Wildfires in Canada have burned to create large smoke plumes for long periods of time because they are hard to reach. We must anticipate worse events of similar type from the boreal forests of Siberia....
The impact of wildfire smoke needs much more attention as a communication topic to stir up popular interest in climate adaptation investments.
Why are you unable to edit? Is it the smartphone app that doesn't let you? I'm using Chrome on my Linux desktop, and I can all too easily edit my comments after posting.
Exactomundo. Am using an Android. Had to go to the library to delete a most stupid post once. But was able to edit a few days ago on one of my Androids. Gotta figure out why
Linux.. my nickname was Mr. Unix when I started at Bell Labs.
find . print! cpio-pdumv /usr/jeffscripts ( no pipe symbol on my android
And C. My buddy worked for Brian K and played chess with Ken Thompson ( Real Mr UNIX)
We weren't burning then as badly but I was too stupid to see ( still am )
No kidding! We have more in common than I thought: I was Mr. Unix in a sub-division-level lab at Goddard Space Flight Center for 6 years, beginning in 1988. I retired as a Sr. Linux System Administrator at another federal lab 9 years ago. I'm signed up to the open-source model!
Am sure I could but am going to get a laptop. Miss a larger screen and DEFINITELY a real keyboard. I got so used to just using my phone and now am starting to resocialize into the world. Printf("Watch out world!")
It has been known for many years that most wildfires are the result of an increasing number of humans using bad forest management and either causing them accidentally or intentionally by arson. Of course it could all be blamed on increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 ...but that also correlates with an increasing population using carbon for energy. Regardless, urgent reductions in CO2 emissions will have no effect on the CO2 we have already added. What that does is leave carbon in the ground where it can't be used to help finish the energy transition to renewables and EVs. A rock and a hard place?
To the millions of people involved the intensity is not the problem...nor is global warming. The 20th century average temperature for the US 48 states is five degrees F. colder than the same average for the globe.
The USA is all land, Yet its 1949 average temperature is five degrees F. colder than the 20th century average for the globe which supposedly includes the warming land closer to the North Pole.
Explain what makes it OK that it’s still warming at an increasing rate (as per YOUR link) in the US? Is the US magically not affected by the same climate systems the rest of the world is affected by?
Actually, include the nature and eco-damage of the fires. Alot was grasslands. Much less eco/carbon sink damage. Now, it's the trees that lived many years not burning.
We can't fool the trees. But, we can cause them to 🔥
Just a multiplying factor is they are occurring near more populous zones.
But, one day we shall talk the water cycle ( I hope )
Ken, your "rock and a hard place" is an obvious false dilemma. No one is actually going to leave carbon in the ground if the market price is lower than for renewable energy. While some nations, although few at any significant cost, have adopted mandatory restraints on future domestic fossil fuel production, the US isn't going to halt fossil carbon production by statute. At worst, we might stop subsidizing it. Failure to invest publicly in RE, however, is leaving money on the table! If the LCOE+ of RE and storage is lower already and still declining, why would anyone want to buy fossil carbon? Why would you want them to?
Everyone knows that "urgent reductions in CO2 emissions will have no effect on the CO2 we have already added." So? It's urgent we reduce emissions now, to reduce future atmospheric CO2 we haven't added yet! You're not denying that carbon dioxide affects the climate, are you? That would be against TCB's posted rules. So if the trend of atmospheric CO2, and of GMST, are ever to be capped, we must leave as much of the remaining fossil carbon in the ground as politically possible.
And everyone knows the carbon payback time per kWh of additional wind and solar power declines to zero as global decarbonization proceeds. Finishing the energy transition to renewables will leave more carbon in the ground than not finishing it! Do you actually read your comments before posting?
Dean, I don't know how I missed the post. Great analysis and you're right on ( you know more than me anyway) about how alot of trajectories are truncated at 2100 and do not shot the increased slope that ECS predicts.
. Yes.. I read them. Finishing the energy transition ADDS CO2 to the atmosphere Mal. It's all about the vehicles that are being used. They are not electric.Nobody is delivering and installing solar or wind projects with EVs.
Why does it matter how the're being installed? This is right up there with your "The US is warming less than anywhere else so it doesn't matter" nonsense.
The biggest wildfires in Canada are where there are no people. It’s been known for many years that climate are change was going to make them worse, and now it’s happening.
If fires recently are more intense instead of burning just the underbrush, and this is increasing the incidence of smoke days, wouldn’t that imply the increase maybe more validly correlated to poor forest management (made worse by lawsuits against controlled burns) instead of climate change?
I guess Canadian forests are being managed by nature then. I think wildfires are worse for humanity, the ecosystem and the atmosphere than many other climate change induced changes. The problem is blaming carbon emissions is counterproductive, given that even if we reached net zero (which realistically won’t happen for several decades) the carbon is already in the air and wildfires due to climate change won’t start diminishing. We need smarter forest management, probably using technology like fire spotting/fighting drones or robot fire line making tractors, satellite monitoring and that can happen faster than trying to reduce carbon emissions now.
IMHO, we need collective intervention to pay for wildfire suppression, AND enhancing natural carbon sequestration, AND decarbonizing our economies. They are not mutually exclusive! Where we agree and disagree:
"blaming carbon emissions is counterproductive"
Huh? Are you saying wildfires would produce less smoke if we didn't blame carbon emissions?
"even if we reached net zero (which realistically won’t happen for several decades) the carbon is already in the air".
Uh - the longer we take to reach net zero, the more carbon there will be in the air. The collective action problem before us is to *cap the rising trend* of GMST, and its net social cost, by capping atmospheric CO2 as quickly as politically feasible. Reversing the rise of GMST following the Industrial Revolution will have to rely on natural CO2 drawdown, at least until direct air capture (DAC) is *economically scalable*.
"wildfires due to climate change won’t start diminishing."
Well, no. And their carbon emissions aren't compensated by forest regrowth on a decadal timescale.
"We need smarter forest management..."
Agreed. But that will rely mainly on controlled burning, because allowing fuel to accumulate is known to be counterproductive, resulting in increased smoke costs! And the annual weather windows for keeping controlled burns controlled are shrinking as GMST ascends.
"...that can happen faster than trying to reduce carbon emissions now."
Maybe. But the more collective intervention in driving down the levelized cost of renewable energy there is, the sooner emissions will fall below natural CO2 drawdown rate. That means investing tax money in incentives for renewable energy, storage, and infrastructure development, and consumer electrification. The resulting green vortex (h/t Robinson Meyer) is already accelerating around the world. In the US, it's constrained only by for-profit obstructionism on behalf of carbon capital.
Ramping up wildfire suppression won't work that way, but will require direct government expenditures on technology, manufacturing, and firefighting personnel. How much time will that take? Bear in mind, any delay in reducing emissions means $trillions more in fossil fuel producer profits. Hey, how about if we make them pay for wildfire suppression! Good luck with that 8^(. Meanwhile, wildfire smoke output is growing due to continued warming.
All that said, Prof. Dessler addressed your comment in the OP:
"So, while we should definitely worry about wildfire smoke, we should also worry about other surprise catastrophes that are lurking and which we’ll only learn about after they occur. This should turbocharge our resolve to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
Since I can't say it any better, I'll give the mallet to somebody else.
Forest management is a hugely diverse subject. Most of North America is plagued by invasive Pine introduced last century, coupled with eradication of ecosystem engineers like Beaver. plus billions of migrating birds nowhere to be found and other critters that would ordinarily introduce essential nutrients. Things either biodegrade or burn. Naturally a good compost heap is 20:1 carbon to nitrogen ratio. Unintended and remote ecosystem change now results in ratios 50 or 100:1. So it burns more. Management is not always what you actively do or don't do, but seeing things clearly. The climate angle is muddying the waters.
Yes, forest management is a hugely diverse subject. But most of North America is *not* plagued by invasive pine introduced last century. North American pines on other continents, maybe.
Yes. Ironically, the beetles (*Dendroctonus ponderosae* and *D. rufipennis*) are native!
I personally observed the impact of warmer winters on pinyon pine woodlands in New Mexico. It's just one of the ways anthropogenic global warming has had profound ecological impacts!
"other surprise catastrophes that are lurking...", known knowns and unknown unknowns, anybody? Seriously think Rumsfeld was onto so much with his simple theorem...guy was a seer
Wildfires in Canada have burned to create large smoke plumes for long periods of time because they are hard to reach. We must anticipate worse events of similar type from the boreal forests of Siberia....
The impact of wildfire smoke needs much more attention as a communication topic to stir up popular interest in climate adaptation investments.
Ground zero gets the attention. You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
We don't respond until we feel it NOW.
Bad governance ( oh the listbus encumbered by $$$)
"list is". Can't edit. Maybe that's good. Mom always said I talk too much.
I knew you'd like thus Mal.
Bruce saw dead people
I see doppelgangers
Oh! The horror!
As Earth burns.
Why are you unable to edit? Is it the smartphone app that doesn't let you? I'm using Chrome on my Linux desktop, and I can all too easily edit my comments after posting.
Exactomundo. Am using an Android. Had to go to the library to delete a most stupid post once. But was able to edit a few days ago on one of my Androids. Gotta figure out why
Linux.. my nickname was Mr. Unix when I started at Bell Labs.
find . print! cpio-pdumv /usr/jeffscripts ( no pipe symbol on my android
And C. My buddy worked for Brian K and played chess with Ken Thompson ( Real Mr UNIX)
We weren't burning then as badly but I was too stupid to see ( still am )
No kidding! We have more in common than I thought: I was Mr. Unix in a sub-division-level lab at Goddard Space Flight Center for 6 years, beginning in 1988. I retired as a Sr. Linux System Administrator at another federal lab 9 years ago. I'm signed up to the open-source model!
Excellent Highly recommended to read
And I thought we had it bad in New Mexico…
I lived in Santa Fe from 2010 to 2018, and you did have it bad. High interannual variability, however!
Am sure I could but am going to get a laptop. Miss a larger screen and DEFINITELY a real keyboard. I got so used to just using my phone and now am starting to resocialize into the world. Printf("Watch out world!")
It has been known for many years that most wildfires are the result of an increasing number of humans using bad forest management and either causing them accidentally or intentionally by arson. Of course it could all be blamed on increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 ...but that also correlates with an increasing population using carbon for energy. Regardless, urgent reductions in CO2 emissions will have no effect on the CO2 we have already added. What that does is leave carbon in the ground where it can't be used to help finish the energy transition to renewables and EVs. A rock and a hard place?
again, this is not about numbers of fires/acreage of fires. it's about the intensity of the fires. that's climate change.
To the millions of people involved the intensity is not the problem...nor is global warming. The 20th century average temperature for the US 48 states is five degrees F. colder than the same average for the globe.
There’s no way that’s true. Please tell me how you’re calculating that.
Source: NOAA...Climate at a Glance. 1949 in the US.. 52.0°F. Global 20th century average is 57.0°F... 14°C.
link, please
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/12/1895-2026.
It's the 21st century.
Brilliant observation.
"intensity is not the problem"
How come?
land/continents are at higher elevation than global average. USA probably averages 300 metres higher than where SSTs are at.
land is warming much faster than ocean
nevertheless, I think the question of whether land or global average absolute temperature is higher is not about warming rate.
The USA is all land, Yet its 1949 average temperature is five degrees F. colder than the 20th century average for the globe which supposedly includes the warming land closer to the North Pole.
Explain what makes it OK that it’s still warming at an increasing rate (as per YOUR link) in the US? Is the US magically not affected by the same climate systems the rest of the world is affected by?
Actually, include the nature and eco-damage of the fires. Alot was grasslands. Much less eco/carbon sink damage. Now, it's the trees that lived many years not burning.
We can't fool the trees. But, we can cause them to 🔥
Just a multiplying factor is they are occurring near more populous zones.
But, one day we shall talk the water cycle ( I hope )
[Last edit 1530 PDT 8/12/2026: MA]
Sigh. Again, "for the lurkers":
Ken, your "rock and a hard place" is an obvious false dilemma. No one is actually going to leave carbon in the ground if the market price is lower than for renewable energy. While some nations, although few at any significant cost, have adopted mandatory restraints on future domestic fossil fuel production, the US isn't going to halt fossil carbon production by statute. At worst, we might stop subsidizing it. Failure to invest publicly in RE, however, is leaving money on the table! If the LCOE+ of RE and storage is lower already and still declining, why would anyone want to buy fossil carbon? Why would you want them to?
Everyone knows that "urgent reductions in CO2 emissions will have no effect on the CO2 we have already added." So? It's urgent we reduce emissions now, to reduce future atmospheric CO2 we haven't added yet! You're not denying that carbon dioxide affects the climate, are you? That would be against TCB's posted rules. So if the trend of atmospheric CO2, and of GMST, are ever to be capped, we must leave as much of the remaining fossil carbon in the ground as politically possible.
And everyone knows the carbon payback time per kWh of additional wind and solar power declines to zero as global decarbonization proceeds. Finishing the energy transition to renewables will leave more carbon in the ground than not finishing it! Do you actually read your comments before posting?
You have entered, The Anthropocene Loop !!
https://justdean.substack.com/p/the-anthropocene-loop
You thought I was to say going to say, The Twilight Zone, didn't you.?
Well, they're both pretty scary.
Dean, I don't know how I missed the post. Great analysis and you're right on ( you know more than me anyway) about how alot of trajectories are truncated at 2100 and do not shot the increased slope that ECS predicts.
Great graph! I saved it in my climate numbers 📂.
. Yes.. I read them. Finishing the energy transition ADDS CO2 to the atmosphere Mal. It's all about the vehicles that are being used. They are not electric.Nobody is delivering and installing solar or wind projects with EVs.
"They are not electric.Nobody is delivering and installing solar or wind projects with EVs."
Bullshit, Ken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit).
Show us any significant solar farm project that was delivered and installed using EVs.
Why does it matter how the're being installed? This is right up there with your "The US is warming less than anywhere else so it doesn't matter" nonsense.
It's a useless distraction.
What??? It matters how they were installed because the vehicles doing all the work emit CO2.
The biggest wildfires in Canada are where there are no people. It’s been known for many years that climate are change was going to make them worse, and now it’s happening.
What happened to, "Give a hoot don't pollute"?
Yogi Bear warnings about forest fires?
Non-native Americans dressed as native Americans tearing as the trash is thrown on them?
And the sequel to the drug problem:
"Earth is a terrible thing to waste"
We had some good campaigns going here in the USA but then came Reagan..
If fires recently are more intense instead of burning just the underbrush, and this is increasing the incidence of smoke days, wouldn’t that imply the increase maybe more validly correlated to poor forest management (made worse by lawsuits against controlled burns) instead of climate change?
In some cases, forest management is a contributing factor. But for many, e.g., the Canadian fires, the forests are not managed and are too big to be managed. Read Zeke's recent post on this: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/canadas-boreal-wildfires-arent-just
I guess Canadian forests are being managed by nature then. I think wildfires are worse for humanity, the ecosystem and the atmosphere than many other climate change induced changes. The problem is blaming carbon emissions is counterproductive, given that even if we reached net zero (which realistically won’t happen for several decades) the carbon is already in the air and wildfires due to climate change won’t start diminishing. We need smarter forest management, probably using technology like fire spotting/fighting drones or robot fire line making tractors, satellite monitoring and that can happen faster than trying to reduce carbon emissions now.
Making it less worse is "counterproductive" how, exactly?
[Last edited 1000 PDT 08/19/2026: MA]
IMHO, we need collective intervention to pay for wildfire suppression, AND enhancing natural carbon sequestration, AND decarbonizing our economies. They are not mutually exclusive! Where we agree and disagree:
"blaming carbon emissions is counterproductive"
Huh? Are you saying wildfires would produce less smoke if we didn't blame carbon emissions?
"even if we reached net zero (which realistically won’t happen for several decades) the carbon is already in the air".
Uh - the longer we take to reach net zero, the more carbon there will be in the air. The collective action problem before us is to *cap the rising trend* of GMST, and its net social cost, by capping atmospheric CO2 as quickly as politically feasible. Reversing the rise of GMST following the Industrial Revolution will have to rely on natural CO2 drawdown, at least until direct air capture (DAC) is *economically scalable*.
"wildfires due to climate change won’t start diminishing."
Well, no. And their carbon emissions aren't compensated by forest regrowth on a decadal timescale.
"We need smarter forest management..."
Agreed. But that will rely mainly on controlled burning, because allowing fuel to accumulate is known to be counterproductive, resulting in increased smoke costs! And the annual weather windows for keeping controlled burns controlled are shrinking as GMST ascends.
"...that can happen faster than trying to reduce carbon emissions now."
Maybe. But the more collective intervention in driving down the levelized cost of renewable energy there is, the sooner emissions will fall below natural CO2 drawdown rate. That means investing tax money in incentives for renewable energy, storage, and infrastructure development, and consumer electrification. The resulting green vortex (h/t Robinson Meyer) is already accelerating around the world. In the US, it's constrained only by for-profit obstructionism on behalf of carbon capital.
Ramping up wildfire suppression won't work that way, but will require direct government expenditures on technology, manufacturing, and firefighting personnel. How much time will that take? Bear in mind, any delay in reducing emissions means $trillions more in fossil fuel producer profits. Hey, how about if we make them pay for wildfire suppression! Good luck with that 8^(. Meanwhile, wildfire smoke output is growing due to continued warming.
All that said, Prof. Dessler addressed your comment in the OP:
"So, while we should definitely worry about wildfire smoke, we should also worry about other surprise catastrophes that are lurking and which we’ll only learn about after they occur. This should turbocharge our resolve to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
Since I can't say it any better, I'll give the mallet to somebody else.
Forest management is a hugely diverse subject. Most of North America is plagued by invasive Pine introduced last century, coupled with eradication of ecosystem engineers like Beaver. plus billions of migrating birds nowhere to be found and other critters that would ordinarily introduce essential nutrients. Things either biodegrade or burn. Naturally a good compost heap is 20:1 carbon to nitrogen ratio. Unintended and remote ecosystem change now results in ratios 50 or 100:1. So it burns more. Management is not always what you actively do or don't do, but seeing things clearly. The climate angle is muddying the waters.
Yes, forest management is a hugely diverse subject. But most of North America is *not* plagued by invasive pine introduced last century. North American pines on other continents, maybe.
Pine beetles are infesting forests further north in Canada, because they can survive the warmer climate, caused by AGW.
Yes. Ironically, the beetles (*Dendroctonus ponderosae* and *D. rufipennis*) are native!
I personally observed the impact of warmer winters on pinyon pine woodlands in New Mexico. It's just one of the ways anthropogenic global warming has had profound ecological impacts!
Stupidity And cupidity lead us.
Global warming intensifies wildfires by creating hotter, drier conditions that fuel their spread and severity.
The resulting air pollution from smoke worsens respiratory health and amplifies climate feedback loops, making environmental recovery even harder.
Don’t forget to include the 3, dangerous Highway Particulate Matter Pollutants which similarly adversely impact health!!!
Tell us what you know about it then.
"other surprise catastrophes that are lurking...", known knowns and unknown unknowns, anybody? Seriously think Rumsfeld was onto so much with his simple theorem...guy was a seer
He was evil.
why I took out " HelloHeatedWorld.com". My bistro to C via BK 's book.
Very interested in wildfires in Canada