Climate change

National Interagency Fire Center Deletes Inconvenient Data

This post is an excerpt from an article by Anthony Watts. Read full article here.

“The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) has been the keeper of U.S. wildfire data for decades, tracking both the number of wildfires and acreage burned all the way back to 1926. However, after making that entire dataset public for decades, now, in a blatant act of cherry picking, NIFC “disappeared” a portion of it, and only show data from 1983.”

“Why would they do this you ask? The answer is simple; data prior to 1983 shows that U.S. wildfires were far worse both in frequency and total acreage burned. By disappearing all data prior to 1983, which just happens to be the lowest point in the dataset, now all of the sudden we get a positive slope of worsening wildfire aligning with increased global temperature, which is perfect for claiming ‘climate change is making wildfire worse.’”

See also: Wildfires Not Related to Global Warming

Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction Causes Global Warming, not CO2 GHG

Wryheat note: The following is an original research paper written by David Motes, a chemical engineer with 43 years professional experience. Below I provide the paper abstract with a link to the full paper as a PDF file. The full paper discusses nine problems with the Greenhouse hypothesis and then presents Motes’ alternative hypothesis. Mr. Motes may be contacted at davidmotes7@gmail.com.

Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction Causes Global Warming, not CO2 GHG
by David Motes

Abstract
Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming (AGW) has many causes. CO2 drives recent global warming by Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction (PER), not CO2 Green House Gas (GHG) theory. For example, the irrefutable correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration for the last 800+ thousand years can only be explained by plant evapotranspiration increases / decreases and not by the prevailing CO2 GHG effects. The prevailing GHG theory cannot explain why CO2 increased or decreased or the carbon source prior to fossil fuel emissions, but PER does. Quantitative evidence for PER driving global warming over CO2 GHG follows:

  1. Using a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) energy balance, the scientific consensus 0.70%/year plant water use efficiency increase (evapotranspiration reduction) caused by higher CO2 generates a calculated temperature rise 12 times the actual measured temperature rise.
  2. Similarly, the measured 0.23%/year deforestation and land use change (causing same plant evapotranspiration 0.23%/year reduction) generates a calculated temperature rise 3 times the actual measured temperature rise. From scientific consensus, global development, deforestation, commercial farming, and commercial ranching have reduced plants (consequently evapotranspiration) since the 1960 industrial global expansion. Explaining the 12 and 3 factors:
    A. The actual temperature increase was less due to increasing infrared radiation emitted by the atmosphere to space from that same temperature rise.
    B. Terrestrial biomass increases in deserts and arid lands partially offset the measured evapotranspiration reductions.
  3. Only 8% photosynthesis reduction is equivalent to all 2020 fossil fuel CO2 emissions.
  4. Water vapor is 192 times stronger GHG than CO2 when you factor in both infrared absorbances and atmospheric concentrations. Consequently, CO2 GHG contributes only ~0.3% to AGW, balance driven by PER.
  5. The PER impact on global warming is demonstrated in real life at many locations such as city centers being 1-3 °C warmer than the surrounding suburbs or countryside. Secondly, the air is 3-4oC cooler above a green grass lawn vs a black asphalt parking lot. PER provides an explanation for the undeniable Global Warming that fits all the scientific data (climate history, carbon sources, carbon mass balances, energy balances, GHG parameters, humidity data, etc.) as quantified and explained in this engineering and scientific study. “Greening” the earth (increasing plant life) is less expensive and substantially more effective than just reducing annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions (contributes only 1% of existing atmospheric CO2).

Quantified problems with the proposed CO2 annual emission reduction
plans follow:

  1. Will certainly fail by focusing on the 1%/year contribution and foolishly ignoring the 99% existing atmospheric CO2.
  2. Focuses solely on reducing the 8% CO2 emissions driver, while ignoring the 92% plant life CO2 driver. Prior to attempting to resolve the current global warming problem, we should identify, quantify, and confirm the root cause(s) and magnitudes. Then, solutions become clearer and more cost effective.

Read the full paper:

CO2 & Global Temperature 19apr2021

“King Coal” is not dead yet

Many countries are ignoring the (false) principles of the Paris Climate Accord and instead going with what works to produce reliable electricity.

Here are some recent headlines about generating electricity by burning coal:

Africa to double coal fired power by 2030 (link)

India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years (link)

In 2020 China built three times more coal power than the rest of the world (link)

Un-Greening: Mexico gives up on renewables, revives coal industry (link)

The UK’s “End of Coal” lasted a whole week (link)

Colombia announces coal support for decades to come (link)

Coal rescues Germany from its renewable energy folly (link)

France relights coal power plants to keep the lights on (link)

Coal’s Share Of Global Energy Supply Has Been Increasing For 50 Years, IEA Reports (link)

And:

Will France Leave the Paris Agreement in 2022?

France is failing to meet its goals under the Paris Climate Accord. Depending who is elected the new French president in 2022, France may dump the accord altogether. (Read more)

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is employing climate and energy “czars” who appear to be woefully ignorant of both subjects. Instead, in my opinion, their real goal is power. The Biden administration’s approach to both energy and corona virus could be summed up as follows:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

But President Biden claims that climate change is “an existential threat” and any view to the contrary must be eliminated, see:

When Climate Alarmism Meets Cancel Culture 

by Bjorn Lomborg

The academic and activist faction that sets the threatening tone in the climate conversation wants dissent eliminated, leaving themselves the only ones authorized to tell you how scared you should be. To avoid wasting trillions, we should not let them. (Read more)

For the real story on climate and energy, read my posts:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

Global Warming and Rising Carbon Dioxide are a Boon for Plant Life

Some climate alarmists have been claiming that global warming has been decreasing agricultural productivity. (For instance, see here.) But real data proves otherwise.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is plant food. Increasing CO2 and warming have enhanced plant growth and makes plants more water efficient. And, according to NASA, “greening of the Earth mitigates surface warming” (Link), NASA writes: “A new study reports that increased vegetation growth during the recent decades, known as the ‘Greening Earth’, has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of heat and water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.” This is based upon satellite observations.

The Heartland Institute has created a new website (Climate at a Glance) which “puts frequently argued climate issues into short, concise, summaries that provide the most important, accurate, powerful information.) Their section on crop production begins:

“Longer growing seasons, higher temperatures, and more atmospheric carbon dioxide are creating ideal crop conditions. As global climate modestly warms, U.S. and global crop yields are setting new records almost every year. The same is true for nearly all other nations, too. Thanks in large part to longer growing seasons, fewer frost events, more precipitation, and the fertilization effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide, farmers are producing more food on less land, allowing them to feed a growing global population.” (Read more)

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change provides summaries and reviews of scientific papers. Here are the conclusions of their summary studies of plant productivity:

Distant and historic past:

In spite of claims that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and unprecedented global warming since the inception of the Industrial Revolution are destroying (or will destroy) the productivity of the biosphere, the terrestrial vegetative biomass of the globe as a whole continues to rise; and it appears to be doing so at a remarkable rate. As for why is this so, it may well be that the twin evils of the radical environmental movement (rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations) are not the evils they are made out to be, but actually blessings in disguise … blessings that are fueling the biosphere!

Recent past:

In spite of climate-alarmist claims that the temperatures of the latter part of the 20th century and on through the present were unprecedented over the past one to two millennia (which is highly debatable) and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were the highest they had been for several hundred millennia (which is true), as well as the fact that mankind yearly harvests and/or destroys much of the planet’s natural vegetation, the total yearly production of terrestrial vegetative biomass for the globe as a whole continues to rise, and at a remarkable rate.

Projection for the future:

Throughout the course of the current century, even the severe warming predicted by current climate models will not likely be detrimental to plant growth and productivity. Rather, it will likely be a major benefit, enhancing plant growth and soil organic carbon storage, which (in addition to their own virtues) will provide a significant negative feedback to global warming as the Greening of the Earth continues!

A review of papers on grasslands finds “as the air’s CO2 concentration continues to increase, grassland species should respond positively by exhibiting increased rates of photosynthesis. In addition, such increases in photosynthesis will likely occur even under unfavorable growing conditions characterized by less-than-adequate soil moisture, inadequate soil nutrition, elevated air temperature, and physical stress imposed by herbivory. Thus, earth’s grassland species will likely grow ever more robustly in the future, thanks to the ever increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration produced by the burning of ever larger quantities of fossil fuels.”

The studies above are on plant productivity in general. More specific studies on food crops show enhanced growth with warming temperatures and increases of carbon dioxide.

Related:

Contrary to current political policy of eliminating CO2 emissions, real science shows that doing so will have no significant effect on global warming and will waste trillions of dollars. For some background see:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

As I wrote in 2015:

The “social cost of carbon”(SCC) is a computer-generated artifice that puts a dollar figure on the alleged environmental and economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. This number is supposed to allow bureaucrats to offset the alleged damage through regulation and taxes, i.e., it will increase the cost of electricity and gasoline. The computer models fail to take into account the benefits of carbon dioxide, such as making our crops more robust and more water efficient. Also, there is absolutely no physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have any significant role in controlling global climate. (Read more on Wryheat)

Recent articles on SCC:

Why ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is Most Useless Number You’ve Never Heard Of

by Kevin Dayaratna

Dubbed by some as “the most important number you’ve never heard of,” the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon. That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy. Three sets of statistical models are used to estimate the social cost of carbon. Social cost of carbon estimates are based on very questionable assumptions regarding the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions, naive projections reaching 300 years into the future, and ignorance of discount rate recommendations by the Office of Management and Budget regarding cost-benefit analysis. Our results tell the same story: Assumptions made by modelers can drastically change the purported estimates and thus beef up the damages as much as they want. (Read more)

Social Cost of Carbon May Be Social Benefit of Carbon, Economist Finds

by James Taylor (commenting on Dauaratna’s paper)

The Biden administration made headlines by imposing a “social cost of carbon” – to be factored into federal cost-benefit analysis – that is more than six times higher than the social cost of carbon determined by the Trump administration. However, economist and data scientist Kevin Dayaratna published an article documenting that the alleged social “cost” of carbon may actually be a social “benefit” of carbon. In an article for the Daily Signal, Dayaratna observes that any accurate assessment of the social cost of carbon must include social benefits as well as merely social harms. Importantly, Dayaratna observes that any sound cost/benefit assessment must take into account “positive agricultural feedback effects associated with carbon dioxide emissions.”

“In fact, we found that under very reasonable assumptions, those benefits can outweigh the costs, suggesting that the social cost of carbon can indeed be negative,” Dayaratna writes. “The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.” (Source)

See also: The Social Cost of Carbon Fantasy and

Biden’s Arbitrary Social Cost of Carbon: What You Need to Know

12 State Attorneys General Sue Biden Admin Over Its Climate Policies The lawsuit said Biden’s executive order enables regulatory agencies to place restrictions on nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives in order to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

For a tutorial on climate read:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis)

[Wryheat note, the brochures linked to below were intended to be posted on the White House website, but since they are politically incorrect, the new administration has banned them. If the original links don’t work, click the “alternate link.”]

[UPDATE: Jan. 13, 2021:

 These briefs demonstrate that climate science has glaring deficiencies as a science when it is used to declare that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. These deficiencies are unacceptable to any student of the scientific method.

Legates and Ryan Maue, an author of one of the briefs, were promptly removed from their positions by OSTP director and Trump’s science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier was fired. They returned to their positions at NOAA. Applying the scientific method to climate science is not permitted in Washington, regardless of political party. It is clear that conformity conquers all.]

January 8th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 

Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media.

Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”.  

Wryheat note: These brochures never made it to the White House website and have been removed from Dr. Spencer’s website as well. Fortunately, I saved the originals. Note that these brochures are no longer official White House publications.

Introduction(Dr. David Legates)

Alternate link: White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis) « Roy Spencer, PhD

The Sun Climate Connection(Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Sun-Climate-Connection

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US(Dr. Patrick Michaels)

Alternate link: WH brochure Systematic-Problems-in-the-Four-National-Assessments-of-Climate-Change-Impacts-on-the-US

Record Temperatures in the United States(Dr. John Christy)

Alternate link: WH brochure record temperatures

Radiation Transfer(Dr. William Happer)

Alternate link: WH brochure Radiation-Transfer

Is There a Climate Emergency(Dr. Ross McKitrick)

Alternate link: WH brochure is there a climate emergency

Hurricanes and Climate Change(Dr. Ryan Maue)

Alternate link: WH brochure Hurricanes-and-Climate-Change

Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation(Dr. Anthony Lupo)

Alternate link: WH brochure Climate-Climate-Change-and-the-General-Circulation

Can Computer Models Predict Climate(Dr. Christopher Essex)

Alternate link: WH brochure Can-Computer-Models-Predict-Climate

The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming(Dr. Roy Spencer)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Faith-Based-Nature-of-Human-Caused-Global-Warming

See also my Wryheat post: A Review of the state of Climate Science

 

Bjorn Lomborg on how to deal with climate change

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good.

His new paper: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Abstract:

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC’s two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today’s poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off. *

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

This article will outline how to establish a rational climate policy in the context of many other, competing global issues. Read full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 

*Wryheat comment: I disagree with Lomborg’s stance on “carbon taxes” because where they have been imposed show that they fail to deliver advertised benefits, see:

Carbon Tax Failures – Lessons from Australia and Germany

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth (video)

Is Rising Atmospheric CO2 Causing Dangerous Global Warming? (video)

Many people are concerned about the potential impacts of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. For years they have been bombarded with claims that unless its concentration is slowed or even reduced, dangerous global warming will ensue, producing all sorts of undesirable consequences with little to no positive effects. Watch this video to lean why this scenario is unlikely to occur and why CO2 is not the all-important driver of temperature that climate alarmists make it out to be.

Hurricane strength and frequency just part of natural variation

The several recent hurricanes making landfall in the southeastern U.S. have spawned claims that they are the result of global warming. However, real data show that these hurricanes are consistent with natural variation. The following graphs were constructed by meteorologist Dr. Ryan N. Maue, who has recently been appointed as chief scientist at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. See his website: http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Hurricane Frequency

On the graph below, the upper line shows all hurricanes with wind speeds of greater than 64 knots. The bottom line show major hurricanes with wind speeds of greater than 96 knots. As you can see, overall, there has been no increase in frequency.

Hurricane Strength

Hurricane strength is measured as “accumulated cyclone energy” ACE. In the graph below, the upper line is global, the bottom line is for the northern hemisphere.

 

Dr. Maue notes:

“Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.”

Hurricane landfalls:

The graph below shows the number of land-falling hurricanes since 1970. The dark bars are category 1&2 hurricanes; the grey bars are hurricanes of category 3 and above.

 

See also:

Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming

A Review of the state of Climate Science    See why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will have no effect on global temperature.

 

 

What Global Surface Temperature is Ideal for Human Habitation?

The fake fear of climate change is the current boogeyman of our age. Some say we must eliminate some or all of our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or the Earth will become uninhabitable. They say we must limit global temperature to a maximum of 2°C. In articles referenced below I show why that is nonsense.

So, what is an ideal temperature? A new study led by Washington State University and published in the Journal of Astrobiology proposes an answer. This study examines exoplanets in the universe. The study is titled: In Search for a Planet Better than Earth: Top Contenders for a Superhabitable World. (Link to full study)

Paper Abstract:

The fact that Earth is teeming with life makes it appear odd to ask whether there could be other planets in our galaxy that may be even more suitable for life. Neglecting this possible class of “superhabitable” planets, however, could be considered anthropocentric and geocentric biases. Most important from the perspective of an observer searching for extrasolar life is that such a search might be executed most effectively with a focus on superhabitable planets instead of Earth-like planets. We argue that there could be regions of astrophysical parameter space of star-planet systems that could allow for planets to be even better for life than our Earth. We aim to identify those parameters and their optimal ranges, some of which are astrophysically motivated, whereas others are based on the varying habitability of the natural history of our planet. Some of these conditions are far from being observationally testable on planets outside the solar system. Still, we can distill a short list of 24 top contenders among the >4000 exoplanets known today that could be candidates for a superhabitable planet. In fact, we argue that, with regard to the search for extrasolar life, potentially superhabitable planets may deserve higher priority for follow-up observations than most Earth-like planets.

Bottom line: The best habitable planets will have a mean surface temperature about 5°C higher than on Earth.

My previous articles on the subject show why reducing CO2 emissions will be a multi-trillion dollar, futile exercise that will send us back to the dark ages :

Who Is Afraid Of Two Degrees Of Warming?

During the past 10,000 years (the Holocene), Earth experienced several cycles of warming and cooling which exceeded the mythical two degree limit. Civilizations thrived during the warm periods and had a harder time during cold periods.

Estimates Of Global Warming Reduction By Reducing CO2 Emissions

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. Even a complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C by year 2100. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

A doubling of current atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce global warming of just over one degree Celsius. Since carbon dioxide is plant food, such a doubling would make the planet greener and food farming more productive.

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Wildfires Not Related to Global Warming

With the outbreak of large wildfires in California, the “mainstream” media is once again blaming it on global warming. However, the real evidence shows that the main causes are bad forest management, failure to clear brush near power lines, arson, and accidents. Note that ancient native Americans did controlled burns to manage the forest and make it more habitable for animals they hunted. But now, controlled burns and clearing brush are politically incorrect.

 

Here are some recent articles on the wildfires.

Irrefutable NASA data: global fires down by 25 percent

by Anthony Watts

Using satellite technology, NASA determined that between 2003 and 2019, global fires have dropped by roughly 25 percent. This makes the “climate change is worsening wildfires” argument completely moot. (Read more)

Minimizing California Wildfires

by Jim Steele

How do we focus our resources to minimize the devastation caused by California’s wildfires? First, we can reduce ignitions. California’s deadliest fire, the Camp Fire and California’s 2nd largest fire, the Thomas Fire were ignited by faulty powerlines during high wind events. California’s sprawling power grid has rapidly expanded since 1970 to accommodate the influx of 20 million people. Accordingly, powerline-ignited fires increased area burnt by five times relative to the previous 20 years.

California’s largest fire (Mendocino Complex), its 3rd largest (Cedar Fire), 5th largest (Rim Fire), and 7th largest (Carr Fire), were all ignited by accidents or carelessness. Uncontrollably, more people cause more accidents, suggesting California’s wisest course of action requires creating more defensible space.

In contrast, the August 2020 fires, which will likely rank in the top 10 of burned area of California, were all naturally started by an onslaught of dry lighting. (Read more)

Dr. Judith Curry on wildfires:

The mantra from global warming activists that manmade global warming is causing the fires, and therefore fossil fuels must be eliminated, is rather tiresome, not to mention misses the most important factors. More importantly, even if global warming is having some fractional impact on the wildfires, reducing fossil fuels would fractionally impact the fires but only a time scale of many decades hence.

Here are some of the more intelligent articles that I’ve seen on the California fires. (Read more)

See also: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/california-burning/

 

This 1994 article from the New York Times (back when NYT still did journalism) puts things in perspective.

New York Times debunks climate-caused California wildfires

California can either manage its forests better or watch them burn for another 200 years, according to the New York Times. All you need to know about California drought and wildfires:

Beginning about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur. (Read more)

See also the following articles from my blog to gain more perspective.

Mega-fires in Southwest due to forest mismanagement

North American wildfires and global warming

Wildfires and Warming – Relationship not so clear

Claim: “Worsening Wildfires Linked to Temp Rise”

Media hype about forest fires and global warming