As logging has declined, wildfires rise dramatically

As 25,000 acres of forest burns across the Spring Mountains, this chart produced by the House Committee on Natural Resources offers a bit of a lesson on cause and effect and the irresponsibility of the managers of federal public land in Nevada and the West:

When logging declines, wildfires increase.

The committee states:

“National forests are in an unhealthy and dangerous state resulting in larger and more intense wildfires. In 2012, wildfires burned 9.3 million acres, while the U.S. Forest Service only harvested approximately 200,000 acres.

“This means that 44 times as many acres burned as were responsibly harvested and restored.  According to the U.S. Forest Service, 65-82 million acres of Forest Service Lands are at ‘high risk of wildfires.’”

The sale of harvested lumber might help pay the $9.4 million cost — to date — of fighting the Carpenter 1 fire.

Nevada’s own Rep. Mark Amodei sits on this committee.

22 comments on “As logging has declined, wildfires rise dramatically

  1. Steve says:

    Meanwhile Utah actively logs trees dead from bark beetle infestation. I see more and more open forest land on Cedar mountain each and every time I make the drive to my land.

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    Wildfires is a bit of a misnomer, while they are in wild areas it’s likely a majority of these fires are manmade. We should be skeptical of the usual official and media reports that it’s lightning, more than likely it’s a few by careless campers and hikers, a few by pyromaniacs that get high and off setting fires, and more than a few by arsonists with full intent to cause danger and damage, some for profit but some are for real and imagined grievances. One would think the tree huggers, greenies, whatever they are called, would be up in arms demanding more oversight by the great and good government agencies. Chances are there’s more pollution from recent wildfires than all of the coal plant operations in the last several decades, wonder if Harry Reid hates them as deeply as he does coal plants?

  3. Rincon says:

    You’re close Vernon. Forest fires are a significant source of mercury, emitting about a third as much mercury as industry.

    Interesting Thomas. You are all set to take a correlation as proof of cause while with global warming, you rightly claim that correlation does not prove effect. Which is it? Has anyone proposed a mechanism by which removing the largest trees would reduce the acres burned?

    How about this correlation: As the Earth has been warming,forest fires have gotten worse. I knew it! It’s global warming, I tell ya.

  4. With global warming there is no correlation. Carbon output is way up, but temperatures are not.


  5. Anonymous says:

    Damn the Republicans and their sequester.

  6. Rincon says:

    “Carbon output is way up, but temperatures are not.”

    Nice statement Thomas, but if true, then how do you explain the following?

    “According to NOAA, 2012 marked the 36th consecutive year with global average temperatures above last century’s average. Every year of the 21st century thus far has been one of the top 14 warmest years in 133 years of recordkeeping.”

    “2009 is tied as the second warmest year since modern recordkeeping began, and 2000-2009 is the hottest decade ever.”

    “2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record
    Summer 2010 the second warmest on record, Arctic sea ice continues its 14-year decline”

    “Weather Records 2011: Average Global Temperature Was 11th Hottest On Record”

    “NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.”

    So 2000-2009 was the hottest decade decade ever, and 2010, 11, and 12 are all in the 11 hottest years.

    But temperatures are not up. Hmmm…how is that possible? I know! Why don’t we try something that you have completely failed to do so far. How about you show us the entire temperature record for the last 100 years or so and let us all see the truth? Here, let me help you:
    If you don’t want to post the entire record, why don’t we settle in and you can tell me the one about Goldilocks and the three bears.

  7. Steve says:

    None of that proves the A theory in the GW record.

  8. Rincon says:

    What’s the A theory?

  9. Steve says:

    A G W.
    Anthropocentric Global Warming.

    None of that proves humans are THE cause, though the true believers wish to make us all live under that belief.

  10. Rincon says:

    Thanks Steve. I agree. There’s no proof of anything, but we have a preponderance of evidence. My primary point is that Thomas is actively concealing the truth by refusing to post the actual NASA or NOAA temperature data over the last 100 years, or at least since satellites were first launched.

  11. Steve says:

    Evidense that show warming is happening, none as to the cause du jour. Evidence would indicate actual experimentation was performed that supports said evidence.

    This is NOT the case and powers that be are ignoring any who say they are making wrong decisions based on bad theory.

  12. Rincon says:

    No Thomas. No games with the baselines. JR Christy is a prominent skeptic and created that graph to suit his purposes. Is it that hard to just buck up and post the actual NASA or NOAA data for 100 years??

  13. 100 years of NASA?

  14. Steve says:

    How about 100 years of NOAA?

  15. Rincon says:

    Cute. Are you stalling or what? I refer to 100 years of DATA provided by NASA, NOAA, or any other trustworthy source. Asking us to believe a graph from JR Christy is like me asking you to believe a graph from Greenpeace. Do you consider NASA and NOAA to be unreliable sources? How about for ANY information other than that involving global warming?

  16. Steve says:

    “100 years of DATA provided by NASA, NOAA, or any other trustworthy source.”

    1, NASA and NOAA are not 100 years old. (This should be obvious)
    2 Who gets to define the word “trustworthy”?

  17. Where do you think Christy got the data?

  18. Rincon says:

    Where do you think Greenpeace gets its data? Will you trust it if I present it? You’re splitting hairs. If that’s where Christy got the data, why are you so afraid to post the original NASA and NOAA data? Because it clearly shows the truth. Christy shows the truth too, but not clearly. He manipulated the graph to enhance his position and thus, your position. His graph is actually so flat that you can hardly make out the 8 (not 15…or 20) year leveling of the warming – but he wasn’t talking about that at the time, so accuracy didn’t suit his purpose. Most people don’t believe NASA or NOAA to be members of some massive conspiracy to falsify data. Only freaky Conservatives believe that.

  19. Steve says:

    I love this comment:
    “If GISS have managed to add 0.1 degree of warming in 4 years, then by the turn of the next century they will have made adjustments of 2.2 degrees. That’s 2.5 degrees per century. We’re doomed!”

    And Venus is an example of greenhouse warming gone wild? Not necessarily.

  20. Rincon says:

    So who’s Paul Homewood? Wikipedia never heard of him, but he’s got the scoop on NASA , NOAA, and 98% of the climatologists. Yes, he’s discovered the great conspiracy! But you got me started Thomas. I looked for answers to great mysteries and you wouldn’t believe the treasure trove of experts that are online.

    Looky! I found that the Bermuda Triangle is caused by electronic Fog!

    Ooh, and I found an interview with an alien about area 51!

    Here’s a very sober article about the Yeti.

    Golly Thomas, you’re right. There’s all kinds of knowledge to be found on the Internet. Why check sources, when it’s obvious that these people are so knowledgable?

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 )

Connecting to %s