Are warnings of San Diego fire conditions another example that we need to listen to scientists?

Question

In the 70s a few scientists warned that if we didn't start getting our sulfur dioxide emissions under control, we might trigger an ice age. As a result, we did just that (SO2 emissions have decreased since 1980 - see pages 12-14 in the link below), avoiding the potentially catastrophic scenario.

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

In the 80s we were warned that our CFC emissions were causing a hole in the ozone layer. As a result we phased them out in the mid-90s.

In 1999 we were warned that the Y2K bug would cause computers to crash. As a result we fixed the software.

Last year researchers in San Diego warned that "fire crews, land managers, ecologists and others need a better understanding of how global warming is making wildfires more frequent, bigger and more destructive"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20061114-9999-1m14fires.html

Isn't it time to start listening to scientists' warnings about global warming?

Amanda - neither the researchers or myself are talking about any one given fire. We're talking about climate change generally producing conditions which are ripe for large fires.

Earl - Volcanoes emit 1% the carbon dioxide that humans emit annually.

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm

Ah yes, I'm sure the 40s-70s cooling was entirely due to solar variations. In fact, all climate changes are due to solar variations. That's why the planet warms and cools in 11 year cycles. Duh!

Back to reality, solar variations played a very small role in the cooling. Much smaller than sulfates and volcanic emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 1

I think you are absolutely right. This is a big huge REALITY CHECK for ALOT of people. Especially because alot of people in this day and age have the mindset of 'Well, I won't be alive when we run out of resources' or 'I'm not going to be around when anything really bad happens.'
Uh, hullo! The entire southern part of California is going up in flames! SAVE THE TREES, PEOPLE.

Answer 2

When the Spanish first sailed into San Diego bay, they saw fires burning the hills and felt Santa Ana winds. That was in the year 1520.

There is a certain amount of hype about global warming, isn't there? Our weather has been amazingly stable for the past 100 years. Isn't it possible that fluctuations are natural and a part of Earth's history? Who caused the ice ages? There was a mini ice age as recently as 1776. My ancestors came to America around the year 1740 because there were a series of years in Europe that were so cold that there was no food. What caused that? Why did it warm up after that in the 1800's? Why are we so sure we are causing the weather to change. Maybe it usually IS changing and has been stable for an unusually long time.

Answer 3

Tomcat is right. You are delusional about the effects of sulfur. It is another example of the Kool-Aid drinking. To suggest that the 1960s and 70s were cold as a result of sulfur is simple nonsense. Do you believe that sulfur caused the ice ages or the little ice age or do you think it just caused the cooling in the 1960s. The fact is that the cooling in the 1960s and 70s obliterates you whole global warming agenda. The sulfur theory is just a pathetic attempt to explain it in human terms. With the left, everything, even the weather, must be man's fault. It never ceases to amaze me.

Answer 4

You are definitely in the land of fruits and nuts, the cooling of the sixties and 70's was due to solar variability. The reduction in SO2 emissions was driven by concerns about acid rain from the EPA, not the projections of any climatologists.

The more destructive aspect of fire is associated with human expansion into areas that have always been fire risks. I think the US real estate boom over the last decade has more to do with this than a lack of understanding junk science principles of climate extrapolation.


EDIT:

Reality! You are talking about a computer simulation, and not even a very good one. You truly show that are living in a total dream world when you post the results of climate simulation, and consider that to be reality.
.
.

Answer 5

Fires in California are a natural occurance, and global warming does not work how you have described it here - on a year-to-year basis. If scientists made that prediction or warning last year, they didn't intend for it to apply directly to next year, it's not like last year everything was great and then immediately the next year, global warming effects kicked in. In California, we have dry conditions year-round, and the seasonal Santa Ana winds in the fall up the danger of fires exponentially. Fires in California can be caused by any number of reasons - arson, a discarded cigarette butt, a lightning strike, a downed power line (which is inevitable when the fierce Santa Anas hit). Right now in San Diego, losses are at at least $1 billion, but that is still only half of what they were in the fires of 2003 (Associated Press), and you didn't mention that in your question. In November 1993, the Topanga Fire in Malibu (arson) was one of 20 fires at that time that burned close to 200,000 acres over two weeks. In 1980, the Panorama Fire in San Bernardino (arson) burned over 23,000 acres (San Jose Mercury News). Fires are also a natural part of the ecosystem...some plants and trees REQUIRE fire to open their seed pods here in California, and there are other benefits to fire as well...it only becomes detrimental when you add humans into the equation. Certainly we need to be aware of the effects of global warming...but this year is no different than any other in recent history, and the warnings of scientists only one year ago will not increase any risk 100- or even 10-fold over the course of one year. California wildfires are inevitable, it is nature of the landscape, environment, and climate, and it is the risk we take to live here. I am Ventura County born and raised and have seen what feels like a million fires in my short lifetime, and I am certain to see a million more whether we get global warming completely under control or not.

Answer 6

i would have to say no matter what a scientist says eventually they will be right, of course there is going to be a large fire, that is just natures way. if their were 0 fires ecosystems couldnt start over and everything would be a climax community. Fires are actually a good thing. Scientist are like people who say they can tell your future they usually state vague bound to happen things (for example a physic will say something like ... you will come across money in your future, then you find a penny on the street and WOW OMG they were right) i honestly think the fire is not a big issue and the scientist just made an obvious statement. As for global warming you should look at other facts (like how many tons of pollutant is released in 1 volcano explosion then comapare that to how much humans produce in 10 years, also compare the gasses etc, i think you will be quite surprised)

Answer 7

Whether Global warming is real or if it is just another lie can be seen in the reality of the scientists that support it. They are not being honest with us! Type in your search engine the word volcano and research active volcanoes. You will find that natural occurrences are the cause of out weather changes! These active volcanoes are emitting tremendous amounts of greenhouse gas... co2 / so2 / and many others. Check the maps for these and see how many are active! They give off about 96% of all greenhouse gas. But we do not hear that from the scientists that want to support that it is man who is doing it. Would you not consider that they are just plain LIARS! What is real? Reduction of solid wastes and planting of more trees; these two are needed. The planet may go into a global warming, but it is not man who is doing it,, it is our aging planet! These are scientific fact not addressed by these lying scientists! Many do not support what they claim! God bless. Earl

Answer 8

I cordially invite you to live like a third world peasant in trying to fight global warming, but since
1. It won't help anything
2. Where the Cali fires are is A DESERT, it has been hot and dry, it will be hot and dry thus the brush will burn and has burned since before recorded history.
3. When it all pans out to be B.S. how stupid are you folks gonna feel or will you be like liberals everywhere, shrug and move to the next cause dejour.

Answer 9

Californians did listen to scientists.End result- massive fires due to forestry mismanagment.
Take UN funded science with a grain of salt.

Answer 10

it's all Smokey Bear's fault! the USFS really pulled the pin with that campaign!

too many years without small natural and/or controlled fires and we're suddenly up to our eyeballs in dry tinder on the forest floor!

thanks a bunch Smokey!