This summer, I and many others around the world watched in horror as wildfires reduced nearly a third of the town of Jasper, Alberta to ashes and destroyed nearly 150 square miles of surrounding Jasper National Park. I watched. I now live and work in Tucson, Arizona, but the devastation still felt personal. Jasper is part of the dark sky preserve I helped create in the Canadian Rockies, where my wife and I spent nine years building a stargazing tour company and planetarium. .
The tragic convergence of two separate forest fires in Jasper in late July saw 300-foot-tall flames kicking up charred pine cones and embers ahead of the fire, and parts of the fire being struck by lightning and downdrafts as it moved. , and everything sped up even more. A hellish hell.
Approximately 25,000 people were evacuated from the area before the fire broke out, and one firefighter died while fighting the fire. Unlike some companies, our business endured, but not unscathed. Smoke damaged telescopes and other equipment. Estimates of insurance claims for wildfire-related losses within the park could ultimately exceed C$1 billion.
About supporting science journalism
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.
But while this event has taken its toll, it foreshadows the potential for even greater damage and disruption. In recent years, as the number and intensity of wildfires has increased, our ability to observe and study celestial bodies has become increasingly threatened. Unless a solution is found soon, these fires could replace light pollution as the most widespread threat to stargazing. Many of the most cherished vistas of the universe could figuratively go up in flames.
On a mountaintop in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert, a dead oak tree blackened by fire stands about three feet from the dormitory at Kitt Peak National Observatory, where I currently work as visitor center operations manager. are. Charred trees are a reminder of how close previous disasters were. A lightning strike in June 2022 started a wildfire that spread across the area, destroyed four non-scientific buildings, and came within tens of feet of some of the mountain’s 22 major research telescopes. .
A few days after this summer’s Jasper tragedy, wildfires broke out again, forcing Kitt Peak to prepare for evacuations and cover the telescope with tarpaulins to protect its equipment.
The problem is only getting worse and is by no means unique to these sites. Bushfires have already destroyed several major telescopes at Australia’s Mount Stromlo Observatory. And in 2020, California’s Sierra Remote Observatory was nearly destroyed by wildfires that covered the telescope’s optics in ash and debris.
Observatories, whether remote research hubs or wilderness tourism destinations, sit at the intersection of natural isolation and wildfire risk. Sadly, the places that currently offer the clearest and most accessible views of space are now more vulnerable than ever to the effects of climate change.
Even if wildfires do not directly threaten observatories, they do threaten astronomical research and social activities.
Two years ago, during the 2022 wildfire season, my staff and I stood at a stargazing event atop the Jasper Skytram, looking down into the valley where fire snakes along the shores of Lake Jasper, 24 miles away. Although it never reached the town of Jasper, smoke from that fire sporadically blocked sky views at the Jasper Planetarium for several weeks. Occurring in areas such as Alberta, British Columbia, and California, smoke from such fires can travel far and wipe out stars thousands of miles away.
Meteorologist Alan Lahill, whose clear-sky maps have become a reliable planning tool for stargazers, recently lamented to me the bleak weather forecast. Clear nights will be quite rare. ”
Still, there is hope for those willing to adapt. Both professional and amateur astronomy organizations are looking for ways to protect themselves from wildfires and their causes and effects.
Kitt Peak has installed specialized detectors to provide early warning of lightning strikes on the mountain, and is partnering with a local alliance of firefighters, naturalists, ranchers and others to improve future emergency response efforts. We are formulating a basic plan.
Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff is working with local officials on prescribed burns and strategic firebreaks to protect its grounds, and Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles has upgraded its fire suppression system and construction materials.
Jasper Planetarium (reopened since this summer’s wildfires) has added a radio telescope that allows you to peer into the darkness and provides live radio maps of distant galaxies.
But solving the fundamental problems will require an order of magnitude more effort than simply adapting to a “new normal” of stronger and more intense wildfires.
Bob McDonald, a science popularizer, fellow astronomy enthusiast, and recipient of the Order of Canada, points out to me: It’s happening right here before our eyes. ”
in his recent book The future is now MacDonald said industrial cuts during COVID-19 are helping many realize that there are tools to turn around the effects of anthropogenic climate change, using a combination of alternative energy, carbon capture and energy storage. He claims that it was the trigger. “This smoke is a clear signal that it’s time to tackle this and clean up our skies, not just for astronomy but for human health,” MacDonald told me.
Will many people take action if another observatory is destroyed by a wildfire? i hope so. Would more people notice if the sky above some telescopes became so clogged with smoke that astronomical research became impossible? Maybe. But the wake-up call may not arrive too late, as nature lovers look up at a summer sky filled with ash instead of stars and anxiously ask, “What happened?” That’s what I’m worried about.
This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.
