AGU And HuffPo Continue To Ignore Empirical Evidence! Claim Wild Fire Area To Double By 2050!


This is the worst sort of advocacy gone wrong.  Why?  Because it misses proper attribution, and causes a focus on something imaginary and invented rather than the proper causation.  This will cost money.  This will exact a true environmental toll.  Worse, this will cost lives. 

People get so animated about children being slaughtered, and rightly so.  But, what about the direct harm and life lost to this insanity?  People believe this bullshit and they die because of it.  Laws get passed, policies get made, and people will pay for it with their lives.  These people are no better than Lanza.

U.S. Wildfires: Burn Area Expected To Double By 2050

The article starts like so……

Warmer and drier conditions in coming decades will likely cause the burned area from wildfires in the U.S. to double in size by 2050, according to new research based on satellite observations and computer modeling experiments. The research, which was first presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco on Dec. 4, provides insight into both recent wildfire trends and the sharp increase in dryness — and therefore wildfire susceptibility — in certain regions of the country.

It goes on to note that we’ve seen a recent increase in area burned.

The 2012 U.S. wildfire season was one of the worst on record, with massive fires affecting Colorado and New Mexico, in particular. The new research suggests that high wildfire years, such as 2012, would likely occur 2-to-4 times per decade by 2050, rather than once per decade as they do now.

This is an insipidly stupid statement, and based on nothing but hyperbole and fantasy.  I’ll demonstrate shortly.  It continues……

In addition, the research shows that the midsection of the country — from Texas to North Dakota — is likely to become drier as the climate continues to warm in response to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. That drying will significantly increase the amount of burned area in this zone, said Doug Morton of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Morton said other regions of the country, including the West, will likely see a continued increase in burned area as well.

The burn areas may or may not increase, but what we can say, what we do know, is that the increase seen in recent areas have nothing to do with the long term climate, increase of temps, or dryness of the regions.  These statements are either born from inexcusable ignorance, or intentional deception.  Either way, this is indeed, murderous advocacy. 

I’ll start with a very simple statement.  All fires start small.   Yes, this is a simple truism which shouldn’t have to be stated, but, because of the idiocy expressed above, I felt is necessary. 

This year, we’ve seen 9,170,748 acres burned.  This is a rather large amount.  Recall one of the quotes above….. “would likely occur 2-to-4 times per decade by 2050, rather than once per decade as they do now.”

Now?  Again, bullshit!  We’ve had that much or nearly that much, (within 10%) 5 out of the last 8 years.  Once per decade?  That’s an incredible lie.  But, what’s worse is pretending we know how much was burned in the decades past.  The NIFC, National Interagency Fire Center, is changing the way it calculates it’s wild fire statistics.  It only semi-credibly goes back to 1985. 

It is true that dryness would increase the scope and area of the wildfires.  Wouldn’t it be something if the dryness wasn’t a figment of their imagination?

Here’s the precipitation trends for the various regions referenced and a couple more.  Here’s the Southwest…..


Northern Rockies and Plains Region






Clearly, the dryness, or lack thereof, didn’t have anything to do with the increase in the area burned. 

Here’s a graph of the amount of fires going back from 1985, as far as credible for the NIFC.



There is no linear trend.  So, given that all fires start small, and that there is no increase in the dryness of the regions, we know this isn’t the cause of the increase in area burned.  One would assume the people spewing their bullshit would be smart enough to look this stuff up. 

It is the management of our land and the management of our fires which are causing the increase in the area burned.

Why does this have me so exercised?  Because if we simply put as much energy, effort and money to real problems, then we wouldn’t have these things which many feel so compelled to lie about.  This costs us treasure, this harms the environment, this needlessly costs lives.  Again, these scumbags are no better than Lanza, this is the same as putting a gun to people’s heads and pulling the trigger.

Here’s the national precipitation trend…..


Here is the long term Palmer Hydrological Drought Index 12 month average.


There is a cost to this insidious advocacy and it is tremendous. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to AGU And HuffPo Continue To Ignore Empirical Evidence! Claim Wild Fire Area To Double By 2050!

  1. jimash1 says:

    97% of climate science writers are sure of what will happen by 2050 .
    Drought/flood causes fire. Fires are worse than ever. Ever goes back to 1985.
    Do not confuse them with facts.

  2. Martin C says:

    Goodness, these people are imbeciles. They don’t even think about that once an area has been burned they way they are now (as you say, because of bad ideas to suppress every fire for the last 50+ years, and the severity of fires today), it WON’T BURN for a very long time. They just take the ‘stats’ , then project the ‘expected warming’, and extrapolate without a clue of what really can happen.

    In Arizona, the Wallow fire and the Rodeo-Chedaski (from a few years ago and several year ago) burned over 1,000,000 acres in along the Mogollon Rim and White Mountains. Not to mention other fires also that have burned hundreds of thousands of acres. Those areas won’t burn again for a LONG TIME, until the pine trees come back. So how a DOUBLING of burn areas here could occur is beyond me.

    They are just as stupid as NYC mayor BloomingIDIOTBerg, when he made his comment about what a gun ( . . in possession by the principal . . ) could have done in Connecticut . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s