I'm see frequent claims by scientists that Colorado Marshall fire can be attributed to human-caused climate change but little data/analysis
I'm looking at actual data to try to understand such claims
Here is Dec precip in Boulder 1893 to 2021
No long-term trend, increase >1990
Grasses, such as those of the Marshall Mesa open space are what are called "one hour fuels" meaning that "Fuel moisture in these fuels can change within one hour according to factors such as temperature, rain, humidity and shade" noble.org/news/publicati…
To attribute fire in Boulder to human-caused climate change requires
(a) establishing trend in conditions of "one-hour fuels" leading to greater flammability on climate time scales (>30yrs)
(b) attributing that trend to human-caused CC
I've seen neither (but welcome pointers)
In contrast, literature on grass fires points to antecedent wet conditions (leading to grass growth), invasive species, human ignitions as factors more important than decadal climate trends, see, eg
Human-caused climate change is real and important, as I have said for 25+ years
At the same time, uninformed or groupthink claims of attribution are not particularly helpful in thinking through fire policies that will make a difference to fire outcomes
I welcome hearing other perspectives, especially those that are based on data and analysis and especially from those experts who are making strong attribution claims
PSA: Disrespectful or rude comments get an immediate mute here, no warnings 🙏
From IPCC WG1 AR6:
"low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions"
"fire weather indices have already emerged in several regions (the Amazon basin, Med, C America, W and S Africa) (low confidence, low evidence)"
It is eye-opening to see colleagues who have never studied fire, disasters or attribution making confident claims of attribution in the media
Wash Post making stuff up in this lede
Hwy 93 runs from Golden to Boulder
The Table Mesa King Soopers (where the shooting occurred) is not near where Superior/Louisville resident would grocery shop
5⃣Science Diplomacy and The Pandemic Treaty
Here are five important science-related issues to include in any future global pandemic treaty rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/science-dipl…
4⃣The Covid Vaccine and Learning to Love the Technological Fix
Our best hope for moving beyond the pandemic is vaccination, but not all problems can be addressed through technology rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-covid-va…
5⃣ A Remarkable Decline in Landfalling Hurricanes
Since 1945, the number of hurricanes that make landfall has declined by about a third rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-remarkable…
4⃣The Global Population Crisis that Never Was
Apocalyptic visions of over-population have always been grounded more in politics than science rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-global-p…
3⃣How to Understand the New IPCC Report: Part 2, Extreme Events
Contrary to what you've been reading, the massive new IPCC report offers grounds for optimism on climate science and policy rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-under…
This would be a massive science integrity scandal under a R administration
Sitting White House official edits a paper for PNAS
Paper is used by that official to advocate policy b4 Congress
Paper later retracted due to errors & COI (was written by her mates & bro in law)
This is a really important number & I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere
FEMA estimates that in 2021 we should expect $141B is catastrophe losses in the US, based on current exposure, historical event frequency & loss ratios
The FEMA loss estimation CANNOT be compared to the spectacularly awful NOAA billion dollar losses
For weather losses, FEMA uses data processed by ASU/SHELDUS off of NOAA Storm Data, as below
NOAA Storm Data uses a bespoke special sauce to gin up losses (read on...)
NOAA's billion $ loss database mixes together direct and indirect losses (like business interruption & commodity markets) as well as non-event costs (e.g., "disaster restoration and wildfire restoration")
They also "scale up" insured loss data, which guarantees double counting