Canadian co-author Michael Brauer says the findings serve as a "wake-up call" for areas that haven't typically seen repeated or prolonged exposure to wildfire smoke.
People express concerns about rapid rise in [CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING SIGN], and some smarmy weasel comes in and says “dontcha know some level of [CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING SIGN] is good, akshually”.
Ah yes, people must be either 100% WITH YOU or 100% AGAINST YOU.
I’m not a climate change denier. That doesn’t mean that I believe every single thing that ends up in a headline must be a clear-cut harbinger of climate doom, with no complexity behind it. Wildfires are one of those complicated things, Smokey the Bear’s simplistic “nothing must burn ever!” Approach was a disaster for forest management. We do need some amount of wildfires for healthy forests.
If you reread my comment:
To some degree the extreme fires we’ve had in recent years has been because we did such a good job preventing them in previous decades, a backlog has built up.
No, you’re the one who’s made those words up and who is using ad hominems.
Did you know that a lot of pine tree species produce serotinous cones, which are literally dependant on fire to open? They’re glued shut with resin that melts when fires come through, which lets them spread seed in the aftermath of a fire when conditions are optimal for new seedlings to sprout. An odd adaptation for trees if fire is some kind of alien imposition that humans invented and imposed on nature. The Wikipedia article on controlled burns has more detail on how fire can be beneficial to forest ecosystems.
We’re not talking about normal wildfires. We’re talking about increasingly severe fires that are happening more frequently. And in particular, this fire that directly killed 82k people. And how these are going to keep happening and keep getting worse, killing more and more people.
Chiming in saying with “wildfires are good” makes you look like you are trying to deflect from that conversation. Making you look like a smarmy weasel.
We should do better globally at preventing it’s burning.
No caveats or complexity about what’s a “normal” wildfire or not. My contribution was just to point out that there are “normal” wildfires, and we shouldn’t be suppressing every possible fire under every circumstance.
You are now agreeing that there are “normal” wildfires in this comment.
And in particular, this fire that directly killed 82k people.
No, these deaths were explicitly indirect. And they weren’t a result on one particular fire, they were from all wildfires in 2023. The premature deaths represent the chronic impacts of wildfire smoke, which interacts with pre-existing risk factors and conditions, such as heart or lung disease, to potentially contribute to shortening a person’s life.
None of which relates to whether wildfires play a role in healthy forest ecosystems, which is what I was talking about.
Chiming in saying with “wildfires are good”
And I also didn’t say that. For someone accusing me of being a “weasel” you sure are making up a lot of stuff.
Pretty typical climate change denial bs.
People express concerns about rapid rise in [CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING SIGN], and some smarmy weasel comes in and says “dontcha know some level of [CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING SIGN] is good, akshually”.
Ah yes, people must be either 100% WITH YOU or 100% AGAINST YOU.
I’m not a climate change denier. That doesn’t mean that I believe every single thing that ends up in a headline must be a clear-cut harbinger of climate doom, with no complexity behind it. Wildfires are one of those complicated things, Smokey the Bear’s simplistic “nothing must burn ever!” Approach was a disaster for forest management. We do need some amount of wildfires for healthy forests.
If you reread my comment:
Emphasis added.
Said the smarmy weasel.
No, you’re the one who’s made those words up and who is using ad hominems.
Did you know that a lot of pine tree species produce serotinous cones, which are literally dependant on fire to open? They’re glued shut with resin that melts when fires come through, which lets them spread seed in the aftermath of a fire when conditions are optimal for new seedlings to sprout. An odd adaptation for trees if fire is some kind of alien imposition that humans invented and imposed on nature. The Wikipedia article on controlled burns has more detail on how fire can be beneficial to forest ecosystems.
We’re not talking about normal wildfires. We’re talking about increasingly severe fires that are happening more frequently. And in particular, this fire that directly killed 82k people. And how these are going to keep happening and keep getting worse, killing more and more people.
Chiming in saying with “wildfires are good” makes you look like you are trying to deflect from that conversation. Making you look like a smarmy weasel.
The comment I originally responded to said:
No caveats or complexity about what’s a “normal” wildfire or not. My contribution was just to point out that there are “normal” wildfires, and we shouldn’t be suppressing every possible fire under every circumstance.
You are now agreeing that there are “normal” wildfires in this comment.
No, these deaths were explicitly indirect. And they weren’t a result on one particular fire, they were from all wildfires in 2023. The premature deaths represent the chronic impacts of wildfire smoke, which interacts with pre-existing risk factors and conditions, such as heart or lung disease, to potentially contribute to shortening a person’s life.
None of which relates to whether wildfires play a role in healthy forest ecosystems, which is what I was talking about.
And I also didn’t say that. For someone accusing me of being a “weasel” you sure are making up a lot of stuff.