GHG's from burning California

[Fotoware58]

This new study shows just how much today's wildfires and Let-Burns add to GHG's impacting our environment. Are we just growing "firewood" with which to heat our atmosphere?!?!? Also, these figures include both grass and brush fires, which produce less GHG's per acre burned than forests.




To Offset Greenhouse Gas Damage Caused From California Wildfires During 2001-2007, State’s 14 Million Cars Would Need To Be Locked In Garages For 3 1/2 Years, Study Finds

A raging wildfire can burn out of control for a long period of time, but eventually it will be extinguished. However, the effects of that wildfire can linger for years and be a prime contributor to global warming.

A study by Dr. Thomas M. Bonnicksen, Professor Emeritus of Forest Science at Texas A&M University, released today found that California’s increasing wildfire crisis is causing more destruction and undoing much of the progress California is making to fight global warming.

Dr. Bonnicksen, who holds a Ph.D. in forestry from the University of California, Berkeley, and has studied California forests for more than 30 years, is author of America’s Ancient Forests: from the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery (John Wiley, 2000).

This report, entitled “Impacts of California Wildfires on Climate and Forests,” chronicles how the wildfires that scorched California from 2001 to 2007 seriously degraded the forests in the state and contributed to global warming. The report notes that political and economic obstacles to managing and restoring forests contribute to causing the wildfire crisis.

Emissions from the last seven years of wildfires documented in this study are equivalent to adding an estimated 50 million more cars onto California’s highways for one year, each spewing tons of greenhouse gases. To offset this damage, all 14 million cars in California would have to be locked in garages for 3 1/2 years to make up for the global warming impact of these wildfires.

From 2001 to 2007, fires burned more than 4 million California acres and released an estimated 277 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, resulting from combustion and the post-fire decay of dead trees. That is an average of 68 tons per acre.

This study and previous studies use a new computer model, the Forest Carbon and Emissions Model (FCEM), to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from wildfires and insect infestations, and opportunities to recover these emissions and prevent future losses.

“Our most important question is: Can we recover from our mistake of letting forests become unnaturally overcrowded with trees and vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires?” said Dr. Bonnicksen, “the answer is yes, if we care about restoring our forests and fighting global warming.”

There are many other harmful effects of these wildfires as well, including killing wildlife, polluting the air and water, and stripping soil from hillsides. Ironically, the greenhouse gases they emit are wiping out much of what is being achieved to reduce emissions from fossil fuels to battle global warming.

“While California’s actions to reduce global warming are significant, reducing the number and severity of wildfires may be the single most important action we can take in the short-term to lower greenhouse gas emissions and really fight global warming,” Bonnicksen said.

Some public forests in California have more than 1,000 trees per acre when 40 to 60 trees per acre would be natural. These dense forests contain small trees that can carry fire into the canopy, and heavy concentrations of woody debris lying on the ground intensify the flames, which helps increase the size and severity of forest fires. Reducing the number of all sizes of trees per acre by thinning is effective in helping prevent crown fires in forests.

Yet that is only part of the wildfire tragedy.

During the seven years covered by this study, California wildfires deforested about 882,759 acres of public and private land. Only an estimated 120,755 acres were replanted. That means about 762,004 acres of forest was converted permanently to brush because no live trees remain standing to provide seed for a new forest. That is an average loss of 109,000 acres of forests each year, or the equivalent of nearly four times the area of San Francisco.

California’s forests are dwindling due to permanent deforestation from wildfire. In addition, the estimated 134 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) released by fires and the decay of dead trees from forests that were permanently converted to brush from 2001 to 2007 will continue to worsen global warming.

Harvesting dead trees to prevent them from releasing CO2 from decay, storing the carbon they contain in long-lasting wood products, and using the money from the sale of the wood to replant a young forest that absorbs CO2 through photosynthesis, is the only way to restore deforested areas and recover this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, Dr. Bonnicksen said. He added that this is done routinely on private industrial forestland but rarely on public forestland. Therefore, he said, it is critical to expedite and increase the harvesting of fire-killed trees and replanting of young trees on public forests destroyed by wildfire.

The immensity of greenhouse gas emissions from California’s wildfires and the permanent loss of huge areas of forest are a warning.

The report emphasizes that every effort must be made to reduce the amount of fuel in public and private forests to prevent catastrophic wildfires. That means managing forests to make them healthy, productive, and resistant to crown fires.

Major constraints to managing and thinning private forests are government regulations and the high cost of Timber Harvest Plans (THPs). Solving this problem by streamlining regulations and reducing THP costs on private forests, and expediting environmental reviews for thinning and timber harvesting on public forests, could dramatically reduce wildfires and greenhouse gas emissions.

Data used in this report come from a variety of government and other sources. They include the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Ecosystem Planning Staff, U.S. Forest Service Region 5 Silviculturalist, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), and the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).

[tabatha]

1. Linky?

[Fotoware58]

2. More info

http://public.shns.com/node/31434

I'm on a mailing list with forestry news. (A real shocker, eh?)

[Viking12]

3. According to your link it is not a) new, nor b) peer-reviewed

Junk science.

[Fotoware58]

5. Yet another town hall response

Ummm, you didn't notice that those were two DIFFERENT articles?!?! The original article is so new, it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. How do you KNOW it isn't peer reviewed?? AND, peer review is vastly overrated. It's often kind of like a "Study of the Month Club", where politically like-minded scientists trade peer reviews to support a unified agenda, often abandoning scientific integrity in favor of an "end-justifies-the-means" way of thinking. Besides, if there WAS a list of the peers, you would attack THEM, as well! This, unfortunately, goes BOTH ways.

You add nothing to discussions and blindly support a damaging agenda. You also have no original thoughts of your own and have a kneejerk reaction to any pro-management proposal. If it truly is "junk science", then you can surely refute his study with one frontal lobe tied behind your back, eh??

[Viking12]

7. I don't waste my time w/ non-peer-reviewed "reports"

You clearly know nothing about the peer-review process. Moreover, near as I can tell, there is no report; only RW press releases. If he were a real scientist, he'd submit the "report" for peer-review.

The distinguished "scientist" is a propagandist for Heartland and the National Center for Public Policy Research as well as a darling "expert" for the Republican congressional caucus. That tells me all I need to know.

[Fotoware58]

9. What?!?!?!

You don't believe that fires produces MASSIVE amounts of nasty GHG's?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Well, I gues there's just no hope for you, especially if you refuse to address the issues.

Anyone want to "peer review" the actual report?!?!

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I don't think anyone doubts that fires produce Greenhouse Gases

The question is whether the claims made in this supposed "report" (is there a copy of the "report" available somewhere?) are reliable enough to survive a peer review.

[Fotoware58]

16. There IS dispute...

over the composition of his models to produce the GHG figures. However, similar models are used to come up with carbon sequestration figures for forests in the Amazon, amongst other places in the world. The figures from his models are increasingly in line with the latest carbon sequestration numbers of newer studies, including liberal scientists.

I AM sure he will get peer reviews but, of course, those peers will also be discounted, due to political issues.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. "A study … released today …" (when is "today?")

This is the sort of "relative dating" I constantly warn people about in detecting scams.

The message you quote never mentions a date. So, we don't know when the study was released.

As for the statement that, "The original article is so new, it hasn't been peer reviewed yet." Well, generally (although not always) when you read about a "new study," it's because it's been published in some journal or other (i.e. it has already gone through the peer review process.)

First a study is reviewed. Then it is released. (Not the other way around.)

[Fotoware58]

12. Actual date

August 24, 2009, as per the original PDF file released by Dr. Bonnicksen.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. FWIW: The California Chaparral Institute—Are Leading Fire Ecologists Really Lying?

http://www.californiachaparral.com/aindustryadvocate.html

Are Leading Fire Ecologists Really Lying?

In February, 2006, Tom Bonnicksen peppered the op-ed sections of numerous newspapers with an opinion piece claiming that "extremists are using hyperbole, unsubstantiated claims, and convenient myths to oppose" logging burned forests and "cite myths about the Yellowstone fires of 1988 to argue we should not restore burned forests." He blames the National Park Service for the fires and comes close to calling the top fire ecologists in the country liars.

What does Bonnicksen mean by "restoring forests?" He would like to see the burned trees logged and new trees planted. One wonders how forests survived without us. See the impact of "Post-fire Logging" at the bottom of our http://www.californiachaparral.org/cforestfires.html">FORESTS page. When someone spends so much effort to promote an idea, especially with such inflammatory language, it is often helpful to consider their motivation and connections. Due to his economic and political interests, it is difficult to view Dr. Bonnicksen as the objective observer and expert that he portrays himself. Dr. Bonnicksen is on the advisory board for the following organizations:

The Forest Foundation, a non-profit organization supported by the California Forest Products Commission. "The Forest Foundation strives to foster public understanding of the role forests play in the environmental and economic health of the state and the necessity of managing a portion of California's private and public forests to provide wood products for a growing population" (from their website). According to public documents, Dr. Bonnicksen has been paid by the Forest Foundation to write opinion pieces in newspapers and to give presentations to promote land use policies favored by the logging industry ($57,387 in 2004 and $51,519 in 2005). He also offers consulting services regarding timber and vegetation management. Nothing wrong with any of this of course, but it should be taken into consideration when measuring an individual's objectivity.

National Center for Public Policy Research. "Firm in the belief that private owners are the best stewards of the environment, The National Center's John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs advocates private, free market solutions to today's environmental challenges" (from their website). These are the same folks who said "There is no serious evidence than man-made global warming is taking place," and that "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming." - NCPPR website 4/04.

…

[Fotoware58]

6. Who are you going to believe?

A respected PHD from a respected icon of upper learning, with decades of specific experience in studying California forest ecosystems, who isn't going to get any money from lefty preservationist groups? Or are you going to trust a guy with a website who loves manzanita brushfields??

Better yet, who will a judge trust under testimony?

Once again we see the kneejerk response of "killing the messenger" and avoiding the message. Just what are preservationists trading for in exchange for polluted skies, blackened forests, dead wildlife and increased erosion?!?!? What about land-use changes that radically affect climate change?? What about abrupt conversions of of fire-adapted natural forests to flammable fire-loving vegetation??

I still have yet to see any benefits to catastrophic wildfires, unless you include the fat wallets of firefighting personnel.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. How about other scholars?

Additional details concerning Bonnicksen's claims and conflict of interest can be found in an http://www.californiachaparral.org/images/Bonnicksen_Times_Article_06.pdf">October 21, 2006 article in the Los Angeles Times.

“He's always introduced as the leading expert on forest recovery, and he's just not. There's nothing in his record other than just talking and hand-waving,” said UCLA ecology professor Philip Rundel, one of several academics who issued an open letter to the media this week questioning Bonnicksen's credentials.

[Fotoware58]

14. Would you expect anything less??

Ms. Boxall and the LA Times are incredibly biased against forest management and have produced endless articles blasting the Forest Service at every turn. Even when the timber industry has been gone from the LA area for decades, the Times and Ms. Boxall continue to blame them, and the Forest Service, for the massive die-off in the mountains surrounding the sprawling megalopolis. The lack of forest management is decidedly the culprit in the destruction of those forest ecosystems. Bashing the timber industry sells newspapers and gives the public what they want to hear. Ironically, the paper kills trees to print their "stories". Why aren't newspaper articles "peer reviewed", as well?

Funny that the Times could only find two local liberal professors to blast him, and not his message.

[Fotoware58]

22. The FECM- Forest Environment Carbon Model

The FECM was developed by Dr. Bonnicksen to quantify carbon loss through wildfires in a number of different landscapes and forest compositions.

The FCEM has been peer reviewed by Dr. Bruce Krumland, consultant in statistical design and analysis, forest inventory, and modeling, Klaus Scott, Air Pollution Specialist, California Air Resources Board (CARB), Dr. Mark Nechodom, USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Research Center, Dr. Chris Dicus, Wildland Fire & Fuels Management, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), Philip S. Aune, retired U.S. Forest Service Silviculturalist, and numerous other experts.

The data used in building the FCEM came from Martha Beninger, Applied Forest Management; James Ingram and Elaine Gee, Eldorado National Forest; Karen Jones, Tahoe National Forest; Rich Wade and David Harcus, Sierra Pacific Industries; Mike Aguilar, Mason, Bruce, & Girard; Keith Crummer, Plumas County Fire Safe Council; Ryan Tompkins, Plumas National Forest; Ike Riffel, Shasta Forest c/o W.M. Beaty & Associates, Inc.; the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Michael Landram, Regional Silviculturalist, U.S. Forest Service Region 5; Ralph Warbington, Section Head, Planning and Inventory, Ecosystem Planning Staff, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, and numerous published sources.

I think this list has enough respected people who have supplied input and critical review.

[Fotoware58]

23. What?!?!?!?

No character assassination yet?!?!? Are all these people tainted due to their association with Dr. Bonnicksen?!?

[Viking12]

24. You clearly know nothing about the peer-review process.

Listing names in the acknowledgments is not peer-review.

[Fotoware58]

25. You got nothin'

Just because you can't cherrypick your own peer reviewers, that doesn't make the study not reviewed by peers. Actually, that sounds rather fascist, to me. Your one-liners are pathetic and you obviously know very little about forest ecology. It's so very sad that you choose to allow forests to be destroyed, merely to support a political agenda.

[Viking12]

26. Umm, in real peer-review, the process is double-blind

The reviewers don't know whose work they're reviewing and the author doesn't know who conducted the reviews. As such, they're not listed in the acknowledgments of a goofy report. As I said, it is obvious you don't even know what the term peer-reviewed means.

As to the "study" itself, the fact that GHGs are produced by forest fires doesn't not necessarily lead to the policy that mechanical management is the preferred option as the report concludes. That's a classic non-sequitur. The pseudo-scientific hack you cite is a policy propagandist, clear and simple.

[Fotoware58]

27. Open peer review versus closed peer review

"Real" peer review seems a bit contrived and specialized. Peer review seems to apply to papers getting published in prestigious materials. I'd like to know just who gets to pick the peers from which to select for specific papers. My bet is that the magazine's editors who publish said papers. Open reviews are more transparent and serve clique communities of like-minded scientists. Closed reviews allow scientists to hide behind secrecy to preserve their seemingly fragile egos. I'm concerned that this is a club of buddies who do favors for each other, knowing that certain prestigious magazines wouldn't dare bring in reviewers of a certain political slant.

Bonnicksen's reviewers are varied but, just like in a liberal peer review, he selected people who he thought would also be like-minded, and offer constructive and partisan reviews. The difference is that his reviewers put their names and reputations out there in the public eye. Take the Donato study of the Biscuit, for example. Did THEY put THEIR names out there when they approved his shabby work?!?! Did his 16 plots really prove that "Post Fire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk"?!?!? Was that study really worthy of "Science Magazine"?!?! Was his study a product of political endeavors?!?! Was he manipulated by the anti-logging forces that dominate scientific magazines?? All of them are questions worth answering in an independent fashion.

At best, "peer review" is questionable. At worst, it is a way of making studies unassailable by a portion of the scientific community.



Changing gears here, of course, mechanical management isn't the treatment for every acre in every forest. No one advocated that position and no one is pushing that sole treatment. It will take every tool in the forester's toolbox to restore forests back to a more "natural" condition. However, in overstocked stands with merchantable small trees underneath older trees, that would be the preferred method. On steeper ground (greater than 30%), tractor logging is not possible, and helicopter should be used. In stands with no sawlogs, burning could do much of that work, depending on the thickness of the stand but, extremely narrow windows for burning (based on allowances by the California Air Resources Board and the Forest Service's standard rules for prescribed fire). There are also other alternative treatments to consider for different conditions.

That being said, what would YOUR preference for reducing stand-consuming mega-fires be in those specific types of stands?!? How would YOU restore degraded eastside pine forests?!?! What would you do in spotted owl circles that are at-risk to firestorms??!? What would you do in off-site pine plantations from the 1950's??! Now is your chance to show us all what you think would be best!!

Everyone, please feel free to join in and present your own ideas to save our California National Forests.

[Viking12]

29. Choo-choo! The train wreck keeps rollin'!

"liberal peer-review" WTF, Now it's all a giant conspiracy..geesh! :eyes:

[Fotoware58]

30. Yep

It's remarkably similar to "Bush's suppression of science" that was so popular during the last Administration. Admit it, both sides want SOOOO badly to control the scientific arena. Requiring that peer review go through certified Democratic "apparatchiks" sounds remarkably like Socialism. In fact, Obama already HAS people like that in place in his Administration. They review all new policies to make sure they comply with party guidelines. I'm sure Bush had similar "dittoheads" in place.

[Viking12]

32. LOL

teh clueless it hurts.

[Fotoware58]

33. You are...

the perfect Democratic dittohead, with no original thoughts of your own. With one-line insults instead of thoughtful, truthful comments that are based in reality.

And, you're just soooooooo trendy, mispelling a simple three-letter word. Oooohhhh, such angst and hipster attitude!!! He MUST be "kewl"!!!

[kristopher]

34. There could be a decent discussion lurking here...

There are a lot of sources out there, and they all have some degree of value. One of the key things for researchers to learn is how to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different sources. For example, so far your exchange has been a comparison of peer review and gray literature. In the hierarchy of validity applying to sources gray literature is actually pretty good, however, as you point out it must be viewed as advocacy literature which requires external verification before it can be used to successfully argue against conclusions that have been through the peer review process. It is usually a good place to find raw data, but the conclusions drawn from that data should be examined under a microscope.

That's the standard; one that's well established and universally accepted within the ranks of people who understand how research is accomplished. Both in this conversation and elsewhere however, a newer trend is emerging. This trend is represented most notably by Wiki. I'd describe it as online open source "peer review" and I see two questions related to it and similar efforts on specialty blogs: how valid is the information developed in this internet enabled process and how can it be improved?

I realize that Foto's specific example is definitely gray lit and not online peer review, but his belief that there must be a way to bring validity to information by some means other than the peer review process is a common one, and the internet is making the presence of that belief an important factor in how social policy is being shaped. We really do need to bring valid information into the public square a lot better than the limitations on access to peer reviewed material allows, don't you think?

[Viking12]

35. A decent discussion would require that OP knew the basics

He clearly has no clue what peer-review means. While there is plenty of room for discussion over the role of peer-review in an insta-tech world, the OP clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what those issues would be and doesn't posses the requisite intellect to discuss those issues were such a discussion to emerge. Access issues are also an issue that's important; most peer-review lit is subscription only, and it's quite clear OP has never read any of it. The lit is in strong agreement that moisture and temp are the dominant factors in fire intensity and tree density is negligible by comparison.

Moreover, the referenced "report" is not "advocacy lit"; it's fucking RW propaganda! The OP is in love w/ a "scientist" that is a "fellow" with numerous organizations that outright deny human influence on climate while at the same time those orgs pimp this "report" as important because forest fires contribute to GHGs -- it's fucking nonsense.

[Fotoware58]

37. You kiss yo mama with that dirty mouth!?!?!?!?!

I'll just call you "Mr. Denial"

[Viking12]

38. .

[Viking12]

39. No, your mom.

Dimwit.

[Fotoware58]

36. Thank you....

for your well-thought comments. The peer review process needs to be standardized and completely non-partisan to be of any value in the context of national policy implictions. If this can be accomplished, it could be very useful in courts, freeing up ignorant court judges to do what they know so well, instead of fumbling to understand scientific concepts beyond their comprehension. The Wiki is notoriously unreliable but that doesn't mean the concept is bad. I'd prefer peer reviews to be completely transparent, so partisan scientists will be under the microscope, from all angles. If one is afraid to put his/her name on the line, they don't deserve to be a part of the process.

Bonnicksen knows without a doubt that some professors have an axe to grind with him so, why should he bother submitting his study to those who wouldn't give him a fair shake? While specifics of his study surely aren't perfect, the idea that burning forests put out hugely massive amounts of GHG's and other toxic gases cannot be discounted. I, too, have some misgivings over what was written as conclusions. He implies that the unplanted burned areas don't have any trees left in them. That is an easy one to discount.

However, pretending that smoke from 4 million acres of unnaturally-high intensity fires isn't a problem, is just plain denial, of the worst kind.

Again, I like what you are saying about this, and we need to de-politicize the science on both sides, and pursue the truth. I truly think that would accelerate the process to get away from fossil fuels and save our forests at the same time. (I hope you made it this far, reading my comments, kristopher.)

[kristopher]

40. The peer review process is standardized.

And your comments about peer review do nothing but highlight a severe lack of knowledge on you part. The reason things don't get through peer review isn't because they are blocked by political ideology but because the basic flaws in the work itself. Far from being reluctant to publish controversial findings, journals everywhere LOVE controversial findings - it is just that those controversial findings have to be grounded in solid methods, data and reasoning. It isn't "oppression" to reject an idea because it is a poor explanation of observable reality.

You have not done your cause any favors with your claims that are rooted not only in arguments that demonstrate a pretty dramatic and obvious lack of knowledge, but also a lack of willingness to gain the required knowledge.

You said you were retired, right? May I suggest you go back to school and get some of the tools you need to understand and analyze the problem that motivates you. Basic and advanced courses in economics and/or other research methods can pay off hugely. If the position you now espouse holds up you'll be batter able to make the arguments to support it; if it doesn't hold up you'll be better equiped to figure out what the best approach might be.

Good luck.

[Fotoware58]

41. Why the need....

for hidden peers?? For peer review to work in this world, we NEED transparency!!! NO BACK ROOM DEALS!!!!!

Could you plaese explain the Donato Paper, and how that piece-o-crap got through your supposedly perfect peer review system??

Until this particularly slanted situation is explained, to me, ALL peer review is suspect!!

[kristopher]

42. Back room deals?

"Hidden peers"?

Where do you get this insanity? The paper you offered has some acknowledgments, right? Most peer review papers also have been reviewed by a person's working colleagues in the same way. It is offered around to accessible experts prior to submission in order to find errors and weaknesses. However, one problem with stopping there is that the possibility of what you are worried about exists - hive think and an unwitting collusion to play down other viewpoints. For example, you may not select anyone to review it that disagrees with you.

When you submit a paper to a journal, however, it is first looked over by the staff and a dialog is established with the author/s; questions and answers are exchanged, some changes are probably made. The paper then goes to an affiliated group of researchers, some will be known, some will not. The author isn't involved in the selection process. More questions, answers and changes; anonymity gives latitude for harsher criticism however, all material is reviewed by journal staff.

There are literally thousands of good journals, and if one journal were to reject the paper because of the type of bias you imagine then it would be a simple matter to submit it to one that looks at the problem from a different perspective. For example, let's say you submit the paper on forestry practices to a journal specializing in forestry management and it is rejected because everyone is blind to new ways of doing things in forestry management. But you know that the numbers that have been gathered regarding CO2 emissions is important to the discussion on climate change; then you may submit it to a journal on soil chemistry (not specifically related to forestry management). Since you are bringing them an idea that is solidly supported but doesn't rattle the cage of anyone involved in soil chemistry, then they will be delighted to publish a paper that attracts attention to their journal. Either way, the paper is published and the ideas are given a public and private hearing.

Your ideas are extremely naive and reflective of the goal the right has of destroying the credibility of all authoritative sources outside their sphere of influence. That naivety isn't going to be cured with a couple of discussion on an internet forum; it will only get worse in fact because you are trying to understand things in minutes than take months/years of study to gain the tools to appreciate.

If you can't trust the system society has established to produce our best information, and you can't judge the conflicting arguments that are outside of that system, then you are basically headless. That is just what you see carried to the extreme with the SaraBeckians screaming about birth certificates, death panels and FEMA concentration camps. You have an emerging case of the same thing that afflicts them. The cure is real knowledge.

You're retired. Go back to school; it is never too late.

[Fotoware58]

43. I DO appreciate the time and effort, kristopher

You write very well but insults are counter-productive.

I DO understand how peer review is SUPPOSED to work in the truly scientific community. The "closed peer review" process hides important things like, just who is doing the reviews and what are they saying. Why are they hiding behind a cloak of anonymity?!? Why is anonymity needed in peer reviewers?? I think that both the scientific community AND the American public deserves to know who is saying what about things which affect us profoundly.

However, in the case of Daniel Donato's papar "Post Fire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk", how can such a limited and just plain wrong paper make it through peer review and be published in such a prestigious magazine like "Science Magazine"???????!?!?!?!?!? Sixteen plots that only prove that when a trees falls, it kills baby trees. No mention at all that the stand remains stocked enough to pass Forest Service and State of Oregon muster! No mention of the brush competition or catastrophic re-burn potential to "hinder regeneration". No mention of the fact that the trees WILL eventually fall and WILL eventually kill those same trees. Face it, the paper is FULL of holes and it DID pass "peer review" AND pass the editors of a supposedly respected publication. Maybe Donato was manipulated and maybe he wasn't but, we NEED to answer these bothersome and inconvenient truths.

Until THOSE issues are explained to me, and the scientific community, "closed peer review" will continue to be suspect.

Just Say NO to closed peer review!!! Let the TRUTH be HEARD!!!

[kristopher]

44. Then again...

There were no insults at all in my previous post; there were only objective facts.

Since you seem to prefer wallowing in ignorance, I'm out of here.

[Fotoware58]

45. You called me...

insane, naive and headless. While I may be one of those, the others do not apply to me.

And how convenient that you don't want to address the Donato Scenario.

In Wikipedia, it talks about "closed peer review". This seems to be the preferred method of scientists who don't want the transparency of open peer review. Why oh why oh why do they want that cloak of anonymity?!?!? Something to hide?!?!?!? Can't back up their reviews?!?!? Worried about their fine reputation?!?!!? If one's review cannot stand the light of day, it IS worthless!!!!!!

If a paper is reviewed with "closed peer review", that makes it automatically suspect, and should not be allowed to wear the label of "peer reviewed". Signed, sealed and delivered!!

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen - Open Letter to the Media

http://sustainableforestry.blogspot.com/2006/11/open-letter-to-media.html

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen - Open Letter to the Media

We are sending you this letter as a concerned group of forest scientists and/or fire resource managers at major research universities. We feel compelled to write to you in response to the many letters, opinion articles, and commentaries that Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen has been sending to newspapers across the United States. Most of us have served on federal and state committees reviewing the fire management policies of the National Park Service and other agencies, and we all maintain active research programs. We feel very strongly that not only do the views and statements of Dr. Bonnicksen fall far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion, but more importantly that Dr. Bonnicksen has misrepresented himself and his qualifications to speak to these issues.

These misrepresentations include:

University Affiliation: In all of his contacts with the media over the past several years, Dr. Bonnicksen has in part justified his credibility by identifying himself as Visiting Professor at University of California Davis. This is false. Dr. Bonnicksen does not now, nor has he ever had, an appointment at UC Davis. The University of California has now sent Dr. Bonnicksen a "cease and desist" letter demanding that he not use their name.

We find this misrepresentation extremely troubling, particularly to those of us on the faculty of the University of California.

Credibility: Dr. Bonnicksen introduces himself, as do his supporters, as one of the leading national experts on such topics as forest management, fire ecology, and forest history. In fact, there is nothing in his academic record of research or experience to justify such a characterization. By any major university standard of achievement, his academic record is weak, consisting largely of letters to the editor and oped articles. This is not a record that would achieve tenure at a major research university.

Dr. Bonnicksen's unusual theories of forest structure and stability, expressed many years ago were never widely accepted. The state of scientific and empirical knowledge regarding the fire ecology and management of these forests has grown exponentially since Dr. Bonnicksen collected his data three decades ago. Today we have a comprehensive and sophisticated picture of forest structure and fire ecology that has been measured, validated and published by members of the academic community, the National Park Service, and the United States Geological Survey. In simple terms, there is no serious scientific support for Dr. Bonnicksen's ideas of forest management.

As academic researchers, we welcome increased public understanding of scientific issues and an open discourse representing a diversity of credible views. However, we feel very strongly that Dr. Bonnicksen's views and misrepresentations of factual material, as well as his academic credentials, should be labeled for the political views that they are and not presented as serious science. The opinions he presents are contradicted by all prevailing scientific data. We ask that you consider these issues of credibility before publishing his oped articles and commentaries in the future, but of course these decisions are yours to make.

With all respect,

Philip W. Rundel
Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California, Los Angeles

Michael F. Allen
Director of the Center for Conservation Biology
Professor of Plant Pathology and Biology
University of California, Riverside

Norman L. Christensen, Jr.
Founding Dean and Professor of Ecology
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University

Jon E. Keeley
Adjunct Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California, Los Angeles

************************************
Philip W. Rundel
Professor of Biology
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California (UCLA)
Los Angeles CA 90095

tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
*************************************

[Fotoware58]

15. It isn't hard at all....

to find liberal academics who disagree with his political associations. Did those guys get paid by liberal organizations to say that?? Are they on liberal boards or paid by liberal groups with grants?? I won't delve into that arena because it's not worth my time.

The facts are that today's fires are INCREDIBLY destructive. The facts are that forests in California are INCREDIBLY crowded and unhealthy. The facts are that liberals are just fine with letting these fires burn. The facts are that people are dying and suffering and losing their homes.

Care to address THESE facts?!?!?!

[tabatha]

18. No, firefighters try to stop all fires.

[Fotoware58]

19. Try googling MMA's, WFU's, AMR's and FURB's

They ALL deal with Let-Burn fires. The Biscuit and Yellow Fires, burning 500,000 and 400,000 acres respectively are good examples of "The goal of managing fires for resources benefits". http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/fire/wildland_fire_use/wfu_resource_benefit.html This page discusses some of the rules and techniques associated with Let-Burn fires but, doesn't specify ANY of their touted "benefits".

Ironically, the Sequoia NF let the NcNally Fire burn for many weeks, almost losing entire giant sequoia groves. In fact, the second largest individual tree in the world will soon be dead because they let the fire burn unimpeded, not lifting a finger to even go into the stand and pull fuel buildups away from those precious trees.

The truth is that many of these WFU's and FURB's escape and burn so much more, at radically higher intensities than they predict. These types of fires have been around for many years and there is an ample history of them escaping and destroying MUCH more than they ever predicted they would. They have already laid out MMA's that can be up to 100,000 acres in size, and many wilderness areas lie inside those MMA's. Same for designated Roadless Areas.

Sadly, the Forest Service has a HORRIBLE track record with these things and, even though we are impacted by global warming and unhealthy, overstocked forests, they still let fires burn in remote, but environmentally important areas. Last year's fires in Trinity County, totalling 200,000 acres, we all Let-Burn fires initially. It took 3 months to put those out and the smoke went for a thousand miles!

Luckily, some National Forests have suspended those practices this year, in response to pleas from the locals who have to endure the suffering and destruction of their surroundings. Other Forests continue to tout the "benefits" of their WFU fires (now called FURB's).

This year has been a slow year, so far, especially in the northern Rockies, where FURB's have a long track record of blowing up. However, we are still approaching 6 million acres burned and a half billion in suppression costs. Fire season is far from over and any forest will burn, given the enough wind behind it.

The key is fuels!! Reduce the fuels to "natural" levels, and the fires go out. Prescribed fires alone CANNOT do the job in our radically-overstocked and fuel-loaded forests. With the severe unpredictability of weather, these FURB's are ticking time bombs, especially as we get closer to fall, with dry cold fronts and high winds being VERY common but, not specifically predictable. Dry cold fronts have notoriously strong and changeable winds, resulting in wild and dangerous fire behaviors.

Where, tell me, are the "benefits" of Let-Burn fires?!?!?!? No one has answered that for me, or for the rural American public, who has to deal with the damages, tragedy and aftermath of catastrophic fires that the Forest Service gambled on and lost.

[tabatha]

20. I thought the let fire burn protocol was started under Bush.

[Fotoware58]

21. Yessssss

You are quite correct!! And the Obama Administration, and most eco-groups, continue to support the program, which is illegal under NEPA laws.

NEPA laws control everything the National Forests do that has a significant impact on the environment. This also includes required public scoping and input, which the Forest Service has neglected to do, as well. No required formal analysis or documentation, either! So often, courts uphold lawsuits against Forest Service projects, citing NEPA deficiencies. The Forest Service claims that Let-Burn fires are "natural events" and do not require NEPA, although the fire organization actively supports Let-Burn fires by "winging it" with inadequate study and preparation. Fires that would have cost $3000 to deal with become $30,000,000 boondoggles, draining Forest Service budgets and eliminating important programs (like fuels reductions, wildlife programs and recreation).

All in all, I'd say that Let-Burn fires DO have significant impacts on our environment (as well as significant impacts upon people!), and MUST be included under NEPA. I am willing to endure the character assassinations and blatant disinformation if I can educate the public about what is really going on the Forest Service. I have zero monetary interests in providing this public service.

[tabatha]

17. Actually,

"a guy with a website who loves manzanita brushfields" knows all of Jon E. Keeley's articles - see post #13.

He has also written a book (referencing Keeley's data), has contributed to Fremontia, has been trained as a firefighter, and has the respect of many in the field.

[Fotoware58]

28. More of THIS?!?!

img src=

Here is an example of quality salvage logging, that WILL continue UNSUSTAINABLY, until the firestorms are stopped and forests are restored by active management, as Vilsack is hinting at. This picture was taken a mere 7 months after logging was completed, and yes, there WAS significant mortality in this previously mature forest. I was very proud of "my loggers" for doing such a good job!!

[Fotoware58]

31. Another example

of hideous firestorms and their inevitable results. The foreground is salvage logging on private land. The distant slopes are Forest Service lands. If this is what you WANT, then I guess the debate is over for you. If this isn't what you want, you need to change the way you think and prevent these fires from happening.

img src=

I wonder how many Toyota Prius cars and CFL bulbs these fires "offset". I hope EBMUD customers LIKE dirty water!!

[Fotoware58]

46. Peer reviews aside

While the study WAS actaully peer reviewed by quality people in the Forest Service, CalFire and the California Air Resources Board, the questions remain about limiting emissions from wildfires. Regardless of differences, 4 MILLION acres burned spews mega-tons of bad emissions into our atmosphere, despite the weak and dangerous efforts of eco's to describe fires as "beneficial". Different vegetation and different landscapes produce differing amounts of emissions per acre. The FCEM seeks to quantify just what those differences are. I challenge you folks to come up with a better model for totalling emissions from wildfires, so we can better manage our lands and radically reduce those harmful gases.

[Fotoware58]

47. New fires

With the heart of fire season upon us now, in California, people need to wake up and smell the smoke. GHG's are now spewing into the upper atmosphere in mega-tonnage. Some of that carbon is so far up in altitude, it won't be accessible for plants to capture and sequester. With at least 10 significant fires burning in the state, environmentalists HAVE to re-think their denial that fires are beneficial to our environment. Dr. Bonnicksen's FCEM is a way to quantify those emissions so we can devise a way to reduce those extremely excessive emissions and those immensely destructive fires.

[Fotoware58]

48. In the last week...

vast tonnage of GHG's and toxic gases have spewed into our California atmosphere, and firefighters have had little success in controlling these firestorms. Yet, the people of today seem to not care and still resist "active management" of our forests and wildlands, in favor of doing nothing at all. They also continue to belieeve that fires are good for our environment.

SAD, SAD, SAD!!

The disaster rolls onward and the suffering continues!!!!

[Fotoware58]

49. LA Fires update

Purportedly "beneficial" firestorms now threaten 10,000 homes. I propose new rules and zoning laws that prevent or restrict people from building in these intense fire hazard zones. I surely do NOT want to pay for their ignorance. I think that fire agencies should withdraw fire protections in some of those zones and to let the homeowners pay for their own specialized fire protection. I think we've been lucky so far that no firefighter deaths have occurred. This situation mirrors the incident in Australia where nearly 200 people lost their lives. The government is proposing a new policy where homeowners can "Leave Early Or Stay And Fight". THAT, is a recipe for incredible tragedy!!

[Fotoware58]

51. Oops!!!

Now, we have two fatalities fighting the Station Fire.

Estimated GHG's spewing from the big fire are at 2 MILLION tons!

Half of California's fire budget is gone! The worst part of the fire season is HERE!

For some, the worst part of the Station fire is still to come. This will really hit home when people lose their TV and cellphone luxuries, as the fire rolls on to the top of Mount Wilson. LAX might have to shutdown, as their antennas up there face destruction.

Where are those wildfire "benefits"?!?!?! Wake up and smell the smoke, people!

[Fotoware58]

50. Suppression Costs, PLUS

So far, this season, suppression costs for just the State of California's Cal Fire has totaled 106 million dollars. The Station Fire continues to chew through more millions of dollars daily. Now, if you add the additional costs of current and future rehabilitation, the estimates grow to at least another 500 million dollars. These other costs include power lines, road safety, gas lines, erosion control and many other infrastructure costs to come.

The rest of fire season promises to bring additional catastrophic damages, with the Santa Ana winds an inevitable danger and massive fuels buildups still lying in wait for the coming firestorms. Winter rains will undoubtedly bring astounding floods and erosion, due to hydrophobic soils in the fires. When will the government take pre-emptive action to reduce the terrible dangers and horrific costs due to fuels build-ups known, but not dealt with. We've known this "perfect storm" would happen sooner than later but, actions have not been taken.

[Fotoware58]

52. Disaster ROLLS ON!!!

The Station Fire has now burned 200 square miles.

Hmmmmmm, how many Toyota Prius cars and CFL bulbs has THIS fire offset?!?! I estimate that the toal GHG's spewed from this fire at 9.6 MILLION TONS!