371–380 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are firebreaks everywhere in this forest, you can see them from satellite images, but the fire can jump, and it's mainly used as a defense line by firefighters. I was in this forest 2 weeks ago and the ground which is layered with pine needles was so dry that it was just a question of time.
Do you not just make them much wider?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstand. Dibby053 provided interesting context for why specifically that region is so badly affected right now, on a background of global climate catastrophe. Rico98gg is derailing what could have been a more interesting thread with 'no, it's global warming', which is obvious and irrelevant.
It's you that is (intentionally?) missing the forest for the trees (wordplay intentional). The overall pattern of worsening fires is clear and well-documented, and disingenously asking "Why Landes & Medoc specifically?" ignores the broader issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not capable to assess the direct effect of CC on the probability of this disaster. I question what is the value or helpfulness of continuing to doubt scientifically proven facts. The summer heatwaves and other natural disasters have increased enough in my lifetime to witness it, but even if that wasn't the case, I consider dismissing widely accepted scientific results using words like "simple-minded" as pretty m…
> I question what is the value or helpfulness of continuing to doubt scientifically proven facts. And I question why you believe that anyone here did doubt them. > I consider dismissing widely accepted scientific results using words like "simple-minded" as pretty much the definition of snark.... In what world is calling climate attribution "simple-minded" not snark? That is not what happened . The term "simple-minded…
I'll leave the rest of what I wrote as it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is indicative of escalating climate catastrophe is indeed the intensity and frequency of those firestorms I don't think we have the data that proves this theory (which of course doesn't mean that the theory is wrong), because the vast majority of these fires are man-made, not natural disasters. This year's Fontainebleau wildfires were caused by 1) a deranged person ligthning bushes and drenching them with fuel…
You're conceptually wrong about "the theory" and factually about the majority of fires. The fundamental connection increase of CO2 => increase in mean temperature => increase in frequency of high-energy atmospheric events is entirely obvious and well established. CO2 traps heat and heat is energy. Firestorms are an immediate consequence of that and accordingly rise in frequency as well. The idea, such fires would be…
Well then prove me wrong...
The BDIFF publishes data of close to 30 years of wildfires reports.
If you plot the number of wildfire occurrences per year, you will see a decreasing curve up to 2010, then a constant rise onward, forming a U shape. I don't think you will find any correlation with global warming data there.
If you plot a pie chart of investigated wildfire causes, you will see the top cause being "criminal" at 35% of investigated occurrences, followed by "Involontary individual" (the simple minded guy with his cigaret but) at 25%, and "Involontary work" at 15%.
Now let me repeat again, I'm not saying that CC does not play a role in this story (not sure why I bother since it does not seem like people really try to understand the comments anymore), what I'm saying is that data does not really exhibit any obvious correlation between the two, and would suggest that even if CC is a factor, then other factors would seem to have a much greater impact.
Said impacting factors are not hard to find btw, and top is: investments in prevention and detection (which positively correlates with French BDIFF data FYI), and addition of stoppers and lay-lines in man made forests (yes, because the majority of French forests are not natural but man shaped as huge lumps of uninterrupted tree)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're very wrong. The propaganda practice of incessant repetition being effective even in face of blatantly obvious contradicting facts is well established. The reason climate catastrophe deniers incessantly repeat their nonsense isn't because they like to hear themselves talk, it's because it works. The majority of people are never convinced by rational arguments or facts, they act solely on subjectively perceived…
If I repeat here a thousand times that you’re wrong and we should focus on the effects of climate change and not the deniers will you believe me then?
Human society isn't restricted to "focusing on one thing or the other".
That false dichotomy is another rhetoric trick utilized by interested parties that essentially follow the tobacco industry's playbook.
Deniers finally are a serious problem, as they provide social cover for those putting their personal interests even over human survival.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pine forests have been there for centuries, so it being pine is no explanation at all for why it's burning so badly now .
I come from the Mediterranean region and locally we know many explanations for that. Many of those pine forests are relatively new. Pine trees burn frequently, around every 20-30 years. In the past they used to be mixed with many other original trees, but during the recent century reforestation, pines were planted as the single tree species, making fires more prone to happen and more easily to spread. In the past, wa…
The chart I'm looking at (1980-2020):
- https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/burnt-...
This one starts in the 00s but goes to 2024, and also shows a decrease:
- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-area-burnt-by-wild...
Do you have the data that goes as far back as 80 years ago though?
Le Monde, very reputed French newspaper (NYtimes equivalent for France perhaps) says that it’s not the first time this cloud is seen in France [1]: (translation mine) > “What is happening right now is extremely, extremely unusual. Seeing a cloud this massive and reaching such an altitude above a wildfire is exceptionally rare,” the researcher explains. “During the Pedrógão fire [which claimed around 60 lives in Portu…
What is indicative of escalating climate catastrophe is indeed the intensity and frequency of those firestorms, not any lack of precedent for a cloud shape. But the really salient observation is how people individually and their social system as a whole react (or not). Debating the shapes of clouds points to a fundamental dysfunctional disconnect on multiple levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is there to discuss? The governance crisis: how can we follow science on so many things, how can countries completely change on short order, but not for this...
Governments have been working on this for more then 20 years now. 40 maybe. As long as I've been alive at least. It's just that all of the actions to try and deal with this have been continuously undermined by fossil fuel industries and right-wing politics.
Just an aside: I'm a researcher trying to classify forest disturbance types from satellite imagery. The Landes Forest which is currently burning is really interesting in that you have all 4 of the major European disturbance types there: Human clear cuts, storm damage, large scale insect infestation and fire. Most other forested areas in Europe only have two or three of these. For example most of the Mediterranean doe…
The Landes Forest is a human disturbance. The whole damned thing was planted in the 1850s as an enormous pine plantation. Same thing as drives wildfires in Portugal - maritime pine (and in Portugal’s case eucalyptus). Vast, dense, barely managed pyrophytic monocultures. The problem isn’t poorly managed forest, it’s the forest, period - it shouldn’t be there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landes_forest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm well aware that Landes naturally should be an extensive sandy marsh. With how natural forest disturbances are more and more starting to affect the plantation, it proves to be seen what the response will be. The thing is that it is an incredibly productive forest (only in terms of biomass). So now there's a bunch of capital riding on it which will have a vested interest to keep it productive.
>Yes, I'm well aware that Landes naturally should be an extensive sandy marsh. No, it shouldn't. It used to be a forest but was cut down by firewood and sheep grazing. Stop with the "return to nature" fallacy. With how things are going, even "natural" forests are going to burn down.