As a Coloradan, I’d like to personally thank all you who deny the existence of global warming, or of our ability/need to do anything about it, for courageously staying the course in the face of all the “scientific evidence” and “expert opinion”. I’ve always envied the face-of-the-moon landscape of Arizona, but the occasional moisture and mild climate kept promoting the growth of annoying forests all over the place. Not any more!! Fires explode across the Front Range.
I’m very pleased that you share my enthusiasm for desolate landscapes and indoor living. Keep up the good fight! We’re likely to face some “heat” (;)) in the aftermath of this destruction! Let’s just pray that Baby Jesus creates a halo of ice around Colorado Springs and especially (gasp!!) the Air Force Academy…
What Purplehorse said. Many factors contribute to forest fires, but climate is a major one. Right now we have the choice between making things better and making things worse. AGW deniers choose the latter, so the liability is theirs.
Except isn’t the ferocity of the current fires more directly related to the fact that environmentalists refused to allow the harvest of the beetle killed trees? There are a ton of factors in this fire and while I’m not a defender of the AGW contingent it’s quite a leap to lay this at their door. Hell even if we spent the last 20 years with everyone believing and pulling in the same direction we wouldn’t have made that much progress at this point since we’re talking about fractions of degrees over decades.
Huh, this was an item I was not aware of, I was going to say that the usual scientific approach to this is to realize that forest fires, both natural or man made, are not directly caused by global warming, but the key word here is that it **amplifies **the damage they cause as more energy is in the atmosphere increasing the damage.
Well, besides the usual amplification, what I missed so far was this:
In essence, besides the prediction becoming spot on, global warming is not only amplifying the damage when the fires take place, global warming also creates an environment that is more conductive to huge forest fires as it reduces the snow pack and causes early springs and summers that dry the forests even more.
On edit, Moonlitherial, you do need to check the articles before coming with that post, the answer is no. This is not a huge leap.
Not a huge leap that GW contributes to the increased ferocity of the fires which is what the articles discuss, but blaming the skeptics IS a huge leap. As I said, even if we all agreed decades ago there is significant doubt that we could have sufficient impact to have prevented this.
The problem with that statement is that it does ignore that the bad impacts that one will encounter even if we begin now (there is a lag on the effects of the green house gases released) would be even worse if we do nothing.
Skeptics (and most of them are not skeptics, many do deny the climate science) have to be blamed for the worsening effects that will take place thanks to the inaction they managed to cause in the USA specially.
While I understand the assertion that AGW may contribute a teeny bit to the forest fires, there are many other contributing factors. The Pine Beattle, lack of harvesting of the dead wood, poor or no fire restoration programs (fire is natural, preventing it means that when it does happen, it’s much, much worse), and also, um, urbanization. By virtue of living in that area, you’re prone to things like forest fires.
It’s not all global warming (btw, it’s actually ‘climate change’).
I’m kind of surprised at the environmentalists stopping the logging of these dead trees. What was the basis for their arguement? Any ‘environmentalist’ with any sort of actual education knows the risks of a dead forest and the benefits of harvesting it, both for people and for flora.