The researchers found the climate models consistently underestimated the observed increase in temperatures in southeast Australia
Photo of a fire in Victoria, Australia, by Forest Fire Management Victoria Forest Fire Operations Officer Dion Hooper. It was taken in January, 2020 on Wombargo Track looking towards Cobberas (north of Buchan in East Gippsland).
A group of scientists published a study that shows global warming led to warm and dry weather that created conditions favorable to large bushfires in Australia.
…Global warming boosted the risk of the hot, dry weather that’s likely to cause bushfires by at least 30%, they say.
But the study suggests the figure is likely to be much greater. It says that if global temperatures rise by 2C, as seems likely, such conditions would occur at least four times more often. The analysis has been carried out by the World Weather Attribution consortium.
Co-author Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, The Netherlands, told the BBC even the study’s very conservative estimates were troubling.
“Last year the fire prevention system in Australia, which is extremely well prepared for bushfires, was straining. It was at the limits of what it could handle, with volunteers working for weeks on end,” said Prof van Oldenborgh.
“As the world warms, these events will become more likely and more common. And it’s not something that we are ready for.”
During the 2019-2020 fire season in Australia, record-breaking temperatures and months of severe drought fueled a series of massive bushfires across the country. At least 33 people were killed and more than 11 million hectares (110,000 sq km or 27.2 million acres) of bush, forest and parks across Australia burned.
Although it makes sense that human-induced global warming is likely to have led to more bushfires, assigning a figure to that increased risk is complex. That is because other factors not directly related to climate change may also play a significant role. These include increased water use making the land drier, urban heating effects or unknown local factors.
Nevertheless, Prof Jan van Oldenborgh and 17 fellow climate scientists from six countries gave it their best shot. “It was by far the most complex study we have undertaken,” he told the BBC.
The researchers found the climate models consistently underestimated the observed increase in temperatures in southeast Australia and so could not pinpoint a figure for the increased risk from climate change. They were, however, able to tease out a minimum risk.
“We show that climate change definitely increases the risk of the extreme weather that makes the catastrophic bush fires (that south-east Australia has experienced) in the past few months more likely by at least 30%.
“But we think it could be much more. We don’t know how much more. It could be a lot more.”
Prof van Oldenborgh is among those attempting to find out if the current climate computer models really are underestimating the influence of global warming – and if they are, working out how to correct them.
The National Weather Service has issued Red Flag Warnings due to low humidity and strong winds in areas of Montana, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas. Most of the warnings expire Wednesday evening except for those in western and north central Nebraska which are in effect until Thursday evening.
(Red Flag Warnings can be modified throughout the day as NWS offices around the country update and revise their weather forecasts.)
The Predictive Services section at the National Interagency Fire Center has issued their Wildland Fire Potential Outlook for March through June. The data represents the cumulative forecasts of the ten Geographic Area Predictive Services Units and the National Predictive Services Unit.
If NIFC’s analysis is correct the only area with above average potential for wildfires during March and April will be the coastal areas of Central and Southern California.
Below:
An excerpt from the NIFC narrative report for the next several months;
More of NIFC’s monthly graphical outlooks;
NOAA’s three-month temperature and precipitation forecasts;
Drought Monitor;
Keetch-Byram Drought Index.
Entering March and continuing through April, the prolonged periods of dry conditions across Southern California may lead to periods of elevated fire potential during days experiencing offshore winds. However, a muted greenup should initially limit activity. Normal to Below Normal significant large fire potential is expected along the Rocky Mountain Front during the pre-greenup period due to sufficiently wet or snowy conditions experienced during late winter.
Both the Southwest and Alaska will gradually transition into fire season in May with both regions peaking in activity by late June. Overall Normal significant large fire potential is expected during the period except possibly across northern and western portions of Arizona and across portions of South Central Alaska including the Kenai Peninsula where conditions were drier than average over the past winter.
[…]
[In Southern California] well below average rainfall and above average temperatures are expected to continue through April. Due to the lack of significant rainfall, fine fuels are curing rapidly across the lower elevations and will be completely cured by the middle or end of March. There will be an above average potential for large fires across the lower elevations of the Central Coast and Southern California due to the early curing of fine fuels. A near average amount of offshore wind events will most likely continue to occur through April. These winds will fan any new ignitions and rapid rates of spread and long range spotting will be likely in continuous dead fuel beds. The potential for large fire development will become Normal across all of Central and Southern California May and June as the interior warms up and the offshore wind season comes to an end.
90-day Precipitation & Temperature forecasts for March, April, & May, 2020.Drought Monitor
The Nature Conservancy planned and executed the Elkhorn Creek Unit #4 prescribed fire that took place on the Ben Delatour Scout Ranch, private property located in Larimer County, Colorado 25 miles northwest of Fort Collins. It was part of a forest restoration effort aimed to reduce the impact of high severity wildfire on Elkhorn Creek, an important tributary of the Poudre River.
On day two of the project a spot fire occurred an hour after cloud cover moved out of the area. It was suppressed, but later two more ignited.
Below are excerpts from the report:
Located in dry, dead grass on a steep slope aligned with strong westerly winds, these two spots quickly grew together and began spreading rapidly away from the unit towards the Glacier View community to the east. Leadership personnel, quickly determining that on-site resources would not be able to contain the fire, immediately ordered ground and aerial resources and then declared the wildfire at 3:59 PM. In total, the fire burned 682 acres, with 118 acres outside of the planned boundaries of the project and 82 acres off the Scout Ranch property. One outbuilding was destroyed by the fire.
[…]
Recommendations for All Prescribed Fire Practitioners
1. A strong understanding of fire weather is critical to mitigating risk and responding to changing conditions. Review fire weather concepts presented in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Intermediate Wildland Fire Weather Behavior (S-290) course and fire weather data acquisition and analysis concepts presented in the NWCG Intermediate National Fire Danger Rating System (S-491) course before each fire season utilizing an Incident Meteorologist (IMET), a Long Term Fire Analyst (LTAN), Fire Behavior Analyst (FBAN), or other knowledgeable individual, and incorporate these concepts into development of prescribed fire plans.
Review and remain diligent regarding the differences between 20-ft sustained 10 minute average winds, gusts, eye level, and midflame wind speeds.
Ensure on-site wind measurements are consistent with the type of wind parameters used in the prescribed fire plan, or ensure that accurate conversion techniques are accurately and consistently applied.
2. Apply “lessons re-learned” from the factors and best practices identified as being common between this prescribed fire and previous prescribed fires that were later declared wildfires.
Recommendations for The Nature Conservancy
3. Evaluate and refine the collaborative burning approach, including considerations for additional cooperative or partnership agreements to increase the experience level below that of overhead or trainee positions on high consequence prescribed fires.
4. Consider the full adoption of the DFPC Colorado Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Policy Guide as well as the Prescribed Fire Complexity Rating System Guide (NWCG PMS-424-1).
Adoption of these guides would increase consistency and support cooperation between The Nature Conservancy and DFPC and other Colorado partners.
Recommendations for the Division of Fire Prevention and Control
5. Evaluate all DFPC statutory and policy frameworks and craft solutions to align with all three co-equal goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
Changes to DFPC’s organizational focus and statutory authority may be necessary to reduce wildfire risk to communities and create resilient landscapes. In the face of an increasingly complex wildland fire environment, the ability to implement proactive measures must be part of a holistic strategy to reduce risk.
“Well, it’s official: most of California just experienced driest February on record. Locations like Ukiah, Sacramento, Redding, & San Francisco recorded no rain *at all* during a month at peak of the rainy season. Wildfire concerns are elevated this week.”
The EA downplays the amount of perchlorate found in the water caused by previous fireworks at the Memorial
Mount Rushmore
The National Park Service has released an Environmental Assessment (EA) as part of their plan to explode fireworks at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The next step is a relatively short period during which the public may submit comments about the EA.
You have 30 days, until March 30, 2020 to express your opinion.
After March 30 the NPS is supposed to evaluate the public comments and then make a decision about whether to proceed with the fireworks or not.
Fireworks were used at Mount Rushmore on July 3 or 4 from 1998 to 2009, except for 2002 when it was canceled due to the danger of the pyrotechnic display starting wildfires. During those 11 events 20 documented wildfires were ignited by the fireworks during the middle of the fire season. They were all suppressed by the 60 to 80 firefighters staged around the sculpture before they could grow large. The park is not just the stone carving; it has over 1,000 acres of timber within the boundary, and beyond that is the Black Hills National Forest.
Concerning the threat of adding to the 20 wildfires started in previous fireworks displays, the EA states that in a dry year a wildfire “would be more likely to result in a high-consequence fire burning outside the boundaries of the Memorial and toward the town of Keystone, South Dakota, up the northeast aspect of Black Elk Peak, or into the basin near Horsethief Lake.”
I was the Fire Management Officer for Mount Rushmore and six other parks during the first four years that fireworks were used on Independence Day at the Memorial. I developed a plan that would require that the weather and fuel conditions be within certain parameters before the fireworks could be used. We continued to refine the plan each year, settling on Probably of Ignition as one of the primary factors on the go/no-go checklist, especially after the fireworks started about 10 fires one year. All of the fires were small and were suppressed by the scores of firefighters we had positioned in the forest around the sculpture.
Park Superintendents Dan Wenk and Gerard Butler promoted and encouraged the program that started numerous fires, rained down tons of debris, and as we found out in 2016, poisoned the water with chemicals. The U.S. Geological Survey discovered that the ground and surface water at Mount Rushmore are contaminated with perchlorate, a component of rocket fuels and explosives. They determined that the chemical came from the fireworks over that 12-year period.
The EA has several paragraphs devoted to the perchlorate and says the concentrations in the water inside the Memorial are “orders of magnitude higher” than reference samples outside the Memorial. But that is an understatement at best. Order of magnitude may sound vague, but it usually means ten times higher. Unmentioned in the EA is the fact that data from the USGS report showed that a maximum perchlorate concentration of 54 micrograms per liter measured in a stream sample between 2011 and 2015 was about 270 times higher than that in samples collected from sites outside the memorial, which were 0.2 micrograms per liter. The Centers for Disease Control says high levels of perchlorates can affect the thyroid gland, which in turn can alter the function of many organs in the body. The fetus and young children can be especially susceptible.
According to the EA the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to raise the health advisory for perchlorate from 15 to 56 micrograms per liter. Maybe it is just a coincidence that it would put the contaminated water at Mount Rushmore suddenly within acceptable guidelines. But a process like this is consistent with other environmental policy changes by the federal government in recent years.
Another issue with exploding pyrotechnics over the Memorial is the trash that can never be completely picked up. Left on the sculpture and in the forest are unexploded shells, wadding, plastic, ash, pieces of the devices, and paper; stuff that can never be totally removed in the very steep, rocky, rugged terrain.
Here is an excerpt from page 38 of the EA:
Although it would be the responsibility of the fireworks contractor to remove unexploded ordnance and fireworks debris from the minimum separation distance, the rugged topography of the area would preclude complete recovery of unexploded ordnance and debris. Unexploded ordnance fallout and fireworks malfunction have the potential to cause impacts on buildings, structures, and the cultural landscape from burn marks and scorching, which occurred during past shows. A fireworks malfunction within the Hall of Records area could cause adverse impacts on the walls and the entrance to the Hall of Records…Past fireworks events have left burn marks on top of the sculpture and embedded plastic debris. The preferred alternative would result in additional unexploded ordnance and debris on the landscape.
The language in the announcement of the EA makes it appear that the Park Service wants the state of South Dakota to be the focal point for the effort to explode pyrotechnics over the Memorial: “The National Park Service (NPS) is evaluating a proposal by the State of South Dakota to host a fireworks display at Mount Rushmore National Memorial on July 3, 2020.”
Shortly after the EA was posted on the NPS website, Kelly Andersson left a comment on one of our earlier articles about the attempt to use fireworks at the Memorial. She wrote, “… All y’all feel free to revise mine or write your own.” You can see it here — scroll way down, it’s dated February 29, 2020.
Other articles on Wildfire Today about fireworks at Mount Rushmore:
