5 ms·

is there a proof somewhere that these wild fires are linked to climate change? For example the really bad one in Greece happened because someone decided to bur

is there a proof somewhere that these wild fires are linked to climate change? For example the really bad one in Greece happened because someone decided to burn some wood. (I'm convinced that climate change is real and we're responsible)

artimaeis 8y ago
I'll see if I can get some citations later -- but the general idea of wildfires and climate change is that climate change has caused more intense periods of drought in ares that haven't experienced those sorts of conditions before. As such - when wildfires start (regardless of origin of the fire), they tend to spread more rapidly and more intensely.
btrettel 8y ago
There is no conclusive proof. Likely climate change is a factor, but forest management practices are as well. I can recall reading that not allowing forest fires to occur in the past can lead to an increase in dead plant matter on the ground, which makes future forest fires worse.
Arcten 8y ago
I haven't found an academic source for this, but the suggestion is that even though triggers for fires may be unrelated, the scope and intensity of the fires are intensified due to the effects of climate change. This article discusses some of this background https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/science/climate-change-forest-fires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/science/climate-change-fo...
fabricexpert 8y ago
Trying to link individual, recent news events to climate change is generally a bad idea. You're taking a long term term trend (climate change) and comparing it with short term extreme events - there may or may not be a direct link, it's hard to say. This makes it easy for climate change deniers to give cherrypicked examples of outliers that tune to emotional responses, rather than factual evidence. It's better to look at overall trends over time to see the impact of climate change, e.g. are we getting more of the extreme weather scenarios? Yes. Are temperatures globally going up? Yes. Are sea levels rising? Yes. Are the polar ice caps melting? Yes. etc.
rc_bhg 8y ago
It will be 20 years before we have hard scientific proof. You know full well that this kind of data is slow to gather and study and draw conclusions from it.
mattygh 8y ago
Good analogy - which one of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs in 2001 were because he was on steroids? Hard to pinpoint any single one, but he wouldn't have hit 73 if not for being steroid-enhanced.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
I think we're past focusing on proof. We need to focus on probabilities and insuring ourselves against possible or likely outcomes. Reality check, we have a sample size of 1. So, if we get it wrong, it's game over and we mess up our planet for centuries or millennia. The question is how comfortable we are with being utterly wrong on that gamble. For me the answer is, pretty damn uncomfortable. Even a 1 % gamble on getting this stuff wrong has a pretty significant chance of backfiring on us. Russian roulette has only a slightly worse probability. And to be fair, our odds might actually be considerably better putting the proverbial gun to your head considering what some scientists are saying. Are they 20% right 50% right or 80% right? I don't know. Is the water going to rise 1 m by 2060, by 2100, or later? I don't know. I do know that would be highly annoying for a lot of people and it would be awfully nice to live in a place that has dikes or is well above sea level by then. I happen to believe it is probably ballpark closer to 95-99% but I'd argue even a 1% chance that they are not completely wrong about this should be more than enough motivation to do something about it on the off chance it is needed. The number doesn't actually matter that much. What matters is acknowledging it is not 0%. We have a non zero, potentially very large chance that we are actively killing this planet and everything on it in either the next decades or centuries. That's too big of chance to just go "Meh, lets wait and see". As soon as you acknowledge that, opposing any action that mitigates that risk becomes madness.

artimaeis 8y ago

I'll see if I can get some citations later -- but the general idea of wildfires and climate change is that climate change has caused more intense periods of drought in ares that haven't experienced those sorts of conditions before. As such - when wildfires start (regardless of origin of the fire), they tend to spread more rapidly and more intensely.

btrettel 8y ago

There is no conclusive proof. Likely climate change is a factor, but forest management practices are as well. I can recall reading that not allowing forest fires to occur in the past can lead to an increase in dead plant matter on the ground, which makes future forest fires worse.

Arcten 8y ago

I haven't found an academic source for this, but the suggestion is that even though triggers for fires may be unrelated, the scope and intensity of the fires are intensified due to the effects of climate change. This article discusses some of this background https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/science/climate-change-forest-fires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/science/climate-change-fo...

fabricexpert 8y ago

Trying to link individual, recent news events to climate change is generally a bad idea. You're taking a long term term trend (climate change) and comparing it with short term extreme events - there may or may not be a direct link, it's hard to say. This makes it easy for climate change deniers to give cherrypicked examples of outliers that tune to emotional responses, rather than factual evidence. It's better to look at overall trends over time to see the impact of climate change, e.g. are we getting more of the extreme weather scenarios? Yes. Are temperatures globally going up? Yes. Are sea levels rising? Yes. Are the polar ice caps melting? Yes. etc.

rc_bhg 8y ago

It will be 20 years before we have hard scientific proof. You know full well that this kind of data is slow to gather and study and draw conclusions from it.

mattygh 8y ago

Good analogy - which one of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs in 2001 were because he was on steroids? Hard to pinpoint any single one, but he wouldn't have hit 73 if not for being steroid-enhanced.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

I think we're past focusing on proof. We need to focus on probabilities and insuring ourselves against possible or likely outcomes. Reality check, we have a sample size of 1. So, if we get it wrong, it's game over and we mess up our planet for centuries or millennia. The question is how comfortable we are with being utterly wrong on that gamble. For me the answer is, pretty damn uncomfortable. Even a 1 % gamble on getting this stuff wrong has a pretty significant chance of backfiring on us. Russian roulette has only a slightly worse probability. And to be fair, our odds might actually be considerably better putting the proverbial gun to your head considering what some scientists are saying. Are they 20% right 50% right or 80% right? I don't know. Is the water going to rise 1 m by 2060, by 2100, or later? I don't know. I do know that would be highly annoying for a lot of people and it would be awfully nice to live in a place that has dikes or is well above sea level by then. I happen to believe it is probably ballpark closer to 95-99% but I'd argue even a 1% chance that they are not completely wrong about this should be more than enough motivation to do something about it on the off chance it is needed. The number doesn't actually matter that much. What matters is acknowledging it is not 0%. We have a non zero, potentially very large chance that we are actively killing this planet and everything on it in either the next decades or centuries. That's too big of chance to just go "Meh, lets wait and see". As soon as you acknowledge that, opposing any action that mitigates that risk becomes madness.