4 ms·

Researchers can't anticipate everything. Each time a big wildfire happens by arson, the breaking point is rescheduled months, maybe years closer. So the yester

Researchers can't anticipate everything. Each time a big wildfire happens by arson, the breaking point is rescheduled months, maybe years closer. So the yesterday models could develop into a situation like: we have 100 years to fix it -> we have 20 years -> we have 5 years. The models would be still true. Researchers can make models but can't anticipate that. nobody could. I suspect (This is just my own opinion) that the current repeated heat waves are, in part at least, an effect of the Ukraine war releasing lots of heat with all those bombs exploding each day for 2 years. If I'm right we will see the climate chilling a little in the year after the war (as long as the point of no return is not achieved). We will not know it until either the war is ended; or we end the job to break the climate beyond repair. Whatever happens first.

whaleofatw2022 3y ago
Let's also remember the increased frequency of wildfires in general; Air quality in NE USA was pretty bad for a while and it was an abnormally hot period without lulls.
- lstodd 3y ago
  When Siberia burned last year on the scale of multiplies of multiplies of whatever slivers of forest you have left in US no one gave a fcuk. This all handwringing about forest fires in US is just so meh. Get a grip, look at the big picture. Stuff burns every year in such quantities, what that does burn in US can be ignored, it's just a rounding error.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > When Siberia burned last year on the scale of multiplies of multiplies of whatever slivers of forest you have left in US no one gave a fcuk. 1) That's a comforting but very improbable claim. I bet that all climate researchers in US noticed that and cared about it. Whataboutism will not help here. 2) This is not how nature works. It will not care about how much people will wave banners in the streets. Much less if the Monalisa is marinated in tomato sauce or not. Nature is not a democracy, is a machine. As footnote, sometimes I can't fall to ask myself if Russia (that just this week was talking about starting nuclear probes in Siberia and last week was talking about retaking Alaska), really wants to stop climate change or, having a lot of land covered by ice, would secretly expect to benefit of the warming. Is a mystery what they were thinking, but logic or reason quit the room some time ago.
    - lstodd 3y ago
      Russia as in its government could not give a lesser fuck about climate change if it wanted, which it can't. So no, no luck here. Forests burn, peat burns in such quantities you wouldn't believe and all those "climate researchers" care for are citation numbers of their papers and how to not get deplatformed. This is the sad state of reality.
ang_cire 3y ago
All the bombs being used in Ukraine combined, pale in total heat generated and total carbon emissions from even one medium-sized forest fire. Note: I wanted to make sure I was not talking out my bum, so I did some quick research to make sure I was not going crazy, and luckily (for me), I was correct. Fires are classed A-L based on number of acres[1], so taking the bottom of G as the middle, that's 5000 acres. The Intertribal Timber Council compiled data from the US Forest Service to estimate the BTU-equivalent output of forest fires back in 2002, estimating BTUs as around 794.6 Million BTUs per-acre[2]. That would put a 5000 acres fire at 794,600,000 * 5,000 = 3,973,000,000,000 BTUs. That's 3.9 Trillion. The energy release of the atomic bomb used at Hiroshima is a commonly-used unit for estimating earthquake and asteroid impact events (HBE = Hiroshima Bomb Explosion). According to justintools[3], it is equivalent to 56,869,019,274 BTUs (56 Billion*). Comparing the 2, it would require ~70 "HBEs" to equal one 5k acre forest fire in total heat generated. If I had to guess, I'd postulate the difference is down to time, since a bomb exploding peaks in heat very quickly and then immediately begins to drop off, whereas a forest fire is burning for hours and hours. [1]: https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/data-standards/pdf/values.pdf https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/data-standards/pdf/... [2]: https://www.itcnet.org/file_download/a909947a-b11b-4799-9652-f1dbeeda0d16 https://www.itcnet.org/file_download/a909947a-b11b-4799-9652... [3]: https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=hiroshima-bomb-explosion https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=hi...
- superb_dev 3y ago
  Wildfires don't increase global heat by being hot, they release tons of carbon dioxide[1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/global-wildfire-carbon-dioxide-emissions-at-record-high-data-shows https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/global-wildfir...
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    Did you mean to respond to the guy above? I didn't say they increased global heat, I pointed out that they produce much more heat than bombs, so bombs are most certainly not the reason for the extreme heat this year.

whaleofatw2022 3y ago

Let's also remember the increased frequency of wildfires in general; Air quality in NE USA was pretty bad for a while and it was an abnormally hot period without lulls.

lstodd 3y ago
When Siberia burned last year on the scale of multiplies of multiplies of whatever slivers of forest you have left in US no one gave a fcuk. This all handwringing about forest fires in US is just so meh. Get a grip, look at the big picture. Stuff burns every year in such quantities, what that does burn in US can be ignored, it's just a rounding error.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > When Siberia burned last year on the scale of multiplies of multiplies of whatever slivers of forest you have left in US no one gave a fcuk. 1) That's a comforting but very improbable claim. I bet that all climate researchers in US noticed that and cared about it. Whataboutism will not help here. 2) This is not how nature works. It will not care about how much people will wave banners in the streets. Much less if the Monalisa is marinated in tomato sauce or not. Nature is not a democracy, is a machine. As footnote, sometimes I can't fall to ask myself if Russia (that just this week was talking about starting nuclear probes in Siberia and last week was talking about retaking Alaska), really wants to stop climate change or, having a lot of land covered by ice, would secretly expect to benefit of the warming. Is a mystery what they were thinking, but logic or reason quit the room some time ago.
  - lstodd 3y ago
    Russia as in its government could not give a lesser fuck about climate change if it wanted, which it can't. So no, no luck here. Forests burn, peat burns in such quantities you wouldn't believe and all those "climate researchers" care for are citation numbers of their papers and how to not get deplatformed. This is the sad state of reality.

ang_cire 3y ago

All the bombs being used in Ukraine combined, pale in total heat generated and total carbon emissions from even one medium-sized forest fire. Note: I wanted to make sure I was not talking out my bum, so I did some quick research to make sure I was not going crazy, and luckily (for me), I was correct. Fires are classed A-L based on number of acres[1], so taking the bottom of G as the middle, that's 5000 acres. The Intertribal Timber Council compiled data from the US Forest Service to estimate the BTU-equivalent output of forest fires back in 2002, estimating BTUs as around 794.6 Million BTUs per-acre[2]. That would put a 5000 acres fire at 794,600,000 * 5,000 = 3,973,000,000,000 BTUs. That's 3.9 Trillion. The energy release of the atomic bomb used at Hiroshima is a commonly-used unit for estimating earthquake and asteroid impact events (HBE = Hiroshima Bomb Explosion). According to justintools[3], it is equivalent to 56,869,019,274 BTUs (56 Billion*). Comparing the 2, it would require ~70 "HBEs" to equal one 5k acre forest fire in total heat generated. If I had to guess, I'd postulate the difference is down to time, since a bomb exploding peaks in heat very quickly and then immediately begins to drop off, whereas a forest fire is burning for hours and hours. [1]: https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/data-standards/pdf/values.pdf https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/data-standards/pdf/... [2]: https://www.itcnet.org/file_download/a909947a-b11b-4799-9652-f1dbeeda0d16 https://www.itcnet.org/file_download/a909947a-b11b-4799-9652... [3]: https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=hiroshima-bomb-explosion https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=hi...

superb_dev 3y ago
Wildfires don't increase global heat by being hot, they release tons of carbon dioxide[1]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/global-wildfire-carbon-dioxide-emissions-at-record-high-data-shows https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/21/global-wildfir...
- ang_cire 3y ago
  Did you mean to respond to the guy above? I didn't say they increased global heat, I pointed out that they produce much more heat than bombs, so bombs are most certainly not the reason for the extreme heat this year.