New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Warming Climate May Increase Western Wildfire Woes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Yellowstone burned for three months in 1988, destroying more than 600,000 hectares of forest. The fire resisted the best efforts of 25,000 firefighters and only flickered out with the first snow in mid-September of that year. This catastrophic wildfire in the western U.S. may have heralded a new era of bigger and more frequent fires thanks to climate change, according to new research.

Anthony Westerling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and his colleagues compiled a database of all western wildfires from 1970 through 2003 that burned more than 1,000 acres: 1,166 in all. They found that large wildfires became four times more frequent after 1987 and burned more than six and a half times as much forest. In essence, the region shifted that year from infrequent large wildfires that lasted roughly a week to more frequent burns that lasted for an average of more than a month. In addition, the length of the yearly wildfire season expanded by 78 days.

The researchers compared this fire record to annual snowmelt and temperatures over the 34-year period to determine whether global climate, which has warmed by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or care, such as forestry management, played a larger role in this shift. They found that more than half of the increase in frequent large fires occurred in the northern Rockies, an area where forest management has had no impact on the natural occurrence of wildfires. In addition, large fires most commonly happened in years when snowmelt came early. "When you have a warm spring and early summer, you get earlier snowmelt," Westerling explains. "With the snowmelt coming out a month earlier, areas then get drier earlier overall and there is a longer season in which a fire can be started. There's more opportunity for ignition."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


With firefighting consuming as much as $20 million a day, the annual cost of battling the more frequent blazes has reached $1.7 billion in recent years. And "ecological restoration and fuels management alone will not be sufficient to reverse current wildfire trends," the researchers argue in the paper presenting their findings published online yesterday in Science. That trend must be reversed or else western forests may be transformed from stores of the carbon that otherwise would add to global warming to a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions as they burn each summer. "Lots of people think climate change and the ecological responses are 50 to 100 years away," says co-author Thomas Swetnam of the University of Arizona. "But it's not 50 to 100 years away, it's happening now in forest ecosystems through fire."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe