Colorado homes at high risk for wildfire damage, report says

Colorado homes at high risk for wildfire damage, report says
By Steve Raabe
09/10/2012

Colorado has the nation's second-highest number of homes rated at very high risk for wildfire damage, according to a report by CoreLogic Inc. In Colorado, 48,901 homes are considered to be at very high risk, topped only by California with 49,258 in the highest risk category.

In addition to the Colorado homes rated at very high risk, the report showed 54,511 homes to be at low risk, 33,263 at moderate risk and 45,311 at high risk.

Colorado homes in the two highest risk categories have a combined value of $26.9 billion.

And that follows on the heels of this:
Wildfire budgeting tool scrapped after agency resources threatened
By David Olinger and Eric Gorski
09/02/2012

In November 2005, architects of a federal program meant to better allocate money and manpower to fight wildfires met in rented office space in Boise, Idaho, to examine the results of a test run. What it showed wasn't surprising: Some areas of the country needed more resources and some deserved less. The group prepared a briefing paper and color-coded chart to explain the findings to budget officers and decision-makers on Capitol Hill.

Within short order, the model was dead — cast aside as flawed by agency officials and a scientific panel over the objections of its authors and an independent congressional investigator who say the U.S. Forest Service was unwilling to impose even modest budget changes.

Forest Service officials deny sabotaging a program that could have reshaped how billions of federal wildfire program dollars are spent, saying valid concerns existed about the initial model. According to a spokesman, the Alaska forest has a $775,700 wildland fire budget this year and four five-person engines. The largest fire there in the last 22 years burned 600 acres, he said.

"Politically unacceptable"
The Denver Post in July requested a 10-year history of wildfire budget amounts for each of the Forest Service's nine regions. To date, the Forest Service has not provided any numbers in response to that request. "As soon as the preliminary run was seen by the persons in authority, it went hyper-political," Botti said. "The answer from the leadership was: 'Politically unacceptable.' "

So a peer-reviewed analysis of how resources are allocated region by region compared to actual fire danger, and it's determined that some areas have more resources than they need, and that money can't be shifted because people are afraid to take on certain state Senators? That's bullsh**.

So, a question I asked before that received no answer: when do we finally get to the point that we recognize that what we spend in switching to alternative energy isn't hurting the economy more than the cost of continuing to pay for damages incurred from disasters such as wildfires which are only going to get worse as we continue to use fossil fuels and add to the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere? Looking at the value of homes in high-risk areas, and the insurance payouts for Waldo Canyon and High Park Fire only (not even counting Lower North Fork and the other large fires across the country this year) and the fact that we are getting drier and hotter, it's seems like simple math. And neither majority party is facing up to the realization, or willing to take on special interests, that we need to be more aggressive in weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels.
Contiguous U.S. experiences 3rd hottest summer on record

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor update on August 28th, 2012 (the day Hurricane Isaac made landfall), 62.9% of the contiguous U.S. (CONUS) was experiencing moderate-to-exceptional drought, the same as the end of July.

Higher-than-average temperatures occurred across much of the West. Nevada tied August 1934 as its warmest August on record, with a statewide temperature 4.0°F above average. Six additional states across the region had August temperatures ranking among their ten warmest. Much of the Northeast was also warmer than average, where five states from Maine to Delaware had monthly temperatures among its ten warmest.

Drier-than-average conditions stretched from the Pacific Northwest, through the Rockies, and into the Upper Midwest. Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming each had their driest August on record. Colorado, Idaho and Oregon each had a top ten dry August.

Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
By James E. Hansen,
Published: August 3

In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.

Yes, there is an El Nino arriving this winter and that means precisely what is shown on that map you have bb, a climate cycle (and not unusual for an El Nino with the above average snowfall in some areas, but below normal snowfall and above average temps in other areas). However, it will not erase the decades-long drought that we've been experiencing, and won't cool down the average global temps - that picture you have is seasonal, regional, and temporary. What I've posted above is seasonal but compared to data since we've been using thermometers, and what's in the PNAS article I posted, global.

Arctic ice cover is at its lowest since we began recording it and building back up less and less every winter; temps and CO2 concentrations are hitting new highs there as well. What the scientists said would happen is happening, and no one is answering my question of when do we realize that what we are doing will cost us more than re-allocating and spending money now to do something about it. If you have a leaky shower, you don't keep using it, you fix it because to not do so causes more damage.