SCORCHED-EARTH: Global warming will spark more and bigger wildfires in the future—which, in turn, could lead to more global warming.
Image: FLICKR/ERIK CHARLTON
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The wildfires blazing through North Myrtle Beach, S.C., today are hardly an anomaly in a warming world. According to a landmark report that will be published tomorrow in Science, fires are not just a result of a changing climate, they're also contributing to the overall warming trend much more than imagined, the authors report. As vegetation burns, it releases stored-up carbon into the atmosphere, speeding global warming and thereby exacerbating conditions that may generate a greater incidence of wildfires in the coming years.
Because fires have been part of the global environment for hundreds of millions of years—since the first land plants emerged—as well as a tool for humans for more than 50,000 years, they're largely assumed to be a natural and negligible part of the carbon and climactic cycles. As people use fire on a massive scale as a cheap and efficient way to clear forests for agriculture or development, however, it is having a much greater impact than many scientists realized. In fact, deforestation fires alone have contributed 20 percent of the total greenhouse gases humans have contributed to the atmosphere since industrialization.
The report brought together 22 scientists from a range of disciplines and countries in an effort to better understand the global impact of fire. "This is a critical move away from the thinking that fires are just a disaster," says David Bowman, a professor of forest ecology at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, and a lead author of the report. Taken in isolation, each conflagration can cause massive human, economic and natural devastation, but as a broader force fire wields a much larger power, according to the report. "Fire is a feature of our planet…. High levels of fire activity have the capacity to change climate," he says.
But across the globe, fires have been getting larger and stronger. "We are witnessing an increasing instance of these megafires," says Thomas Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. This year alone has seen an increase in both the magnitude and deadliness of conflagrations sweeping Australia and the U.S. Southwest. In the past 20 years, the area scorched by fire in the western U.S. was six times greater than in the two decades that preceded it. These infernos are in large part a result of longer, drier summers, which are only poised to get worse with climate change, Swetnam explains.
"The real originality of this work is that we've been able to say something so obvious," Bowman says. He noted that the challenge now will be integrating fire into the large-scale climate models, and that will take further research and understanding.
"What we're calling for," said Bowman of the report, "is inclusion [of fire] in the next [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] models." Not only is the fire of a broader concern for climate stability and human well-being, but large-scale events also pose a risk of upsetting new carbon trading schemes, notes Jennifer Balch, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California, Santa Barbara, because they can release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with one fell poof.
For more, visit our In-Depth Report on fires and climate change.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentFires have become more destructive because environmentalists have prevented the regular small burnings needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate&" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.
"More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC ."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a hoax.
I have been in the climate science field for 12 years at the in Boulder Colorado.
Not one. I repeat. Not one of these so-called scientists in these petitions(to the best of my knowlege) currently publishes on climate science in peer-reviewed journals and has their work hold up to facts by the world-wide peer review scrutiny.
The vast majority aren't even climate scientists in this petition. This is a well-known hoax perpetuated by the fossil-fuel funded Oregon Institute and has been around for years. You need to Google this.
You are way out of your league, son.
Fires in my home state, SC, are not an anomaly, especially in our Carolina bays. No environmentalist has ever interfered with controlled burns in this state--at least not that has ever been reported; and any "environmentalist" is certain to draw attention in this state. Instead, ignorance, greed, and misguided-capitalist ideals in the form of half-wit, self-serving politicians have routinely lobbied against tighter regulation of developments in this state. Our citizenry, by way of our insurance rates, learned a lesson from Hugo, and I hope we learn one from this fire. Perhaps we should not drain the bays so we can cram more tourists into condos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the warming aspect is the result while irresponsibility is the cause. Fires are not more destructive; they are fires. People, on the other hand, have become less concerned with their environment (they don't rely on their immediate surroundings for survival--so it seems) and more concerned with their bank accounts. So please, don't blame an environmentalist clamoring for responsibility. It is our own self-destructive patterns that have led to our getting in the way of fires.
Arguendo, even if you are right and global warming is a "scam," that is no excuse for reckless irresponsible behavior. Respect should be universal--respect your fellow humans, animals (dominion or not, that does not justify a lack of respect), plants, everything in between and appreciate this little rock a little more.
One more thing, please learn some respect for the office of the Presidency. As a veteran, I didn't fight for the left or the right. I served because I didn't want my nephews and nieces to have to face a future of hostility. Frankly, I find people who degrade the office to be the least patriotic among us, while they often lament with patriotic overtures. President Obama is my president for the next four years. If you don't have his audacity of hope, then at least have the dignity to respect.
OMG! Here we go yet again! Thousands and thousands of "scientists" swear Global Warming is a scam....blah, blah, blah. You people will just never give up, especially all the Republicans who lost. Global Warming is SUPPORTED by thousands and thousands of scientist, not the other way round. Global Warming is warming up us up here at 57 deg. North to such a degree that spring comes almost a whole month earlier. Whoopee! Global Warming rules! Every time I light up my stand-alone fireplace, I rejoice that more carbon dioxide is being released. I live on a plateau in the middle of a vast Scandinavian forest, so I do not give a farthing for all the fears of drowning from a rising ocean -- or dying from heat stroke. But you should. But chill out dude! Nothing will be done about it -- because there are too many idiots who will not agree to do anything. Whatever happens, stay out of my neck of the woods. This nice warm patch is mine. Try holding your breath.... or better yet... keep your nonsense to yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA picture is worth a thousand words. All one has to do is take a look at images from space of melting Ice sheets across the globe to understand that the earth's atmospheric temperature is rising faster then ever before. As a wildland firefighter in California, I can also tell you that average wildland fire is getting larger and the fire intensity is more extreme as forest fuels now begin to dry earlier in the year. Seven of the worst fire seasons in U.S. history have occured in the last ten years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe recent deadly fires in Melbourne Australia were deliberately lit by criminal firebugs, or the result of bad work practice ie faulty unrepaired powerlines starting fires. Nothing to do with global warming at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd we've had fires like this for 100's of years. Nothing to do with Global Warming. Just normal weather cycles El Ninoe etc.
These so called global warming scientists are dangerously full of new age bullsh*t. More than 400 people died the week earlier than the fires (173 deaths)because of 3 days of 45C + temperatures when the govt said turn off airconditioning on hot days to cutgreenhouse gas.
Sensible people around the world will be glad to see these global warming snake oil peddlers spend years in jail for their stupid deadly theories and laws. Bring on the Class actions and manslaughter trials. Lets really test this 'theory' for real !!
The Melbourne fires were also a result of new Green political strategies of letting forest fuel rot on the forest floor instead of clearing it with seasonal controlled burnoffs. Like we have done for centuries and indiginous people have done for millenia here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA simple enviromental law the world learnt in caveman days - Less Fuel = Less Fire.
Not clearing fire prone areas is like storing old newspapers in your back room for years and wondering why a fire took hold there and burnt your house down.
Melbourne local Town Hall councils in fire areas have now rejected greens and their misguided and insane fire stratergies, they have failed causing 100's of deaths and trauma and horrifyingly burned men women and small children alive trapped in their houses because no fire maintanence was done on purpose for 5 years, and fire escape roads were blocked by fallen trees.
Negligence and stupidity causes fires, I've lived through 3 major fires the past 40 years here. Global warming is crap.
There are talks in Melbourne now, to sue climate scientists for the deaths they have caused, the same way medical doctors are sued for malpractice. You want to say the fires are caused by global warming Bring it on !! We'll speak for the dead who listened to you and got burned alive. We would like to see you rot in hell.
My, my "Geoff" such language on a scientific web site. Also, I did not know that the "Greens" spoke for the scientific community. Anyway, Global Warming has to do with the globe, not Down-Under Australia by itself. We sure love it up here near the Arctic where temperatures are really warming up. (Your temperatures are going to get even hotter, too, whom will you blame then?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, if we can get back on topic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would a wildfire contribute to global warming?
What in a wildfire burns is biomass. That carbon was scrubbed out of the atmosphere over the previous few years and would be returned to it anyway, either through fire, through rotting, or through being burned in the metabolism of an animal or human that ate some of the biomass.
I am sick and tired of having the arguments against anthropogenic global warming dismissed out of hand because someone, somewhere can be linked to a fossil fuel interest. It simply does not matter what is the source of information or argument. What matters is the correctness of the data and the intellectual power of the arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI accuse global warming advocates of being quite self-interested in getting a certain result--for career enhancement in the current politically correct mob mentality popular around academia, and even for prestige in the quasi-religious green mood so popular in some circles.
Nevertheless, the world cools since 1998. The ocean waters have not warmed since then, nor are they rising. The ice cover over the solid land portions of Greenland and Antarctica are not decreasing. When floating shore ice breaks off and becomes a menace to large ships it is always because it is being undercut by relatively warmer ocean currents, not because of any top-down surface warming. The recent Steig et al study claiming to show Antarctic warming over the whole of the continent is a tour-de-force of statistical tampering.
Those who argue that the only reason the oceans do not show any warming lately is because the icebergs are cooling them make an ultimately ridiculous argument. When an Ice Age is coming on of course the planet makes more ice and of course the effect of that is to cool oceans.
At least a Little Ice Age comes on because it more and more looks like the sun has ended a centuries-long maximal surge of sunspots and coronal turbulence. Such longer-term trends stand over and above the familiar 11-year cycle. The period of solar minimum activity we are now into may last 80 years and it will ultimately ice over the Thames and the Hudson rivers in winter. The summer Arctic ice meltback prominent in 2006 will go completely away, as it has already started to do. It most probably was due to China's industrial dust and Mongolian herding practices during a drought. Dust really helps the long summer Arctic sun melt ice, as do ocean currents during La Nina cycles.
In short, the tailpipe of my F-150 4WD truck is not destroying the planet. Leave it alone. Leave me alone. Come back when you have learned how to think.
The whole problem with that point of view is the word 'advocacy'. There is none. Climate scientists and others who have produced data which supports the global warming hypothesis are not advocates, they are messengers. They are telling it the way it is, not the way they want it. Furthermore, we can automatically dismiss 'findings' linked to fossil fuel interests because they are not findings at all. They are manufactured out of a desire to dupe the general populace (which, judging by the heated and misguided posts on these threads, including yours, is going quite well by the way) in order to continue farming obscene sums of money and preserve the elite way of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are literally hundreds of examples and pieces of evidence that are behaving consistently with the global warming hypothesis. You've mentioned two which seem to disagree, and even then you got it wrong.
"When floating shore ice breaks off and becomes a menace to large ships it is always because it is being undercut by relatively warmer ocean currents, not because of any top-down surface warming." - Guess what, relatively warmer ocean currents have been around for eons. Why would they only now start chipping away at floating shore ice? Because they're warmer than they used to be.
"The period of solar minimum activity we are now into may last 80 years and it will ultimately ice over the Thames and the Hudson rivers in winter." - This is especially amusing to me because not two months ago one of you was making the argument that the sun was entering a period of increasing output and that that was the source of global warming. Only now it looks like that excuse has been swept away as well, but it seems there are those who will still try to exploit it. Good luck.
The point is simple: listen to the facts, don't listen to the people. And if that isn't good enough for you, then go outside and see one of these record-breaking fires up close. Maybe that will convince you that there's more to the global warming hypothesis, because really, there is a lot of self-interested hype, but unfortunately, it's coming from your side of the fence.
One of the problems with global warming is that the rich contribute enormously to it the CO2 engine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis photo illustrates this ironically as the three space heaters melt in the heat of the fires that they and their kind helped stoke.
http://tiny.cc/hfQMw
A warming planet increases available moisture by 6.5%/C. With increasing rainfall, it is hard to blame fires on Global Warming. Only a cooling planet, which locks up moisture, frozen out at the poles would contribute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFire burns wherever underbrush (fuel) builds up. It waits patiently for ignition.
A warming planet increases available moisture by 6.5%/C. With increasing rainfall, it is hard to blame fires on Global Warming. Only a cooling planet, which locks up moisture, frozen out at the poles would contribute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFire burns wherever underbrush (fuel) builds up. It waits patiently for ignition.
I'm responding not because I expect to convince Mike Cook, but because I have a low tolerance for misinformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nevertheless, the world cools since 1998. "
True, there is a slight downward trend from 1998 to 2008. There is also a downward trend over 5 other periods from 1940 to the present. However, every year in the past 10 was hotter than any year in in the previous downturns. The larger trend is still up.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
"The ice cover over the solid land portions of Greenland and Antarctica are not decreasing. "
I don't know about the extent of coverage, but the mass is decreasing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920193210.htm
"The recent Steig et al study claiming to show Antarctic warming over the whole of the continent is a tour-de-force of statistical tampering."
Don't like/understand stats? Here are some pictures of the raw data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/on-overfitting/#more-682
(scan down for Raw trends in temperature)
"The summer Arctic ice meltback prominent in 2006 will go completely away, as it has already started to do."
Well, first, the records for low extent were set in 2005 and 2007. Second, the melt is currently on a trajectory to beat 2007; time will tell.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Little ice age, solar irradiance, etc. , I don't know where Mike is getting his information, but it isn't the same peer-reviewed sources I've been reading.
"...for career enhancement in the current politically correct mob mentality popular around academia..."
Really? I don't know if Mike has spent any time around academia, but my experience has been that the researchers are itching to proof they have a better understanding of the issues than their peers. The scientists who get really famous are the ones who buck the trends; but, you have to bring the goods. So far, no one has brought the goods against AGW.
"In short, the tailpipe of my F-150 4WD truck is not destroying the planet. Leave it alone. Leave me alone. "
The psychologist in me is thinking, hmm, denial.
"Nothing to do with global warming at all."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if the air had been cooler, and hence the humidity and moisture content of the fuel higher, would the fires have burnt as hot or as fast?
Ralph123,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood question.
What I imagine is that some organic matter stays in the soil even after the rot and consumption of most of it. I would expect that to be a part of what makes river-bottom black dirt different from desert light brown dirt. A hot fire will remove more organic material that the other forces. So, large expanses of burning will result in less sequestration of carbon in the soil.
Ralph123,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood question.
What I imagine is that some organic matter stays in the soil even after the rot and consumption of most of it. I would expect that to be a part of what makes river-bottom black dirt different from desert light brown dirt. A hot fire will remove more organic material that the other forces. So, large expanses of burning will result in less sequestration of carbon in the soil.
save our earth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order for wildfires to have any effect on climate you have to buy the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. It is bankrupt and is ready for the ash heap of history. All the IPCC models are coming up with wrong answers now because the temporary warming we had since 1998 is over. It was not caused by carbon dioxide and started with a super El Nino. That was followed from 2001 to 2007 with the twenty-first century high when temperature stagnated at the El Nino maximum. All that ended with the La Nina cooling starting in 2007. From now on our climate will be again controlled by the ENSO system - alternating warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods. Carbon dioxide never had anything to do with the recent warmings which were a consequence of Indian Ocean overflow. And it never has had anything to do with climate for the last 500 million years. Read the article by Daniel Rothman in PNAS of April 2, 2002. His conclusion: "The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with geologic record of climate variations at tectonic time scales."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a scientist and most of the people who strenuously claim one opinion or the other are not either, but I try to use common sense. Do you really think that if we emit tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it has no effect whatsoever? That just sounds pretty unlikely to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this