13 Comments

Note also that in the US, acres burned has been going up - see https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-wildfires. The reason that it is not going up globally is because of a decrease in burning in savannahs (see https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/global-wildfire-burn-has-declined-in-the-last-20-years-due-to-less-shrub-and-savanna-burning) which isn't due to changes in climate but rather in changes in human behavior.

Expand full comment

As someone who started and runs a company that makes HEPA air purifiers, I can confirm that there is indeed an incredible amount of toxic particulates in smoke, especially smoke that comes from burning all the petrochemical and metallic things in urban environments. Besides the immediate trauma in the area, wildfire smoke particulates can blow across continents, distributing toxins across many environments. Just a horrible occurrence all around.

Expand full comment

I just saw a news reference this morning to concerns about the air quality inside surviving structures where smoke and dust from the fires penetrated and remains behind in buildings otherwise apparently still usable.

Expand full comment

This is closely related to the phenomenon where when urban wildfire fighting pulls all the water out of a municipality’s water distribution and storage system, you pull the toxic air into the distribution system with the resulting vacuum. The toxic particles and gases can then adhere to the insides of water pipelines, and render the future water contaminated for months or years, after the fire. This occurred in the Camp Fire, Paradise, CA aftermath.

Expand full comment

A tragedy of epic and enduring proportions.😭

Expand full comment

If the conditions for restitution included restraining development in risky areas and more fire-resistant building codes, that’s not so bad; but the victims need help right now. In addition to the immediate and ongoing physical harms and hazards, consider the stress and anxiety which go on much longer. If you’re forced out of your home and have lost many possessions, how do you go on? We’ve seen this in previous disasters - I don’t have a reference handy, but I’m quite sure that the negative effects have been documented to continue long after the event has fallen off the news cycle. Note to Republicans: don’t be cruel, just for the fun of it. Get some aid out there ASAP.

Expand full comment

Yes, you're exactly right. This paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07945-5) showed that deaths from natural disasters (in this case, hurricanes) lasted for 15 years after the event and resulted in 10,000-ish deaths per event. They didn't identify a cause, but I'm sure it's stress from losing everything and having to rebuild your life.

Expand full comment

this whole article seems like a cherry pick. Like it or not, dealing with climate change is a wicked and expensive problem. Socioeconomic pathways and the modeled system response do not show global existential threats. Medium level confidence in regional impacts communicates a great deal of uncertainty. The sooner people get to genuine dialogue, the sooner carbocentric climatists can regain trust and productive dialogue.

Expand full comment

"Like it or not, dealing with climate change is a wicked and expensive problem."

That's inarguable, but doesn't specify what "dealing with" climate change would entail.

"Socioeconomic pathways and the modeled system response do not show global existential threats."

You've lost me. Are you saying people modeling both socioeconomic pathways and the climate system response are overlooking existential threats? Or that claims of existential threat aren't supported by their results?

"Medium level confidence in regional impacts communicates a great deal of uncertainty."

Well, yes. Modeling global impacts of global warming is hard. Modeling regional impacts is even harder. No wonder there's a great deal of uncertainty in the results. Everyone must evaluate their own risk with imperfect information. So?

"The sooner people get to genuine dialogue, the sooner carbocentric climatists can regain trust and productive dialogue."

You've lost me again. What would qualify as "genuine" or "productive" dialogue? I, for one, am most concerned about current and future threats to my well-being and that of my loved ones. My little town isn't rapidly urbanizing, and I'm pretty well buffered from wildfire but for the rare strong easterly winds, like those that blew down the west-facing valleys of the Cascade Range on Labor Day 2020 (agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2021GL092520). My concern is that with continued warming, something like the Santa Ana wind phenomenon may develop here. I'm also concerned about a recurrence of the record heat wave of the following summer, that killed 1400 people in the US and Canada, and kept me inside my heat-pump-cooled house for three days (climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/2021-northwest-heat-dome-causes-impacts-and-future-outlook). Those are only my chief concerns. My total personal risk will increase at least until fossil carbon emissions are eliminated. From my perspective, productive dialogue would result in rapid, collective decarbonization of the US economy. Call me a carbocentric climatist!

As for loss of trust: only a denialist would ignore the relentless disinformation campaign over the last three decades, well-funded by fossil fuel producers and investors, aimed at discrediting climate realism whenever possible. The din of denial in the public sphere is sustained by expert professional liars. Few peer-reviewed scientists are as skilled at deception and misdirection. Who are you proposing genuine dialogue with, JAM?

Expand full comment

"That's inarguable"

article says low cost

"... that claims of existential threat aren't supported by their results?"

not supported by results

"Modeling regional impacts is even harder"

no kidding. doesn't stop people from making inferences about what they're seeing through their arbitrarily chosen worldview. I think it's a type of research-centric bias that's somewhat unavoidable in humans. Neural pathways are so baked-in that any blip = climate.

"What would qualify as "genuine" or "productive" dialogue?"

stop with half truths and cherry picks. I'd wager 1 in 10 public facing climate science pros seem reliable to me. Be honest and sincere; avoid the tactics employed by used-car salesman and politicians; less biased persuasion, more real-ness. This doesn't excuse the cherry picks and other nonsense from the deniosphere.

"something like the Santa Ana wind phenomenon may develop here"

I'm sorry you've been convinced to feel that way, but I don't think there is any science that supports spontaneous emergence of Santa Ana type winds outside existing geographies.

"Those are only my chief concerns."

fair enough. yes I do think that classifies you as a carbocentric climatist. own it.

"loss of trust"

the loss of trust is real, and those on the pro-side of climate action are not helping their case IMO.

cheers

Expand full comment

State releases of

information on a continuous cycle for people and politicians who need the facts. Keep the facts upfront and stamped with the state seal.

Expand full comment

You may not be aware of this research article - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50547 - which shows that smoke from bushfires (you call them wildfires) is far more dangerous to human health than smoke from prescribed burns.

Expand full comment

I think the key is that "emergence/detection" asks the question, "can we reject the null hypothesis of no effect of CO2 accumulation?" "Attribution" estimates the effect, which can be positive.

Expand full comment