4 ms·

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-c

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
    - pvaldes 3y ago
      You can call it Ucrania if you prefer Genocide definition: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group So, exactly what is happening here for the last two years. Destroying systematically relevant art, cultural symbols, valuable historical buildings all around the country. Bombing civilians systematically. Bombing hospitals, schools, nurseries with babies inside. Destroying churches, and commiting every single hideous war crime in the list except nuke, while barking about the need to denazify and "clean" a population, attempt to kill the president... We could tick practically every checkbox in the list I'm glad to inform you that this is uppercase flashing neon letters saying Genocide.
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.

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
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    You can call it Ucrania if you prefer Genocide definition: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group So, exactly what is happening here for the last two years. Destroying systematically relevant art, cultural symbols, valuable historical buildings all around the country. Bombing civilians systematically. Bombing hospitals, schools, nurseries with babies inside. Destroying churches, and commiting every single hideous war crime in the list except nuke, while barking about the need to denazify and "clean" a population, attempt to kill the president... We could tick practically every checkbox in the list I'm glad to inform you that this is uppercase flashing neon letters saying Genocide.

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.