Glad to see that our work on fire history and bark beetle outbreaks in Colorado is reaching a broader audience.I’ll try to respond to some of the questions raised, but for folks who want to be informed on the current state of the science on these issues reading of our two outreach reports is recommended (Romme et al. 2006 and Bentz et al. 2009, cited below).The short answers to questions or issues raised are:
1. Does our published work on beetle outbreaks or fire history evaluate if warming in Colorado can be attributed to greenhouse gases?
-- No. That is beyond the scope of our work.
2. Has our published research evaluated if recent warming in the subalpine zone (which is the primary cause of current beetle outbreaks) is unique?
--I assume this question pertains to the past 100 years or so of instrumental climate data and to multi-decadal time scales. We have relied on climate station records available on websites some of which have been included in recent climate impact reports (e.g. Saunders, Ray et al.).Climate stations in the area of the MPB outbreak in northern central Colorado show strong warming trends in maximum and minimum temperatures during all seasons when analyzed over the past 50 to 100 years.
3. Don’t dead fuels ignite more easily than live fuels?--Yes, but that is of relatively minor importance in the context of the weather that drives fires in the Colorado subalpine zone. Our point is that fire history research shows that the years during which large areas (i.e. many 10s of thousands of hectares) have burned in subalpine forests in Colorado are dependent on infrequent, extreme drought. During those drought events, any increased fire hazard associated with beetle-killed trees is a minor contribution to the fire risk determined by weather conditions. During extreme drought, fuel type (dead or alive) is a poor predictor of fire spread during the rare climate events under which vast areas of forest have burned in the subalpine zone documented in our tree-ring fire history studies.
Our published studies of fire behavior (frequency, extent and severity) after the extensive 1940s spruce beetle outbreak in northwestern Colorado and after the late 1990s mountain pine beetle outbreak in north-central Colorado do not show a significant increase in any of these fire behavior parameters in beetle-killed forests compared to green forests. Again, this is because fire is strongly controlled by exceptional climate in Colorado’s subalpine zone.
4. Questions were implied about the role of past fire suppression in contributing to either current fire hazard or current bark beetle outbreaks.
--The answers to these questions vary with forest type and elevation zone, and are discussed in detail in Romme et al. 2006. Most lodgepole pine stands in north-central Colorado were in “age-susceptible” conditions for mountain pine beetle outbreak in the late 1990s because they originated after widespread fires during the second half of the 19th century associated with warm-dry climate conditions linked to major climate drivers reflected in sea surface temperatures and teleconnections to Colorado. The effectiveness of post-1910 fire suppression is much debated for Colorado subalpine forests, but there clearly is a strong relationship of 19th century burning to current stand ages that are susceptible to beetle attack. Likewise, for current fire hazard in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests fire suppression is a minor (but probably not negligible in some areas) factor relative to weather in creating high fire potential in these fire-prone ecosystems.
5. Comments are made pro and con logging of beetle-killed trees.--Decisions to thin forests in order to reduce fuels need to be directed to particular projects with specific objectives, and they must consider many social values beyond the scope of research on fire hazard in relation to beetle kill. Some scenarios for proactive management are discussed in the Romme et al. 2006 report. I stress that thinning trees in lodgepole forests close to homes is prudent, regardless of whether the trees are alive or dead. Projects aimed at reducing fire hazard through thinning of forests in remote areas would be of questionable value, and, in fact I don’t believe land managers are recommending thinning in remote areas.
Longer answers can be found in the outreach reports and articles cited below (full citations are listed at http://www.colorado.edu/geography/biogeography/publications.html.
The attribution of current bark beetle outbreaks across western North America, from Alaska (spruce beetle) to the Southwest, to recent warming is based on both field studies and experimental work on weather influences on beetle populations and tree resistance to infestations (references in the Bentz and Romme reports cited below).There has been some attribution to broad climate drivers such as the Arctic Oscillation, but none of the studies on beetle activity attempt to distinguish between natural sources of climate variation and the contribution from greenhouse gases. Obviously, that is beyond the scope of what ecological studies can do.Our published work on mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle outbreaks in Colorado does not attempt to attribute warming or beetle outbreaks to either natural sources of climate variation or to AGW. We are developing longer records of mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle outbreaks (using tree rings) to statistically link past outbreaks to climate drivers such as ENSO, PDO and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation which are teleconnected to wildfire activity in Colorado.
As one of the blog comments noted, it is statistically difficult to show trends in rare events like years of large fires in Colorado’s subalpine forests in relation to a warming trend over 50 to 100 years. However, based on a very large data set covering the western U.S., Westerling et al. (2006 Science) show a strong statistical association of increased area burned since the mid-1980s with increased temperatures and a longer fire season. The authors of that report note that even in regions that experienced relatively little 20th century fire suppression (e.g. northern Rockies) there is an increase in area burn correlated with warming.For fire history in subalpine forests (i.e. spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine) in Colorado our work based on tree-ring reconstruction of fire years shows strong statistical linkages to ENSO, PDO and AMO over the past several centuries (Sibold & Veblen 2006, and Schoennagel et al. 2007). These linkages of wildfire activity (and drought) are replicated by independent data sets for ponderosa pine fires in Colorado (Sherriff and Veblen 2008) and generally across western North America (Kitzberger et al. 2007). The goal of our research has been to understand how variability in climate (including late 20th century warming) has affected bark beetle outbreaks, wildfire activity, and non-beetle related tree mortality (Bigler et al. 2007, vanMantgem et al. 2009 Science). Supporting or refuting AGW is beyond the scope of our work, but our findings support the view that recent warming is having a major impact on these ecological processes in Colorado.
Citations: Romme, W.H., J. Clement, J. Hicke, D. Kulakowski, L.H. MacDonald, T.L. Schoennagel, and T.T. Veblen. 2006. Recent forest insect outbreaks and fire risk in Colorado forests: A brief synthesis of relevant research. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, Report, 24 pp. Fort Collins, CO. PDF here
Bentz B, Allen CD, Ayres M, Berg E, Carroll A, Hansen M, Hicke J, Joyce L, Logan J, McMahon J, Macfarlane J, Munson S, Negrón J, Paine T, Powell J, Raffa K, Régnière J, Reid M, Romme W, Seybold S, Six D, Tomback D, Vandygriff J, Veblen T, White M, Witcosky J, Wood D (2009). Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North America: Causes and Consequences. University of Utah Press, ISBN 978-0-87480965-7. 42 p. Copies can be ordered from here for $4.95.
03 August 2009
A Guest Post by Thomas Veblen
One of the joys of working at a world-class university is that there are world-class scholars all around. Professor Thomas Veblen of our Geography department is among them. He graciously responded to a request for his views on beetles, climate, forest management and a few other topics. You can read his guest posting below.
36 comments:
Those of you from Colorado might be interested in the results of various kinds of fuels treatments during the Hayman Fire. there are also excellent photos.
Highly recommended is:
Graham, Russell T., Technical Editor. 2003. Hayman Fire Case Study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 396 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr114.html
Note that some make the connection between Veblen's point 3 (based on fire history) and whether you should thin or not (Veblen's point 5). It sounds like in reality there is resounding agreement about the utility of fuels treatments around communities, which echoes experience and common sense.
When a scientific study seems to go against your personal experience of nature- it's a situation (as they say in the fire community) that "shouts watch out." It usually means the researcher has not framed the question the same way you do.
Example- scientific debate over whether cell phone use causes more accidents. You are driving down a street. Someone slows to 10 MPH to turn because they only have one hand on the wheel and the other on their cellphone. they may not have an accident, but they have caused you and the 50 cars in back of you to slow down.. using extra time, causing extra congestion, and using extra carbon. But the researcher defined it as being about accidents.
Some would argue (usually those on the other side of an essentially values driven debate) that by framing the problem our way we are not "using the best science." But if we believed that, fundamentally we would believe that researchers have legitimacy in framing all policy questions- which I don't believe.
Prof. Veblen:
Many thanks for adding to the discussion. I will look at your references - but in themean time I have two questions. First, can you specify the actual temperature records you used for establishing the temperature trends?
Second, can you reference a current source of the causes of fires in the Western States, i.e., lightening vs man? I found one reference for Appalachia (http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p1/p1369/p1448/p1450/p1465/p1466) which indicated that only 8% were due to lightening, which they acknowledged was significantly less than in the Western States. Given the spectacular lightening storms in Colorado, at least around Denver, I assume that the statistics are very different.
Interestingly this AM in the Denver Post, I see an individual that cites "science" as saying 200 feet is all you need to do to protect homes. I don't read that the same as Dr. Veblen's cite, nor the work of Graham, cited above, and others.
"Colorado's new rule "leaves the door so wide open that there could be road-building and logging on any of those acres under the guise of 'community wildfire protection,' " Bidwell said. "We agree that it makes sense to clear trees and brush around peoples' homes, and the science is clear that cutting trees and brush immediately around homes, the first 200 feet, can be very effective. But we see no reason to allow logging a mile or even further away from communities."
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12986674
Good that you (Roger) could get a response like this. And thanks to Mr. Veblen for offering it.
One thing I want to point out on the attribution issue. A researcher studying one issue in detail does have difficulty "proving" (i.e. with high confidence) a cause-and-effect relationship, and in this case, they are not even (yet) trying.
Otoh, I just read an article in Scientific American that pointed out that regarding studies of biological systems "nearly 90% of such studies confirm what would be expected to change as a result of warming temperatures." And this was global, not NA. Most cycles are not global, but regional. And infestations are raging in some parts of the PNW as well, a very different ecosystem than Colorado's sub-alpine.
It's a statistical correlation, not cause-and-effect, but such statistics indicate to me that people who suggest AGW are not a hammer looking for a nail.
Dean:
I know of few people who deny that we have been warming since the LIA. Humans have definitely altered local climates and have definitely destroyed local ecologies. IMHO,the AGW hypothesis, however, can only be tested with some pretty careful and precise measurements.
Hence I would like to have seen Prof Veblen collect his own temperature data for his 10 experimental sites. (see http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/pdfs/Pielke-etal_BAMS_Jun07.pdf for an interesting discussion of biases of local Colorado temperature measurements.) Based upon my reading and looking at the temperature records, I remain unconvinced that existing GCMs accurately capture actual processes. Moreover, given the uncertainties associated with the models, I do not see that the scale of the likely impact warrants the type of policies that are currently being pushed. As I said before, events such as forest fires and MPB infestations deserve research on their own terms and I see the use of catch-all explanations as problematic for actually understanding the phenomena. A case in point relates to fires in Appalachia, the vast majority of which appear to be triggered directly by human actions. It seems to me that one should address the primary and immediate causes rather than global solutions that may or may not address the issue.
I recommend the late Aaron Wildavsky's book, "But Is It True?" It is somewhat dated, but it certainly reinforces a natural skeptics skepticism.
"Interestingly this AM in the Denver Post, I see an individual that cites "science" as saying 200 feet is all you need to do to protect homes. I don't read that the same as Dr. Veblen's cite, nor the work of Graham, cited above, and others."
Jack Cohen has done excellent research on this issue. See this article, in particular Figure 2:
http://www.firewise.org/resources/files/WUI_HIR/Wildlandfirethreat.pdf
His point is that, while direct flame radiant heat fluxes are insufficient to ignite a house beyond about 40 meters (130 feet), firebrands can carry for a kilometer to ignite flammable materials, particularly on the roof or up against the house.
Unfortunately (in my opinion) he seems to neglect the possibility of experts using advanced technologies and techniques protecting houses with only a few hours notice.
For example, I'll bet in all of the post-fire assessments Jack Cohen has ever conducted, he's never seen an in-ground swimming pool that caught fire. ;-)
It is hard to find anything to dispute in Dr. Veblen’s discussion.
Clearly, hotter drier weather is a major risk factor for forest fires. My own practical experience suggests that is the primary risk factor and that the risks associated with what Dr. Veblen describes as the propensity of beetle killed trees to “ignite more easily than live fuels” is, indeed, of lesser -- but, not inconsequential -- consequence.
Given:
1) The current cooling trend
2) Recent peer reviewed science which suggests:
“global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”
3) My own expectation that we will see a 30-40 year cooling trend, much like that of 1934 to 1979.
4) My own observation that we’ve seen far fewer Colorado forest fires in the last 6 to 7 years.
I would say we can all breath a little sigh of relief.
Now, if only we could rid ourselves of counterproductive politicians as easily as we rid ourselves of elevated fire risk!
More from that paper by Jack Cohen:
"Howard et al. (1973) observed 95 percent survival for homes with nonflammable roofs and a vegetation clearance of 10 to 18 meters.
Foote (1994) observed 86 percent survival for homes with nonflammable roofs and a clearance of 10 meters or more."
But one thing that is NOT noted by that commentary is that it might be possible to eliminate vegetation that's less than 10 meters from the house in hours before a fire arrives. Or it may be possible to cover or treat the vegetation to render it nonflammable or less flammable. Nor is it mentioned that it might be possible to render a flammable roof nonflammable in the days or hours before a fire arrives.
"I recommend the late Aaron Wildavsky's book, "But Is It True?" It is somewhat dated, but it certainly reinforces a natural skeptics skepticism."
Somewhat dated? It's 15 years old. How can a book that is 15 years old deal with the current state of climate research? It's irrelevant if the issue is evidence.
You also say that "Moreover, given the uncertainties associated with the models, I do not see that the scale of the likely impact warrants the type of policies that are currently being pushed."
This is also odd since models form only a part of the trove of evidence. A lot of it comes from study of past climate.
In any case, the level of evidence required for public policy is not really a scientific question, it is a values issue. Most public policy is made without as much information as policy-makers, or the rest of us, would prefer. The burden of proof should also be affected by the stakes, and in this case they are enormous. I don't know what burden of proof you require, but for me, the level has been met. The question for me is whether our (in the U.S.) dysfunctional political system is capable of creating policy based on substantive debate. The evidence for that to me is not strong.
Bernie,
We have used different climate stations for different particular studies in Colorado. Our options are typically reduced by problems with missing data and locations of the stations vs. our field study areas.
Some stations in north-central Colorado at relatively high elevations in or near the current MPB outbreak that show warming trends include Walden, Spicer, Steamboat Springs, Grand Lake and Hayden.
Analyses of recent trends in these station records by Klaus Wolter, climate scientist at NOAA, with appropriate caveats can be found at:
http://wwa.colorado.edu/slide_database/full_presentations/Wolter.MRS.18oct08.pdf
One of my students, Teresa Chapman, used the PRISM (spatially interpolated data by Chris Daily's research group at Oregon State U) climate data for the full range of lodgepole pine forests in northern-central Colorado to show a correlation between warm winters and summers plus episodic drought with the spatial-temporal development of the current MPB outbreak (post-1994). Ref is Teresa B. Chapman, 2009 "Spatio-temporal patterns of mountain pine beetle activity in lodgepole and ponderosa pines of the southern Rocky Mountains". Masters thesis, Geog. Dept., CU Boulder (should be available through the CU Library but it was only filed in mid-July).
For comparing temperatures during the current MPB outbreak and the more limited early 1980s outbreak centered on Grand County, one of my other recent students used the 1977-2003 hourly temperature record from the USDA Forest Service Fraser Experimental Forest. See Kerry E.W. Malm, 2009, Temperature Influences on Phenology
and Population Growth of Mountain
Pine Beetle Populations in Northern
Colorado. Masters thesis, Geog. Dept., CU Boulder. Kerry's analysis shows that the termination of the MPB outbreak in the mid-1980s coincides with low minimum Dec-Jan temps, whereas the Dec.-Jan. minimum temperatures throughout the period of the current outbreak are much higher than any of the range lethal thresholds demonstrated in lab experiments on beetles' cold tolerance. Both higher min winter temperatures as well as higher temps during the growing season favor beetle outbreaks.
For our work on non-beetle related tree mortality in the Front Range where I have been measuring tree mortality in permanent plots I installed in 1982, we use the C-1 Climate Station on Niwot Ridge (available through INSTAAR at CU). My forest plots show a doubling of tree mortality rates from 1982-1994 to 1995-2007 which coincides with warmer seasonal temperatures and increased water deficits.
For a useful but short high elevation climate record showing warming from 1991 to 2006 at Loch Vale in RMNP see Baron et al. 2009 Global Change Biology 15, p. 1777.
For data on fire occurrence in the western U.S., the best source is the National Inter-Agency Fire Center. But the Westerling et al. paper in Science 2006 has done an excellent job of compiling and analyzing those records.
Tom V:
Many, many thanks. This is very useful and has given me a lot to digest.
I have no doubts about the importance of cold temperatures in stemming the infestations. I am glad to see that someone has dug into the daily temperature data in nearby stations to establish actual minimas and to verify the lab experiments.
Let me look at your references before commenting further.
Again many thanks for your courteous response.
Dean:
I pointed to Wildavsky's book as one that emphasizes the need to look carefully at the actual data that is relevant to the presenting policy issue. You are obviously not suggesting that a book that is 20 years old has no value? Perhaps Roger can chime in on this since Wildavsky was in the same field of Public Policy Analysis.
The paleo record would be more relevant if it was more transparent. As you might have guessed, I am a close reader of Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit site. The NAS Report clearly supported McKitrick and McIntyre's criticisms of Mann et al statistical methods for combining proxies and extracting a temperature signal and thereby demolished the famous bristlecone hockey stick. (I am not a scientist, but I have done statistics and psychometrics for 35 years. These two guys know what they are doing. )
You note:
"In any case, the level of evidence required for public policy is not really a scientific question, it is a values issue. Most public policy is made without as much information as policy-makers, or the rest of us, would prefer. The burden of proof should also be affected by the stakes, and in this case they are enormous. I don't know what burden of proof you require, but for me, the level has been met."
The "precautionary principle" is a very tricky basis for policy making decisions. If it was used in case of penicillin we might never have developed that class of drugs. The claims of terrible outcomes from the current rate of use of fossil fuels are simply that. I am all for the efficient use of resources and the minimizing of readily avoidable risks, but the burden of proof must be on those who are making the assertion that we need to invest huge amounts of money in some very uncertain enterprises. I know many want to stop the scientific debate but that simply serves to make me more skeptical. There are simply too many very basic scientific questions that are left unanswered - which is why I so thoroughly enjoy this site and Dr. Pielke Snr's site and I am appalled by the level of discourse at RealClimate and at ClimateProgress - there are of course commentators with poor manners on both sides of the debate.
Now I have to do the homework, Prof Veblen set for me!!
More on bb's, science, community and firefighter experiences and fuels treatment.."Surely there’s a happy median between 200 feet and 1.5 miles"
http://coloradoindependent.com/34770/roads-required-for-battling-beetle-kill-epidemic-but-is-it-worth-it
By DAVID O. WILLIAMS 8/4/09 3:15 PM
.."Colorado Wild’s Ryan Bidwell told the Denver Post that exception opens up far too many acres of roadless public lands to logging.
“We agree that it makes sense to clear trees and brush around peoples’ homes, and the science is clear that cutting trees and brush immediately around homes, the first 200 feet, can be very effective. But we see no reason to allow logging a mile or even further away from communities,” Bidwell said.
....
A recent University of Colorado study gives some credence to Bidwell’s contention that going deep into the forests isn’t necessarily going to reduce the wildfire danger, but Breckenridge recently repealed an ordinance requiring removal of potentially flammable vegetation around homes – buckling to homeowners who said it was too expensive.
In Vail, where the town, Eagle County and the U.S. Forest Service have been working for the past several years to create a defensible zone of a couple of hundred yards around the entire town, firefighters say it’s key to have a space in which to fight the inevitable fires before they move down into town...
Surely there’s a happy median between 200 feet and 1.5 miles..."
"In Vail, where the town, Eagle County and the U.S. Forest Service have been working for the past several years to create a defensible zone of a couple of hundred yards around the entire town, firefighters say it’s key to have a space in which to fight the inevitable fires before they move down into town..."
See, that's where I disagree. This is very similar to the problem of hurricane storm surge.
It doesn't make sense for each town to protect itself from fire, just like it doesn't make sense for each city (e.g., New Orleans, New York City) to protect itself from storm surge.
What's needed is a system that can be deployed anywhere in the U.S. within a few hours that can prevent 90+% of the houses that would otherwise burn down from burning down.
From 2002 to 2006, over 10,000 houses burned down in the U.S. So that's about 2,000 houses per year:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/national/main5074152.shtml
Let's say the average value of each house is $200,000. That would be $400 million in home losses each year. Let's say we prevent 90% of those houses from burning down (cut losses to less than 200 houses per year). That savings would be worth $360 million per year. Now, let's say we spend $1 billion to develop the system that protects 90% of the houses that otherwise would burn down, and deploying that system each year costs $100 million.
That's STILL a savings of $260 million per year, and a payback period on the capital investment of under 4 years.
Of course, you might ask, "But could we build a system that would protect 90% of the houses that would otherwise burn down for $1 billion?" I would say, "Of course! $1 billion! That's an unbelievably large amount of money."
And as further evidence that a $1 billion system could protect 90 percent of the houses that would otherwise burn down, I'd point to fire retardant gels:
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=619505
No one has spent anywhere near $1 billion in developing and improving them, but they already work pretty well.
Bernie - The NRC report did not at all demolish the Mann Hockey Stick. It found some problems, and decreasing certainly for the first millenium. But it said that the basic conclusions about the last decades of the 20th century being warmer than the preceding 2 millenium were plausible, and were further supported by newer information. I just went to the report itself online and read its summary. Maybe you need to do that instead of trusting a blog. I would have copied more of the relevant language here, but as I have complained before, this blog does not allow the pasting of text. So I'll just type this:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecendented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence . . . "
Claims that the Hockey Stick has been debunked are simply not true. In fact, wikipedia quotes Roger Pielke Jr as claiming that the NRC report is a "near complete vindication" of Mann et al. Is that an accurate quote of you, Roger?
There seems to be a variant of Godwin's Law that says that any discussion of climate science on a blog will inevitably devolve to a debate over the hockey stick ;-)
A followup.
I would add that the journal Nature refers to the NRC report on the Hockey Stick thusly: "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph". Roger Pielke's quote I now see is from a blog post of his - where he says that the NRC report is a near-complete vindication for Mann et al. The wikipedia article "Hockey Stick controversy" links to it.
And yet your reading on Climate Audit convinced you that the NRC report demolished it? Methinks you need to follow other blogs.
Enough from me on all this for a while.
If Mann’s Hockey Stick is accurate, why does it not appear in a chart of the observational data from a 2,000 year history at Vostok (with a single additional data point added for 1998-2008)?
Click here for the entire post.
The hockey stick is bunk. And even the IPCC knows it. After highly touting it in 2001, they have now forgotten all memory of it.
Mark- I think we may differ on whether it's just about houses. If you live out in the country, buying some gel to cover your house and outbuildings might be just the ticket and I would support taking some funding from climate change modeling and funding adaptation technologies of various kinds, including this.
However communities are more than houses. They are powerlines, parks, swingsets and restrooms in parks, ballfields at schools with bleachers and light fixtures, commercial buildings, hospitals, landscaping, roads, road signs, etc. It seems easier to me to keep the fire out of town than to gel everything you value in your community. That's assuming there are no chemicals of an environmentally questionable nature, which could cause different concerns. Remember when the judge in Montana was about to haul the Undersecretary of Agriculture off to jail because he felt more environmental documentation was needed on plain old fire retardant.
I appreciate your thinking of new strategies, and for now I think we need to think of the variety of mixes of communities, houses and other infrastructure and how to protect them.
Another concern with your approach is that so called "shared resources" to be mobilized in the event of a fire might have a tendency to be all in California when Colorado needs them in case there is a shortage. I think people would prefer to feel safe based on what they can do and not based on what others may promise to do, but perhaps this needs some research.
SBVOR says that the IPCC has "forgotten all memory of it" (the hockey stick) but the most recent IPCC WGI report includes/refers to the 1999 hockey stick (and its study - "MBH 1999") on page 467 and 469 along with many other graphs that give similar results. That's how science works and why the hockey stick has not been debunked - many other subsequent studies showed similar results.
SBVOR links to a conservative think tank for his proof and obviosuly hasn't even read the IPCC reports. I check on the actual online peer-reviewed studies. Readers can take their choice.
Roger - The hockey stick keeps coming up because its "debunking" is one of those completely false myths that some people hold on to despite all evidence. There is no point for me to participate in blogs if I don't correct these for readers who are open-minded.
Dr Veblin -
1. Does the beetle population correspond more closely to average temperature or is it a function of extrema days (i.e. having 7 days below 0F is more important than the yearly average). Perhaps the yearly average temperature is not the correct tool to use in this case. Has an examination of population based on extreme temperature events been done ?
2. Do you know off the top of your head how extrema days relate to average temperatures ? Does a lower average mean we are going to see more minima days ?
3. I note the resumption of the more summer monsoon type conditions in the front range this year. What are the effects of precipitation on beetle population ? Is this more or less important than temperature effects ? (I can see arguments for either case)
Thanks again for your informative inputs
Dean - you say:
"I check on the actual online peer-reviewed studies. Readers can take their choice."
Excellent ! I thought this was just going to be a rehash of the same old same old dodges and talking points. It is about time a real statistical journal reviewed Dr. Mann's work. I look forward to your link - Thanks !
Dean: "this blog does not allow the pasting of text."
Actually, the blog does allow the pasting of text; the above text was copied and pasted.
While you clearly cannot copy and paste in the initial comment screen, you nevertheless can if you click on "Post Comment"; the Preview screen is then presented, where you can click on "edit", which presents another comment screen that accepts pasted text.
Roger and others may wish to take note!
Dean,
Show me the hockey stick in this chart of raw data (not massaged data) from directly cited peer reviewed science and rigorous observational data.
Examine the post that chart comes from. That post demonstrates that there is NOTHING even remotely unusual about current temperatures OR trends.
Dean,
Where is the scare factor in this chart from this page?
Dean:
I have read the most recent IPCC reports, the North/NRC/NAS report, the Wegman report, Mann et al's article, and McKitrick and McIntyre's articles. Without asking, it is unreasonable to assume that I have not read the relevant material. You raised the issue of the paleo record - the North Report clearly states that a lot of work needs to be done to reduce the uncertainties associated with those records. Nobody disputes the upward trend since 1600s - the issue is the strength of that trend, and estimates of that trend and changes in that trend require precise measures which is why the choice of statistical techniques and detailing of confidence intervals are extremely relevant.
But that is beyond the point of this thread.
The issue at hand is the impact of climate on forest fires and MPB infestations in the Western States. The 20th/21st Century climate records for the immediate areas (or similar contrasting forested areas) should suffice as explanatory variables. Prof Veblen has indicated that his team have been working on local records and that is what I am looking at now.
Bernie - "A lot of work needs to be done to reduce uncertainties" So? Science involves uncertainties. You said that the Hockey Stick was "demolished" by the NRC report and it clearly wasn't. You also said that you read a particular blog for your information. If you actually read the report, you wouldn't characterized it as you have. The issue with MBH1999 (the "hockey stick") is whether late 20th century temperatures are higher than the previous 2000 years, and a dozen subsequent independent studies have duplicated the results. SBVOR continues to post links to irrelevant data that are not measuring the same thing as the MBH study. I'm not going to respond to those as I'm sure he can continue to find irrelevant data and waste everybody's time in the process.
Hi Sharon,
Let’s start with this: “…I would support taking some funding from climate change modeling and funding adaptation technologies of various kinds, including this.”
If you think there’s even a slight chance that will happen, you have much more confidence in government than I do. :-) ...or really... :-(
If there was a system that protected all important property, such that even WITH climate change, the annual damages were reduced by a factor of 10 from existing annual damages, that would eliminate something that climate change action advocates rely on to encourage CO2 reductions. So I think many of those who encourage CO2 reductions (who are in power in the U.S. right now) would actually OPPOSE such a system. Of course, I may be too cynical. (But I don’t think so. ;-))
“However communities are more than houses. They are powerlines, parks, swingsets and restrooms in parks, ballfields at schools with bleachers and light fixtures, commercial buildings, hospitals, landscaping, roads, road signs, etc.”
Yes, this is where scientific analysis comes in. If houses represent 90+% of the annual property damage from wildfires, then we should focus on houses. But if, for example, houses represent less than 50% of the annual property damage from wildfires, then we should focus on the other things also, or instead.
“It seems easier to me to keep the fire out of town than to gel everything you value in your community.”
Again, this is another good item for scientific analysis. Get a database of all 10,000 houses that burned down from 2002 to 2006, plus any other property damage that was significant (e.g. roads, power lines, light fixtures, etc.). Figure out what percentage of the damage occurred “in town” and how much of the damage occurred “out of town”. Try to figure out a curve of the reduction in damage created by removing varying amounts of vegetation. For example, probably 100 percent of the houses could have been saved if there had been 1 km of treeless/shrubless area around each of the houses that burned down.
Maybe after those scientific analyses are done, hold a brainstorming conference. Present the requirements of the system months before the conference (e.g., “a 90+ percent reduction in nationwide property damage, with a payback on the capital and operating costs of less than 5 years”). Then have 10 presentations at the conference describing possible systems, followed by brainstorming that lists another 40 possibilities.
“I appreciate your thinking of new strategies, and for now I think we need to think of the variety of mixes of communities, houses and other infrastructure and how to protect them.”
Yes, basic research and brainstorming are important before coming up with detailed designs.
“Another concern with your approach is that so called ‘shared resources’ to be mobilized in the event of a fire might have a tendency to be all in California when Colorado needs them in case there is a shortage.”
Absolutely. The final design would need to be such that people are protected no matter where they are in the continental U.S. So it would be important to know how many hours in advance it’s known that a home is in danger before it burns down. Is it a day? 6 hours? 2 hours? <1 hour? The less advance time that’s available, the more the system would need to be “over-designed”. That is, Colorado would need to have its own resources, if there wasn’t enough time to get the stuff from California.
Mark
“I think people would prefer to feel safe based on what they can do and not based on what others may promise to do, but perhaps this needs some research.”
Yes, research is needed to find out what individual homeowners can do and at what time. For example, I live in a multi-unit townhome, with large trees pine trees nearby (my gutters are filled with pine needles most of the time, except just after I’ve cleaned them out), and shrubbery all around. Plus a wooden deck. Obviously, all these things are terrible from a fire prevention standpoint. But what would be the things that I should do, if I had a day or a few hours notice? For example, I wouldn’t hesitate to cut down all the shrubbery, or even to cut down the deck or the large trees, if it would save my house. (Though I’d probably get in trouble with my homeowners’ association for those things.) But maybe if I just cleaned out the gutters and sprayed everything with water, or water plus fire retardant gel, I’d be OK. Or maybe if I did EVERYTHING (cut down the shrubbery, trees, deck…sprayed the fire retardant gel) the house still would be very vulnerable. That’s the sort of thing we need to know.
That’s why I’m thinking that one good thing to have would be a panning camera on every house that burned down...to see why and how they burned down, e.g. is it firebrands landing on the roof? How long does it take before the house basically can’t be saved…is it 5 minutes from first ignition of the house, or several hours? Do fires often start on the inside, rather than the outside?
A nice feature of any system would be if it could improve (lower cost for same protection) every year.
Dean sez:
“SBVOR continues to post links to irrelevant data that are not measuring the same thing as the MBH study.”
What Dean really means to say is that any evidence, no matter how rigorous, which contradicts his religious creed is “irrelevant”. Yeah, Dean, I suppose when one side refuses to debate, the debate really is over, eh?
Mann, et al 1999 purports to demonstrate an unprecedented rate of warming in the 20th century. My data refute that. How is that “irrelevant”?
Again…
1) Show me the hockey stick in this chart of raw data (not massaged data) from directly cited peer reviewed science and rigorous observational data.
Examine the post that chart comes from. That post demonstrates -- far more directly than Mann, et al 1999 -- that there is NOTHING even remotely unusual about current temperatures OR trends.
2) Where is the scare factor in this chart from this page?
Curse short lunch times!
This looks like an excellent website:
http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Zybach%20Fire%20et_al_2009b.pdf
Let me suggest that those wanting to discuss pine beetles carry on. Those wanting to discuss other topics should find another thread, another blog, or just exchange emails with one another. Thanks for your consideration!
Stepping back and seeing how far we got from the bark beetle discussion (thanks for pointing this out, Roger) and examining the dynamics I found it to be an example of forces I see at work in many climate related debates.
First, you can see some folks interested in discussing whether something (we'll call it x) is caused by climate change and how you could do experiments or use history to determine that, etc. We could call those "group A."
Others simply want to figure out good ways to deal with x,given changes in x regardless of cause. I hypothesize that generally the former tend to be people funded by climate science research funds, and the latter people tend to be the people who got their degrees in x, and have careers in dealing with x (me). Or have an interest in doing x better(Mark B).
In some cases, group B people feel it is the role of group A people to tell them why exactly finding out what the cause is will be relevant to dealing with X, before they can spend the time considering what is the cause, or care very much about that debate.
Similarly group A people tend to assume it does make a difference, and tell group B people that it is a B task to figure out why it would make a difference .. and if B's do not do that, they are accused of "not incorporating climate change in dealing with x."
the previous discussion was a good example of A's and B's having side by side discussions. I'm hypothesizing also that it is easier for B's to remain respectful because we share a common goal (improving how we work with x). A's don't seem to share a common goal.
Roger, I apologize in advance if this was even further off the topic.
Sharon:
The alphabet has more than two letters in it!! I for one appreciate the concreteness and immediacy of your questions.
I will be back to this topic, but family stuff has to be dealt with.
Prof. Veblen:
Again thanks for the references. I tracked down some, but I am waiting to hear from your two students whose Master's theses you cited.
The Colorado climate Report is vey helpful, though I think the inclusion of some of the stations with very rapid growth, e.g., Ft Collins, Grand Junction, could be subject to localized UHI effects unless they are carefully sited stations. This is why I am looking forward to Kerry and Teresa's papers.
In the mean time, I read elsewhere that the MPB has a range that extends further south into warmer areas. If so how have these areas coped with MPB infestations since these locations would not be subject to severely cold temperatures?
"Others simply want to figure out good ways to deal with x,given changes in x regardless of cause. I hypothesize that generally the former tend to be people funded by climate science research funds, and the latter people tend to be the people who got their degrees in x, and have careers in dealing with x (me). Or have an interest in doing x better(Mark B)."
My point regarding fires was a point that I think is valid for virtually every aspect of climate change.
People who want to reduce CO2 emissions say that, "CO2 emissions should be reduced because CO2 emissions cause X". (In this case, it was houses burning down because of hotter, drier summers, and earlier snow melts.)
But in virtually every instance, I could think of plenty of things that could be done that would make "X" get BETTER...even if climate change was at the top of the ranges considered scientifically realistic.
Wildfires burning down houses was one such instance. I think a system could be designed (with a reasonable payback period) that would result in significantly FEWER houses in the U.S. burning down in 2050 or 2100, no matter how hot and dry conditions are then.
I used wildfires burning down houses because I'd researched the issue when the Australian wildfires occurred earlier this year. I didn't choose pine bark beetles because that's way out of my area of expertise. But I’ve never been one to let my lack of expertise in a subject keep me from thinking of/proposing potential solutions ;-) so…
1) How about setting aggregating pheromone traps, and killing the pine beetles that come to the traps?
2) How about injecting nematodes into bore holes, to hinder or prevent pine bark beetle egg production, or to feed on the eggs?
3) Grow and deploy dolichopodid flies or checkered beetles to eat the bark beetles?
All of these remedies have the advantage that they have the potential to reduce bark beetle infestations, no matter what the climate.
Post a Comment