Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fires ..
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6006 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 6:01 am 
altasnob wrote:
philfort wrote:
He attempts to conclude that since there is no visible trend from this joke of a graph, "that alone is enough to deflate any claims of greenhouse warming revving up westside fires" In addition to trying to conclude anything from that random set of 5 dots, he is missing: - 2021 Pincer Creek and Bear Creek fires - 2018 Maple fire in the Olympics - 2015 Goodell Fire - 2011 Big Hump fire in the Olympics - 2009 Heatwave Complex Fires in the Olympics - 2003 Mineral Park Fire - He's also either missing the Big Hollow/Downey Creek fires of 2020, or this year's fires (can't tell where that dot is)
I agree that he should be including all data points available. But are any of those fires you listed very large? If they are all small, like Goodell Creek, which burned 6,700 acres, they would just be a bunch of dots at the bottom of that graph. It doesn't appear there is any large increase in acreage burned in Western Washington.
What Mr. [removed by mod and dealt with] doesn't comprehend is that the few large fires in the early years in "his graph" occurred before there was any substantial effort to fight them; so yeah they got large......so his graph is about fire fighting methodology.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6006 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 6:06 am 
altasnob wrote:
Cyclopath wrote:
If that was true, climate scientists would be saying the same thing.
Are there any studies that are specific for Western Washington? Note, Cliff Mass is not saying that wild fires are not increasing. He's not saying wild fires in Oregon are not increasing. He's not saying wildfires in Washington, as a whole, are not increasing. He's saying it does not appear that wildfires in Western Washington are increasing, nor are they predicted to increase in the future. Everything I have read suggests Western Washington will get both warmer, and wetter, due to climate change. So it's not surprising forest fires in Western Washington are not predicted to increase.
What you fail to comprehend is that it doesn't matter if "average" annual rainfall is increasing; it is the duration of summer dry periods in conjunction with the probability of lightning storms that will make most of the difference. Smaller human caused fires are typically near infrastructure and are easier to control or put out. The guy standing with one foot in a bucket of hot water and one foot in a bucket of ice water finds that "on average" everything seems fine.

pula58
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6006 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 6:09 am 
philfort wrote:
altasnob wrote:
I agree that he should be including all data points available. But are any of those fires you listed very large? If they are all small, like Goodell Creek, which burned 6,700 acres, they would just be a bunch of dots at the bottom of that graph. It doesn't appear there is any large increase in acreage burned in Western Washington.
They should still be easily visible on that graph (even if you want to claim because we had some big fires 100 years ago we will never be able to claim acreage burned is increasing today). He didn't do proper research, because he doesn't actually care about the truth once he's made up his mind. And no one can correct him or challenge him on that blog, because then he just won't approve their comment. (So far he's refuse to approve two of my comment, for example one correcting him when he claimed the Suiattle Fire was human-caused). He's sloppy, and his comments are heavily curated to make himself look good. He's a man that doesn't like to be wrong.
I had the same thing happen to me years ago, I tried to post a comment refuting one of his "arguments" and, of course, it would not post. I blew him off as a blowhard after that event and also reading a few of his many drivel comments on his multipurpose "blog".

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 996 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 6:59 am 
Ok, if the amount of acres in Western Washington that are burning each year is increasing, prove it up. Shouldn't be that hard to look up every fire in Western Washington, down to say, 1000 acres, and put them on a graph so we can see if there is an upward, downward, or flat correlation. My guess is it is more or less flat in the last 50 years. Bottom line, we just don't get that many large fires in Western Washington. If this summer taught me anything it is just how allergic Western Washington forests are to fire. We had the driest summer ever. And yet, we still had a below average amount of acres burned. Yes it was smokey, but that's just because of the unfortunate locations of the fires combined with prolonged high pressure. If gb is right, that because the "dry" season is longer and the forests even more dry, combined with increased lighting, then we should be seeing an increase in the amount of fires burned in Western Washington in the last 50 years. That sucks Mass removes comments criticizing his takes. He seems like a sensitive guy so it may be the wording you chose to use. Make it more of a suggestion than a criticism and maybe he'll keep your comment and actually address it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowshovel
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 156 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 7:41 am 
altasnob wrote:
…….so it may be the wording you chose to use. Make it more of a suggestion than a criticism and maybe he'll keep your comment and actually address it.
That seems very likely

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
rossb
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 1601 | TRs | Pics
rossb
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 8:27 am 
philfort wrote:
altasnob wrote:
I agree that he should be including all data points available. But are any of those fires you listed very large? If they are all small, like Goodell Creek, which burned 6,700 acres, they would just be a bunch of dots at the bottom of that graph. It doesn't appear there is any large increase in acreage burned in Western Washington.
They should still be easily visible on that graph (even if you want to claim because we had some big fires 100 years ago we will never be able to claim acreage burned is increasing today). He didn't do proper research, because he doesn't actually care about the truth once he's made up his mind. And no one can correct him or challenge him on that blog, because then he just won't approve their comment. (So far he's refuse to approve two of my comment, for example one correcting him when he claimed the Suiattle Fire was human-caused). He's sloppy, and his comments are heavily curated to make himself look good. He's a man that doesn't like to be wrong.
Folks are basically accusing him of cherry picking the data, by cherry picking one of his data points. The crux of his argument has nothing to do with that chart. The chart was simply showing absence of evidence. Throw a bunch more dots on there and it proves nothing. Nor does it disprove anything. The crux of the argument was everything else. Fewer days of strong easterly winds and more rain in autumn as a result of climate change. That is the main argument, and it is a very compelling one. It is quite likely that global warming has had little impact on west side fires, and won't have an impact on west side fires in the future. There are many other things that can easily have a bigger impact, like fire suppression policies and human caused fires. I think Cliff Mass is wrong on a lot of things. He has Ben Carson disease. He is knowledgeable about one thing (meteorology) and thinks that makes him an expert in other things (e. g. math education). He often downplays the importance of global warming, while admitting it will occur. For example, he is not a foreign policy expert, and ignores the geo-political impact of climate change. All of this is very annoying. But he is not a climate denier. It just bothers him (way too much in my opinion) when people suggest that weather anomalies are caused by climate change. But we are several comments in, and no one has actually tried to counter his argument. It seems quite likely that he is right. We have a lot to fear with global warming -- more west side fires isn't on the list.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
rossb
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 1601 | TRs | Pics
rossb
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 8:34 am 
It is worth noting that there is a delay in the publication of comments on the Cliff Mass blog. There are plenty of comments that are very similar to the one that philfort wrote (here).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowshovel
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Apr 2021
Posts: 156 | TRs | Pics
Snowshovel
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 8:39 am 
rossb wrote:
I think Cliff Mass is wrong on a lot of things. He has Ben Carson disease. He is knowledgeable about one thing (meteorology) and thinks that makes him an expert in other things (e. g. math education). He often downplays the importance of global warming, while admitting it will occur. For example, he is not a foreign policy expert, and ignores the geo-political impact of climate change. All of this is very annoying.
Applied science teachers and professors have always been de facto math instructors, much to their annoyance.

ChinookPass
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6122 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 8:57 am 
altasnob wrote:
Cyclopath wrote:
If that was true, climate scientists would be saying the same thing.
Are there any studies that are specific for Western Washington?
So you're telling me there's no evidence to support Cliff Mass's claim?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
philfort
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 351 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
philfort
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 9:02 am 
rossb wrote:
It is worth noting that there is a delay in the publication of comments on the Cliff Mass blog. There are plenty of comments that are very similar to the one that philfort wrote (here).
Well I only see one, it's mine and he did indeed post it (my others, he did not - and several new comments from others have been posted since then). But he only posted it because he thought he could correct me, because for some reason he thought I was talking about the Western Oregon fires (because he doesn't realize there were more than 20,000 acres burned in Western Washington that year too, which would easily show up on the graph).
rossb wrote:
Folks are basically accusing him of cherry picking the data, by cherry picking one of his data points. The crux of his argument has nothing to do with that chart. The chart was simply showing absence of evidence.
Exactly! But Cliff Mass thinks it is enough to disprove the claim that greenhouse warming will increase westside fires:
Cliff Mass wrote:
that alone is enough to deflate any claims of greenhouse warming revving up westside fires.
Also, I'm cherry picking because that's the only data I know about. I don't know anything about climate science, so I can't counteract his other arguments. Which brings us to this:
rossb wrote:
Fewer days of strong easterly winds and more rain in autumn as a result of climate change. That is the main argument, and it is a very compelling one.
I would love to see a climatologists take on this. Maybe some of them are trying to comment on his post, but he doesn't approve them? Or maybe he is 100% correct. Or maybe the drier summers more than counteract any decrease in east winds. Who knows? All I know that any time he talks about stuff I'm an expert in, he is wrong a lot.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
philfort
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 351 | TRs | Pics
Location: seattle
philfort
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 9:21 am 
altasnob wrote:
Ok, if the amount of acres in Western Washington that are burning each year is increasing, prove it up. Shouldn't be that hard to look up every fire in Western Washington, down to say, 1000 acres, and put them on a graph so we can see if there is an upward, downward, or flat correlation.
First of all, I'm not making that claim. I'm disputing that it's absolute certain that it is NOT increasing, and that we should expect to see fewer westside fires in the future. Second, that data is hard to come by. I had to go off memory and a lot of searching. It's very hard to find accurate acreage or even any info about fires from over a decade ago (for instance, try to find details about the Mineral Park fire up the Cascade River in... what was it, 2003?). So perhaps this excuses Cliff's graph, I dunno. I've only lived here around 25 years, so I have no idea what fires occurred before that, or how I could find data on them.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 996 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 9:35 am 
philfort wrote:
First of all, I'm not making that claim. I'm disputing that it's absolute certain that it is NOT increasing, and that we should expect to see fewer westside fires in the future. Second, that data is hard to come by. I had to go off memory and a lot of searching. It's very hard to find accurate acreage or even any info about fires from over a decade ago (for instance, try to find details about the Mineral Park fire up the Cascade River in... what was it, 2003?). So perhaps this excuses Cliff's graph, I dunno. I've only lived here around 25 years, so I have no idea what fires occurred before that, or how I could find data on them.
I hope no one is taking Cliff Mass's internet musings as "absolute" conclusive proof of anything. They are not peer reviewed and are just musings. But so are the "musings" the Seattle Times repeatedly publishes in their endless pursuits of "clicks." It's a shame in a state as wealthy and technologically advanced as ours we can't even keep track of what fires we've had in the last 100 years. It's also a shame that there are not more peer reviewed studies on this topic. I think Cliff Mass makes enemies because unlike most in academia who basically do not express opinions to the public except through peer reviewed publications, Cliff Mass is willing to publish these musings on his blog.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17367 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 10:53 am 
Yeah, you think they could invent a time machine to go back even further than 100 years and start saving the data.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 804 | TRs | Pics
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 11:03 am 
Here is an archive of large fires since 1990. It is the archive of daily situation reports. Typically, forest fires above 100 acres, or larger range fires and/or fires that had a Type 1 or 2 team assigned show up. https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/archive.htm Prior to 1990, or certainly before 1980, the numbers are going to get pretty squishy….not all the States were in on the game with the Feds. And even within a particular State, some local fire organizations didn’t always play the numbers game. I know of several large, non-federal fires pre-1990, that never appeared on these reports. There may be some data compiled by State, by year. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t….but I don’t know where to look. You could try the folks at the Nat Fire Center, NIFC?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 6122 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostSun Oct 23, 2022 12:11 pm 
Tom wrote:
Yeah, you think they could invent a time machine to go back even further than 100 years and start saving the data.
There's been a lot of work on time travel recently, everybody wants to buy stuff at last year's prices.

grannyhiker
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Fires ..
  Happy Birthday Otter, CampChamp, Wolfman!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum