Massive New Mexico Fire Started By U.S. Forest Service, but widely reported elsewhere:
The largest wildfire in New Mexico history—which is still burning—was started by the U.S. Forest Service, federal investigators announced Friday.
The catastrophe began as two fires that merged into one. Both wildfires have now been conclusively traced to planned burns conducted by the Forest Service. Planned or "prescribed" burns are used to reduce the threat of extreme fires by reducing the amount of dry fuel in the forest.
So far, the New Mexico fire has destroyed 330 homes and scorched some 500 square miles. The cost of battling the blaze has surpassed $130 million, and rises another $5 million each day, according to the Associated Press.
The Hermits Peak Fire started on April 6. On April 19, the Calf Canyon Fire sprang from a reignited "burn pile" that had been dormant through three winter snow events. They merged on April 22, and their destructive march across the Land of Enchantment still hasn't ended.
The fire was 47 percent contained as of Friday morning, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group said. It warned that the Memorial Day holiday weekend could pose more challenges for firefighters because of increased traffic and recreational activities that could cause fires in the dry, hot weather. Fire officials cautioned about the use of, among other things, campfires and wood stoves.
U.S. Forest Service Planned Burn Caused Largest New Mexico Wildfire
After decades of embracing a policy of putting out fires as quickly as possible, federal and some state officials have come around to the idea of prescribed burns in recent years. The basic concept, backed by science and Indigenous groups' long history of using intentional fire, is that modest controlled burns can clear flammable vegetation and preempt the kind of destructive megafires that have devastated the West. Experts have called for more fire on the land, and the Biden administration has announced plans to use intentional burns and brush thinning to reduce fire risk on 50 million acres that border vulnerable communities.
But extreme drought and record heat, worsened by climate change, have made it more difficult to use intentional fire as a preventive measure. Longer wildfire seasons have narrowed the window of time when firefighters can set controlled burns safely. Bureaucratic obstacles, combined with public fear that an intentionally set fire could escape, have also prevented some forest managers from using prescribed fires.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Monday May 30 2022, @10:56PM (23 children)
But extreme drought and record heat, worsened by climate change?
No.
Misguided policies allowing overgrowth mean fires to correct the issue are far more dangerous.
The folks behind those policies certainly would like to point the finger elsewhere. Their 20+ year opposition to allowing burns *after* it was clear the 'no burn' policy should be reversed of course can't be the fault of those who implemented it...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30 2022, @11:38PM (17 children)
Yes, the no-burn policy is absolutely a bad idea. We know better now, after maintaining this failed policy for decades.
However, climate change and drought, which are linked, are definitely factors. In the western US, there have been years where precipitation has been very abundant, leading to rapid growth of vegetation. When this is followed by widespread severe drought, the vegetation can dry out quickly, becoming fuel for fires. Climate whiplash is a very real factor in making fires worse. If a region is just extremely dry and there's not much growing, there won't be much fuel for fires. It's the alternating wet and dry periods that matter.
New Mexico experienced a severe drought during 2019. Much of 2020 was considerably wetter, which would have encouraged the growth of vegetation. Now that much of New Mexico is back in an extreme drought, and conditions are worsening, the vegetation has dried out and is fuel for fires. Three months ago, only 32.46% of the state was in at least an extreme drought, and 2.53% was in exceptional drought. Now, 90.06% of the state is at least in an extreme drought, and 45.84% is in exceptional drought. Conditions improved during this past winter, which would have encouraged vegetation to grow. Now that the drought is worsening, the vegetation that would have grown during the past few months is now drying out and becoming fuel. Areas in New Mexico that are in extreme drought tend to have a substantially higher fire risk. The current drought and its severity is linked to climate change. Perhaps instead of calling this a megadrought, we should just say that large parts of the Southwest are actually becoming more arid.
Another factor is the strong winds, which contribute to spreading fires. During much of the spring, parts of the Southwest and the Plains have experienced frequent red flag warnings, which are issued based on the combination of strong winds and low humidity. I'm pretty sure that both fires were started on days where red flag warnings hadn't been issued, but it's still very possible that the winds were sufficiently strong to make control of the fires more difficult.
We have similar issues in the Great Plains, where prairies actually require fires to maintain the ecosystems. In the absence of fires, the native grasses will eventually be replaced by trees. Prescribed burns are essential to restoring the prairies to their proper state. It's not just good practice for preventing large wildfires, but also for protecting the native vegetation. In the western US, some conifers actually require fires to release the seeds from cones, meaning that these species of trees actually need fires.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday May 31 2022, @02:38AM (16 children)
Which climate change would that be and what's the evidence for your assertion?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday May 31 2022, @04:54AM (15 children)
I think you were replying to the GP. The AC parent above you simply stated that there have been a few years of extreme drought without affixing a cause. That said, there is pretty much a consensus within scientists that the combustion of carbon based fuels is creating a significant effect on the climate.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 31 2022, @12:24PM (14 children)
I definitely was not. The GP, Spamalope claims instead that it was an alleged "20+ year opposition to allowing burns" responsible not climate change. Then the parent post repeatedly claimed that climate change was responsible at least in part for the drought. At this point, it's reasonable to ask what does the poster mean by climate change and what is the evidence for that claim?
I grant that, but you still have a gap between greenhouse gases buildup in the atmosphere and manifestation of droughts in the US southwest. There are at least two problems. First, those droughts would happen anyway - where's the evidence to distinguish between a drought that would have happened anyway and a drought aggravated or caused by global warming from fossil fuel use? And closely related, to what degree has this sort of climate change made things worse?
As I've noted in the past, I think there is consistent and pervasive bias to exaggerate both the effects of anthropogenic global warming from fossil fuel use and the cost/benefit of various strategies for dealing with it. My take is that one of the few sane strategies out there is to continue to use fossil fuels, adapt to climate change, and do a rapid transition of the entire world to a developed world economy and infrastructure. Lopping a decade off that transition time would IMHO probably result in hundreds of millions less people at peak population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @12:08AM (7 children)
I'll provide you with five links that begin to address this. One is unfortunately paywalled but is summarized at another link.
There is no question that the Southwest is becoming drier and has trended in this direction over many decades. That is climate change, plain and simple.
The UCLA study attributes 19% of the current megadrought in the Southwest and 42% of the decline in soil moisture to anthropogenic influences. It's a modeling study that attempts to separate the influences of human activity from natural climate variability. Without anthropogenic influences, the Southwest would still be in drought conditions, but it wouldn't reach the levels of megadroughts during the Medieval Warm Period. The study implicates increased evapotranspiration due to warmer temperatures as a major factor in the drought. Evapotranspiration is the cause of lower moisture, but it should be noted that this also increases the drying of vegetation.
While the overall trend in the Southwest is toward more arid conditions, there is evidence that extreme precipitation events are becoming more frequent and severe. That is to say that while the overall precipitation is lower, it is concentrated in more frequent and more intense events. These atmospheric river events may extinguish ongoing fires in the short term and also lead to increased growth of vegetation. Areas impacted by atmospheric rivers tend to have more severe wildfire seasons in the following year. That's because the vegetation that grew rapidly in the previous year can become fuel for wildfires, which is where the aforementioned evapotranspiration comes into play.
New Mexico's climate is different from California. In California, most of the precipitation falls during the winter. The opposite is true in New Mexico, where the wettest months are during the summer. The difference between the wet and dry parts of the year is considerably less extreme than in California. In New Mexico, very wet years followed by a severe drought tends to lead to the most severe wildfire activity. The signal of intense precipitation isn't as clear in New Mexico, where atmospheric rivers aren't an issue, and a lot of precipitation is a result of the North American Monsoon. There is, however, strong evidence that climate change will result in a weaker monsoon and less overall precipitation. It hasn't been studied as much as atmospheric rivers, but indications are that a weaker monsoon is a factor in the aridification of the region. There's still enough evidence to link climate change to increased wildfire risk in New Mexico.
Now, if you choose to reject the mounting evidence linking climate change to drought and wildfire activity in the Southwest, you need to provide compelling evidence that supports your position. Where are your studies showing that climate change impacts are exaggerated? Where are your peer-reviewed papers? I've presented my evidence. Where's yours?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 01 2022, @05:24AM (6 children)
For starters, those claims are heavily model-dependent. For example, from link two (which is the commentary on the first study):
The third link (fourth link is also to same research):
The last link:
So three of your four linked research (again with two links each to two research projects) are heavily model dependent for the climate change claims they make. One particular way this causes problems is with the assertion that wildfires are a more serious problem due to irregular rainfall and asserting that net rainfall will go down. I want some evidence that shows that.
Again where is that evidence? Prove the models first.
Moving on, I find it telling that when reading about the research on atmospheric rivers and subsequent wildfires (the actual data of your links that has any connection to climate change), there is no statement of the actual degree of correlation between the presence of a high rainfall season and a subsequent wildfire season. It's merely alleged that there is a connection with no hint about the degree of connection.
Finally, the fifth link attributes the danger of the fire to a century of fuel buildup.
The present fires of the story are are on the southeast flank of that range (good call on Margolis's part). It's not climate change that led to that fuel buildup.
So let me organize my observations a bit. First, all the climate change claims are based on models that haven't been proven against future data. Claims such as present in link two are particularly annoying since they're projecting a false certainty (particularly that phrase "climate models have shown").
Second, actual degree of effect isn't quantified except in the cases where they're basing it on estimates from those models (like the second link claiming "Human-caused climate change is responsible for about 42% of the soil moisture deficit since 2000"). Meanwhile research that is supposedly based on hard data, the connection between atmospheric river events and later wildfire seasons, I can't even get some hint of the size of the effect, save that it is detectable (which in my experience is a far lower threshold than it being harmful).
And lastly, the only link of your that actually talked about catastrophic wildfires, discusses one of the elephants in the room, over a century of fuel buildup - despite decades of controlled burns!
Another elephant in the room is the water table, depletion of which is also a human-caused source of depletion of soil moisture. While it's clear that drought will encourage the tapping of groundwater, there is also a reverse effect as well. And I don't think it's coincidence that the same areas suffering serious drought are also suffering from groundwater depletion.
My take here is that we haven't even shown that wildfire risk has changed significantly due to climate change even if we grant the increased frequency of atmospheric rivers (which is a fairly reasonable assumption). The research you mentioned is surprisingly devoid of any concrete assessment of risk.
And there are two important factors for both the megadrought and wildfire severity that don't appear to me to be properly considered. These factors are human-caused, but not typical climate change.
Your selection exhibits some of the warning signs that are present throughout climate change research, here: heavy model dependence, inability to estimate harm from actual evidence, false certainty, and slighting more significant, non-climate factors. This is why I'm a climate skeptic. There is widespread and pervasive evidence of scientific problems through the entire work on this subject.
The conclusions (particular of urgent and/or catastrophic climate change) may well be true, but it will be despite that research.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @06:24AM (5 children)
I called on you to post your evidence. I see you've provided exactly zero evidence of your own, just claiming that the science is wrong because a lot of the work uses climate models. In other words, we're supposed to reject the scientific consensus not on the basis of actual evidence to the contrary, but because you said so. That's not how science works. We don't reject theories because they're inconvenient for your investments in fossil fuels. We reject theories when experimental evidence shows that the theories are wrong. You've provided exactly zero actual evidence, but we're supposed to trust you on blind faith.
If you had the experimental evidence, you would have provided it. You cited exactly zero results here. You haven't provided any evidence of what you claim is wrong in the models are wrong, just that the models can't be trusted because they haven't been tested against future climate conditions. The models, of course, can only be validated against the future once it's no longer in the future. Effectively you've indicated that there's absolutely no way that the models can ever be trusted to predict the future, which is a completely asinine position.
You object because only one of the studies directly addresses fires. Of course, the other studies are explaining how climate change affects precipitation, evapotranspiration, and drought. These are, of course, underlying factors that have a huge impact on the frequency and severity of wildfires. But you reject them because they don't directly address wildfires, demonstrating that either you don't understand the science or that you're being intentionally obtuse. My understanding is that you either live or spend a significant amount of time in northwest Wyoming, a region that certainly experiences plenty of wildfires. I find it hard to believe that you could live there and not have at least a cursory understanding of the science, which leads me to conclude that you're posting in bad faith. Like I said, I think you're posting drivel like this because you have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Again, if you'd like to prove me wrong, post actual observations and studies that refute the scientific consensus. As it stands, you've posted nothing but anti-science and disingenuous drivel.
Post your evidence, shill.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 01 2022, @12:13PM (4 children)
Instead of real world data.
Because the scientific consensus is just more say so. Evidence is what makes the difference.
Perhaps you ought to read my post again? I notice that you make a bunch of claims about what I said without providing any evidence that I said those things. There's a reason for the quote/reply structure of my post, annoying as it may be. You can see what I'm replying to as I go along.
Rather I object because all of the climate changed based claims (coming from three of your four linked research) are based on models that have yet to be tested against the future - the only genuine falsification/rejection possible of those models.
And you gloss over my other objections like the research making the most concrete claims are most dependent on those untested models, or the glossing over of important factors to soil moisture loss and wildfire intensity.
Wasting our time. What makes you think I don't exhibit at least a cursory understanding of the science? Mere disagreement? Not accepting of the claimed scientific consensus?
I see it doesn't take long before you run out of argument and start ad homineming. This high reliance on fallacy is a big part of the reason I don't take climate change arguments seriously. There's something deeply wrong with the ideology at many levels: the scientists who have this reliance on opaque models, selective attention, and falsely portrayed scientific consensus; the policy makers who have strong conflicts of interest particularly in the spending on research and mitigation; and even educated laymen who quickly assume the worst when they face disagreement.
Then do so. Babbling about scientific consensus indicates you have weaker criteria for acceptance and rejection than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @04:13PM (3 children)
Again, you've provided exactly zero evidence to refute the currently accepted theories. And by evidence, I mean experiments producing results that show the theories are wrong. You certainly could show that the models are wrong by demonstrating their inability to simulate past climate properly. In one of the studies, the model is being used for a sensitivity study to examine the factors driving the current drought. Climate models are tested against their ability to simulate current and past climates. There are plenty of opportunities to show that the models are wrong, so your claim that they are only falsifiable by comparing them against future climates is absolutely wrong.
I find it fascinating how you keep dodging my request to show me the experiments that show current theories are wrong. Why is that?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 02 2022, @12:41AM (2 children)
What evidence do I need to provide when those models, not theories, provide their own refutation?
Are you paying for those experiments? Because I'm not. This is just a fancy argument from authority fallacy.
That would be a waste of time because it doesn't distinguish between good and bad models that both happen to adhere closely to past climate observations and estimates. What's missed here is that it's easy to fit models with lots of adjustable parameters, like every modern climate model out there, to known data. Extrapolation to unknown data - which in this case is the future - is where the real test is. And as has been noted, climate models run hot [cornwallalliance.org] when you do that.
I think that bearings further elaboration. I can with the oldest sort of model out there, an Arrhenius-style model - no ground-side albedo changes, no feedback mechanisms of any sort, no weather or clouds - that predicts a 1.5 C temperature increase per doubling of CO2 equivalent, more closely model present day global warming than most of these far more complex models!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2022, @02:41AM (1 child)
In other words, you get flustered when I ask you to provide the same evidence that you demand of others.
It is factually incorrect to claim that this is the fallacy of appealing to authority. It's actually the deductive portion of the scientific method.
That's also factually incorrect. We can verify forecasts made by older models and evaluate their performance. This has, in fact, been done with models run in 2004 [nasa.gov] and comparing their predictions with observed data after the models were run. The models actually did a very good job of predicting the warming that occurred since 2004.
This also refutes the absurd claim you made in another comment that we can't evaluate the performance of the models for many decades. The truth is that we've already been verifying the performance of the models, and it turns out that they've done a very good job.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 02 2022, @04:43AM
I disagree. I believe I have provided the evidence you demanded. For a glaring example, none of your links actually quantifies with real world evidence the effects of global warming on any of the aspects of this story such as soil moisture, atmospheric rivers, and wildfires. It's all "if this untested model were true, then..."-style speculation presented confidently.
Imagine if we had done the same against flat Earthers - argue from model-based claims rather than actual evidence with the models incorrectly having a radius half or less of actual Earth. And tying as much research as possible to round Earth ideas and models - often discounting or ignoring real factors in the process.
When people start noticing problems with the models and the studies justifying those models, double down by defending the models without modification rather than fix the problems with the models - with much excuse making, blather about scientific consensus, continued heavily biased measurements of the Earth's radius, etc.
No they didn't. The goalposts in that linked article were moved from estimating global warming due to a certain amount of emitted greenhouse gases to estimating global warming due to a certain amount of greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere ("Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14."). In other words, it hides that greenhouse gases sinks are underestimated.
That's important because how much global warming a certain amount of emissions cause is a real world policy cost.
This also ignores that these models consistently predict two to four times as much long term warming for the present day increases in CO2) as have yet happened. When are we going to see that increased warming?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @12:33AM (5 children)
It's almost impressive how you keep on posting lies and proven nonsense. It's actually impressive how janky you get when demonstrated false and incorrect.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 01 2022, @05:25AM (4 children)
Lies are by definition knowingly telling falsehoods. So in particular, for something to be a lie, it needs to be false first.
And where's your proof of the proven nonsense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @06:30AM (3 children)
Your position is that we should reject the scientific consensus. In principle, all of the scientists and all of the peer-reviewed papers could be wrong. But we don't dismiss science because it's inconvenient for us or because we don't like the theory that is generally accepted by science. Theories become generally accepted when they've been tested and those experiments have been reproduced. It doesn't guarantee that the theories are correct, but scientists don't arbitrarily accept theories because we like them. It's based on evidence. Again, the scientific consensus could, in principle, be absolutely wrong. We reject theories because experiments and observations show them to be wrong, regardless of the scientific consensus. If you have evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong, that the theory is wrong, post it. By evidence, I mean actual experiments and observations, not flimsy conjecture.
Either put up or shut up.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 01 2022, @12:47PM (2 children)
None of the claims made here are scientific consensus. They're claims backed by some combination of reasoning and empirical processes by a few researchers.
A probability that's higher than you're about to suggest because: a) systemic reliance on common modeling - that I keep complaining about, b) reluctance to consider important factors, and c) considerable, consistent, pervasive bias towards exaggerating the effects of climate change.
Show me the evidence then. Stop wasting my time with scientific consensuses that are only of your imaging.
What bugs me about this whole thing is it's the same poorly thought out development each time. It starts with vague claims, such as current drought and its severity is linked to climate change [soylentnews.org] (which as worded shows undue certainty, none of the research since actually presented evidence of such a serious linkage). Similarly, another AC poster claimed [soylentnews.org]:
That ignores that we're really good at mitigating those losses. Even this failure will substantially mitigate future losses in this area.
When someone is willing to defend their position we might get to a productive stage, like the above citing of relevant research. I have standard procedures here. I look for things like does the research at least superficially back the claims made, dependence on modeling rather than evidence, connotative behavior (is the writing slanted), degree of phenomena both claimed and demonstrated via evidence, etc.
But so often once they've exhausted their first round of ammunition (a spray of citations isn't really that valuable, it turns out) it devolves to the usual, tired narratives such as scientific consensus arguments or accusations of shilling. What this should warn you is that you haven't really thought about this subject.
To give other examples of scientific endeavors that fare better. If I were a borderline Creationist or Flat Earther, there are literally dozens of independent, evidence-based avenues you can use to attack the criticism - many which you can confirm independently. With catastrophic climate change, the big arguments are all dependent on a few complex, opaque models and claimed future risk. The only falsification possible is all in the future or by finding flaws in the model building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @04:19PM (1 child)
You have cited exactly zero research to support your position, despite it being requested multiple times. We could have a productive discussion if you cited research that supports your position, but you keep dodging that question.
We reject theories when experiments produce results that don't match the predictions of those theories. Show us the experiments with results that conflict with current theories. Let's see you cite some research to support your position.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 02 2022, @12:38AM
You provided four sources of research to support my position.
How can I when it'll take decades to produce such experiments?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31 2022, @03:25AM
Yep. That's the exact same issue that caused most of our continent to burn 3 years ago in Australia.
Of course what came out in the news and media didn't really cover the root cause but mostly the symptoms.
My mates wife worked in the state department that manages the HR for the RFS. They were cutting costs and downsizing on the people resource for quite a few years - year on year until the event in 2019. That basically meant lots of periodic back burning didn't occur and lots of accumulated overgrowth.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31 2022, @04:52AM
You're proving to be so loyal to a partisan political wedge topic, maybe you should get a tattoo about it.
(Score: 2) by helel on Tuesday May 31 2022, @05:56AM (1 child)
Yes, clearly the "10 am rule" that ended in the late 80's is to blame for this! Clearly only things that ended three decades ago can affect today and todays environment will not bear consequences until 2050, at the earliest!
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 02 2022, @04:55AM
The above fires of the story are in the southwest flanks of the Sangre de Cristo mountains.
I can't confirm the alleged 20 year delay, but these areas definitely slipped through the cracks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31 2022, @10:31PM
Watching government incompetence and then at the same time turning the ire on people who refuse to submit to the Government and "fix all the problems" is a time ordered tradition in this country.
In my brief lifetime I have learned that whatever the Government does, it does it poorly. Maybe I'm cynical, and maybe there was an era when the Government actually did things reasonably well. But I have not been able to figure out where that time was. Few old timers I have spoken with always say it was different but exactly the same back when.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 30 2022, @11:35PM (9 children)
I'm conviced conservatives will find a way to blame this on liberals and/or California, while libertarians will blame it on gubbermint.
(Score: 5, Funny) by requerdanos on Monday May 30 2022, @11:39PM (5 children)
Chemists will no doubt point to rapid oxidation, while physicists may mention entropy.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 31 2022, @12:05AM (4 children)
I point to the Jackalope.
Definitely the Jackalope.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Touché) by alcatorda on Tuesday May 31 2022, @12:23AM (3 children)
See above: the users name is Spamalope, not jackalope.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday May 31 2022, @05:07AM
But the Jackalope exists only in "Red" states. I guess it's because folks in those states are prone to believe in mythical critters and scammers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope [wikipedia.org]
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 31 2022, @08:45PM (1 child)
I like Spam(tm) but not spam.
But there's not much spam in Spamalope.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Informative) by alcatorda on Wednesday June 01 2022, @04:29AM
Are you suggesting that Spam is not make of Spamalopes, much like naugahide is made from the hides of Naugas, or that Spamalopes are not made of Spam, or don't have much spam in 'em? I like Eggs, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam, 'cause it's not got much Spam in it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Mykl on Tuesday May 31 2022, @12:20AM
Rather, their comment will be "The only way to fight a bad fire is with a good fire!"
(though this is actually true in the case of preventative burnoffs and fire-breaks)
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday May 31 2022, @01:28AM (1 child)
Given that they did indeed start those fires, I bet we'll see a lot more than libertarians blaming this one on gubbermint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31 2022, @05:46AM
There should be a +1 agree moderation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31 2022, @01:02AM (3 children)
a lack of climate action, preparedness and understanding.
What we try to do at this stage is mitigate the losses.
And now as we see, even that is more frequently going to fail.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday May 31 2022, @02:40AM (2 children)
Only the stuff you see. Most climate adaptation you won't even notice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @04:21PM (1 child)
Care to elaborate about which adaptations will fail and which adaptations we won't see? Do you have any research that you can cite to support your position? Let's see your evidence so we can evaluate it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 02 2022, @05:31AM
Sure. We'll see attempts to force technology adoption to fail or generate ridiculous drawbacks, like ethanol fuel from US corn or the subsidies of renewable technologies that are proven to be not very useful and/or scale poorly (like biomass power plants or solar thermal).
Meanwhile some of the alleged biggest costs are stuff that people would do anyway - like move. For example, in the US so many people move that it's equivalent to moving the entire population of the US every eight years roughly - mostly just to better their lives elsewhere. You don't hear about those ~40 million a year because there's no drama involved. They can move just as easily for climate change problems as for economic reasons.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 31 2022, @01:12AM (8 children)
Where are the satellites, and the imagery that should be available? They did a burn that smoldered for days, or weeks? And, no infrared imagery revealed it? Or, doesn't the forest service believe in technology?
Satellites should spot fires sooner than all of the fire towers in America. I would expect that even on an overcast day sensitive cameras should pick up hot spots. And, a hot spot glowing in the wilderness for a couple weeks should be as obvious as a wart on your 6th grade teacher's nose.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 31 2022, @03:02AM (6 children)
Satellites do detect fires. NOAA and NASA use a combination of polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites to detect fires.
https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:24hrs;@0.0,0.0,3z [nasa.gov]
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/land/fire.html [noaa.gov]
It is entirely possible, perhaps quite likely, that NOAA and NASA wouldn't have been aware of the prescribed burn by USFS. Detecting small fires is challenging because a lot of fires are subpixel features, but it can be done. There are fairly sophisticated algorithms to do this. However, that probably complicates determining the origin point of the fire. The algorithm is described at http://wfabba.ssec.wisc.edu/algorithm.html [wisc.edu].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 31 2022, @12:52PM (5 children)
Yes, and that's why I posted my question. Does the forestry service not make use of any of the technology available? I would think that it can be mostly automated. If that smoldering fire was only a pixel or two, maybe three, we could expect that a person looking at it with naked eyeballs would easily miss it. But an algorithm scanning the data daily should find it, and highlight it. Having been highlighted, and brought to human attention, it would be a simple matter to send a helicopter with it's own infrared scanner to the site, to investigate.
"Lizzie, the stupid computer has highlighted a hot spot in the northeast corner of this image for five days in a row now. I can't see a thing here!"
"Well, Rainman, you better get your ass up to the northeast corner of that image, and invetigate. Take Ted with you, and have a Most Excellent Adventure! Isn't that what you joined the forestry service for?"
Aside from portable scanners, human senses near the fire might smell, or even see smoke wafting from the smoldering heap.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Tuesday May 31 2022, @03:41PM (4 children)
They do - but satellite fire monitoring imaging is *terrible* - individual pixels are a sizable fraction of a mile across, and off-by-one offsets are common. They fly IR planes at night (when cloud cover doesn't make it impossible to see thermal ), and those give a *dramatically* more accurate view, but that still misses a lot.
I'm actually in the area and was prepared to evacuate, and was following the detailed fire updates and maps for weeks. There's been a LOT of anger about the USFS starting "controlled" burns in the spring windy season (its *always* severely windy here in the spring, and "controlled" burns getting... not... happens just about every year.) But if they're right about this, and it really wasn't an ember thrown from the nearby controlled burn, nor a bunch of firefighters unwinding around their own campfire (firefighters generally *love* fire)... then personally I think we should be a lot more understanding about this *particular* instance. At least so far as *starting* the fire is concerned. Shit happens, and a flare up from something that looked out for months... well that's pretty shitty.
A smoldering fire can often be completely invisible, even underground burning through dry roots or fallen logs, emitting far less heat than a rock in the sun. A satellite or even an airplane isn't going to pick up a burning incense stick at the best of times, and that's all it takes to keep a fire alive indefinitely. Then it's a race between whether that smoldering ember burns itself out before it reaches a pocket of more volatile fuel. And I don't know if you've ever been in a recent burn scar - but oddly enough when there's no rain and everything around you is burnt, everything smells like smoke for a LONG time afterward - the smell of fresh smoke doesn't really stand out.
There's still little excuse for letting a hot spot in a recently-burned area get out of control when you've got fire crews right next door managing a second controlled burn. But that burn was threatening a lot more homes an infrastructure, and the winds had picked up... I can at least kind of understand why a small hot spot in an already-burned area that wasn't immediately threatening anything wouldn't be a really high priority.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 01 2022, @11:07AM (3 children)
I've let this simmer in the back of my mind for a little bit now. I guess it boils down to, Google and the military can do high resolution sweeps of the earth for commercial and/or military purposes - but the forest service can't do high resolution imagery to search for ecologically important events.
It has been possible to read a license plate from orbit for at least 15 years, seems more like 25 years since I've heard that claim made. Do infrared cameras inherently lack that sort of resolution? If the cameras are capable, then maybe we are just allocating resources in the wrong direction.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday June 01 2022, @01:44PM
> Do infrared cameras inherently lack that sort of resolution?
I believe it's less a matter of resolution, than the fact that the atmosphere is mostly opaque to thermal IR. The greenhouse gasses that make Earth's average temperature so much higher than the Moon's accomplish that by bouncing thermal IR photons around in the atmosphere (and back down to the ground) so many times that you can't really tell where on the surface they originated. Just like the atmosphere scatters the blue portion of the Sun's white light so that our sun looks yellow while the blue comes from everywhere, it also scatters thermal IR.
Take a look at an IR view of Earth and you mostly see a bunch or air currents with only hints of the continents underneath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7QttjGu628 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday June 03 2022, @12:36PM (1 child)
Remember field of view. The stuff that can read license plates, can't do that on a field of view 100 km across - a 1 cm resolution (which is close to what you'd need to resolve license plates) would mean a sensor arrangement with about 10 million pixels across (or ~100 trillion pixels of information that you somehow have to pick up as you fly by).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 03 2022, @12:59PM
Now, THAT is informative. Damn good point!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01 2022, @04:31AM
Runaway Jewish Space Satellite Lasers, causing fires in New Mexico! Oh, the Huge Runaway!