Monkeys may fly out of his @$$ by 2050.
Global warming will cause more wildfires at Yellowstone National Park. The combination of the wildfires and rising temperature will fundamentally change the ecosystem at Yellowstone, possibly by as soon as 2050, according to a new study led by Professor Anthony Westerling of the University of California, Merced.
The study claims that by 2050, wildfires will burn up 400 square miles of land per year. By 2075, it’s expected to burn up 1,200 square miles per year. The entire area of Yellowstone National Park is under 3,500 square miles. Furthermore, the study claims “”years with no large fires – very common in the recent past – become extremely rare by 2050 and are all but eliminated after 2050.””
Apparently the author willfully ignored Yellowstone’s long history of major fires, which I have been documenting here. His wording implies that he knows that the “recent past” had anomalously few fires – which means they are on a downwards trend.
Anyone with a scary story qualifies as a global warming expert. After all, Pikas may mate with Grizzly Bears if CO2 goes over 450 ppm.
We are looking at an entirely fire-based ecology, with small fire-based societies living on the fringes, adapted eating fire, planting fire, growing fire. In the far enough future, they may even have automobiles that run on fire, and electricity made from fire.
Oh dear God the stupidity of the base Assumptions in that “study” are so bad it is a disservice to even call it Junk Science.
1. Precipitation has more to do with if you even have a forest fire than temperature does.
2. You can’t compare what happened from between 1972-1992 and 1992 to today fire wise in Yellowstone because they used two different fire management systems.
3. Many of the plants in Yellowstone are fire adapted and roughly 80% of the trees that make up the forests require fire to promote a healthy life cycle.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wildlandfire.htm
Maybe the Park Service shouldn’t have hidden this information in plain site on the Yellowstone webpage. Those above points do not even take into account the advances in firefighting techniques and technology that will take place between now and 2050.
Anyone else notice how these climate calamities are being pushed further into the future, when almost no one who reached their majority prior to the founding of the Church of Global Warmism (1987) will be alive?
Again, note the cherry picked citation of the years 1972-1999. That was the only significant warming period since the 1930’s, much of which being recovery back to normal from cooling that took place between the late 1950’s and early 1970’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCf_t9aRgXc&feature=player_detailpage#t=75s
Good point Andy.
Precipitation trends show a rising trend in Wyoming with the last decade much wetter.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
O/T There was an interesting programme on last nite about the building of the Olympic stadia in London. Unfortunately it had the usual green guff inserted. One architect said he was building in much better drainage as “Climate Change would bring more rain”. Obviously nobody had told him that ” most favoured climate change scenarios envisage a continuing decline in summer rainfall in south-east England.”
http://www.groundwateruk.org/Groundwater-drought-in-the-UK.aspx
Wouldn’t insanely high CO2 levels like 400ppm act as a fire suppressant?
My SWAG would be that well above 10,000 ppm of CO2 (with a concomitant reduction in O2) would be needed to show much of an effect. But I’m not at all certain of that, feel free to conduct some experiments. (another SWAG here is that increases in N2 partial pressure would function the same, so far as fire goes, which might make the experiment easier to set up)
We’re supposedly already at about 385 PPM right now. So that would mean CO2 constitutes .000385 of the atmosphere. I wouldn’t call that insanely high for CO2.
And of course all of this hyperstupidity is based upon models, the tool of choice amongst hucksters.