the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

IPCC Ignored Wildfire Corrections — 3 times

Posted by Jeff Id on March 8, 2010

Three times the IPCC was warned that the obviously, blatantly idiotic global warming wildfire claims in the 3000 page AR4 report were actually idiotic.  Three times the warnings were ignored.

Climatequotes – click the headline below to go to the article.


IPCC reviewers pointed out wildfire mistake, ignored by authors

In a previous post I mentioned that the IPCC’s claim of reduced tourism due to wildfires (section 14.2.7 of WGII) didn’t match their source. They claimed there were millions of dollars in tourism losses, but their source did not make that claim. One of the reasons the claim was false was explained in their own source, a British Columbia Tourism newsletter. It said:

It is possible that the stronger performance of regions far from the fires is due to travellers who changed their plans to visit these regions instead of those heavily affected by the forest fires.

Had the IPCC read this, they would have not used it as their source for the claim of lost tourism revenue. I don’t know if they read the source at all, but perhaps if they did they simply overlooked this important point. Shouldn’t we give them the benefit of the doubt?

No. Because this particular issue was brought up in the review. Not once, not twice, but three times. From the Second Order Draft, Expert reviewers comment E-14-255 (page 42):

9 Responses to “IPCC Ignored Wildfire Corrections — 3 times”

  1. The economic losses associated with forest fires are enormous. In our recent paper on wildfire economics, we found that total short-term and long-term cost-plus-loss attributed to wildfires typically attains amounts that are ten, 20, or 30 times reported suppression expenses.

    Losses in excess of suppression costs include direct and indirect economic damages to timber and forage values, wildlife habitat and populations (including endangered species and their critically protected habitat), air and water quality and yield, recreational opportunities, public health, private businesses, homes, human lives, and other resources and amenities of value.

    See: Zybach, Bob, Michael Dubrasich, Gregory Brenner, and John Marker. 2009. U.S. Wildfire Cost-Plus-Loss Economics Project: The “One-Pager” Checklist. Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center, Advances in Fire Practices, Fall 2009 [here].

    What we did NOT find is that wildfire area or severity is in any way correlated with “global warming.” The principal cause for increasing wildfires in recent years is fuel build-up. Fires are fueled by biomass, not temperature, not fuel moisture, not fire season length. It’s the fuels that burn, and more fuels mean more fires.

    In the last 20 to 30 years, our public forests have become increasing off-limits to management due to societal factors. Yet growth has not stopped, and biomass fuels have accumulated. Eventually those fuels will burn, regardless of climate, from the tropics to boreal regions. Recently many devastating fires have burned in cooler and wetter months — proof that temperature is not the controlling factor. USFS wildfire suppression policies have been altered to Let It Burn, which also increases the size and duration of forest fires and has nothing to do with climate, changed or not.

  2. Jeff Id said

    #1, Mike,
    Thanks for stopping by. I wonder if you would consider doing a short writeup on the state of the forests. I had a friend who was a professional forester who explained many of the problems with human intervention in forest management. It doesn’t matter how your views fit with mine, we’re only interested in a professional viewpoint. — email is on the left.

  3. […] UN IPCC junk science; wildfires, ignored 3x, […]

  4. P Gosselin said

    Speaking of the highly scientific and authoritive IPCC,
    are there readers here who could give Donna Laframboise a hand?

    Hope you do not mind my recruiting help here – it was my sole decision to try here (not Donna’s!). If so, just delete this post.

  5. Atomic Hairdryer said

    I’d second Jeff’s request for a feature. I’ve encountered some of these issues on a project to improve comms in wilderness areas. We wanted to cut back undergrowth around mast and equipment sites to reduce risk but were told we could not. Given the project was largely to improve safety of life for people in those areas, this seemed counterintuitive. Perhaps firefighters should assume a quick loss of ground based comms and invest in airborne C3 systems instead. Australia really seems to have gone overboard with poor land management regulations.

  6. kim said

    The main chapters of the IPCC’s reports were written by around 50 true believers in CAGW and the Summary for Policymakers by a coterie of about a dozen. We know their opinions were all warped by politics. Is there much doubt that the process documented here is reflected many times in the rest of the corpus?

    This is a campfire, but the forest is burning down.

  7. […] It will be interesting to see how they explain away some of the more blatant issues, like this one: IPCC Ignored Wildfire Corrections — 3 times […]

  8. wonderful submit, very informative. Im wondering why the opposite specialists of this sector dont understand this. You should continue your writing. Im sure, youve a huge readers base already!

  9. Johnd206 said

    This design is incredible! You obviously know how to keep a reader amused. akdfadafabgd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: