui News).

    That time, they were knocked down when a tree branch fell on them. I don’t know if it was windy. Probably not because only an acre of undergrowth burned. This time, the fire spread rapidly westwards and, to a lesser extent, southwards (EOSDIS).

    After the 2017 fire and some power cuts in 2018, parts of the power network thereabouts were upgraded with stronger poles plus spacer cables designed to prevent power lines being toppled by falling trees or branches.

    https://mauinow.com/2019/06/26/maui-electric-upgrading-olinda-and-piiholo-powerlines/

    I don’t know for sure whether the power lines that caused the 2017 and 2023 fires were upgraded but they probably were because they run through a protected forest and that article seems to say that that’s what the upgrades were all about.

    Like

  206. There are the fragile green shoots of common sense to be found sprouting in the Washington Post today as they address the causes of the Hawaii wildfires. After going in strong and hard with the standard climate change narrative, we then find this:

    “Research has shown more tropical cyclones have rapidly intensified in recent decades, and that those rates of intensification have accelerated. Warmer temperatures provide more energy for storms. But some immediate analyses of the winds observed in Hawaii have found [Hurricane] Dora’s presence may have only increased the gusts’ speed by about 5 mph, Masters said. The high pressure — aided by a flow of hot, dry air from the Southwestern U.S. into the Pacific — could have been enough to stir damaging winds on its own.”

    Followed by this:

    “As for the drought conditions that covered more than a third of Maui County, where the most destructive fires burned, there is no direct sign that they are the product of climate change, said Abby Frazier, an affiliate faculty member at the University of Hawaii now based at Clark University in Massachusetts.”

    The article goes on to mention the introduction of non-native grass species that are more susceptible to burning. However, nowhere does the article use the ‘A’ word, despite the notorious and growing problems that Hawaii has with arson, as chronicled by the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organisation.

    Tackling the concept of causation is still a work in progress for most journalists, but this is at least a start.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/08/12/hawaii-fires-climate-change-maui/

    Liked by 2 people

  207. We were in Lahaina in February 2020. What struck me was the contrast between the old town and the developed resort areas just to the north. These developed areas effectively have fire breaks with well-watered golf courses up slope and irrigated garden areas in the shopping malls. With brush fires fairly common in the grass and brush areas up hill from Lahaina it is tragic that there were no fire breaks established. It was well known that Lahaina was in a significant fire risk area:

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-12/how-maui-fire-became-a-monster

    “Maui County’s 1,044-page hazard mitigation plan lists coastal West Maui as having a high wildfire risk. A map on Page 503 shows all of Lahaina’s buildings as being in a wildfire risk area, and the document warns that “populations with limited access to information may not receive time-critical warning information to enable them to reach places of safety.”

    So little to do with global warming then.

    Liked by 1 person

  208. The obvious question is what re-ignited the Lahaina blaze in the afternoon when it was said to be ‘100% contained’ in the morning?

    Like

  209. Potentilla,

    You say that a risk assessment had identified the risk of wildfire as ‘high’. But that isn’t the story doing the rounds in the press. Take this article, for example, which claims that the risk had been severely underestimated as ‘low’:

    “When Hawaii officials released a report last year ranking the natural disasters most likely to threaten state residents, tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic hazards featured prominently. Near the bottom of a color-coded chart, the state emergency management agency described the risk of wildfires to human life with a single word: ‘Low’.”

    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/11/us/hawaii-wildfire-threat-invs

    That said, CNN goes on to refer to other reports that pointed out the heightening of risk when one takes into account coincidence with other events such as hurricanes that fan the flames. That is supposed to be what happened this time around – except Hurricane Dora made no material difference. Without Dora the winds would still have been sufficiently gusty to play their part. But we have to reserve a front row seat for climate change, don’t we?

    Like

  210. According to Cliff Mass, Hurricane Dora was too far away to have contributed to the wind speeds:

    “Lahaina was hit by powerful winds, with gusts exceeding 60 mph. Winds that provided oxygen to the fires, pushed the fire quickly forward, and downed powerlines, helping spark the fires.

    There is a lot of talk about the winds coming from hurricane Dora, which passed 800 km to the south of Hawaii (see satellite image below).

    The winds that hit Lahaina were NOT hurricane winds.

    The winds that helped destroy Lahaina were caused by strong trade winds, produced mainly by enhanced high pressure to the north, interacting with Maui terrain to produce strong/dry downslope winds.

    These were localized strong winds that amazingly were well predicted by the NOAA HRRR model and others.”

    https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-origin-of-hawaii-firespreventing.html

    It was the strong downslope winds which were particularly problematic. As they headed down the mountain slopes towards Lahaina, they warmed and became even drier. As Cliff says, these winds were forecast and a red flag warning for severe fire risk was issued, meaning that it was a near certainty if any fire was started on the slopes above Lahaina it would quickly become almost unstoppable and would race towards the town.

    Liked by 2 people

  211. We live in a strange world. According to some people, in order to promote the reality of a fake ‘climate crisis’, the powers that be are modifying the weather via chemtrails. When these chemtrailing/spraying/geoengineering operations produce intense drought, they send in the directed energy weapons to zap the parched undergrowth from earth orbit, thus creating wildfires. Putting aside the question of whether such technology actually exists and whether it is busy circling above our heads right now, why would you use a multi-million dollar directed energy weapon from space to start a fire when all you need is someone on the ground with a box of matches? What’s worrying is that these ideas are gaining popular traction. It seems to me the whole world is going nuts.

    Like

  212. I am more than happy to accept that the climate is changing, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable to suggest that carbon dioxide emissions are a significant contributor to recent trends. But if reporters are going to insist that natural disasters are evidence that the situation has already brought crisis upon us, then I am going to have to insist that they achieve at least a base level of competence and integrity in their reporting. That’s all I ask.

    This is what the BBC is leading with on their news site as I type:

    “When a ‘fire hurricane’ hit, Maui’s warning sirens never sounded.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66492414

    The reporters, Holly Honderich and Max Matza, relate an interview with a local resident:

    “But the outage alone wasn’t especially concerning, Munn said. ‘I just thought it was going to be another blackout,’ he said, noting the trade winds that frequently hammer the coast. Munn, like most others, assumed this outage was linked to nearby Hurricane Dora, which authorities had warned could bring gusts of up to 65mph (105kph) to Maui. And at that time, the local fires apparently fuelled by Dora’s winds seemed insignificant.”

    No, Holly and Max! The guy had only just finished referring to trade winds that ‘frequently hammer the coast’ and you immediately misinterpret his testimony to suit your own climate change obsessions. What is the problem here? Do you honestly not know the difference between a trade wind and a hurricane? Or are you just so determined to push the required BBC narrative that you are prepared to throw away any possible claims you might have had for having journalistic integrity? I’ll put it more succinctly. Are you both just plain stupid or are you just liars? I see no third option.

    Like

  213. Before Andy West jumps in here, I’ll offer what a third alternative might be. They are neither stupid nor liars, they are just too much in the thrall of a cultural ‘truth’ to know how to report reality any more.

    Liked by 2 people

  214. John,

    I very much take your point, but for the me the main issue revealed by the BBC report is this:

    …One thing seemed to unite their accounts: residents say they had no official warning before they fled for their lives, raising painful questions about the effectiveness of the emergency response and whether more people could have been saved….

    I don’t like scoring points when people have lost lives and a tragedy has unfolded, but I do think it needs saying that an obsession with climate change can mean that the eye of officialdom is taken off the ball. The fires were not the result of climate change. Climate change did not kill the people who tragically lost their lives in Hawaii. But it’s possible (probable?) that lives were lost because a siren failed to work.

    Will anyone learn lessons? Or will the authorities use the get out of jail free card that they’re not to blame because climate change is?

    Liked by 1 person

  215. It’s probably not relevant to the current discussion about wildfires, but Maui has the strangest weather patterns I’ve experienced, in that there can be stable states of different weather in different parts of the island. The most micro-phenomenon one of these was that we often drove on the road north to Lahaina, and for about 3 days at one place on that road, about 5 minutes long at modest speed, it was raining, but it wasn’t raining any of the time before or after that place on the same road, throughout the 3 days 0:

    Like

  216. Jaime: “What’s worrying is that these ideas are gaining popular traction. It seems to me the whole world is going nuts.”

    Yep. When people are afraid, and also the stable ideas that have kept their societies functioning, like (for the West in recent era) family, democracy, science, the law, and even morals, are all aggressively questioned, then wild emotive speculations can spread like, well, wildfires. The more emotive themes are preferentially propagated by people and so easily outbid truth. The whole gender thing is questioning the idea of family, as does the political left generally in the US these days, and also science (‘trans-women are women’), the climate change and covid hysteria have provided the fear, and both bend the law or even remake some in their own image (e.g. lockdown rules and Net Zero legislation). The so called anti-racism culture wants to defund the police, which would make law pretty meaningless anyhow, and ardent climate catastrophists have called for an end to democracy to ‘better’ oppose apocalypse, while all of these cultures gnaw viciously at previously unchallengeable moral values. A similar confusion engulfed Europe in the 1930s, and that didn’t end well. However, the ‘madness’ swirling around McCarthyism in 1950s USA, did just fizzle out eventually.

    Liked by 3 people

  217. Governor Green’s description of what happened has to be heard to be believed. An investigation will ensue, but it is likely that no official will be found to have been at fault. There was nothing they could do in the face of climate change. Link should take you to the right moment:

    Liked by 2 people

  218. Mark,

    You are quite right to point out the importance of the BBC article’s main theme. As with many supposedly natural disasters, the acts and omissions of people in positions of authority are instrumental in determining the extent of death and destruction caused. I am very much reminded of Robert Muir-Wood’s ‘Cure for Catastrophe’.

    Meanwhile, in an apparent bid to lower the standards of investigative journalism even below those achieved only this morning by Holly and Max, the Guardian’s Christy Lefteri has gone with this:

    “Even in Greek towns razed by wildfires, people don’t blame the climate crisis. That must change”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/14/greece-wildfires-climate-crisis-future#:~:text=That%20must%20change,-Christy%20Lefteri&text=During%20the%20summer%20of,be%20displaced%20by%20environmental%20disaster.

    “What surprised me, however, was that any mention of the bigger issue, of the climate crisis and global heating, was shut down immediately and completely. It was made clear to me that this subject was unacceptable. Survivors felt that these issues had nothing to do with what they had suffered, and that the people actually accountable needed to pay.”

    “But when it comes to climate breakdown, attributing blame to just one person, one corporation, one country, is impossible. In Mati, the fire didn’t rage so hard because someone had set off a spark – it raged so hard because years of global heating had dried up the land, part of a cascading set of unsustainable practices and inaction that had set our planet on fire.”

    Once again, we find here a journalist obsessed with the idea of sparky people ‘setting off sparks’, as if deliberate arson wasn’t a thing. And we see a journalist who refutes the ‘single cause’ paradigm before settling upon a single cause – global warming. And again we see a journalist resorting to deliberately emotive metaphors. But more than anything else, we see a London-based journalist who has the effrontery to fly out to Greece just to tell the locals, ‘what the fuck do you know?’

    The gauntlet seems to have been thrown down. Can anyone out there lower the standards even further?

    Liked by 3 people

  219. Jit,

    There is a common theme that seems to be emerging here. After each natural disaster there is always a senior official with a reputation at stake who is keen to put it all down to natural causes made worse by climate change that wasn’t their country’s fault. The same thing happened after the recent Pakistan flooding. The officials were blaming climate change and the locals blamed the officials. Perhaps we should send Ms Lefteri out to Pakistan to educate all those ignorant, non-Guardian-reading peasants.

    Liked by 2 people

  220. Andy,

    “The most micro-phenomenon one of these was that we often drove on the road north to Lahaina, and for about 3 days at one place on that road, about 5 minutes long at modest speed, it was raining, but it wasn’t raining any of the time before or after that place on the same road, throughout the 3 days.”

    It’s not just exotic Maui where these things happen. If you travel west along the A17 in Lincolnshire from Holbeach towards Boston, just after the junction of the A16 to Boston, you will come across a section of road which is frequently wet – just this section. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve driven into rain along this section when it has been totally dry further east. It’s really remarkable. I put it down to a rain corridor formed by the peculiar geography of the south Lincolnshire wolds to the west funnelling rain clouds onto the Boston fens. Boston is also often very wet when nearby towns and villages are dry.

    Liked by 1 person

  221. “She who must be listened to” just read in the all knowing Guardian that much of the problems of Maui arose as a result of a phone service stopping. This is extremely worrying news. Climate change responsible for the loss of one of life’s essential services will be bad news for my granddaughter who goes through life following a small screen held aloft with one hand.

    But lack of the ability to warn others of danger via phone, or loss of phone coordination for rescue and fire suppression services must be critical elements of any evaluation of the disaster. I also read that survivors are blaming authorities for a lack of warning. Perhaps they were simply unable to.

    Like

  223. John at 12.43pm. I have read that Guardian article now. I am absolutely staggered by the presumption of someone flying in to poke around the ashes who goes on to assume that she knows more about the causes of the fires than the locals. I particularly loved the opening sentence:

    During the summer of 2021, I flew to Greece to learn more about the wildfires there.

    They don’t get it, do they?

    Like

  224. Unwittingly, perhaps, the Guardian here makes the case for looking beyond climate change as the reason for forest fires (despite the headline and the spin it puts on the story):

    “The Guardian view on Hawaii’s lethal wildfire: lessons to learn from a catastrophe
    Editorial
    In a new reality of climatic instability and volatility, proactive planning for the very worst needs to be part of the new normal”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/14/the-guardian-view-on-hawaiis-lethal-wildfire-lessons-to-learn-from-a-catastrophe

    …state authorities in Hawaii appear to have been badly behind the curve. An emergency management plan, published by state officials last year, identified tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic hazards as potentially deadly threats, but described the risk of wildfires to human life as “low”. That judgment now looks culpably complacent.

    Record-breaking temperatures in recent years, combined with forest loss and abandoned farmland featuring more combustible non-native grasses, had turned parts of Maui into a virtual tinderbox. A previous report stated that a 2018 brush fire, which forced residents to evacuate homes and burned more than 2,000 acres of land, should be a “real world wake-up call”. As was the case in last week’s catastrophe, that blaze occurred in drought conditions, amid high winds from a hurricane traversing the Pacific Ocean. Yet when the worst came to pass in Lahaina, warning sirens failed to work and the island’s firefighting force was ill‑equipped and overstretched.

    Hawaiian Electric, the utility which oversees electricity provision to the vast majority of Maui residents, also has questions to answer. The immediate cause of the fire is still under investigation. But in states such as California, where a catastrophic wildfire destroyed a mountain town in 2018, electricity is now cut off altogether to areas where wind risks triggering a conflagration. Hawaiian Electric has previously acknowledged the effectiveness of this precautionary approach. But it chose last week to keep power lines energised despite weather warnings, a decision which is now the subject of a class-action lawsuit….

    Of course, it ends with the usual peroration:

    Global heating has inaugurated an era of climatic instability and volatility.

    Like

  225. Mark,

    Yesterday I spoke of the Guardian laying down the gauntlet, defying anyone to achieve lower standards of journalism. It seems, however, that it took them less than 24hrs to set a new low to aim for, with the following statement:

    “A previous report stated that a 2018 brush fire, which forced residents to evacuate homes and burned more than 2,000 acres of land, should be a “real world wake-up call”. As was the case in last week’s catastrophe, that blaze occurred in drought conditions, amid high winds from a hurricane traversing the Pacific Ocean.”

    Firstly, the Guardian has already been informed that it was trade winds that fanned the latest wildfires; the passing hurricane added little to the wind speeds. Secondly, whilst I very much suspect that the circumstances of the 2018 bushfire have been made up by the Guardian, I am unable to check because they do not provide a link to the ‘previous report’. Why? Are they afraid we might read it and discover that they are telling porkies? They don’t even name the hurricane concerned. This is just appalling journalism. But let me tell you what I do know.

    The year 2018 was indeed a bad year for bushfires on Hawaii:

    “2018 wildfire season has kept firefighters busy, scorched native forests, forced numerous evacuations, burned homes and businesses…and it is only August. As Hurricane Lane approaches, threatening to add another impact to the list, post-fire flooding and landslides, we want to remind you that there is a lot you can do to protect your home and family from wildfires.”

    The HWMO website goes on to describe a number of specific wildfires occurring during 2018. All except one was proven to be either a case of arson or a suspected case (the exception was a fire started by fireworks). No mention is made of hurricanes fanning flames. Hurricane Lane did land in late August, providing the ‘post-fire flooding’ that had been predicted. Certainly no fires then. No fanning of flames.

    Unlike the Guardian, I will cite my sources:

    https://www.hawaiiwildfire.org/news-center/tag/arson

    Liked by 2 people

  226. HOLD THE FRONT PAGE:

    I’ve just noticed that the Guardian article does at least provide a link that clarifies which Hurricane they are alluding to. It is indeed Hurricane Lane, and so I can confirm that the Guardian report is deliberately falsifying the details, as I had suspected.

    Like

  228. For Christ’s sake Rob. Are you honestly suggesting that highlighting persistent misreporting of extreme weather events is pointless? It is this state of affairs that helps validate the net zero programme. If it wasn’t happening all the time then you might not be having to write to your MP.

    Liked by 1 person

  230. John: yes, but as I said what do you hope to achieve? Do the Guardian editorial team – or any of the mainstream alarmists – read Cliscep? And, even if they do (most unlikely), is there the remotest prospect of their changing their minds?

    I’d love to be persuaded that it wasn’t pointless. But I fear it is.

    R

    Like

  231. Rob,

    You had asked two questions and I only responded to the first because it struck me that the importance was so self-evident that it was astonishing to me that you had to ask. The second question seems more reasonable, but I must give the reply that I always give:

    I expect to achieve nothing here on Cliscep. And I would expect that pursuing formal avenues of complaint wouldn’t help either. So, should we be closing Cliscep down in your opinion?

    Like

  232. ‘should we be closing Cliscep down?

    Absolutely not. I think Cliscep has an important role to play in developing and exchanging ideas. Hence the excellent subtitle: ‘joint ideas under construction‘. And, as many of us are active elsewhere, those ideas can get wider traction – and new ideas imported. There’s no need for your ‘expect to achieve nothing’ pessimism.

    Like

  233. John, Robin,

    It all comes down to probability and chance doesn’t it. The probability that somebody influential will be reading John’s rightful complaints about the Guardian’s atrocious climate and extreme weather reporting and then go on to actually do something about it, or at least communicate those complaints to other people who might be able to do something about it, is very low. But it’s not an impossibility and it wouldn’t even be a Black Swan if such an event were to occur. We all do what we can and we are impelled to do what we think is right, no matter how slim the chances are of putting right the huge wrongs which afflict the world we live in. Who would have thought that Archbishop Carlo Vigano would be reading my WordPress blog and then go on to cite one of my articles in a written piece online? Not me, certainly, but that’s what happened and my article thus gained wide exposure. Did it change anything? Who knows, but at least the message got out there and was being read by lots of people.

    So we shouldn’t throw in the towel and give up on our natural impulses to point out wrongdoing, lies and distortions, because then the probability of us having any influence is reduced to zero and we might just as well curl up our toes and admit that our lives are pointless and that there is no hope whatsoever of contributing to change in this world via our modest efforts.

    Robin, I know you’ll say but ‘Ah yes, but we could concentrate our efforts in other areas which might reap greater rewards’. That may or may not be the case; it would not be the case if we are merely arguing that anything written on Cliscep is a waste of time because it won’t be read by any of the ‘right’ people. We each do what we think we can do best and we each act within our own limited spheres of knowledge and competence and we each use the platforms which are available to us.

    Liked by 4 people

  234. I think that if John wrote an article setting out these allegations of disinformation by the Guardian, with a suitably provocative title, there would be a good chance of it being noticed more widely than is typical for a Cliscep article!

    Liked by 1 person

  235. In an era where heavy-handed or even pernicious cultures are in the ascendant, in the climate catastrophism case both globally and with tentacles in all areas of society, nothing could be more important than keeping alive venues where everything that is unpalatable to those cultures can still be discussed. Without these, people won’t even know that there are alternatives to the cultural narratives, or even have hope that there might be. In turn this arms people for outside of the venue, where every form of pushback is helpful, because cultures rely on policed conformity, which is far harder to maintain when people chip away at it from every angle. Some push back against group-think science, some push back against Net-Zero zealotry, Robin hammers remorselessly at the fact that however zealous, Net Zero here will achieve nothing, I hammer at the fact that all public attitudes and policy are clearly cultural (hence irrational) anyhow, many point out the biased reporting. Some orgs and channels are so mired in cultural bias, I suspect they can never be recovered, the Guardian on climate especially being a case in point, but they don’t have to be; they can be outflanked, as GBnews – created against elite biases and especially about Brexit – is outflanking the BBC and Sky, and as the Dutch farmers are starting to outflank their own politicians. But you need a big array of grass roots venues and a large reservoir of sceptical narratives to support any such outflanking and also some of the bigger beasts who are already making dints, such as Lomborg and Epstein and Shellenberger; that they all hold different positions is a plus not a minus – this makes it far harder for the culture to stamp on them all.

    Liked by 3 people

  236. Jit,

    That felt very much like a nudge 🙂

    Rob et al,

    I agree with everything that has been said regarding the principle of resistance. As for being pessimistic, I don’t see it that way. There is always the hope that something may get picked up by a wider audience but I don’t write with that expectation. I also shout at the television a lot but not in expectation. I do it because I enjoy it.

    Liked by 2 people

  237. Sorry to arrive late to the discussion regarding what we at Cliscep hope to achieve. Jaime’s summary eloquently sets out something akin to my views. I think we all have our favourite issues related to climate change/net zero and all the rest of it, and we tend to concentrate on those individually. I think that’s fine, and we live in hope that one or more of the articles here might gain traction, be more widely read, and perhaps – just perhaps – come to the attention of someone involved in making policy who might have the time and intelligence to read, digest and draw some fresh conclusions.

    At a minimum I hope we provide diversion, interest, information and provoke some thoughts among our regular audience, whose time and attention here is much appreciated. And at the absolute minimum, I enjoy writing pieces which sometimes help to clarify my own thoughts, sometimes draw issues together, and sometimes just get something off my chest. When the reality of the net zero disaster finally dawns on the public and perhaps even on politicians, at least we here will be able to point to a body of work and say “We told you so”. I’d rather they read what we write now, in time to avert the pending net zero disaster, but if nothing else it’s worth something to know we issued the warning well in advance and didn’t simply sit idly by while virtue-signalling people driven by emotion rather than logic take the country over the cliff.

    Liked by 3 people

  238. “Did Hawaii officials botch the response to Maui wildfires?
    As responders battle to bring blaze under control and recovery efforts continue, questions begin to be asked about why alarm systems failed to sound and expert warnings were ignored”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/hawaii-wildfires-response-sirens-warnings-b2392803.html

    …once the crisis is contained and a degree of normality restored, Hawaiian officials could face tough questions about the extent of the island’s preparedness for the situation that unfolded.

    Specifically, the public will expect answers on why its alert system failed, why expert warnings were ignored and whether domestic electricity providers played any role in the disaster.

    Silent alarms

    Maui is understood to have 80 outdoor sirens in place to warn locals of imminent tsunamis or other natural disasters – which are tested monthly, according to the BBC – but not one of them sounded as the brush fires broke out, officials have since confirmed.

    Residents of Lahaina were initially concerned when they woke up without power on Tuesday morning but were reassured when Maui County reported at around 9.55am that wildfires raging nearby had been “100 per cent contained”, only for the blazes to be whipped up by the winds again that afternoon without further warning.

    Some locals subsequently told the media they had received phone alerts but it is possible the earlier blackout played a role in limiting the dissemination of messages further afield. In many cases, it was only the smoke alarms in private buildings that notified them of the need to evacuate, leading to a panicked exodus that might perhaps have been avoided.

    Mr Green announced on Friday that the state’s attorney general, Anne Lopez, would be launching an investigation into Maui’s emergency response policies to try to determine what went wrong.

    He has largely preferred to avoid blaming human error, however, saying in a statement issued on Sunday: “That fire travelled one mile every minute, resulting in this tragedy. A fire hurricane, something new to us in this age of global warming, was the ultimate reason that so many people perished.”…

    It’s distasteful to seek to make capital out of such a terrible human tragedy, and it may yet turn out that everything was done that could be done, nothing went wrong that was foreseeable, and that nobody should be held to account. Let’s hope so. But I do find it worrying that there is now a tendency to blame everything on climate change, so as to enable those in positions of authority to avoid blame. I hope it doesn’t end up with entrenched alarmists and sceptics simply saying each is wrong. A dispassionate and objective inquiry needs to be made to find out what went wrong and why, and how it might be avoided in future.

    Like

  240. The power of emotion over facts and logic:

    “Fire in south of France rages though campsite and 500 hectares of land
    Blaze in popular tourist area in the Pyrenees forced evacuation of 2,000 people before it was brought under control”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/15/fire-in-south-of-france-rages-though-campsite-and-500-hectares-of-land

    …A fire in the south of France burned through 500 hectares (1,240 acres) of land and destroyed a campsite, with 2,000 people evacuated before the blaze was brought under control on Tuesday.

    The French environment minister said the climate crisis was exacerbating conditions of drought that fed the fire. No one was injured in the fire, authorities said.

    “Drought and fire are two sides of the same coin: climate change,” Christophe Béchu, the minister of the ecological transition, said in a tweet during a visit to site of the fire in the Pyrénées-Orientales near the Spanish border….

    …He said this summer had seen fewer fires than last year, when 70,000 hectares were burned, but it was necessary to be “humble” as summer was not over….

    So more fires = climate change. Fewer fires = climate change.

    Like

  241. Mark,

    So the people of Hawaii are getting angry with those in authority rather than blaming the ‘climate crisis’. Did Christy Lefteri not make herself clear enough when she said ‘That must change’?

    It’s high time she flew out there to put the ignorant locals straight.

    Liked by 1 person

  242. You’ve got climate crisis crazies on one side and the directed energy weapon conspiracists on the other, each blaming the wildfires on their pet theory. Then you’ve got sane, rational sceptics in the middle, getting squeezed out by the hysterical cries from both camps. Even Paul Homewood is attracting the conspiracy theorists now.

    “Hi Paul,

    There is a lot more to those fires than you can imagine. Many say that we’re started using directed energy weapons from space or aircraft. Have you seen the pics of molten metal running out of burnt cars, while nearby trees are completely untouched ? In fact all the tree are still intact.

    Mike”

    I’ve just posted a picture of burned trees in Lahaina. These people are nuts.

    Liked by 3 people

  243. “Non-native grass species blamed for ferocity of Hawaii wildfires
    Failure to heed warnings over unchecked growth meant blaze was ‘a disaster waiting to happen’, say scientists and academics”

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/aug/16/non-native-grass-species-blamed-for-ferocity-of-hawaii-wildfires

    Scientists and academics say they have been warning for several years that invasive grasses covering a quarter of the Hawaii islands are a major fire risk.

    Untamed grassland helped fuel the spread and intensity of last week’s deadly fires on the island of Maui, according to experts. The fires, which broke out last Tuesday, have killed at least 106 people and destroyed the island’s historic town of Lahaina.

    A July 2021 report on wildfire prevention by a Maui government commission warned that non-native grasses are making Hawaii more vulnerable to destructive fires, saying their presence, particularly on abandoned sugarcane fields, provides a source of “combustible, rapidly burning fuels” that “needs to be addressed”.

    Hawaii’s last sugarcane mill, HC&S, which covered 14,570 hectares (36,000 acres) on Maui, closed in 2016. “The lands around Lahaina were all sugarcane from the 1860s to the late 1990s. Nothing’s been done since then – hence the problem with invasive grasses and fire risk,” said Clay Trauernicht, an ecosystems and fire specialist at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa.

    Asked if the non-native grasses made the Maui fire worse, Trauernicht said that any form of “land use or land care would have made the situation safer”, given that the grasses were “completely left unmanaged”….

    Liked by 1 person

  244. “Hawaii wildfires: Maui emergency chief quits after sirens criticism”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66540472

    Maui’s emergency management chief has quit a day after defending his agency’s failure to activate its alarm system in last week’s fatal wildfire.

    Herman Andaya, who had no prior experience in emergency management, cited “health reasons” for resigning.

    In the days since, residents of the Hawaii island have told the BBC a stronger emergency response could have saved more lives.

    At least 111 people have been declared dead. More than 1,000 remain missing.

    Maui’s sophisticated system, which includes 80 sirens around the island, is tested on the first of every month, its 60-second tone a normal part of life in Lahaina. But on the day of the fire, they remained silent.

    On Wednesday, Maui Emergency Management Agency boss Mr Andaya insisted he did not regret that decision.

    He said he had feared the sirens – most often sounded for tsunamis – would have sent some in Lahaina running to higher ground, potentially into the path of the fast-moving blaze.

    But in Lahaina on Thursday, none of the residents who spoke to the BBC accepted this explanation, saying the siren would have provided a crucial warning of the approaching danger.

    On the day of the fire, many in Lahaina were home, without power, because of the strong winds caused by nearby Hurricane Dora. And a text alert sent by the county was missed by many residents who had lost service….

    Like

  246. Alternatively, according to the Guardian, even when there is a non-climate change explanation, climate change still has to be blamed:

    “Why was there no water to fight the fire in Maui?
    Naomi Klein and Kapuaʻala Sproat
    Big corporations, golf courses and hotels have been taking water from locals for years. Now the fire may result in even more devastating water theft”

    …For over a century, water across Maui Komohana, the western region of the island, has been extracted to benefit outside interests: first large sugar plantations and, more recently, their corporate successors. The companies – including West Maui Land Co (WML) and its subsidiaries, as well as Kaanapali Land Management and Maui Land & Pineapple Inc – have devoured the island’s natural resources to develop McMansions, colonial-style subdivisions, luxury resorts and golf courses where cane and pineapple once grew.

    This historical and modern plantation economy has taken a tremendous toll on water in particular, draining Indigenous ecologies of their natural moisture. Lahaina, once known as the Venice of the Pacific, has been transformed into a parched desert, which is part of what has made it so vulnerable to fire. Plantation skimming wells dried up Mokuhinia, an at least 15-acre freshwater fishpond, that nourished Mokuʻula, an island within the pond that was the seat of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In the early 1900s, the plantation filled Mokuhinia with dirt, and eventually a baseball field and parking lot appeared over the sacred site.

    Even long after most of those original plantations closed, the infrastructure and dynamics of water theft remained. Today, many Native Hawaiian communities, who have lived in Maui Komohana since time immemorial, remain cut off from water for their basic needs, including drinking, laundry and traditional crop irrigation. For instance, Lauren Palakiko, whose family has resided in Kauaʻula for centuries and has priority water rights under the law, last year testified at a state water commission hearing that she had to bathe her baby in a bucket because not enough water reached her home. That’s because the streams that once flowed through their valley are diverted for luxury subdivisions, which often occupy plantation-controlled lands.

    It’s a situation that has left many Native families with no access to county water lines (which also means no fire hydrants) as well as no paved roads to escape the fires that increasingly threaten their homes and lives. For example, the Native Hawaiian families of Kauaʻula valley, which flanks Lahaina, are beholden to Launiupoko Irrigation Co (LIC), a subsidiary of WML, because LIC owns the valley’s plantation-era water system. It takes nearly all of Kauaʻula Stream to service affluent estates in a neighboring valley and shuts off water completely to the Kauaʻula families’ homes when it alleges that there is not enough water to both sell to its customers and comply with the water commission’s stream protection standard….

    Bu, of course, there’s no show without blaming climate change:

    …The climate emergency has only deepened these tensions, worsening droughts and, as the world now knows, creating conditions ripe for wildfires. Over the last five years, fires have ravaged Kauaʻula valley, intensifying the wars over who has the right to access scarce water, including for critical firefighting uses….

    Liked by 1 person

  247. The Lahaina fire was caused by a lethal combination of government incompetence, criminal negligence and system failure.

    The original fire in the hills in the morning was probably sparked by a downed power line in an area overgrown with grasses. That was ‘100% contained’ and the power was then apparently turned off, meaning that the water pressure reduced considerably because it relied on electrical pumps. Then the water authority delayed diverting water from streams because of concern for a farmer, so this meant that when the afternoon blaze erupted, firefighters were hampered in their efforts to control it as water hydrants ran dry. It is still debatable what caused the afternoon blaze if the power was turned off. Could have been arson, could have been just a re-ignition of the initial blaze which was still smouldering. ‘Climate change’ contributed 0% to this tragedy. Incompetence and criminal negligence contributed 80-90%, natural weather maybe 20%. Directed energy weapons 0%. What we have witnessed post Lahaina is unabashed opportunist climate crisis propaganda and attempted blame-shifting by culpable officials all under the cover of mass idiocy and unbridled speculation.

    Like

  248. Via Roger Pielke Jr:

    “The real story behind ABC’s Hawaii headline change
    They didn’t change it because of activist backlash. They changed it because it was inaccurate.”
    https://heated.world/p/the-real-story-behind-abcs-hawaii

    This is actually hilarious. With three top stars in the climate change firmament on speed dial, the intrepid reporter almost spills her latte in excitement as she F-bombs the ABC into submission.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the headline was accurate as it stood, and was changed thanks to activist pressure to a headline that was false. Love it.

    “Why climate change can’t be blamed for the Maui wildfires” becomes
    “Why climate change can’t be blamed entirely for the Maui wildfires.”

    Like

  249. Jit,

    The author of the article, Emily Atkin, says:

    “That was the first time I ever used this quote from climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, which I’ve tried to use again and again over the years: ‘The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.’ So forgive me if sometimes I get a little angry that after nearly 10 years some mainstream climate reporters still don’t understand this basic fact.”

    And forgive me if I get a little angry when I see journalists getting angry because others can’t understand ‘basic facts’ about causality, when they themselves fail to demonstrate even the beginnings of an understanding of the complex subject of causal analysis. There is a reason why we are having to wait for the attribution study that demonstrates climate change’s degree of causality regarding the Hawaii wildfires. It is because no such attribution study would be possible, and if it were possible, it certainly wouldn’t be within the remit of climate scientists to perform it. If Atkin understood the first thing about causality she would know that.

    There’s nothing worse than a person with nothing but a degree in journalism who thinks that qualifies them to preach to others on scientific and mathematical issues. I’ll start taking notice of Atkin when she demonstrates any understanding of do-calculus.

    Liked by 1 person

  250. My comment last night seems harsh in the cold light of morning, so I’ll try to explain a bit more about why I find her admonishments simplistic in themselves.

    After listening to Trenberth, Atkin seems to think that one should not ask whether X caused Y, but whether X affected Y. She thinks this is a great insight, but all it really does is replace a slippery word (‘caused’) with a vague one (‘affected’). To really advance her understanding she needs to appreciate that there are two questions that should be asked in preference to the simplistic, ‘did X cause Y’. They are:

    a) If X and Y have happened, what is the probability that Y wouldn’t have happened if X hadn’t happened?

    b) In circumstances where neither X or Y has happened, what would have been the probability that Y would have happened if X had happened?

    All Atkins seems to have picked up on is that risk is a function of likelihood and impact. Trenberth is right to point out that climate change provides a background condition that should be taken into account when judging risk, but the extent to which it can be said to be a causation of an event depends upon the answers to both of the above questions. When it comes to wildfires, I can easily see how climate change may not have a bearing upon one or the other of those answers when looking at a specific case. Their causations are too varied and complex to be reduced to an attribution study focussed upon looking at temperatures achieved.

    Like

  251. “In sum, the scientists explained that the headline was technically incorrect. Climate change absolutely can be partially blamed for the severity of the Maui disaster because climate change worsens wildfires, and climate change plays a role in literally all weather events. We just don’t yet know how much blame, because we don’t yet have attribution studies that can tell us that sort of thing.”

    We’re back to Idiocracy again: ‘Climate change absolutely can be partially blamed for the severity of the Maui disaster because climate change has got extreme weather, which wildfires crave’. These people are thick; brick sandwiched between two short planks kind of thick. Roger Pielke sums up extreme weather attribution gloriously, talking about Hurricane Hilary:

    “For those really, really wanting to associate Hilary with climate change — given data, research and history, it is a difficult case to make.

    However, here are some suggestions for how the linkage might be made:

    All weather events are impacted by climate change, and Hilary is definitely a weather event;

    Of the many hundreds of model-based projections of future tropical cyclone incidence, we can select several of these models that suggest an increase by 2100 of various characteristics of tropical cyclones.

    Finally, there will be some quotable, credentialed people on Twitter making strong claims of attribution who can be cited in support of attribution claims.”

    https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/hurricane-hilary-points-and-pointers

    LOL

    Liked by 1 person

  252. >”Climate change absolutely can be partially blamed for the severity of the Maui disaster because climate change worsens wildfires, and climate change plays a role in literally all weather events.”

    No. Climate change CAN worsen wildfires and CAN play a role in literally all weather events. Whether or not it has on a given occasion requires a case by case analysis, particularly with regard to wildfires and highly localised events.

    Journalists started out by acknowledging the statistical nature of climate change attribution statements but seem to have long since abandoned this in favour of the strong narrative. It doesn’t matter what the probabilities are, as long as they are not provably zero they can scream causation from the rooftops. I have also noticed that the ‘climate change does not start fires but it makes them worse’ storyline is lot more prevalent of late. That’s not what they used to say.

    Like

  253. “In sum, the scientists explained that the headline was technically incorrect. Climate change absolutely can be partially blamed for the severity of the Maui disaster because climate change worsens wildfires, and climate change plays a role in literally all weather events. We just don’t yet know how much blame, because we don’t yet have attribution studies that can tell us that sort of thing.”

    They absolutely do know that 21st century drought conditions in Hawaii, which have contributed to the severity and frequency of recent wildfires, including the present, cannot be attributed to climate change because attributions studies WERE carried out over a year ago. The contribution, uncertain as it was, was deemed to be of small magnitude in comparison to natural variability. These are supposed to be climate scientists – they should know this. Perhaps they do. In which case they are spouting disinformation. They absolutely DO know that the severity of the Maui fires was driven by prevailing weather conditions, the presence of non-native grasses and a stunning catalogue of incompetence and criminal negligence on the part of the authorities. Touting climate change as definitely playing a partial role in these fires is lying basically.

    “The empirical analysis raised at least as many questions as it answered, and the paper turned to climate model experiments to better understand what, if any, boundary forcings and associated large-scale climate drivers may have led to this prolonged period of dryness in Hawaii. They included several different ensemble AMIP simulations of the last decade (2010–19) in comparison with the late twentieth century, and a set of so-called event attribution simulations used to isolate the effect of long-term anthropogenic change forcing since the early twentieth century. Concerning decadal variability, four different models agree in revealing a forced signal of a weakened Aleutian low in the recent decade relative to the late twentieth century. However, neither of the model ensemble means yield reduced rainfall near and over the Hawaiian Islands. The absence of a signal and the large spread among members of the model simulations—each subjected to identical decadal boundary forcing variations—indicated that the recent decadal manifestation of Hawaiian drought was best reconcilable with internal atmospheric variability. These model results also support an argument that the anomalous circulation pattern in the North Pacific during the recent decade (the weakened Aleutian low) was unlikely responsible for the drought.

    Additional model experiments explored how climate change since the early twentieth century may have affected Hawaiian rainfall in the early twenty-first century. Two different assumptions on the externally forced pattern of SST change, each derived from observed trends since 1900, were employed to address the sensitivity of Hawaiian region rainfall to plausible anthropogenic forcing.

    Our results indicate that the direction in which climate change may have contributed to the twenty-first-century low wintertime Hawaiian rainfall depends on the assumption on how external radiative forcing acted to change sea surface temperatures, especially over the equatorial Pacific. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine which, if any, of these two patterns of long-term SST change is the more plausible fingerprint of global warming to date. Instead, it is perhaps more constructive to recognize that, for all the model precipitation change signals described above, their magnitudes are considerably less than their simulated internal variability of climate on centennial time scales (see also Quan et al. 2018). Recall that each ensemble member in our atmospheric model experiments experiences identical ocean boundary forcing and atmospheric chemical composition change, and as such the spread in histograms (e.g., Fig. 13) arises purely from internal atmospheric variability. It is perhaps surprising to see that atmospheric fluctuations alone, unconstrained by boundary forcing changes, could yield centennial-scale Hawaiian rainfall changes on the order of 20%. It is thus entirely possible to reconcile the observed severity of the recent Hawaiian decadal rainfall deficits with unforced internal variability alone.”

    “Although the 2007–2014 drought was unprecedented over the past century (Figures 2and 6), detecting an anthropogenic signal at small spatial scales such as that of the Hawaiian Islands is difficult, and at this time, evidence indicates that rainfall changes in Hawaii are still predominantly driven by large-scale modes of natural variability.”

    https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/did-climate-change-make-the-hawaii

    Liked by 1 person

  254. Jaime,

    Indeed. In the case of Hawaii wildfires, the climate change attribution theory doesn’t even survive the drought test. And that is before we attempt a wildfire severity attribution calculation that also takes into account the non-climatic factors.

    Instead of assuming that climate change must have made things worse, as a statement of principle, they have to demonstrate it as a statement of fact.

    Liked by 1 person

  255. My vote for ‘Most Stupid Remark Ever Made by a Climate Scientist’ goes to Michael Mann for giving this in answer to the question, ‘How do we prevent wildfires of this severity?’

    “The only way to prevent these events from becoming more frequent and more intense is to prevent the continued warming of the planet. And the only way to do that is to decarbonize our economy as rapidly as possible.”

    And to think that Mann is one of Atkin’s go-to experts on matters of causality.

    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/wildfire-canada-smoke-air-quality-us-rcna88184

    Liked by 2 people

  256. https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/18/we-are-not-learning-bjorn-lomborg-says-politicians-hide-behind-climate-change-to-duck-responsibility-for-failures/

    Bjorn Lomborg said Friday that politicians were blaming climate change for disasters like the wildfires on Maui to duck “responsibility” for “failures” in addressing them.

    Democratic Gov. Josh Green of Hawaii blamed climate change for the deadly wildfire that destroyed many buildings in the town of Lahaina, killing at least 96 people as of Monday, according to the New York Times. The West Maui Land Company accused M. Kaleo Manuel, an official with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), of delaying a response to a request to use water to refill reservoirs used by the Maui Fire Department to fight the wildfire, Hawaii News Now reported.

    “You maybe shouldn’t have a lot of grasses that will just burn a lot. You should adopt better building codes, not what Governor Green did, namely put it on hold because he wants cheaper buildings and you shouldn’t just have one exit road, you should have better firebreaks,” Lomborg told “America Reports” co-anchor John Roberts. “And possibly the most important thing is, you should inform people. You should not have a guy that actually decides not to run the alarm because he worries that people might misunderstand it. Most people weren’t informed.”

    “And this is the crucial bit when you talk about climate change: When everybody blames climate, which is a very, very small part of the whole puzzle, you take away responsibility from all these failures,” Lomborg added. “And that’s, of course, what you really need to focus on if you are going to avoid the next fire.”…

    Liked by 1 person

  257. We have another Black Swan!

    “The wind anomaly from normal of the winds at this level is shown in colour. Look carefully and you will see grey colour over Maui…. five standard deviations from normal….which means VERY unusual. You will also note the clear separation of the strong winds of Dora from what hit Maui.”

    https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-real-cause-of-maui-wildfire-disaster.html

    Cliff Mass argues that it was the highly unusual synoptic setup (accurately forecast by synoptic weather models) which was the actual proximate cause of the Lahaina fire (including the ignition via the downing of power lines); not drought, not climate change, perhaps not even the stunning incompetence and ill-preparedness of the authorities. Just another annoying Black Swan. The DEWs HAARP brigade and the climate crisis fraudsters are not going to like it!

    Liked by 1 person

  258. Mark,

    >“And this is the crucial bit when you talk about climate change: When everybody blames climate, which is a very, very small part of the whole puzzle, you take away responsibility from all these failures,” Lomborg added. “And that’s, of course, what you really need to focus on if you are going to avoid the next fire.”

    Absolutely. That pretty much sums up what this thread is all about. Also, it shows why Michael Mann’s quote was not just ineffably stupid, but also dangerously misleading. People like Jennie King talk about dangerous misinformation online, and yet highly influential climate scientists are too often given a free pass.

    Liked by 1 person

  259. Jaime,

    The more I read from the pen of Cliff Mass, the more I like him. He seems to be one of the few meteorologists out there asking questions regarding sufficiency.

    Liked by 1 person

  260. “…talk about dangerous misinformation online, and yet highly influential climate scientists are too often given a free pass.

    Correction: in today’s climate of climate massaging, climate scientist *always* given a free pass …
    ( and the best seats in the House.)

    Like

  261. He’s even dumped on those claiming that the extended drought conditions (whether caused by climate change or not) in Hawaii played a significant role in the fire, saying that the highly unusual winds in themselves were sufficient to dry out the vegetation, existing drought or not. This means that any attribution to climate change (or not as the case may be) is going to have to concentrate solely on what caused the highly unusual synoptic setup responsible for this extreme event. Will ‘Fredi’ et al at WWA take the bull by the horns I wonder? We wait with baited breath.

    Like

  262. Since Michael Mann seems a little confused, I will spell it out for him.

    To get to the heart of causality one has to ask and answer counterfactual questions. In this instance, those questions are:

    a) If AGW were not a thing, would the extensive wildfires have happened anyway?

    b) Imagine a world in which the fires didn’t happen, and there is no AGW. Now introduce AGW on its own and ask yourself, would this then be enough to explain the occurrence and extent of the fires as actually experienced.

    The answer to question a) is ‘yes’, because there are sufficient explanatory causes without introducing AGW.

    The answer to question b) is ‘no’, because there is no evidence to implicate AGW in the drought and no suggestion that AGW made a sufficient difference to the strength of prevailing winds as experienced.

    This means that both the probability of necessity and the probability of sufficiency are zero. That means that the original headline was scientifically correct as it stood. The climate scientists that Atkin consulted gave her the wrong advice because they don’t seem to know how to formulate the right questions when determining causality. As I keep on saying, climate scientists have a very narrow field of expertise and we should not be treating them as the font of all scientific wisdom

    Over to you Michael.

    Liked by 1 person

  263. Sorry everyone, I have now corrected the obvious typo in the above comment. The answer to question a) is ‘yes’.

    Like

  264. “Climate crisis made spate of Canada wildfires twice as likely, scientists find
    Burning of fossil fuels made fires at least twice as likely, and the fire-prone weather at least 20% more intense, study shows”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/22/climate-change-canada-wildfires-twice-as-likely

    …Scientists have now analyzed the conditions that caused the fires that raged in the Canadian province of Quebec between May and July and found that the climate crisis, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, made them at least twice as likely, and the fire-prone weather at least 20% more intense.

    The attribution study, conducted by a coalition of scientists in Canada, the UK and the Netherlands, found that while the fire-prone weather conditions were unprecedented, they are no longer unexpected and will become more commonplace as the worlds continues to heat up.

    “The word ‘unprecedented’ doesn’t do justice to the severity of the wildfires in Canada this year,” said Yan Boulanger, research scientist at Natural Resources Canada and part of the World Weather Attribution study team.

    “From a scientific perspective, the doubling of the previous burned area record is shocking. Climate change is greatly increasing the flammability of the fuel available for wildfires – this means that a single spark, regardless of its source, can rapidly turn into a blazing inferno.”

    The new study looked at the fire weather index, a metric that gauges the risk of wildfire through a combination of temperature, windspeed, humidity and rainfall, and found that its peak in Quebec from May to July, when there was a huge number of fires, had its chances of occurring doubled because of the climate crisis. The fires in this peak were also 20% more intense because of the climate crisis.

    While climate change itself doesn’t typically ignite huge forest fires, it helps set the stage for them by drying out vegetation that becomes easy fuel for flames. The early stages of summer were ideal conditions for this…

    The Study can be found here:

    Click to access Scientific_report_Eastern_Canada_wildfires.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  265. While climate change itself doesn’t typically ignite huge forest fires

    But sometimes it does?

    Like

  266. Oh, groan, more junk pseudoscience from WWA. It’s never ending. I note they’ve chosen the Canadian wildfires rather than Hawaii, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they try to link Lahaina to climate change too.

    Like

  267. Jaime,

    I’m not aware of any attribution study that has attempted to place the blame for the Hawaii fires on climate change, but that didn’t stop the Guardian from linking to the following from the Canada article:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/22/hawaii-fires-climate-crisis-pacific-people

    “How did this happen?…Across our Oceanic continent, rainfall is decreasing drastically. Island droughts are becoming extreme as global temperatures continue to rise. Strong winds will create more catastrophic fires, as we have already witnessed in Papua New Guinea, parts of Australia and New Zealand, and in smaller landmasses in French Polynesia and Samoa.”

    And the author should know – she’s Hawaiian.

    The point is that such ill-informed hand-waving is all very well, but a scientific attribution requires data, and calculations that result in probabilities. Hence the importance of the WWA study. But, as you assert, is it junk science?

    I will be reading the report later today, if I find the time. In order for it not to be junk science, it will have to provide good answers to the following questions:

    a) What are the relative weightings for the factors that contribute to the Fire Weather Index (FWI) and how were they arrived at? Without these numbers one could not, for example, go from an attribution made for a given factor (e.g. temperature) to an attribution made with respect to the FWI.

    b) What is the science behind each of the attributions made for the various FWI factors and what are the uncertainties involved? For example, how solid is that science when it comes to discerning the effect that a global-level warming might have on local wind speeds or local aridity?

    c) If the attribution study has only looked at the impact on FWI, how have they gone on to stating the increase in fire risk unless they know the relative strength of contributions to risk made by the FWI and the other risk factors? How would they even begin to quantify that?

    Respect requires numbers but those numbers require respect.

    Liked by 2 people

  268. Jit,

    Journalists have been talking about ‘fires caused by climate change’ for so long now that they find it very hard to drop the habit. The clarification that climate change doesn’t actually start fires is a relatively new feature in newspaper reports, but the journalists are desperate not to concede the point entirely.

    Like

  269. Well I am making some progress, because at least I now know how the FWI is calculated from its two components, the Build Up Index (BUI) and the Initial Spread Index (ISI). It is basically a product of the two, but not without a good deal of complicated scaling:

    https://wikifire.wsl.ch/tiki-index259b.html?page=Fire+weather+index

    The same site gives you the derivation of the BUI and ISI. There are a lot of constants flying around, which I presume to be empirically derived. Anyway, the main point is that the FWI is representative of a physical entity, i.e. it is a measure of fire intensity in the form of energy output rate per unit length of fire front. All factors seem to have been calibrated to ensure that they can enter into the equation for that measure. In fact, the whole thing looks very heuristic.

    So far, so good, but there are still questions b) and c) to answer.

    Like

  270. John, best of luck wading through it. I’ll just leave this one statement here:

    “Because of the large number of high-resolution weather variables required to calculate the FWI, we are restricted to using a single dataset in the observational analysis: the ERA5 reanalysis product (Hersbachetal.,2020) produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.”

    Liked by 2 people

  271. Jaime,

    Indeed. And here is another quote taken from the report that hardly inspires confidence:

    “Wildfires are complex phenomena that are not driven solely by climate, but also by vegetation properties, land-cover and human activity. Quantifying the effect of climate alone on realised wildfires – for example, on the observed burned area or number of fires – is very difficult (Lui et al., 2022).”

    Liked by 2 people

  272. As a footnote to the above quote, it is worth reflecting that Professor Otto can be an author of the report in which it appeared and yet still say this to the press:

    “Until we stop burning fossil fuels, the number of wildfires will continue to increase, burning larger areas for longer periods of time.”

    It’s a statement that is almost Mannesque in its dogmatism, but it drives the necessary narrative forward. Sure, anything that increases FWI has to be taken very seriously, but the assumption that nothing can be done to control fire risk other than by controlling fire weather risk is not even supported by her own report. Its introduction states:

    “Observed changes are typically larger than in the models”

    This is a clear indicator that there is more to it than lies within her philosophy. So, how about pointing out that, until we understand and learn how to control the human factors that lie behind the ignition and scale of fires, the number of wildfires will continue to increase, burning larger areas for longer periods of time?

    Liked by 1 person

  273. John.

    I’m not even sure that the frequency and severity and burn area of wildfires is increasing, globally. I think Pielke or Lomborg may have demonstrated this recently, but don’t take that as gospel. I might be mistaken.

    Like

  274. Jaime,

    Maybe you’re right but I’m prepared to entertain, for the time being at least, an intuitive expectation that the FWI is increasing in enough regions to make a global impact.

    Also, on reflection, I think the report was saying that the observed FWI increase was generally larger than predicted by the models, not that fire frequency and extent were greater than predicted. The latter is, of course, beyond the ability of the models to predict.

    And that, of course, is the main problem with the study — it only attributes FWI trends and is silent on other attributions that bear upon fire risk. These are discussed in section 7 but are still outside the scope of the study.

    The other problem is the one that all climate change attribution studies share — a lack of epistemic validity in the way the model ensembles are handled statistically.

    Like

  275. “Greece wildfires: 79 people arrested for arson”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66612781

    Of course, after reporting that, the BBC reverts to type:

    Greece has called out “arsonist scum” after police made 79 arson arrests over wildfires ravaging the country.

    Civil Protection Minister Vassilis Kikilias said there had been several attempts by arsonists to start new fires on Mount Parnitha, north-west of Athens.

    The blaze is one of hundreds in the nation where wildfires have already killed at least 20 people this week.

    “You are committing a crime against the country,” Mr Kikilias said.

    “Arsonist scum are setting fires that threaten forests, property and, most of all, human lives,” Mr Kikilias told Greeks during a televised emergency briefing on Thursday.

    “You will not get away with it, we will find you, you will be held accountable.”

    Summer wildfires are common in Greece and scientists have linked the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves, to climate change.

    Stefan Doerr, who directs the Centre for Wildfire Research at Swansea University, says that more flammable landscapes – due to hot weather or poor vegetation management – mean that arson and other incidents can more easily turn into fast-moving wildfires….

    Like

  276. “Maui county sues Hawaiian Electric over wildfires that killed more than 100
    The lawsuit claims the electric utility failed to shut off power during high winds, resulting in downed lines that ignited blazes”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/24/hawaii-fires-lawsuit-maui-county-sues-hawaiian-electric

    Maui county sued the Hawaiian Electric company on Thursday over the fires that devastated Lahaina, saying the utility negligently failed to shut off power despite exceptionally high winds and dry conditions.

    Witness accounts and video indicated that sparks from power lines ignited fires as utility poles snapped in the winds, which were driven by a passing hurricane. The 8 August fire killed at least 115 people and left an unknown number of others missing…

    …Had the utility heeded weather service “warnings and de-energized their powerlines during the predicted high-wind gusts, this destruction could have been avoided”, the lawsuit said.

    The lawsuit said the utility had a duty “to properly maintain and repair the electric transmission lines, and other equipment including utility poles associated with their transmission of electricity, and to keep vegetation properly trimmed and maintained so as to prevent contact with overhead power lines and other electric equipment”.

    The utility knew that high winds “would topple power poles, knock down power lines, and ignite vegetation”, the lawsuit said. “Defendants also knew that if their overhead electrical equipment ignited a fire, it would spread at a critically rapid rate.”

    The lawsuit notes that other utilities, such as Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, have all implemented public safety power shutoffs during during high-wind events and said the “severe and catastrophic losses … could have easily been prevented” if Hawaiian Electric had a similar shutoff plan.

    The county said it is seeking compensation for damage to public property and resources in Lahaina as well as nearby Kula….

    Like

  277. The high winds were NOT ‘driven by a passing hurricane’. Why can’t journalists get this into their thick skulls? Also, I still have this question, which has not been adequately answered anywhere as far as I can see:

    Was the power turned off AFTER the first blaze in the early morning which now appears almost certainly to have been ignited by downed live power lines and was supposedly ‘100% contained’? As water pumps stopped working, this would appear to be the case. Did the power remain turned off when the afternoon blaze was ignited nearby, which then quickly destroyed Lahaina?

    Like

  278. Jaime, Mark,

    There is a lot of willful ignorance on display here. The relative insignificance of the role played by Hurricane Dora will never feature in a journalist’s mind because it doesn’t fit their expectations. And no amount of references to arsonists will shift their view on the unique influence of climate change because it somehow doesn’t seem to occur to them that arson can also be a growing problem.

    I say sack them all and replace them with people with inquiring minds. Until then, nothing will ever change.

    Liked by 1 person

  279. “Two men accused of lighting wildfires in Greece are arrested
    One man confessed to having set four other fires on island of Evia as Greek authorities struggle to contain blazes”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/26/two-men-accused-of-lighting-wildfires-in-greece-are-arrested

    Fire department officials in Greece have arrested two men for allegedly starting wildfires on purpose, while hundreds of firefighters battled blazes that have killed at least 21 people in the past week.

    One man was arrested on the Greek island of Evia for allegedly setting fire to dried grass in the Karystos area. The fire department said the man confessed to having set four other fires in the area in July and August.

    A second man arrested in the Larissa area of central Greece was also accused of intentionally setting fire to dried vegetation.

    Officials have blamed arson for several fires in Greece over the past week, although it was unclear what sparked the country’s largest blazes, including one in the north-eastern region of Evros, where nearly all the fire-attributed deaths occurred, and another on the fringes of Athens.

    “Some … arsonists are setting fires, endangering forests, property and above all human lives,” Vassilis Kikilias, Greece’s climate crisis and civil protection minister, said on Thursday. “What is happening is not just unacceptable, but despicable and criminal.”

    The minister said nine fires were set in the space of four hours on Thursday morning in the Avlona area in the northern foothills of Mount Parnitha, a mountain on the north-western fringes of Athens that is one of the capital’s last green areas.

    A major fire was already burning on the southern side of the mountain at the time, and it continued to burn on Saturday. “You are committing a crime against the country,” Kikilias said. “We will find you. You will be held accountable to justice.”

    On Thursday, police arrested a 45-year-old man on suspicion of arson for allegedly setting at least three fires in the Avlona area. A search of his home uncovered kindling, a fire torch gun and pine needles, police said….

    Like

  280. “Bare power lines and ‘obsolete’ poles were possible cause of Hawaii fires
    Hawaiian Electric Co wires were seen uncovered as company’s own documents call its wooden poles a ‘serious public hazard’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/26/hawaii-wildfires-possible-cause-bare-power-lines

    In the first moments of the Maui fires, when high winds brought down power poles, slapping electrified wires to the dry grass below, there was a reason the flames erupted all at once in long, neat rows – those wires were bare, uninsulated metal that could spark on contact.

    Videos and images analyzed by the Associated Press confirmed those wires were among miles of line that Hawaiian Electric Co left naked to the weather and often-thick foliage, despite a recent push by utilities in other wildfire- and hurricane-prone areas to cover up their lines or bury them.

    Compounding the problem is that many of the utility’s 60,000 mostly wooden power poles, which its own documents described as built to “an obsolete 1960s standard”, were leaning and near the end of their projected lifespan. They were nowhere close to meeting a 2002 national standard that key components of Hawaii’s electrical grid be able to withstand 105mph winds. A 2019 filing said it had fallen behind in replacing the old wooden poles because of other priorities and warned of a “serious public hazard” if they “failed”.

    Google street view images of poles taken before the fire show the bare wire.

    It is “very unlikely” a fully-insulated cable would have sparked and caused a fire in dry vegetation, said Michael Ahern, who retired this month as director of power systems at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.

    Experts who watched videos showing downed power lines agreed wire that was insulated would not have arced and sparked, igniting a line of flame….

    Like

  281. To my mind, there are three issues here which any good lawyer seeking to prosecute HECO for the fires should be considering:

    1. Were downed power lines energised prior to being blown over?
    2. Were downed power lines energised after being blown over?
    3. Was power to the entire grid turned off after power lines were downed?

    The answer to 1. is Yes. This almost certainly started early fires. The answer to 2. appears to be:

    “Prior to the winds, HECO did disable an automated system that allows for power circuits along the grid to reactivate automatically after a service interruption. This could prevent downed lines from continuing to spark.”

    So downed power lines did not remain live and sparking, but they sparked initially.

    The answer to 3. I cannot find anywhere, though it looks increasingly likely that HECO did not turn off power to the entire grid, in which case the late afternoon fire which destroyed Lahaina may also have been started by a downed live power line.

    https://www.civilbeat.org/2023/08/hecos-fire-response-plan-lacked-a-critical-step-shutting-down-power/

    Like

  282. “How 19th-century pineapple plantations turned Maui into a tinderbox
    Land privatization and water depletion set the stage for the Lahaina fire 150 years ago. Now, land companies may benefit even more”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/27/maui-wildfire-water-plantations-ecology

    …more than a century and a half of plantation agriculture, driven by American and European colonists, have depleted Lahaina’s streams and turned biodiverse food forests into tinderboxes. Today, Hawaii spends $3bn a year importing up to 90% of its food. This altered ecology, experts say, gave rise to the 8 August blaze that decimated the historic west Maui town and killed more than 111 people….

    Yes, humankind is causing all sorts of ecological and environmental damage, but much of it has nothing to do with climate change.

    Like

  283. Was it pineapple plantations that caught fire? I don’t think so. How does “a century and a half of plantation agriculture” deplete streams in 2023? My understanding is that it was *abandoning* the agriculture that has led to wildfire-prone grasslands.

    Like

  286. The Guardian paints a picture of Lahaina being some sort of paradisical tropical wetland before the arrival of the European pineapple Barons, when all the streams dried up and it became a virtual desert. The fact is, the west side of the Maui mountains are naturally MUCH drier than the east. Combined with recent drought conditions across the entire island chain, it’s no wonder that streams were running low. Moreover, it’s the non-native grasses which proliferated AFTER farms were abandoned which were largely responsible for the rapid ignition and the spread of the Maui fires.

    “Haleakala and the West Maui Mountains. These mountains keep rain locked on one side of the mountain. For example, the east side of the West Maui Mountains will receive 400 inches of rain a year. But the west side of the mountains (Lahaina) will receive around a foot of rain a year.”

    https://hawaiioceanproject.com/a-guide-to-understanding-mauis-weather/

    Liked by 1 person

  287. Jaime: “The fact is, the west side of the Maui mountains are naturally MUCH drier than the east.”

    I was very struck by this when I went there, around 20 to 25 years ago, can’t recall the exact year. The east side pretty much does look like a ‘paradisical tropical wetland ‘, and myself and a companion nearly got swept away while fording a big river in the middle of a lush forest. But, aside from a thin strip next to the coast, I guess benefitting from more moisture due to the sea, the other side was very dry, and some stretches you could really only call ‘barren’. We flew over a large area in a helicopter, where this dual character was very noticeable too. What I don’t know is how much of the dry side was caused by the ex-pineapple plantations (some were still in operation then I think), but to my inexpert eye the general character of the dry side looked universal.

    Liked by 1 person

  288. Wow, my point 3. has now been answered definitively by HECO. The fire which destroyed Lahaina was NOT ignited by downed power lines and the morning fire was definitely extinguished. That leaves arson, carelessness or blue lasers from space!

    “Hawaiian Electric outlines important facts about what happened on Aug. 8:

    A fire at 6:30 a.m. (the “Morning Fire”) appears to have been caused by power lines that fell in high winds.

    The Maui County Fire Department responded to this fire, reported it was “100% contained,” left the scene and later declared it had been “extinguished.”

    At about 3 p.m., a time when all of Hawaiian Electric’s power lines in West Maui had been de-energized for more than six hours, a second fire (the “Afternoon Fire”) began in the same area.

    The cause of the devastating Afternoon Fire has not been determined.

    The utility provided more details about the fire:

    The records conclusively establish that Hawaiian Electric power lines to Lahaina were not energized when the Afternoon Fire broke out shortly before 3 p.m. on Aug. 8, in a field near Lahaina Intermediate School. Power had been out for more than six hours by that time. There was no electricity flowing through the wires in the area or anywhere else on the West Maui coast. Hawaiian Electric has informed ATF investigators of the availability of records that demonstrate these facts.

    The small Morning Fire, seen in videos taken by local residents, began more than eight hours earlier. Those videos show that power lines had fallen to the ground in high winds near the intersection of Lahainaluna Road and Hoʻokahua Street at approximately 6:30 a.m. A small fire that can be seen by the downed lines spread into the field across the street from the Intermediate School.

    The Maui County Fire Department responded promptly to the Morning Fire. According to the Department’s public statement that morning, by 9 a.m. the Morning Fire was “100% contained.” The Maui County fire chief subsequently reported that the Fire Department had determined that the Morning Fire was “extinguished,” and the Fire Department left the scene by 2 p.m.

    Once the fire was out, Hawaiian Electric emergency crews arrived at Lahainaluna Road in the afternoon of Aug. 8 to make repairs; they saw no fire or smoke or embers. All lines to Lahaina remained de-energized and all power in the area remained off.

    Shortly before 3 p.m., while the power remained off, our crew members saw a small fire about 75 yards away from Lahainaluna Road in the field near the Intermediate School. They immediately called 911 and reported that fire.

    By the time the Maui County Fire Department arrived back on the scene, it was not able to contain the Afternoon Fire and it spread out of control toward Lahaina.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/hawaiian-electric-soars-43-after-statement-power-lines-de-energized-amidst-afternoon-fire

    Liked by 2 people

  289. Jaime,

    Apologies that the WP algorithm put your latest comment in spam, and that it took me so long to find it and set it free.

    Liked by 1 person

  291. From the New York Times:

    A few extracts:
    We Thought We Were Saving the Planet, but We Were Planting a Time Bomb

    In the early 1990s, I worked as a tree planter in northern Ontario. This was a common — if notoriously grueling — rite of passage for Canadian university students, since it allowed you to make good money while spending a few months outdoors with other like-minded young people. I was driven in part by the idealistic view that planting a tree was always going to be better than not planting one.

    In retrospect, this wasn’t true. Forestry experts understand that a monoculture of trees — like the black spruce saplings we were planting, six feet apart in neat rows — has made wildfires more likely and much worse when they occur.

    Much later, I learned that the trees we were planting, black spruce, are so combustible that firefighters call them gas on a stick. The trees evolved to burn: They have flammable sap, and their resin-filled cones open up when heated to drop seeds into charred soil.

    In a naturally occurring forest, black spruce is often found in a mix with trees like aspen and poplar, which are full of moisture and provide a natural resistance to fire. But as a report by the Forest Practices Board of British Columbia pointed out, “Large homogeneous patches of forest are more likely to lead to large and severe wildfires.”

    An article by Saul Elbein for National Geographic attempted to pinpoint the cause of the fires that had threatened Fort McMurray, prompting the evacuation of over 80,000 people. As it turned out, around 1980 a government-driven project changed the landscape in that area by planting trees. They were “pines in lines”: rows of carefully spaced black spruce. A study he referred to found that in the years leading up to the Fort McMurray fire, these trees soaked up the groundwater, and their wide canopies caused the existing peat moss to be replaced by a drier kind of moss, which was like spreading “kindling in the place of fire retardant,” as Mr. Elbein wrote. When the fire started, the trees had become storehouses of fuel.

    Now when I think of that summer, I don’t think that I was planting trees at all. I was planting thousands of blowtorches a day.

    Liked by 4 people

  292. Potentilla,

    Apologies for the fact that WordPress dumped your comment in spam, and apologies for the fact that it took me 8 hours to find it and set it free. I am sure readers will agree that it was worth the wait – a very interesting snippet, thank you.

    Liked by 2 people

  294. It’s looking more likely that the morning fire was re-ignited by a glowing ember in the afternoon, occurring in an area of privately owned land used by HECO, the maintenance of which is disputed between HECO and the private owners. Basically, it was left unkempt and overgrown and that is probably the source of the re-ignition.

    Liked by 1 person

  295. It seems the science isn’t settled after all:

    “Black summer fires: a veteran ecologist says Australia’s bushfire modelling is flawed. Others disagree

    Lives are at risk because of the way forest litter is estimated, a researcher says. But among some colleagues that’s a controversial view”

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/30/black-summer-fires-a-veteran-ecologist-says-australias-bushfire-modelling-is-flawed-others-disagree

    “…One of the major controversies is over the way fuel loads for bushfires are modelled. There are markedly different views among scientists working in the area. The modelling used to estimate forest litter on the ground guides hazard reduction and firefighting plans.

    The differences were highlighted when Prof Mark Adams, a veteran ecologist, published an academic paper earlier this month arguing the modelling usually relied on is fundamentally flawed. He says lives are at risk because of the way forest litter is estimated in Australia’s most populous states.

    Not everyone agrees. Associate Prof Phil Zylstra, an ecologist at Curtin University, calls Adams’ position a “distraction from the real issue” and argues surface fuel loads do not drive bushfire risk.

    He says the question of what drives fire has become “very emotive”, and a major area of debate.

    What to make of this?…”

    What indeed?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.