The Age Of Megafires

Expert: Warming Climate Fueling Megafires

(CBS)  Professor Swetnam wanted to show 60 Minutes just how much has changed, so he brought Pelley to the top of Arizona's Mount Lemon. Two megafires there killed everything, even the Ponderosa Pines.

"You know, I was always taught that Ponderosas were big, robust trees that were built to withstand fire," Pelley remarks. "And that when everything else burned off, the Ponderosas were still standing. But look at them."

"The Ponderosas are able to withstand the low severity fires where you get flames of maybe one to two or three feet high. But now the behavior of these fires is off the scale," Swetnam says.

Asked how much things have changed, Swetnam tells Pelley, "Well, we're seeing century-old forests that had never sustained these kinds of fires before, being razed to the ground."

Back at the battle to save Ketchum, Idaho, the day shift was coming off, and the night shift going on.

How long does it take to bring a fire like this under control?

Says Tom Boatner, "This particular fire is about 45,000 acres and they’ve been working on it for about 11 or 12 days and they've got it about 50 percent contained and with any luck they will finish containing this fire in another five or six days something like that."

Containing it meant fighting fire with fire. Using drip torches, they started a controlled burn around the town, creating a barrier, so that when the forest fire hit there'd be nothing left to burn. These pre-burns are risky though. Trees can torch suddenly and explosively, sending embers up to a mile away.

By daybreak on the 18th day, the gamble had paid off. The blaze came within 100 feet of some homes, but not one home was lost. It will take years for this forest to recover, but Tom Swetnam told Pelley with these new super hot fires some forests may never grow back.

"We used to have forest soil here that might have been this deep," he says, indicating about a foot of depth, "but now we're just down to rock."

"So you're down to mineral and sort of a rock, sort of armored soil. And that is not a good habitat for trees to re-establish," Swetnam says.

"Where do you think all this is headed?" Pelley asks,

"As fires continue to burn, these megafires continue to burn, we may see ultimately a majority, maybe more than half of the forest land converting to other forest, other types of ecosystems," Swetnam says.

"Wait a minute. Did you just say that there's a reasonable chance we could lose half of the forests in the West?" Pelley asks.

"Yes, within some decades to a century, as warming continues, and we continue to get large scale fires," Swetnam replies.

Swetnam says that this is what we have to look forward to. He estimates, in the Southwest alone, nearly two million acres of forest are gone and won't come back for centuries. The hotshots are already planning for the next fire season. In 2006, the feds spent $2 billion on fire fighting, seven times more than just ten years ago.

"You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change," Pelley remarks.

"You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore," Tom Boatner says. "'Cause we've had climate change beat into us over the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we’re seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes."

[rich_fairbanks]

Climate change, urban sprawl, 'cutting from below' in the federal agencies, past misguided fire policies all play a role in this problem. We need science based approaches to these very complex problems. We need to fund the agencies and the universities to get the infornation we need to address these issues.
Rich Fairbanks
Fire program
The Wilderness Society

[bradfregger]

"I would judge your report incomplete. Your scientist implied that poor soil conditions exist nearly everywhere and I can't believe that. Has he checked everywhere?"

Your comment about the scientist's comment on soil conditions is well placed. Mount St. Helens is coming back much faster than science anticipated.

This also reminds me of our experience in visiting Wales in the 70s. We wanted to see the valleys that the coal mining had ruined in the first part of the 20th Century and asked our hosts to show us a couple. There response, "Oh ... those valleys are back to full health again, I think we've kept one slag pit as a reminder of those times."

But, of course, this doesn't matter. What does matter is the one-sided approach that the scientist took, again because of a research agenda, and 60 minutes focus on his "findings" because it fit there world view.

[bradfregger]

The program started out right when the firefighter talked about the real cause of the megafires ... our playing with nature by putting out every fire for the past 100 years, thereby allowing the dead branches, etc. to build up. Then, of course, the story had to change to global warming, and the professor, with an agenda, focusing on that as the primary reason.

It's obvious that if the underbrush had been allowed to burn according to nature, that even climate change wouldn't have caused the megafires.

So, what are we going to do? It's obvious, try and fix things once again. Will we ever learn? 50 years from now scientist will be telling us that the money and resources we spent to try and stop global warming, was wasted, and we will wonder, once again, why those scientists and leaders 50 years ago were so stupid.

The only thing that will be worse is if some of the true fanatics convince the government to do something in outer space to stop some of the rays of the sun and bring about global cooling. If this happens, and with the stupidity that I see at the top levels of government it just might, we may all be moving south as the glaciers move through Canada and halfway through the United States. Ice ages have a much greater chance of happening and the problems caused by them make global warming look like a Sunday picnic.

Lord help us.

[dwliudahl]

I just watched the 60 Minutes story on wild fires. Why has there been no mention from the scientific community on the limiting factors on climate change or global warming? The warming trend on this planet will not continue indefinitely, there are ALWAYS a limiting factors somewhere. This universe always limits nearly everything.

Another hot question I have: why have scientists not looked into the increased growth rate of plant life due to the increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

I have heard of a study done in the 60's or 70's where they put a tent around some orange trees and doubled the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, keeping the water and fertilizer the same with the other trees in the orchard. The results were that the trees in the tent produced four times the number of oranges as the trees outside the tent.

This implies that the old forests that are burning now will grow back more rapidly. This was observed after the Yellowstone fires in 1988. It was also stated at the time that this is the natural cycle of the forests. The 'tree huggers' would rather see the forests burn than that they should be harvested for lumber. These fires are releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The fires are not going to fix anything, they are making things worse.

I would judge your report incomplete. Your scientist implied that poor soil conditions exist nearly everywhere and I can't believe that. Has he checked everywhere? Scientists nowadays love to report bad news because it gets people's attention, it gets people to listen to their slant on what is going on. Media saturates the airwaves with bad news and actively suppresses good news.

The good news, and the truth is, there are limiting factors on global warming conditions. What are they? If you don't know, find out. This would be balanced reporting, but I can see no balance at all. All the news is clearly bad news.

Hint: water vapor is a limiting factor! Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Logically water vapor would increase as the global mean temperature increases. Cloud cover reduces sunlight levels at the surface. What is the percentage of the planetary cloud cover? Has it been changing? How much has it changed over the past forty years or so? Is there a measurable trend? What kind of trend? This looks like a good story, though it may not be a bit politically correct.

Science and politics don't get along very well together. Politics is the philosophy of expediency, 'ends justify the means' thinking. Science is the philosophy of truth by direct observation, getting the facts. Facts are neither right or wrong, they just are, they are as close to an absolute as you can get in this universe. Politicians don't want to be confused by the facts, and they will bury the facts in rhetoric if you let them.

Douglas Liudahl

Billings, MT

[wdfleck1]

I also want to agree with Vonnieglen on Global Warming who wrote: "Weather stations ...NOAA''''s Western Regional Climate Center have mostly shown no discernable warming trend since these recording stations were installed in the 1930s."

The Mega Fires article blamed Global Warming as the real culprit of the CA fires. Even the Fire Warden interviewed said that he believed that it has been "hotter" now than any other timen in his lifetime. Yet it has also been colder in his lifetime, as the same scientists who embrace global warming today, thought we were entering a new ice age in the 70''s when temperatures were below "average".

The claims of global warming or a new ice age are based on extrapolations of temperature changes over small lengths of time into trends of temperature to justify a political policy objective. This policy objective is to reduce the sovereignty of the United States and ensnare us in a world government primarily run by the United Nations. This is obvious by the fact that the chief document of global warming was authored by the UN and to acheive the implied policy goals of the document, the US would have to subjugate its economy and sovereignty to the UN to bring about the desired reductions in CO2. This is a dangerous and unsound idea that is not in the interest of this country.

[wdfleck1]

I agree with many of the points of Craigtown61. Environmentalists, such as the Sierra Club, did get a free ride in the article. These groups have insisted on "pristine" and "natural" forests and rejected intervention by man in activities such as logging, pruning and replanting. The fact that these groups claim to preserve our forests and reduce CO2 emissions looks ridiculous when the forests burn to the ground, cause billions of dollars of damage and on TV we watch huge plumes of smoke rise into the atmosphere blotting out the sun.

The attorney general of California finds nothing absurd about prosecuting the parents of a child for alledgedly playing with matches and causing the intial blaze. The same attorney general, however, finds no basis to bring suits against environmentalists that blocked the Forest Service and private logging firms using hearings and law suits and prevented prudent forestry management which allowed the fuel to accumulate in the first place.

Proper, prudent forestry management is the answer to the mega fires. Had these forests been logged properly, the self interest of the maintenace of the value of timber would have removed the brush to protect its value (inventory management), cut roads to remove the timber to market (fire breaks) and created a necessary resources and jobs for people to use (finished wood products, etc.) Private forests aren''t burning because of this. We should learn from this and turn away from the unsound ideas of environmentalists.

[ajwages]

How tiring must it be for everyone blogging. To find someone to blame for everything we do. Well it is not my fault it is so and so''s responsibility. Or it is this companies responsibility.

Mega fires are a huge concern, so is increasing sea levels, droughts, major winter storms, hurricanes, flooding, melting ice caps, extinction of species, pollution, soil degradation, decreased plant vigor, etc!

Maybe it is not global warming as the only culprit, but a variety of activities that has created the current state we live in. Although many things get blamed on globe warming, but it seems to me we have taken the blame off of ourselves by labeling it with a non-human name. So suddenly this frightening name of global warming doesnt sound so scarey if we are not upfront with the initial causes. We have caused the mega fires, the flooding, the drought, the storms, and all our current problems. Let us stop blaming on activity or another.

Global warming is ALL of our responsibilities, we all OWN a part in curbing the efforts. Maybe if we all start to feel a bit responsible for some of our actions, maybe we can get a handle of the spiraling global climate.

We are to blame, we are the ones that can fix it, not this unhuman Global warming concept! Let''s quite finding the "right" one to blame, and take it on ourselves!

[craigtown61]

Amazing. 60 minutes is incapable of doing an in depth report. NO where was the fact mentioned that for the last 30 years the radical environmental movement has sued to keep the forest service from thinning trees, removing dead ones and cleaning out the debris and undergrowth.

The reason why we are seeing all these mega wild fires in national forests and not in privately owned forests is the above mentioned issue. 30 years of enforced neglect is now coming home to roost and the media can be counted on to turn a blind eye to the real cause of millions of acres burning down.

Also missed by anyone watching was the commentators statement that it would take centuries for the forests to return to normal. Did you catch it? Why would it take centuries when the forest service used to replant after a forest fire and the forest would be normal again within 25 years, Why? because the radical enviros wont allow the forest service to replant anymore! It must return on its own with no help from man!

No where in the story was any of this mentioned at all. The large mega fires were blamed on the common politically correct boogeyman, Global warming, while the real culprit radical environmentalism got a free ride.

60 minutes is a worthless politically correct government media complex propaganda show.

The Wildfire problem is Worldwide in Scope. One tool that can help is early detection of the fire. Some academics state that a wildfire doubles in size evry 5 minutes. If it is detected and extinguished early, 1700 firefighters and the risk to structures is moot. In one country, they are installing early detection systems. Where installed, there have been no major fires. ie 250 fires detected 34 acres lost

[aaabee-2009]

Posted by robaldrich4 at 11:52 AM : Oct 23, 2007

You so right. Global warming isn''t real. Everybody knows these mega-fires are fueled by an angry god getting revenge on America for loosening gay rights on our fine country.

You set um straight, robaldrich!

[oscar1956-2009]

CBS once again missed an opportunity to tell the whole story. How many of the major fires were human caused? I know that several were. Yes, there is global warming, but you can''t blame everything on that alone. Tell the whole story instead of trying to create one.

[fireman772]

AS A PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER WITH THE FOREST SERVICE I FOUND YOUR STORY ON "MEGA FIRES" WELL DONE. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS-A STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT THE FOREST SERVICE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FUELS CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE INTENSITY OF THESE FIRES BY VIRTUE OF OUR POLICYS OF THE LAST 100 YEARS. WHILE TRUE ENOUGH, EVERY FIRE DEPARTMENT (FEDERAL OR OTHERWISE) THAT HAS WILDLAND VEGETATION WITHIN ITS DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ALSO OWNS A PORTION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY. THE IDEA THAT ALL FIRE IS "BAD" IS STILL PREVELANT WITHIN THE FIRE SERVICES (AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC MIND) AS A WHOLE. WHICH LEADS ME TO MY SECOND COMMENT, A FOLLOW-UP STORY SHOULD BE DONE ON THE EFFORTS WITHIN FEDERAL WILDLAND AGENCIES (USDA, USDI) TO REVERSE THIS TREND, I''M REFERRING TO WILDLAND FIRE USE, BOTH NATURAL AND MANAGEMENT IGNITED. IN MY VIEW, THE AGENCIES NEED THE MEDIAS ASSISTANCE IN PRESENTING FIRES HISTORICAL ROLE IN THE ECOSYSTEMS OF THE WEST. THE TREE RING LAB IN TUCSON WOULD BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

[vonnieglen]

I have been a professional firefighter since 1989. Why are there larger fires now? Through the efforts of "environmentalists" logging has been severely curtailed in the last couple of decades. Where there is no logging there is generally no management of our forests. As the fire load increases the results are predictable.

Weather stations in the mountanous regions of the Western States with data accessable by anyone through NOAA''s Western Regional Climate Center have mostly shown no discernable warming trend since these recording stations were installed in the 1930s. Most rural stations show a cooling trend since 1990.

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/

This show was full of hype not backed up by the facts that do exist. It was shameful fear mongering at it''s worst. Shame on you 60 minutes!

[goof_chewy]

If you want to see the face of the "global warming doesn''t exist!" crowd, do a web search on Republican Texas congressman Joe Barton (R-TX). This snake-in-the-grass has almost single-handedly prevented congressional action on global warming.

Families who''ve lost their houses in the California wild-fires? Give Joe Barton''s office a call, and ask him to explain to them why he''s thwarted efforts to protect American citizens from the effects of global warming.

[canonbal1]

Author Timothy Ingalsbee suggests that we should develop fire adapted communities instead of further degrading our forests. This process logically starts with outreach and education. I guess that is generally what I was thinking back in ''93 when I started work on a video about suburban forest fires, fire safety and the environment. I completed the SF Bay Area version of "The Cannonball Express" in February and adapted the screenplay for use at Lake Tahoe after the Angora Fire burned 250 homes. Over 30 stakeholders there have seen the video including selected members of the Lahontan Water Board and the California & Nevada governors'' appointed, Tahoe Basin Fire Commission. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has reviewed the screenplay. Funding for the Tahoe version is in the hands of the Truckee Tahoe Community Foundation....Please do a google search on "Cannonball Express" video, read the screenplay and leave your comments and criticisms in the GuestBook. At Tahoe, we need to start doing for the environment what we''re not letting mother nature do for herself. Fuel reduction, forest thinning, vegetation management, fire safe landscaping and a little defensible space will do much to help us live in the suburban wildlands interface zone.

[monkeebutt64]

What in the world is wrong with you people?!? All you''re concerned about is finding something or someone to blame. Why don''t you have a little compassion for these people that are losing everything, their lives, their homes, their belongings. And what about the firefighters that are doing the best they can, they are only human, and they are doing a wonderful job. Who cares who or what is to blame, it''s a little late to place blame, the focus needs to be on these poor people that are losing everything. But as usual everyone is more concerned with who or what is to blame rather than caring about the people. That''s what''s wrong with this country now days. So listen up people, let''s pray for these people and the firemen to be safe, and not worry about what stories are or aren''t being told, or what or who is to blame. Get Real! My heart goes out to all that are in Southern California.

[zimrie]

Amazing. There wasn''t a single major wildfire in the US until about 30 years ago, around the time the SUV was invented.
Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forest_fires

[dd_wade]

CBS missed several opportunities to give this story more balance. Iin every year since records have been kept, more wildfires have been recorded in the South than in any other region of the continental US. The South often leads the nation in having more acres burned by wildfire in a year as well. The South also has its share of large fires; the Georgia Bay Complex burned over 440,000 acres along the GA/FL border earlier this year.

The intentional use of fire by trained professionals, called prescribed fire, is the only ecologically feasible solution to this ever-worsening situation, but it was not mentioned. Boatner alluded to it when he said that past fire suppression has allowed fuels to accumulate. A more accurate statement would be that our failed attempt to exclude fire from fire-dependent ecosystems is the major reason that both damage and suppression costs are spiraling upward; global warming simply exacerbates the situation. The Nature Conservancy (Shlisky and others 2007) classes most US ecosystems as Fire-Dependent, which means fire is needed for their survival.

Prescribed fire is a safe way to apply a natural process, ensure ecosystem health and reduce wildfire risk. Prescribed fire reduces the dangerous buildup of fuels thereby enhancing public safety. It makes wildfires less intense and easier to control and it produces less smoke than a wildfire. It is truly THE ECOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE!

[robaldrich]

HEY! Where''s Al Gore and his Hollywoood "experts" on saving the environment? If they truly believed what they say, they''d be demanding that the federal government STOP California firemen from trying to put the fires out.

The water being used to put out the fires is even worse for the environment than CO2:
"The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_
gas.

What''s a few people''s homes compared to the saving the world? Afterall, what''s the population of all the western states where forest fires naturally occur each year compared to the world population?

Who knows how much global warming has been CAUSED by man putting fires out in the last century, instead of letting them burn themselves out like it used to be.

An inconvenient truth?

[emergencye]

Global climate risk level is now RED.
The Emergency Email & Wireless Network
http://www.emergencyemail.org