Colorado Wildfire: Our Scorching Future?

The High Park fire rages in northern Colorado on Monday.@j_noecker via Twitter

For the past 30 years, residents of tiny Laporte, Colorado, near the Wyoming border, have gathered inside Bob’s Coffee Shop to swap gossip over coffee and Danishes near the dense pine forest of Lory State Park. But since the weekend, Bob’s has become a very different kind of social hub: a de facto refugee camp for homeowners fleeing what many here call the worst wildfire in decades.

From a booth just a mile and half from the fireline, Bob’s owner Chris McCullough described in a phone interview seeing forest ridges ablaze with arching orange flames, a sky blanketed in thick white smoke, and ash falling like snow. At other tables, locals shared updates about the fire’s spread and talked about what they were—and weren’t—able to save from their homes, which may—or may not—still be standing.

“It’s the fastest-growing, hottest-burning fire I’ve ever seen,” said longtime resident and Bob’s patron John Brewer, whose home was evacuated Saturday night. “I don’t know how we’re going to survive this one.”

“It’s the fastest-growing, hottest-burning fire I’ve ever seen,” said one longtime resident. “I don’t know how we’re going to survive this one.”

Other evacuated locals agreed. “The whole hillside was erupting as we were looking at it,” said Charlie Wrobbel, who was awoken in bed with his wife Saturday night by the sudden flash of 40-foot flames a few hundreds yards from the doorstep; they snatched up pets and what personal items they could carry and drove off. “We were heartbroken, because we didn’t know if there would be anything to come home to.”

By Monday afternoon, they still didn’t. 

The High Park fire, as it’s known, had grown to nearly 60 square miles by late Monday, making it, along with a massive fire still raging in New Mexico, one of this year’s earliest of the mega-fires that ravage the West every summer. One man is believed dead, according to the local sheriff’s office, along with over 100 structures destroyed. The fire was started by lightning, which on Saturday morning ignited a stand of pines that, after an unusually arid winter and spring, were 30 percent drier than normal.

As presumptive GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney faces criticism for wanting to slash firefighting jobs, the Colorado blaze has reignited debate over a controversial question: Are devastating fires like this one caused by climate change?

“That’s always the question people want to ask!” says Texas Tech University climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, laughing. She coauthored a report released today in Ecosphere, the peer-reviewed journal of the Ecological Society of America, that is one of the first studies to look at how climate change impacts wildfires on a global scale.

“The traditional answer is: We can’t say anything about just one event,” Hayhoe said. With this report, “we can say a little bit more than that now.” Hayhoe, along with an international team of scientists, discovered that climate change will disrupt fire patterns across over 80 percent of the globe by the end of the century. “Scientists found compelling agreement in long term models that more fires would occur at mid-to-high latitude areas like North America (shorter term models present more variability).”*

“There’s no question that humans have altered the background atmosphere on a global scale,” Hayhoe said. “And there’s also no question humans have altered the environment on the local and regional level” by living near forests and choosing how to manage them. “Climate change is often the final straw in a lot of those cases.”

A University of Arizona report from 2006 found that large forest fires occurred more frequently in the Western United States since the mid-1980s as spring temperatures increased, snow melted earlier, and summers got hotter, and that the fire season has grown. According to University of California-Berkeley fire ecologist Max Moritz, the Colorado fire features “a lot of the characteristics we would expect under climate change,” including plentiful, dry fuel as a result of low precipitation.

The changes Hayhoe and Moritz predict don’t apply only to fires in the West. Wildfires, until now, have been studied up-close, in specific regions of the world. But this report, which combines 16 climate change models, allows scientists to zoom out. “The spatial extent of the disruption raises our awareness that climate change’s effect on fire is not just a regional issue. It’s not unique to certain parts of America,” Hayhoe said. In particular, the world’s grasslands, desert shrublands, and temperate conifer forests (like the one now burning) are likely to see more fires.

Scientists also fear a double whammy: Fires release more CO2, contributing to climate change.

An unrelated study, out yesterday from a team of UC-Berkeley fire ecologists, suggests that as fires become more frequent and severe, controlled burns should be amped up to clear out excess fuel. Thinning out forests with controlled burns has become an increasingly popular tool of forest managers in recent decades, a reversal of the early 20th-century policy of fire suppression.

The take-home message for Mortiz is that we need to be on our toes. “It’s not that fire is good or bad,” he says. “It’s that it’s changing…humans and plants and animals in these landscapes, we’re all going to be shuffling and adapting, and it affects everything that we rely on.”

Bob’s Coffee Shop ran out of coffee late Monday, after serving up dozens of pots of complementary brew for evacuees still reeling from their narrow escape. Still, Wrobbel said, Westerners are used to getting burned by Mother Nature and coming back stronger for it: “Out West, it’s either feast or famine.”

Share your photos of the fire with Climate Desk via Twitter, and we’ll include them in our slideshow.

Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that towards the end of the century, mid-to-high latitude areas like North America could experience more than 60 per cent more fires. This figure actually describes the level of agreement between probability models used by scientists in the report.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate