5 ms·

Fires are actually decreasing. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6 https://www.

by tomp 3y ago

Fires are actually decreasing. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-th... https://archive.li/WfDJh https://archive.li/WfDJh

flangola7 3y ago
>WSJ Really? Of course they would say that.
defrost 3y ago
It's technically true that total area burned globally has been on a downward trend. That's a real piece of misdirect by Murdoch press though and typical of their editorial stance. To quote Multi-decadal trends and variability in burned area from the 5th version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED5) [1] (one of many similar studies) * Burned area declined by 1.21±0.66% yr-1 20 , a cumulative decrease of 24.2±13.2% over 20 years. * The global reduction is primarily driven by decreases in fire within savannas, grasslands, and croplands. * Forest, peat, and deforestation fires did not exhibit long-term trends. So, managed areas are increasingly having fewer fires for a variety of reasons and they're a big part of the non ice areas across the globe. Forest fires aren't decreasing, more worrying areas that typically don't see frequent fires are now seeing fires more often. The Fox message is that beacuse total global fire area is reducing there's no need to worry about massive forest fires in places that typically don't see such things. If ten thousand acres of seasonal grass fires doesn't happen does that really offset a thousand acres of old growth forest being torched to the ground? [1] https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-182/essd-2023-182.pdf https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-182/essd-202...
- tekknik 3y ago
  So the article is true, but you don’t like it because it’s from WSJ? Let me guess, I should be reading CNN, TheHill or WaPo? If people keep demanding sensationalist news that drives people to action then you’ll end up with people that mistrust the media.
  - defrost 3y ago
    If you're seriously asking for my recommendation, as if that wasn't already apparent to the meanest intellect, then I would strongly suggest you look to the raw data and read informed papers on the aquisition and interpretation. All 'news' papers, especially those that are heavily political and editorially biased (Murdoch's media empire, for example), will shape for eyeballs and reduce to the lowest common denominator. You can see that I chose to go directly to an overview on the Global Fire Emissions Database and chose to quote directly from there. The trite bite "Fires are actually decreasing." is meaningless sans context.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Many people do not have the time to read papers, jobs and life get in the way, which is why we use newspapers. WSJ happens to be one of the least biased papers, with a slight right lean. Fires decreasing globally is not out of context here. I find that information interesting. Sure fires are increasing in other places but it seems to me your main concern is around people hearing that fires globally are decreasing.
  - Turskarama 3y ago
    Maybe you've heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Well, this is the statistics. There's nothing more misleading than the truth taken out of context.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      The assumption it’s being taken out of context infers the readers of WSJ are incapable of understanding what it means. It’s yet again an insult.
johnnyworker 3y ago
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-boreal-wildfire-season https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-boreal-wild... > From 1 January to 31 July, accumulated carbon emissions from wildfires across Canada total 290 megatonnes. This is already more than double the previous record for the year as a whole and represents over 25% of the global total for 2023 to date.

by tomp 3y ago

flangola7 3y ago

>WSJ Really? Of course they would say that.

defrost 3y ago

It's technically true that total area burned globally has been on a downward trend. That's a real piece of misdirect by Murdoch press though and typical of their editorial stance. To quote Multi-decadal trends and variability in burned area from the 5th version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED5) [1] (one of many similar studies) * Burned area declined by 1.21±0.66% yr-1 20 , a cumulative decrease of 24.2±13.2% over 20 years. * The global reduction is primarily driven by decreases in fire within savannas, grasslands, and croplands. * Forest, peat, and deforestation fires did not exhibit long-term trends. So, managed areas are increasingly having fewer fires for a variety of reasons and they're a big part of the non ice areas across the globe. Forest fires aren't decreasing, more worrying areas that typically don't see frequent fires are now seeing fires more often. The Fox message is that beacuse total global fire area is reducing there's no need to worry about massive forest fires in places that typically don't see such things. If ten thousand acres of seasonal grass fires doesn't happen does that really offset a thousand acres of old growth forest being torched to the ground? [1] https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-182/essd-2023-182.pdf https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2023-182/essd-202...

tekknik 3y ago
So the article is true, but you don’t like it because it’s from WSJ? Let me guess, I should be reading CNN, TheHill or WaPo? If people keep demanding sensationalist news that drives people to action then you’ll end up with people that mistrust the media.
- defrost 3y ago
  If you're seriously asking for my recommendation, as if that wasn't already apparent to the meanest intellect, then I would strongly suggest you look to the raw data and read informed papers on the aquisition and interpretation. All 'news' papers, especially those that are heavily political and editorially biased (Murdoch's media empire, for example), will shape for eyeballs and reduce to the lowest common denominator. You can see that I chose to go directly to an overview on the Global Fire Emissions Database and chose to quote directly from there. The trite bite "Fires are actually decreasing." is meaningless sans context.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    Many people do not have the time to read papers, jobs and life get in the way, which is why we use newspapers. WSJ happens to be one of the least biased papers, with a slight right lean. Fires decreasing globally is not out of context here. I find that information interesting. Sure fires are increasing in other places but it seems to me your main concern is around people hearing that fires globally are decreasing.
- Turskarama 3y ago
  Maybe you've heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Well, this is the statistics. There's nothing more misleading than the truth taken out of context.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    The assumption it’s being taken out of context infers the readers of WSJ are incapable of understanding what it means. It’s yet again an insult.

johnnyworker 3y ago

https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-boreal-wildfire-season https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-boreal-wild... > From 1 January to 31 July, accumulated carbon emissions from wildfires across Canada total 290 megatonnes. This is already more than double the previous record for the year as a whole and represents over 25% of the global total for 2023 to date.