Weather Helping Firefighters In Rocky Mountain National Park

Weather, which has hampered firefighters battling a wildfire in Rocky Mountain National Park, seemed to turn into an ally Monday as cooler temperatures and lighter winds settled over the fire.

While a private cabin in Moraine Park within the park boundaries was lost to the Fern Lake Fire, officials said high winds Sunday and into Monday did not push the fire any closer to the park's eastern gateway town of Estes Park, Colorado.

Roughly 150 firefighters and 18 engines stayed on the fire through the night, and as dawn arrived the total was expected to grow by 100 personnel with more resources en route to the park.

Spot fires continue to burn in the Steep Mountain area through the night and crews were working to keep it from moving further to the south. Structure protection crews were still stationed along Bear Lake Road to try to keep the fire within the park.

Monday's weather forecast called for temperatures in the mid-30s to low 40s and lighter winds, with calm winds expected after sundown.

The fire was mapped at approximately 4,400 acres, with roughly 20 percent of the footprint contained, officials said.

The priorities of fire managers continued to be firefighter and public safety, incident stabilization, and control of the fire perimeter to keep it from spreading beyond the park boundaries so residents may be allowed to re-enter when it is safe for them to do so. Smoke from the fire has been impacting the area, especially during the evening hours.

The east side of Rocky Mountain National Park via Beaver Meadows Entrance and Fall River Entrance is closed, although Fall River Visitor Center remains open.

Residents should be aware that pre-evacuation and evacuation notices could be expanded. No changes in evacuation or pre-evacuation orders had been made since Saturday. Park officials said Monday morning that only individuals with a medical necessity were being allowed to re-enter the evacuation area of the Highway 66 corridor with an escort from the sheriff's office. The Highway 66 corridor, including all adjacent streets, remains closed. Electrical power was reportedly still on in the area.

Residents of Marys Lake Road from Moraine Avenue and Rock Ridge Road south to Highway 7 and Fish Creek Road were to in pre-evacuation status. Pre-evacuation means that residents should be ready to leave if they receive an evacuation notice.

Residents of High Drive and adjacent streets are also on pre-evacuation notice. The residents in this area must present identification to law enforcement at the High Drive road block. No others will be allowed in the area.

The evacuation center is located at the Mountain View Bible Fellowship, located at 1575 South Saint Vrain Ave./Highway 7, at the corner of Peak View Drive. The cooperating agencies, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are staffing this evacuation center. Information is provided to evacuees on site. Large animals may be taken to the Stanley Park Fairgrounds at 1209 Manford Ave.

Comments

A major fire in November and December????

Makes me wonder what might be happening in our atmosphere.

The same thing that frequently occurs in our atmosphere.

Yeah, like 7 billion people pumping carbon dioxide from zillions of sources.

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said the other day that we're going to see more and more big, destructive fires due to the warming climate.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10836605/us-forest-chief-says-wildfires-to-get-more-destructive

And I thought I heard NPR quote him as saying the fire season has grown by two months due to climate change.

Where did Tidwell get his PhD in Physical Science degree?

and with all those people pumping Co2, why hasnt the temp gone up the last 16 years?

Did Tidwell happen to mention the Forest Service and NPS mismanagement role in larger fires? I guess if I were him, i would blame it on warming as well rather than take the responsibility he deserves.

For anyone interested, here's another study on wildfires and climate change in the Rockies. It's from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/20/1110199108.abstract

Pure speculation - and even they admit it is not well understood.


Climate change is likely to alter wildfire regimes


Will this be any better a prediction than these?

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/


Pure speculation


When does science ever do "pure speculation"? If it did, it wouldn't be science. PNAS doesn't seem to have ever published non-scientific studies.

Anyway, here's another piece, from Nature, among voluminous science on this particular area of climate change (Google Scholar away!):

http://www.nature.com/news/forest-fires-burn-out-1.11424


When does science ever do "pure speculation"? If it did, it wouldn't be science.


And when it comes to climate change - it usually isn't (science that is).

The predictions of the climate change alarmist have been so wrong it is amazing that even the kool aid crowd is still willing to recite them.

This explaination for the fires has far more credibility.

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2012/06/whos-to-blame-for-the-wests-devouring-wildfires/

I don't know, FF. A blog piece by Ron Arnold (!) vs. peer-reviewed science. I guess I'd say the peer-reviewed science has "far more credibility."

(And since you brought up the importance of credibility and credentialing, where did Ron Arnold get his PhD in a physical science?)

Peer reviewed science? Tell us- what has peered reviewed science re climate change produced to date - dozens of absolutely wrong predictions.

As to Arnold - he isn't the authority, but Rice, a 30 year (and retired) veteran of the Forest Service would be considered a valid authority on forest issues - like mismanagment of fires.

No matter which side of the climate change argument you're on, there's no question this fall has been much drier than normal in the Estes Park area, and that has a big impact on wildfires. One example: it's been 37 days since the last measureable rainfall. Oct and Nov averages for Estes Park are 4.7 inches of snowfall and 1.43 inches of total precip. This year Oct and Nov precip = 0.46 inches or about 1/3 of normal.


what has peered reviewed science re climate change produced to date - dozens of absolutely wrong predictions.


Well, there's the NCAR analysis that came out a few weeks ago in Science. But as for the claim of "wrong predictions" in general, you're repeating one the pop culture myths about climate change. You might find the site below useful. It debunks these myths, providing references and links to the published science. It will also walk you through the basic science of climate change and modeling, FF.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php[/url]


but Rice, a 30 year (and retired) veteran of the Forest Service would be considered a valid authority on forest issues


Why "far more credible" than U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell and the scientists?


Why "far more credible" than U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell and the scientists?


Because he was a Forest Service guy talking about forest issues. Tidwell is a Forest Service guy talking about climate. You can't see the difference?

Re credibility - I repeat http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

Were flat temperatures for the last 16 years part of your "scientific predictions"?


Because he was a Forest Service guy talking about forest issues. Tidwell is a Forest Service guy talking about climate. You can't see the difference?


Take another look at the stories linked above. Tidwell (and the scientists) are talking about both, which would seem to be most relevant.


Where flat temperatures for the last 16 years part of your "scientific predictions"?


You're gesturing toward another myth. First, temperatures haven't been flat. Second, what's important is heat, not temperature, anyway (this is what I mean about basic scientific literacy). Check the site I linked to above. Again, it debunks this myth (#9 on the list) by linking to the published science (and it provides a tutorial for the uninitiated).

First, temperatures haven't been flat.

They haven't? Tell that to the scientists. Your myth #9 is a strawman based on info 7 years old. Try this current info:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html

If we aren't careful, PETA will get on our case for beating this horse to death :-)


Your myth #9 is a strawman based on info 7 years old.


I don't know what you mean. You're repeating the myth here. Are you saying that the myth you are repeating hasn't been updated in 7 years? Are you saying that the science is 7 years old? (Which clearly isn't the case, since the site talks about 2010, etc. and links to science through 2012.)

In any case, I'm following Jim's observation. If we're not beating a dead horse, we're certainly pumping out a lot of hot air. Thanks for the conversation, FF.

Jim,

Sorry we are boring you with a very pertinent discussion regarding wildfires. The evidence (vs predictions) seems to point strongly to bad forest management - an indictment I suspect you want to avoid. Could a (natural) warmer climate be a contributor - possibly. Is man induced warming THE cause (as implied by your comrade Lee) - not according to any credible evidence.

Okay, one more.


Is man induced warming THE cause (as implied by your comrade Lee) - not according to any credible evidence.


Here's a list of some of the organizations that have reached that conclusion (by year)--on the basis of no credible evidence! (This is where my suspicion of trolling kicks in, FF.)

2001 IPCC

2001 Royal Society of New Zealand

2001 National Research Council (U.S.)

2004 International Arctic Science Committee

2005 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

2005 National Academies of G8 Nations

2005 European Geosciences Union

2006 Geological Society of America

2006 World Meterological Oranization

2006 American Association for the Adavcencement of Science

2006 Network of African Science Academies

2007 Polish Academy of Sciences

2007 InterAcademy Council

2007 European Academy of Sciences and Arts

2007 International Council of Acadmies of Engineering and technological Sciences

2007 American Geophysical Union

2007 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

2007 Royal Meterological Society (UK)

2008 European Federation of Geologists

2009 U.S. Global Change Research Program

2009 National Assoication of Geosciecne Teachers

2009 Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society

2009 American Institute of Professional Geologists

2010 Royal Society of the United Kingdom

2010 Geological Society of London

2011 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

2012 American Meterological Society

2012 Australian Meterological and Oceanographic Society

2012 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

Could you please refer me to where those organizations cite climate change as the cause of more wildfires? (our on topic discussion)

And assuming you are correct in your characterization. That is 33 orgs. How many of similar providence haven't come to that conclusion? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

Where is the Liechtenstein academy of Sciences on this?


Could you please refer me to where those organizations cite climate change as the cause of more wildfires?


You're getting characteristically incoherent here, FF. Take another look at my post and the specific claim you made that the list is in response to. (Are you really asking where an organization like the Geological Society of London is citing climate change as the cause of more wildfires? You do know what geologists study, right?)


You do know what geologists study, right?


Yes - not climate or wildfires.

Climate is a huge party of what geologists study. I first learned that in my 8th grade geology course.

The Liechtenstein Acadamy of Sciences has just finished several years of work that has proved that Trolls really do live under bridges and therefore, because it's dark and cool under them, 99.3% of Trolls do not believe that anything warm exists. Warmth plays a very large part in mythology passed by Trolls from one generation to another. So far, efforts to educate Trolls have failed. But the Academy of Science has pledged to continue attempting to use science in their efforts.


How many of similar providence haven't come to that conclusion? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?


If you can find them, I imagine you'd be welcome to post them.


If you can find them, I imagine you'd be welcome to post them.


Here is a start:

B C D E

E cont.


F

G

H

I

J

K

L

L cont.


M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

(previous 200) (next 200)

Categories:

Ah - once again Lee can't keep up with the discussion so he regresses to his dismissive comments.

Hilarious, FF. Talk about credibility on climate science! My favorite one on your list might be the Society for Sex Therapy and Research. Or maybe the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.

Dismissive, as in asking about the Leichtenstein Academy of Sciences?

However, I note that the link you provided to the British Psychological Society takes me directly to a Wikipedia page. In fact, all the others I tried did the same, including one leading to the Pneumatic Institution -- which, according to the entry, closed in 1802. In quick scans of half a dozen of them, I could find no mention whatsoever to climate or warming or anything similar.

Should your material be met with anything other than dismissal? It's a commonly used tactic in some circles to post a lot of nonsense in hopes no one will check it. Sometimes it works, but only if dealing with gullible people who are fellow non-believers in scientific things.

May I suggest you join Sigma Xi? Part of its Wikipedia article notes its purposes:

Culture: The Society is a diverse chapter-based organization dedicated to the advancement of science and engineering through outstanding programs and services delivered in a collegial and supportive environment.

Mission: To enhance the health of the research enterprise, foster integrity in science and engineering, and promote the public's understanding of science for the purpose of improving the human condition.

Vision: To be the global honor society of science and engineering.

Time for my shower. Class dismissed.

Founding Fathers:

re: your comment about this "very pertinent discussion regarding wildfires," the relevance of many of the groups included in your very lengthy list of organizations to the subject at hand would be...?

Lee Dalton's comment about the Liechtenstein Acadamy of Sciences at least injected a little welcome levity in the discussion.


the relevance of many of the groups included in your very lengthy list of organizations to the subject at hand would be..


A response to Justin's request.

Sorry, FF, but you missed the boat on this one. Justin was clearly referring to organizations which have credible scientific information on the subject at hand - which is climate change, and more specifically, as it might be related to wildfires. As pointed out above, your poorly vetted laundry list of "learned societies" etc. didn't contribute much to the discussion.

Perhaps it time to put this one to rest and move on to other topics :-)

Perhaps we learned something important last night.