International Arctic Circle wildfires record-breaking emissions.

dissectingaorticaneurysm

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
9,982
Reaction score
697
After a record-breaking heatwave in Arctic, wildfires spread across the areas of Greenland, Siberia, and Alaska at unprecedented levels, surpassing last month's 50 megatonnes CO2 emissions record.

To see the 50 Mt in context, it is the equivalent to 2017 full year’s worth of national fossil fuel CO2 emissions for Bulgaria, Hungary and Sweden.




In Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk regions, Siberia, eastern Russia, some 900,000 hectare (or equivalent to entire land area of Cyprus or Lebanon) is affected by forest fires.

Wildfires in Krasnoyarsk Krai and Sakha Republic


Wildfires in Alaska




Alaska, as Common Dreams reported earlier this month, is enduring an unusual heat wave that experts connected to the climate crisis. On July 4, the temperature in Anchorage soared to 90°F, an all-time record. This year alone, wildfires have already destroyed more than 1.6 million acres of land in the state.


This is only the tip of the iceberg. The permafrost was preserved rich peat and carbon deposits and now it's exposed.
 
Oh no! Not more evil carbon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Ban all trees, if there are no trees there will be no fire.
 
We're so screwed. If only we had let the government institute more carbon taxes and regulations... Welp... We're a bunch of gone fuggin gooses. Thank you Republikkkans. Thanks a lot.
 
Oh no! Not more evil carbon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1562579519648_0708alaskaheatv2.jpg

<{hfved}>
 
So you're saying natural events like a wildfire contribute far, far more to the carbon emissions than entire nations' industry and vehicles?
 
So you're saying natural events like a wildfire contribute far, far more to the carbon emissions than entire nations' industry and vehicles?
We need to pay more taxes to stop Mother Nature from causing global warming like she's always done!
 
I am at least thankful for the internet being able to preserve the dumbassery posted above me for future generations to see.

"why didnt you guys try and slow the crisis we are experiencing now, while you had a chance?"
- marxist globalists are trying to stop us from using inefficient combustion engines and burning coal!!!
 
I am at least thankful for the internet being able to preserve the dumbassery posted above me for future generations to see.

"why didnt you guys try and slow the crisis we are experiencing now, while you had a chance?"
- marxist globalists are trying to stop us from using inefficient combustion engines and burning coal!!!
They're so quick with their opinions, too. Completely ignoring that meteorologists called the fires unprecedented and at least partially caused by global warming. Just ignore all that, call it "natural fires" and pretend all of the data and science and consensus does not exist.

And for what? I mean they're not even paid shills, they're literally hobbyist bottom bitches for the oil industry.
 
So you're saying natural events like a wildfire contribute far, far more to the carbon emissions than entire nations' industry and vehicles?
I know you posted thinking this is a clever "gotcha" but the point here is that wildfires are raging across areas that were previously permafrost. As more of it thaws, a vicious feedback loop is initiated. This is only the opening volley. You won't be joking about this in 10 more years.
 
They're so quick with their opinions, too. Completely ignoring that meteorologists called the fires unprecedented and at least partially caused by global warming. Just ignore all that, call it "natural fires" and pretend all of the data and science and consensus does not exist.

And for what? I mean they're not even paid shills, they're literally hobbyist bottom bitches for the oil industry.
They're only driven by this blind rage at LIBERALS, and they don't even know why. It's pure reflexive opposition to anything perceived as leftist. It would be hilarious if they werent dragging everyone else down with them.
 
I know you posted thinking this is a clever "gotcha" but the point here is that wildfires are raging across areas that were previously permafrost. As more of it thaws, a vicious feedback loop is initiated. This is only the opening volley. You won't be joking about this in 10 more years.
So what you're saying is that those natural wildfires are the cause of global warming?
 
I know you posted thinking this is a clever "gotcha" but the point here is that wildfires are raging across areas that were previously permafrost. As more of it thaws, a vicious feedback loop is initiated. This is only the opening volley. You won't be joking about this in 10 more years.

Yes, because the world will end in 10 years!!!

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.



Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.



He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.



As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.



Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.



″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.



UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.



Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.



Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.



The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.



The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.



Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″



He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.



″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″



He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.



UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.



Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.



″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.



Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.



Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.



The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.



The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.
 
Yes, because the world will end in 10 years!!!

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989


UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.



Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.



He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.



As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.



Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.



″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.



UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.



Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.



Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.



The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.



The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.



Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″



He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.



″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″



He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.



UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.



Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.



″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.



Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.



Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.



The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.



The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.
Sigh.

Even in that article, they're not saying the world will end in 10 years, they were saying we had ten years to start the stabilising process, to avoid the worst effects. This is what scientists have always said. They're constantly trying to get us to take action to minimise the damage. These fires on the permafrost (guess we need a new name for that, since, yknow, it's no longer PERMANENTLY frozen) are the things they have been warning about.

If the Arctic fires continue, they will start a feedback loop that will makes things exponentially worse.

Ahhh, fuck it. Why am I bothering? You don't know thy science and don't care. You're just looking for gotchas.

Carry on, I guess.

I really hope you're right by the way... And all the thousands of scientists who've devoted their lives and careers to understanding all this area wrong.

But I'm still gonna believe the scientists before I believe you, as crazy as that sounds.
 
They're only driven by this blind rage at LIBERALS, and they don't even know why. It's pure reflexive opposition to anything perceived as leftist. It would be hilarious if they werent dragging everyone else down with them.
Gotta own the libs bro!!!
<13>
 
Almost gave a fuck until I saw ts avatar....oh and before man forest fires burned until they ran outta trees so...
 
Sigh.

Even in that article, they're not saying the world will end in 10 years, they were saying we had ten years to start the stabilising process, to avoid the worst effects. This is what scientists have always said. They're constantly trying to get us to take action to minimise the damage. These fires on the permafrost (guess we need a new name for that, since, yknow, it's no longer PERMANENTLY frozen) are the things they have been warning about.

If the Arctic fires continue, they will start a feedback loop that will makes things exponentially worse.

Ahhh, fuck it. Why am I bothering? You don't know thy science and don't care. You're just looking for gotchas.

Carry on, I guess.

I really hope you're right by the way... And all the thousands of scientists who've devoted their lives and careers to understanding all this area wrong.

But I'm still gonna believe the scientists before I believe you, as crazy as that sounds.

Did this happen?

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

This same 10-year threat has been bandied about for the last 30 years. The people who peddle this "theory" are full of shit, and the people who believe them are idiots.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html
 
Sigh.

Even in that article, they're not saying the world will end in 10 years, they were saying we had ten years to start the stabilising process, to avoid the worst effects. This is what scientists have always said. They're constantly trying to get us to take action to minimise the damage. These fires on the permafrost (guess we need a new name for that, since, yknow, it's no longer PERMANENTLY frozen) are the things they have been warning about.

If the Arctic fires continue, they will start a feedback loop that will makes things exponentially worse.

Ahhh, fuck it. Why am I bothering? You don't know thy science and don't care. You're just looking for gotchas.

Carry on, I guess.

I really hope you're right by the way... And all the thousands of scientists who've devoted their lives and careers to understanding all this area wrong.

But I'm still gonna believe the scientists before I believe you, as crazy as that sounds.
There's nothing going on. It might be getting hotter and hotter, the insects and birds may be dying off, clean water may be reducing sharply, but nope, it's nothing.

At this point, Climate deniers should be derisively coined Inhoffe Snowballers.
 
Back
Top