Extended fire season puts California on alert
By Haya El Nasser, Aljazeera America
The climate change debate currently pits the bulk of the scientific community against holdouts who don’t believe rising temperatures are the result of human activity. But in California, a state suffering from a historic drought, why the phenomenon is happening is less important than the simple fact that it is.
Forecasters and fire agencies have tossed aside their normal fire calendar — mid-May to mid-October — and now prepare for what some call a new normal of a greatly extended fire season. They are hiring extra staff and issuing more warnings. Some local officials have warned that fire season in some parts of California has basically become a year-round phenomenon.
The National Weather Service has been issuing an unprecedented number of fire forecasts and alerts in the thick of the usually-wet season, months earlier than normal. Its forecast offices have kicked into fire-season mode well ahead of schedule.
The Sacramento office, which issues fire forecasts for interior Northern California, decided last week to up its daily seven-day forecasts to twice a day, and its National Fire Danger Rating System, which measures the seriousness of fire conditions, is going out earlier.
To me, the interesting thing about this article is that it comes from Aljazeera America, one of the most respected news organizations in the world (as compared to, for instance, Fox News), notwithstanding its Arab roots.
I have tremendous respect for Kae and what she’s trying to do with this news site, notwithstanding the screwballs she sees no need to filter. Aljazeera is one of my daily checks, and if it’s Kae’s as well, I am further impressed with her website. Despite the goofballs she permits in the comments section – her patience with those folks sets her aside from the norm – good for her.
“…pits the bulk of the scientific community against holdouts who **can’t define the term climate**…”
it’s funny how we reveal prejudice even when trying to complement? I bring it up just to get someone (anyone?) to think about how embedded our cultural biases are.
“To me, the interesting thing about this article is that it comes from Aljazeera America, one of the most respected news organizations in the world … notwithstanding its Arab roots.”
so the assumption here is if something has Arabic roots, it’s suspect to the point we have to point out the exception? And we arent even talking about an article on the pros and cons of the war in Afghanistan here, we are talking about fire and climate? So, it’s a little bit like saying someone named Ron “is pretty smart and responsible and hard working…notwithstanding the fact he is a black person.” Sounds pretty uncomfortable to say that in public discourse no? (well unless you are Cliven Bundy).
So maybe we should also be suspicious about our numbering system, as in 1, 2, 3; about algebra, etc and all the math and science predicated on those mathematical concepts. Wait a minute, maybe that’s why some folks on the far right have a hard time believing climate data – after all the collected data uses a numeric system with Arabic roots! :)
Climate issues effect everyone, world wide. Its not just a California issue. So it seems like any news source in any corner of our planet can raise the issus of climate change, or global weather changes, and reference California as a “point in case”. Its an issue that effects everyone.
Give me all your money and freedom and I will fix everything, I promises. But I will need early retirement.
thing fish-
“The fire season is not what it used to be 10 years ago.
Research papers linking climate change to a persistent drought — which has parched California three years in a row…”
So when weather supports climate change it’s ok to confuse weather with climate? Nothing in the article references 30+ year trends, yet you’re beating the same drum as always.
The article takes a jab at skeptics ‘pits the bulk of the scientific community against holdouts who don’t believe rising temperatures’, and as we all have seen they have a big problem differentiating between weather and climate.
“Nothing in the article references 30+ year trends”
Except the first word.
“climate”.
Blame the people who can’t define climate.
As usual… I’m not wrong.
Cosa – what are you “right” about? That climate change deniers incorrectly reference weather when discussing climate? You must see that the author of this article does the exact same thing. The “jab” at deniers is merely a cheap way for the author to justify doing so.
Why does being “right” about this matter so much to you? Will it make a difference?