Ecocentric

Climate Change Plays a Role in Wildfires—But Not the Only One

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Wildfires have burned tens of thousands of acres in Colorado. What's behind the inferno?

The West is burning. The early weeks of summer have been marked by brutal forest fires in states like Montana, Wyoming, Utah and most of all Colorado, where that state is grappling with the worst fires in its history. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, as of July 3, 45 large active wildfires were burning through 15 states, and since January 1, fires have incinerated nearly 2.2 million acres across the country. And while the weather has calmed somewhat in recent days, allowing firefighters to get on top of some of the worst blazes, the expectations are that flames will continue to burn throughout the long, hot summer of 2012.

So why are so many wildfires blazing out of control? Blame the weather first—the unusually warm winter meant that the fire season started earlier than usual, while the lack of snowfall meant that dry forests literally became tinder waiting for a spark. Add in the brutally hot and dry weather much of the country has experienced so far this summer—the national weather map looks like a U.S.-shaped burn mark—and you’ve got the perfect ingredients for wildfires, often ignited by lightning or even tossed cigarettes, that will burn hot and long, destroying homes and forcing thousands to flee for safety.

If the weather has primed the ground for the wildfires, though, what’s behind the weather? To many scientists and environmental advocates, the answer is simple: climate change. 2012 has been extraordinarily warm throughout much of the country since the first day of January, but that only continues a trend of increasing temperatures and longer, hotter summers. 3,215 daily high temperature records were broken this June alone. So far this summer is, as the climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck told the AP’s Seth Borenstein, “what global warming looks like… The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire.”

But as important as global warming is to the raging fires in charred states like Colorado, it’s not the only factor—and no scientist would go so far as to say that climate change had caused one fire or another. While we’re changing the climate—loading the dice, in the climate scientist Michael Mann’s term, to make extreme weather more likely—we’re also changing the situation on the ground, moving ever larger numbers of people into fire-prone zones. It’s as if we’re adding fuel to the fire on both ends—which means we’ll be doubly burned.

(MORE: Wildfire: Out of Control Flames Force Thousands From Their Homes in Colorado)

The great I-News Network has done an excellent job on the wildfires in Colorado, focusing not just on the immediate weather causes and the severe devastation of the fires themselves, but on the policies that have led so many Coloradans to build houses in what’s known as the “red zone”—territory on the edge of the wilderness that is prone to fire. (Hat tip to Andrew Revkin of Dot Earth for pointing out the I-News coverage.)

Over the past two decades, a quarter million more Coloradans have moved into the red zone, which means that one in four Colorado homes are already at risk from fires:

The growth of population in the red zone slowed some after the giant Hayman Fire near Colorado Springs ten years ago this month. But the 2010 census shows 100,000 more Coloradans – Bozzell and Roth among them – moving into a red zone:

As the number of people in red zones has exploded, so has the number of fires – and the damage each did.

In the 1960s, Colorado averaged about 460 fires each year that burned about 8,000 acres annually, according to Colorado State Forest Service records. In the past decade, Colorado saw an average of about 2,500 fires a year burning nearly 100,000 acres.

(MORE: The Great California Fires)

As more people move into the red zone, that obviously puts more people and more property at risk every time a fire starts. Any individual fire is therefore likely to do more damage, both in dollar value and in the number of people who may be forced to flee their homes. But it’s not just that. Humans are often the direct cause of a wildfire—either accidentally, through a stray cigarette or burning, or even deliberately. Put more people in fire-prone areas, and you’re likely to see more fires started as well—something I wrote about in a cover story for TIME in 2007 about the enormously destructive wildfires in California, a state where a growing number of houses are built on the edge of the wilderness:

Those houses, especially if owners fail to prioritize fire safety, are often more sensitive to fire than are untouched forests, and just a few scattered houses in the woods can amplify a wildfire. “Isolated homes surrounded by natural vegetation are probably the most dangerous combination for fires,” says Jon Keeley, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS). Beyond providing fuel for the flames, new dwellings also concentrate the single biggest cause of wildfires: us. The downed power lines, careless barbecues and abandoned campfires that frequently spark fires don’t happen in the absence of people. And then there is the wicked wild card of arson. Perhaps only one person in a community of thousands has a hand in triggering a blaze, but the very presence of those thousands is what turns an otherwise messy event deadly. “The same fires happening wouldn’t be anywhere near as serious without this development pattern,” says Volker Radeloff, a forest ecologist at the University of Wisconsin.

When a lot of houses are built in the red zone—Revkin notes that the population in the Colorado county of El Paso, ground zero for the fires, has quadrupled since 1960—there’s also added pressure to suppress any fires that do break out. This even though wildfires in the West are a natural and sometimes even ecologically beneficial event at times.      That’s one reason why despite the headlines, fire activity in the West has actually been much lower over the past century compared to the previous three millennia. Put simply, we’ve been putting out fires that—in the days before the U.S. Forest Service existed—would have blazed uncontrollably.

But in an article for the Daily Climate, the journalist Tom Yuslman—who lives in Boulder, Colorado—notes that fire suppression may have an unexpected side effect: we may be building up a fire deficit:

Bartlein and his colleagues point to a number of factors for the change, including the introduction of cattle, which reduced fuel loads by eating and trampling grasses; fragmentation of the landscape; and vigorous suppression of any fires on public lands that did break out.

Recent trends suggest the fire deficit is now being paid back. Since the 1980s, fire frequency in the West has increased more than 300 percent, and the annual acreage burned has jumped 500 percent, according to Anthony Westerling of the University of California’s Sierra Nevada Research Institute.

 Again, none of this is meant to downplay the role that climate change is likely having on the frequency and intensity of the fires burning the West right now—and perhaps more importantly, on the fires to come. A June study predicted that wildfires will become more common in temperate zones—including much of the American West—as the climate warms, even as they become less common in the tropics. Wildfire is one more threats we’ll have to grapple with as the planet gets hotter, but it’s at least as important to grapple with the risks on the ground, including increased population and property in the red zone. Especially since the latter will be easier to deal with than the former.
PHOTOS: What They Saved From the Fires
62 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Tim Bladon
Tim Bladon

Wildfires are a natural process that has existed since the earth formed.  The author is right when he says that we have built up a deficit by supression of fire.  I support prescribed fire and burning and removing excess fuel that has built up over the years.  Prescribed burning not only eliminates fuel, but also improves wildlife habitat and restores ecosystems.

mememine
mememine

News Flash:

Millions of scientists have signed a “Global Alert” to

climate change crisis from Human CO2 and they say they are now willing to face

criminal charges of issuing death threats if their warnings of deadly crisis do

not happen soon. Here is their statement:

“We and the millions of scientists listed below are

declaring an Earthly state of emergency, for it is in our opinion that we can

say with 100% certainty that the planet will soon spiral into cataclysmic unstoppable

warming caused by Human induced climate change.”

ya like this will ever happen!

wfmc
wfmc

Wildfires are a common enough component of the ecosystem to have evolved

heat resistant seeds that require sufficient heat to germinate.  The

possibility exists that forest management policy, managing wildfires for

obvious social reasons, has provided decades of fuel buildup that

sparked however (lightning, gunfire etc.), will not just pop

fire-needing seeds but sterilize everything, even the soils as well. 

There is more than one anthropogenic influence to consider here.......

=======================================

Why did you remove this post?

wfmc
wfmc

Wildfires are a common enough component of the ecosystem to have evolved heat resistant seeds that require sufficient heat to germinate.  The possibility exists that forest management policy, managing wildfires for obvious social reasons, has provided decades of fuel buildup that sparked however (lightning, gunfire etc.), will not just pop fire-needing seeds but sterilize everything, even the soils as well. 

There is more than one anthropogenic influence to consider here.......

mememine
mememine

Yes, some of Nature's climate variations are not nice. Get over it.

mememine
mememine

26 years of extensive climate change research has produced

literally millions of scientific studies on Human CO2’s “deadly” effects and

since the millions of studies can’t possibly all be saying the same thing,

consensus of climate change being “deadly’ is impossible. We need to doubt and

challenge all authority especially one that condemns our children to a CO2

death. REAL planet lovers don’t want climate change to be deadly and the vast

body of evidence suggests that climate change consensus was exaggerated along

with climate change being “deadly” amounting to the science being just a

consultant’s wet dream and a planet lover’s nightmare.

Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE, journalism and

progressivism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK

MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world

education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL. Nice

job girls! Who’s the neocon now?

Michael A. Lewis
Michael A. Lewis

Hot summers and wildfires in the continental United States are not due to "Global Warming." The United States, despite its monumental ego, is not "global."

The hot temperatures of this summer are local weather phenomenon, not global climate change.

GOPvictory
GOPvictory

El Nino, El Nina, jet streams, oscillations, massive high and low

pressure systems. Hell, where is all the major and numerous hurricanes

the alarmists predicted after Katerina. Central US could use a good

soaking from a good gulf hurricane and move upwards to the interior. So

much for predictions.

RobertBreisch
RobertBreisch

take a look at the HAARP project-very interesting and a possible link to world weather

issues as with super heating a section of the ionosphere creating a bubble the layers beneath it rise into the bubble and eventually alter the jet stream with carries water around the globe as rain,snow,etc.Diversion or tampering with the jet stream can cause dramatic shifts in global weather from severe droughts to excessive dangerous storm fronts-super cell thunderclouds,massive tornadoes etc.. 

John Dyer
John Dyer

I always find it amusing that when the Ecocentric article is about one of the many, many ways mankind is destroying the planet- over fishing, ocean acidification, deforestation, genetic crop modification, species extinction, soil erosion... I could go on and on- there are may be two or three comments.  Post an article that is in any way related to climate change and the arguments will go back and forth pages after page.  It seems like if we can only prove to ourselves that climate change is a hoax, we can sleep comfortably at night assured that we are not wrecking our planet.

idoubt
idoubt

the tax dollars that 99% generate but never get to see will be generously spent to rebuild million-dollar mansions in the same places for the 1%.  

GOPvictory
GOPvictory

 Who built these mansions the 99%, who maintains the 99%, who works there  the 99%! Get real.

Doubtit999
Doubtit999

1998 National Academy of Sciences Committee produced a report:  The Impacts of Natural Disasters: A Framework for Loss Estimation.  Check it out.  So many resources, yet we remain selfishly foolish.

tiggersean
tiggersean

What was not covered in this is the fact Colorado is for the most part a red state, a conservative, republican state with some exceptions.  My time living there proved that the people living in the red zones can afford the very expensive homes there and as I got to know them, they are vociferous anti tax and anti big governmewnt.  So, riddle me this; why are they crying so loud for state and federally funded fire fighters tocome and put the fires out that threten their fantastic 1% homes?  Why can't they just hire private fire fighters to do this?

cnnnnn
cnnnnn

Why don't all you blood and Gore followers would go kiII yourselves and save the planet?

cnnnnn
cnnnnn

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire.

Revelation 16:8

boofmeister
boofmeister

duh.  finally someone said it.  more people moving where they shouldn't.  im sorry, but seeing a bunch of cookie cutter McMansions burning down did not make me sad.  and then listening to all the people talk about praying to God and that they will re-build just made me mad.  people are so dumb when it comes to this stuff.  its like the dumb rednecks that live in tordado alley...when a tornado comes they are like "why me?"  and then they say god saved them and they will rebuild.  bottome line:  there are too many people on the planet.  mother nature wants to get rid of them.  these fires and tornados and tropical storms are like mother natures hand scratching and biting and swatting away fleas.

norcalmojo
norcalmojo

People who are saying a heat wave is proof of climate change are calling others anti-science?  

That's pretty funny. 

smeat3
smeat3

I'm guessing if that makes you laugh, you don't really know the definition of humor.

norcalmojo
norcalmojo

Petulant crybabies make me laugh too.

You're funny.

smeat3
smeat3

Awww... You said "petulant"! How cute and giggly you are.

I'm sure your ability to laugh at the tragedies of the world is something those around you find invaluable.

Doubtit999
Doubtit999

SOYLENT GREEN! - 1973 scifi flick

stockbuy44
stockbuy44

Standard New World Order garbage. They are using a solar cycle to implement carbon taxes so the Rothschild family can pollute more and make even more money. And they are using the forest fires to move people to suburban centers so they can rewild entire sections of America and keep us in prison cities.

Doubtit999
Doubtit999

SOYLENT GREEN! - 1973 scifi flick.  10 years sooner than the film depicts.  Come get your wafer!

Doubtit999
Doubtit999

Sprawling into red zones is as reckless as moving directly to hurricane prone coasts followed by the insistent complaints about insurance cost and lack of FEMA response. Irresponsible people!  Simply irresponsible!  Oh yeah, rebuild and create the illusion of new jobs.

USGeoguy
USGeoguy

These are not the worst fires in Colorado history. Get your facts straight!!! Last week an NPR Denver reporter tried very hard to get a Forest Service fire official to make that claim, presumably to make a splashy headline. The Forest Service official steadfastly and calmly refused to do so. These may be the worst fires that have happened in populated areas of Colorado but they are not the worst fires by far. This is a somewhat higher than normal fire season but it is not off the scale. There is a lot of dead wood in the forest from a beetle infestation that has been going on for the last 20+ years and that has certainly contributed to the fire hazard. Mostly, people need to stop building their homes in zones that have a high probability of burning every 40 years. Duh. 

tekelder
tekelder

No reason not to build in a fire zone if you build appropriately.  Use fire proof materials and have heat reflective window shutters - probably wouldn't cost more tha 10-20% more than a conventional matchlight wood frame structure.

USGeoguy
USGeoguy

Thanks Tekelder - Your point is well taken. You are right that we can build  in areas that have a high probability of burning and with smart construction minimize the chance of the home burning down.  It seems likely that fire insurance might be more expensive in "red zones" if a home is not built from fire retardant material. 

Gyrogearloose
Gyrogearloose

The root cause isn't global warming; nor is it building in the wildland-urban interface.

The root cause is population growth. 

LemmingSlayer
LemmingSlayer

Disagree!  It's because of greed, real estate profits, builder profits, contruction mateials profits, and willingness by republican town governments to place profits above, environment, ecology, and safety!

Gyrogearloose
Gyrogearloose

Ah yes!  I should have known.  All evil is due to corporate greed.

Why didn't I realize this?

tekelder
tekelder

The root cause is building match stick homes in fire zones.  We can accomplish the same thing by building inappropriately for almost any risk zone.  The real root problem is stupidity and folks:  stupid really hurts!

There are more people because we figured out how to make more nitrate fertilizer that increased the production  of protein that allowed our protien limited species to expand.  More people are not the problem because with more people you gain the creativity to resolve the challenges that limit us.

joe111222
joe111222

Unhealthy forests are the problem not man and not climate change.  Fires are good for the forest.  If you don’t like fires, then you have to log the forest and let cattle graze.  One way or another you have to get rid of the grass and thin the trees.  Nature’s way of getting rid of the grass and thinning the trees is fires, mans way of doing it is logging and grazing.  If you have healthy forests, then the lightning strikes make little fires that don’t do much damage, if you have unhealthy forests, then the lightning strikes make the huge fires you are seeing now.

Blake Bowlin®
Blake Bowlin®

Global Warming (raised CO2 levels) and building in the wildland-urban interface, as you call it, are both denominators of population growth.  

blackhat
blackhat

So curbing or stalling population growth, immigration included is paramount. Yes?

ski2xs
ski2xs

So. . . do we treat the acute symptoms?  Or the chronic illness?

Gyrogearloose
Gyrogearloose

Yup.  That's what the term 'root cause' means.

tekelder
tekelder

Folks need to get over their self-importance and belief that they are so significant that they are changing the climate or more to the point can "save" the planet.  we are at the height of the solar storm cycle which means more energy (heat) for the planets in a position to absorb it.  Surprise! warmer weather!  If you build in a fire zone, (or earthquake zone, flood plain, tornado alley, or hurricane area you need to build accordingly.  I have lost sympathy for the folks who live in homes built inappropriately for the known destructive weather/climate/geology and then whine when the inevitable destructive event arrives.  Bryan, shame on you fo writing another agitprop piece that fails to deal with the root of the problem by simplistically focusing on the trama of folks who have endured a tragedy to promote misdirected pop culture stupidity called global warming or is it global climate change. 

mememine
mememine

The scientists promise there will be countless thousands of

detrimental effects from Human CO2 with more droughts, storms, floods, dead

oceans, sea rise etc. Is that not the end of the world and death for all of us?

How could it not be?

Climate change was exaggerated because anything less than

unstoppable warming leaves climate change not being a crisis of any kid. You can’t

have a little tiny catastrophic climate crisis.

Ben Franklin
Ben Franklin

"The scientists"... sounds like a thriller novel.  Not sure who you are talking about.  Most scientists are rather cautious about their predictions.  However, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does trap more of the earth's heat and warm the atmsophere and oceans.  There are consequences of this.  And many of the  physical consequences will lead to economic consequences.  Sorry, that's just the way it is. 

But I am not sure why you either want full blown catastrophic change or to pretend that there will be no change at all.  We already know there will be change.  We must now just determine if we want to attempt to reduce the impacts. 

tekelder
tekelder

Unfortunately many of  the folks posing as "climate scientists" are for the most part paid agenda (think Sierra Club) shills with little or no scientific credentials or training.

oneStarman
oneStarman

 "Again, none of this is meant to downplay the role that climate change" - BS - That is EXACTLY the Purpose of this Article  - To TRY to make you Believe that there is Something OTHER than Burning Fossil Fuels that is DESTROYING Our Grandchildren's Future. 

Srslynow
Srslynow

Your ignorance is amazing! I suppose the mammoths ended the ice age by keeping the gas lamp burning to stay warm. Yes climate change happens and perhaps burning fossil fuels does contribute but the questions is to what effect?

ClimateTruthIreland
ClimateTruthIreland

Ever noticed a common symptom of the climate extremist syndrome is that they blame every disaster under the sun on 'global warming? Get real.

GOPvictory
GOPvictory

 El Nino, El Nina, jet streams, oscillations, massive high and low

pressure systems. Hell, where is all the major and numerous hurricanes

the alarmists predicted after Katerina. Central US could use a good

soaking from a good gulf hurricane and move upwards to the interior. So

much for predictions.

GeologyGrad
GeologyGrad

The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling throughout it's history.  We are in a warming cycle at the moment, but this one is unique because of the rate at which the planet is warming.  CO2 trends match the trend in warming, but correlation does not necessarily mean causation.  You can argue what you believe the cause is, but the fact is the planet is warming. This is leading to more extreme weather (hot places get hotter, more intense hurricanes, larger floods in low lying areas, etc.).  So we need to prepare for those situations, and fossil fuels will run out in the next 200 years anyway so we need alternate energy solutions. If we can mitigate any affect that we may have that is speeding up this global warming process wouldn't it make sense to do so?

GOPvictory
GOPvictory

Did you buy a Volt yet and your own personal solar power charger to save the planet?

GeologyGrad
GeologyGrad

Nope, there's not really much people can do to affect the process at this point.  Just adapt when the climate changes, have a nice day.

Ben Franklin
Ben Franklin

GeologyGrad, Correlation does not equal causation.  I agree.  However, let's get our order correct.  In the late 1950s, Keeling first started to accurately monitor CO2 in the atmosphere and rellatively quickly found there was an upward trend.  Through the 1960s, atmospheric scientists started to ponder this and very early on were discussing that increaased CO2 would likely cause the mean temperature of the atmosphere to increase.  They already knew that CO2 absorbs energy at the wavelenght that the earth emits energy back into space.  So this discussion dates back to the 1960s, and the was initiated on the hypothesis that since CO2 absorbs the energy earth is emitting back into space, increasing CO2 int he atmosphere will cuase the earth's atmosphere to become warmer. A great read is Keeling's autobiography at http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/pub...

GeologyGrad
GeologyGrad

I agree with you there, and I personally do believe that the rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution has definitely added to the warming of the planet. I was just pointing out that whether or not people believe we are causing global warming doesn't change the fact that it is happening.  The last time CO2 was at current levels, around 400 ppm, was in the Pliocene, and global temperatures were an average of 2-3 C warmer. Sea level was about 15 m higher and large amounts of land that now were occupied by deserts.  When the global climate system comes into equilibrium with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we will probably end up in a similar situation to that, in 300 years or so.

GeologyGrad
GeologyGrad

The planet has warmed and cooled many many times throughout the history of the planet.  Right now we are in a warming phase, the problem is that excess CO2 we've produced may be speeding up the process.  Whatever the cause is, it can be agreed that the planet is warming at the moment, which will result in more extreme weather (hot places get hotter, more violent storms, larger floods, etc.).  So we need to prepare for those kind of events, and doesn't it make sense to try to limit any effect we have that may be accelerating the warming process?

Guest
Guest

And of course when the summers start to cool off next year or the year after it will be because climate change runs in cycles. 

the fact that the sun is at the height of its solar cycle and output is higher than normal has nothing to do with the high temps or dry conditions - its all CO2!

saladyears
saladyears

LOL, you mean the paper by Roy Spencer in Remote Sensing that was so thoroughly discredited that the editor for the journal resigned?

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

http://www.skepticalscience.co... 

saladyears
saladyears

From the resignation letter itself, which you have apparently still not yet read:

"So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief--to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously."

Please provide evidence that his resignation was politically motivated, as opposed to what he explicitly says: a failure of the peer review system that he took responsibility for. Should we trust the man who resigned's word about why he resigned? If not, please explain why we shouldn't, preferably without conspiracy theories.

I have already posted a link that points out the numerous errors in Roy Spencer's fatally flawed paper. Here is the advanced version (again): http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Dr. Spencer's paper does not even pass the first hurdle of proper statistical analysis: "The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars, or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of the methods in the paper is not sufficient to be able to replicate the results."

Those are facts, in direct contradiction to your claim that I have provided none. Again, just to make it clear: Dr. Spencer's paper does not provide error bars, one of the most fundamentally basic principles of sound statistics. That is a fact. Go ahead, read Dr. Spencer's paper yourself and show me that I'm wrong:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

Guest
Guest

I ty to walk away from a believer and you just cant shut you mouth and accept it so here is Rays response to the resignation letter.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/20... 

It has everything to do with your insistence that the politics of an editor resigning should be involved in a scientific discussion at all.  You didnt debunk anything, you pointed to a political story not relevant data that proves Dr. Spencer is incorrect - considering that his report was published in a peer reviewed journal the fact that Wagner didnt agree with it being published doesnt diminish the fact that it was peer reviewed and published.

One fact that debunks his research would be a worthy effort to respond to but I think that argument is lost on you!

saladyears
saladyears

You can add value by not posting easily debunked crap. It has nothing to do with your intelligence level.

Guest
Guest

yeah don't listen to me, I have nothing of value to add and since I don't agree with you I must be retarded or something!

saladyears
saladyears

Spencer's paper was published July 25, 2011.  Wolfgang Wagner resigned in September 2011 in response, as you can see from the line in his resignation PDF that says:

Published: 2 September 2011

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

Since you apparently looked only at the URL OF THE LINK, instead of actually reading his resignation letter, which unequivocally states that he resigned because the quality of Spencer's work was so poor, why should anyone take what you have to say seriously? 

Guest
Guest

Your sources are a 10 year old report he published and a pro-global warming site?

Total fail on independence, try finding a real scientist who debunked his latest NASA satellite data  based study. Not one from ten years ago and not one where the entire article is fond of making excuses.  Your references are weak and suspect.

It is honestly like arguing with an evangelical when debating with climate lovers, they only believe their own and don't take criticism very well. Saying the UN models may have a problem is kind of like saying christ was an alien - Heresy!

saladyears
saladyears

This is utterly false and has been repeatedly debunked with, you know, actual science published in science journals.  See:

http://www.skepticalscience.co... 

saladyears
saladyears

See my reply above, this comment system is awful.

Guest
Guest

save you snarky attitude, its childish and unenlightened. 

There was also rock solid proof that the earth didnt exhaust heat into space at a rate fast enough to balance out global warming yet NASA proved it does, the models used the incorrect value for earth heat expressed into space were off by 100 times on the value of heat expression - this means their predictions for temperature rises are off by a factor of 10. 

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”But, this research doesn‘t only show that there’s less heat being trapped in the first place; it also shows that the atmosphere unloads heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. If true, this means that the Earth‘s atmosphere isn’t holding on to warmth as long as some climate scientists say it is.

oneStarman
oneStarman

Much of the USA is "Under the Sun" and Burning Up. THAT is Getting Real

Guest
Guest

There is zero evidence to tie the current extreme heat to global warming - zero! Unless you have some magically tucked away in secret ?

ClimateTruthIreland
ClimateTruthIreland

Yeah right, I suppose we never ever had a succession of hot summers before. 

tekelder
tekelder

Smeat3 - You sound like a reasonable person.  Without oil and gas to make fertilizer and mechanized food production roughly 75% of the existing people on the planet will starve to death.  Are you suggesting that you think eliminating fossil fuel consumption will do no harm? 

Do you not drive a vehicle that uses energy (even electricitiy comes principally from fossil fuel).  Do you never use public transportation or air travel?

Really, you are not going to "save the planet" by sorting your trash.

The global warming stopped about 12 years ago - see the data.

Now it is global climate change - a naturally occuring process that may or may not have been impacted by as much as 1-5% by human activity.  the politicians smelled a carbon tax or this advocacy issue would have died its own natural death a long time ago. 

In California the state's implementation of carbon cap and trade will net the state between $500 million and $1 billion in taxes over the next two years and not one pound of CO2 emission will have been averted globally -  except by the ensuing devastation of the California economy! 

smeat3
smeat3

Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. The rest of us are going to keep doing our part to help not mess up the planet. I for one hope you're right, but even on roads I know there are no cars driving on, I look both ways before crossing a street. We won't harm the planet by cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. And yes, we've had hot summers before, but the global temperature trend is the issue, which I'm sure you've read about and ignored, and IF we are causing it, then it would be in our best interest to stop. You're like one of those people who says "hey i invented a new medication that seems to kill strep. Let's test it on the world right away and then if we find out later, oops, it was worse for us than the disease, ah well, I'll be dead by then anyway."