3 ms·

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

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.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > 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. But the effect is still accumulative, hence the "in part at least" in my previous post. Nature behavior is rarely lineal. Events follow often complex curves with two sudden changes of "velocity". In Ecology is relatively common observing small increases in a variable to trigger huge effects if a threshold is crossed. We are talking about two different things here. Climate chaos is one; heat waves is another. Anomalous heat this year can be part of a temporal or permanent effect. We can be at a peak in the curve or at a step increasing. What we observed is that something happening in Ukraine needs just a few days to travel to most Europe by air. This is how they discovered Chernobyl in Sweden. We know also that 2023 was heat wave, after heat wave, non stop (wildfires all around the Mediterranean also) and this is unusual behavior. If the war is feeding this, directly or indirectly (who burned Greece or Canada, and why?), we could return to a "more normal+1" situation, with still a climate chaos problem at the background causing the +1. This does not mean that the antiscience crew was right, but they will try to score the point anyways. If is the second and each year will we hotter than the previous for the next years, or decades; then we have a big problem at our gates and is not called climate change, is global war Wars will start in Africa or Asia as long as the areas more punished by climate became insufferable to live, and if the wars are helping the climate change (and Putin's Ukrainian genocide is obviously feeding it at some extent) we could pass the non return point much faster that we expect. This does not mean that the research models were wrong and the scientists were "puzzled", as every journal parrots constantly. It means that new events happened later.
    - ang_cire 3y ago
      > in part at least By that logic, so is human body heat. The amount of heat from bombs is such a miniscule part of global heat generated, it's meaningless to cite other than as a political claim. I'm anti-war, and you don't need to link war to every bad thing out there (like climate change) just to justify that position.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      > Ukrainian its not spelled like that in English, genocide has a different meaning.. basically you sounded reasonable until that gibberish part signed- also concerned but anti-gibberish
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Which was all captured from the atmosphere. This is why biomass is a carbon neutral energy source. What matters is net deforestation. The sum total of carbon contained in biomass going up or down. Which is going down, but primarily due to agriculture and other development.
willcipriano 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. The Nordstream pipeline attack was the largest release of methane in human history. Sometimes bombs blow up things that cause global warming.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  and a lot of oil deposits burnt recently also
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > The Nordstream pipeline attack was the largest release of methane in human history. this is startling - any further info on that? edit I see this one https://www.unep.org/technical-highlight/unep-finds-nord-stream-gas-leak-may-be-highest-methane-emission-event-still https://www.unep.org/technical-highlight/unep-finds-nord-str...

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.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > 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. But the effect is still accumulative, hence the "in part at least" in my previous post. Nature behavior is rarely lineal. Events follow often complex curves with two sudden changes of "velocity". In Ecology is relatively common observing small increases in a variable to trigger huge effects if a threshold is crossed. We are talking about two different things here. Climate chaos is one; heat waves is another. Anomalous heat this year can be part of a temporal or permanent effect. We can be at a peak in the curve or at a step increasing. What we observed is that something happening in Ukraine needs just a few days to travel to most Europe by air. This is how they discovered Chernobyl in Sweden. We know also that 2023 was heat wave, after heat wave, non stop (wildfires all around the Mediterranean also) and this is unusual behavior. If the war is feeding this, directly or indirectly (who burned Greece or Canada, and why?), we could return to a "more normal+1" situation, with still a climate chaos problem at the background causing the +1. This does not mean that the antiscience crew was right, but they will try to score the point anyways. If is the second and each year will we hotter than the previous for the next years, or decades; then we have a big problem at our gates and is not called climate change, is global war Wars will start in Africa or Asia as long as the areas more punished by climate became insufferable to live, and if the wars are helping the climate change (and Putin's Ukrainian genocide is obviously feeding it at some extent) we could pass the non return point much faster that we expect. This does not mean that the research models were wrong and the scientists were "puzzled", as every journal parrots constantly. It means that new events happened later.
  - ang_cire 3y ago
    > in part at least By that logic, so is human body heat. The amount of heat from bombs is such a miniscule part of global heat generated, it's meaningless to cite other than as a political claim. I'm anti-war, and you don't need to link war to every bad thing out there (like climate change) just to justify that position.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    > Ukrainian its not spelled like that in English, genocide has a different meaning.. basically you sounded reasonable until that gibberish part signed- also concerned but anti-gibberish
Manuel_D 3y ago
Which was all captured from the atmosphere. This is why biomass is a carbon neutral energy source. What matters is net deforestation. The sum total of carbon contained in biomass going up or down. Which is going down, but primarily due to agriculture and other development.

willcipriano 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. The Nordstream pipeline attack was the largest release of methane in human history. Sometimes bombs blow up things that cause global warming.

pvaldes 3y ago
and a lot of oil deposits burnt recently also
mistrial9 3y ago
> The Nordstream pipeline attack was the largest release of methane in human history. this is startling - any further info on that? edit I see this one https://www.unep.org/technical-highlight/unep-finds-nord-stream-gas-leak-may-be-highest-methane-emission-event-still https://www.unep.org/technical-highlight/unep-finds-nord-str...