Earth Changes
Sonny Stiger, a fire behavior analyst, told a group gathered in Helena Wednesday for a forum on the impact of the rice-size beetles, that he's seeing flame lengths of 200 to 300 feet in places they wouldn't expect it; they're experiencing unusual embers being thrown farther ahead of fires and groups of treetops torching; and ponderosa pines' low-hanging dead branches are creating ladder fuels that allow blazes to spread more rapidly than in the past.
"The kind of things we're dealing with is one fire grew to three acres in two minutes, 10 to 15 acres in the next eight minutes - that's moving - and over 100 acres in the first hour," Stiger said. "So we are experiencing unusual, extreme fire behavior now."
During the past decade, mountain pine beetles have devoured about 9 million acres of forest in the Rocky Mountains from Colorado to Montana, and about 40 million acres in British Columbia. They kill mainly lodgepole and ponderosa pine trees by burrowing into them to lay eggs; when the eggs hatch, the young "girdle" the tree by eating around it in horizontal circles, cutting off the flow of nutrients, before they fly to new trees and re-create the deadly cycle.
In Montana, the 980,000-acre Helena National Forest has been particularly hard hit by the beetles, with dead or dying trees on 550,000 acres.
Brad McBratney, the fire management officer for the Helena and Lewis and Clark national forests, added they're also seeing wildfires rage when they typically wouldn't expect it. He said they used to use the 80-20-20 rule: that fires won't transition to out-of-control burns if the temperatures are lower than 80 degrees, the relative humidity is more than 20 percent, with winds less than 20 mph.
But the Davis fire, which started out as a controlled burn last year near Canyon Creek and exploded into a multi-million-acre wildfire before it was extinguished, transitioned when temperatures were in the 70s and winds were only 7 to 9 mph in the area.
"We don't have models that can make predictions anymore," McBratney said. "Our old rules don't work anymore. We need more research and still need the media and the Pat McKelveys of the world (who helps homeowners create defensible spaces) to make sure the public is informed and makes good choices on the landscape."
Greg Archie with the state Department of Natural Resources ticked off a list of 13 fires fought during the past three years in Lewis and Clark, Jefferson and Broadwater counties, during a time he said most people considered "slow" fire seasons.
His biggest fear with the changing fire activity involves firefighter safety. Archie said they're experiencing ponderosa pine trees 16 inches in diameter snapping in half 20 feet above the ground, surprising those on the ground. He noted that firefighters have to be even more vigilant in watching their escape routes, in case falling trees cut those off, and have to realize that the potential for fires to grow large, quickly, seems to be greater.
"We are scratching our heads trying to figure out how to tame this beast," Archie said. "We need to build these science-based hypothetical pictures until we get enough experience to get that slide show (of how a fire will behave) established in our minds."
Reader Comments
If my home were on fire and you showed up, I fear I might have to shoot myself. How can you be so 'Earth-Centric' and closed minded . Or are you so quasi-esoteric to still believe that the Universe revolves around this one tiny planet. That anything that exists outside of the big blue marble must in some way be 'esoteric'. Maybe you are just trolling, in which case it seems that you don't take much pride in your craft.
Thanks Appollynon for pointing out that "For 'Two Centuries', scientists have known that electric fields can interact with flames, but the effect from a continuous DC electric field was too small to have practical applications. "By applying oscillating fields, the effect was much, much larger," Cademartiri said...... etc."
I must have missed that article. That bit of knowledge is allowing me to open my mind and start to better grasp what is meant by "Our old rules don't work anymore."
Are You a firefighter?-)
So it's years long occurrence, that pine beetles kill trees. But only during last year's controlled burn firefighters were able to observe that something has changed.
This is a direct result of chemtrail geo engineering, as they shove more and more aliminium particles in the air to reflect back the suns rays it then falls back to earth and makes fires burn even more furiously, this is happening all over.
Okay, maybe electromagnetism could be a factor in increasing flammability, but that was never stated in the article about the effects on fire, it only said how fires could be extinguished with oscillating electromagnetic fields. If there's something out there that shows how fires can be amplified by the same process, I'm all ears.
I'm just saying that "In Montana, the 980,000-acre Helena National Forest has been particularly hard hit by the beetles, with dead or dying trees on 550,000 acres." That's over 50% of a forest with dead, dry trees. Dead dry wood burns much faster and hotter than green wood, that's why we put it in our fireplaces, and maybe, just maybe, the simple explanation is what's true, with a brief nod to Occam's Razor.
specifically "Cademartiri also reported how he and his colleagues found that electrical waves can control the heat and distribution of flames", it is just a matter of connecting the dots from there. And using Occam's Razor without enough accurate information & experimentation and you end up with things like the earth is flat because to our everyday experience of it, it is, just variable in terrain.
"If there's something out there that shows how fires can be amplified by the same process, I'm all ears."
I have not yet found any information that shows how "fires" can be amplified by the application of weak magnetic fields, however I'm doing some researching and searching at the moment and have found a handy experiment - that should be easily repeatable - that shows as part of it's results, the application of weak magnetic fields not only increasing the efficiency of a combustion reaction, but also lowering the emissions from the reaction due to the increased efficiency of combustion.
The pdf file of the experiment can be found here
[Link]The conclusion of the experimenter is as follows:
"This present work has shown that complete combustion of fuel may be obtained using a magnetic field around the fuel line of an internal combustion engine. It is scientific way of reducing fuel intake in an engine design project, making it fuel economy and reducing the rate of gas emission to the environment from engine combustion. The result from the
experiment described in this paper, shows that the fuel consumption of the engine used for the same period are not the same. At the end of the three hours that this experiment lasted, the amount of fuel remaining in the tank were not the same though they were at the beginning. This paper concludes by suggesting that both the inlet manifold and the top
cylinder be made of magnetic material in future engine design projects."
This is only a small scale experiment, and has been conducted with the idea in mind to simply use magnetic fields to reduce emissions, however the results also showed an increase in efficiency in standard automobile combustion engines. I'm thinking "So as above, so below". If this application of weak magnetic fields in the localised area of the combustion chamber or fuel lines works on smaller scale, it may also be applicable on a larger global scale. So while we have information relating to the effects of strong magnetic fields suppressing combustion reactions/fire, we now also have "some", experimental data showing that weak magnetic fields may actually increase the efficiency of combustion reactions.
The question is, how could this apply to those unusually ferocious fires in Montanna? Well as we now know, the Earth's geomagnetic field has been very strong and more or less stable for many hundreds, if not thousands of years, and in this way, it acts as a suppressor-field influence on any natural combustion reactions taking place on Earth surface. However, we also know that the Earths magnetic field has, and is, currently weakening, and hence it is theoretically possible, that the inhibiting effect of the geomagnetic field on combustion reactions may be reducing in ratio to the weakening. From what we can also see form the aforementioned experiment, is that if the Earth magnetic field were to reduce it's strength to a significant level, this may in fact act as a catalyst to improve the efficiency of any surface based natural combustion reactions.
This may also also go some ways to explaining another anomaly I came across whilst reading the following article carried on site, which states:
[Link]"Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
If there was a weakening of the Earth Geomagnetic field in our past at the time of many of the Earth's more pronounced warming events, then such warming could still be understood without the "expected" rise in standard emissions form combustion reactions that may have helped ot cause the warming periods. So we could have a warmer planet due to increasing combustion, and less by-products/pollution from those increased combustions due to the increased efficiency of reactions, caused by a weakened geomagnetic field. Now I'm not saying that this definitely is what is going on or what we are witnessing, but as a theoretical concept, it is worth looking into and certainly "could", connect a few more dots.
While I think this concept is worth investigation, I also think it's possible that there may be another good potential reason.
It's possible and probable that extremely hot ground temperatures being recorded last year in light of all the magmatic plumes that have been rising to discharge many more volcano's these past 18 months could link to fires coming from within the Earth. What with all the cases of outgassing of flammable gases from the interior, this makes a lot of sense. I would also think that if we are experiencing increasing outgassing globally, this may also be increasing the availability of flammable gases in the atmosphere’s gas ratio's to feed wildfires and combustion.
Thanks for challenging me to think more deeply about this and any possible causes and connections. The trouble I have with your theory, that this is not outside of the norm for dry wood, is simply that the firefighters quoted in the article state that they are used to burning dry wood, and the fire behaviour they are witnessing is extreme behaviour they have never seen before. So for me, I tend to think..."what can explain this sudden change in the combustion reactions and properties of such, in such a dramatic way that they are forced to throw out the old rules of what they thought they knew". I just don't think that the dry trees becoming drier, can adequately explain this, but I could be wrong.
Also, as I mentioned in the previous comment, please pay attention that it says that dying of trees is going on for years and only last year's controlled burn went out of control and thus considered to be out of ordinary.
Keit, I was unable to find a readily-available reference as to how many acres of forestry are in the Rocky Mountains, between Colorado and Wyoming, but I did add up all the national forest acreage as listed in the US Forestry registry, and they came up to about 52 million acres....that's just National Forest area. [Link] Colorado's total acreage is listed at about 20-30% national forest land, Wyoming and Montana are both at 10-20%. I think it's fair to say that extrapolating those figures, there's at least 100 million acres of trees between all three states, and 9 million is just short of 10% dead trees due to beetle infestation...nowhere near the over 50% in Helena National Forest, where this abnormal burn is being seen.
The 80-20-20 figure used by the firefighters is a "rule of thumb", that is, all things being "normal", it's an easy-to-remember figure for risk assessment. A similar rule of thumb is used, when assessing a burn victim...called the Rule of Nines [Link] If, however, your burn victim does not have arms or legs, that rule of thumb needs to be set aside to determine burn percentage, but that's rare. What the firefighters are saying, I believe, is that because of the beetle infestation, their rule-of-thumb, which works fine in "normal" circumstances, is proving to be ineffective. The equivalent of having a large number of amputees in a fire...something else has to be used as a new rule-of-thumb.
[Link]It says the following:
"One such study by U.S. Forest Service ecologist Matt Jolly shows for the first time that the needles of beetle-killed trees contain 10 times less moisture and a different chemical makeup than healthy trees. That means the red needles of beetle-killed trees can ignite three times faster and burn more intensely than healthy trees, Jolly found.
Jolly called his findings a "duh" moment that should seem obvious, but this is the first such study conducted. It's necessary to answer these base questions to dispel theories that there is no significant difference in fire threat between a healthy pine tree and one killed by mountain pine beetles."
So it does appear that they didn't see the obvious. :D
the trees damaged by pine beetle are much more dry, and the whole damaged forest is much more crowded with trees.




This got me to thinking of the recent article carried on site regarding the effect of magnetic fields on fire where the article states:
For two centuries, scientists have known that electric fields can interact with flames, but the effect from a continuous DC electric field was too small to have practical applications. "By applying oscillating fields, the effect was much, much larger," Cademartiri said.
"The electric field interacts with the charged particles in the flame — the electrons, ions and soot particles — and this collective motion of the charges in the electric field can lead to movement of the gas within the flame," Cademartiri explained. "The mechanics of suppression is that the flame gets detached from the fuel source, so it gets pushed away. This is somewhat different from blowing on the flame."
Bishop said that the flame-taming effect isn't all that noticeable at low voltages. "The one thing that is new is the ability to use large, time-varying electric fields. ... It's only been recently that the high-voltage power supplies that make this kind of perturbation possible have become commercially available," he told me.
It got me to thinking that whilst increasing voltages in the higher end of the EM frequency field, may act to suppress fires, maybe all the ELF and ULF EM waves the planet is being bombarded with - both from Haarp and from cosmic sources, such as the comets, distant supernova’s the wave etc – would have the opposite effect and actually help intensify and propagate the fires. Knowing that we have had some uncontrollable heathland wildfires spreading around the UK and in particularly unusual areas such as Scotland this week, I wonder if there’s a connection to the fires and increasing low frequency EM waves the planet is bathing in.