Article by Eric Worrell
The Trump-obsessed media is still talking about Trump and Elon Musk’s disdain for climate metaphors.
A new wave of climate sensationalism
In the face of increasingly obvious problems, misleading, misinformation or simply confusing rhetoric continues to emerge.
poor clark columnist
Today's world can be summed up in one word: hot.
Last year, powerful heat waves hit every continent. At least 10 countries have recorded daily temperatures exceeding 50 degrees in more than one location. Wildfires are scorching unusually large areas of the globe, and coral reefs are being hit by the fourth-ever global bleaching event.
…
But last week, in a conversation with Donald Trump on his The question had a confusing explanation.
He told Trump that if the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise above 1,000 ppm from today's average of about 420 ppm, “you're going to start getting headaches and nausea.” But since we only add about 2 ppm of carbon dioxide per year, “we still have quite a bit of time” and “we don't need to rush.”
This is sensationalism of the highest order. The amount of warming we see from high temperatures, flood and fire hazards, and accumulation of CO2 will be nothing compared to what happens when CO2 levels rise to about 1,000 ppm.
…
Learn more: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/even-musk-has-got-caught-up-in-the-new-wave-of-climate-claptrap-20240821- p5k46j
Thankfully, we have evidence that the idea that a world with 1,000 ppm CO2 would be a fire-ravaged world is nonsense. The greenhouse world from PETM is 5-8C hotter than today, and the carbon dioxide concentration is estimated to be about 1500ppm
Fire and ecosystem changes in the Arctic during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
Author link to open overlay Elizabeth H. Denis a1Nicola Pendenchock SecondStefan Schouten CDMark Pagani e2Katherine Freeman one
Volume 467, June 1, 2017, Pages 149-156
Highlights
- • Increased PAH abundance relative to plant biomarkers indicates increased fire.
- •Angiosperms increased relative to gymnosperms based on pollen and plant biomarkers.
- • Wet and hot conditions lead to an increase in angiosperms and the occurrence of fires.
- • Climate-driven ecological changes are fueling fires during the Arctic's peak of the new century.
- •Fire may have attenuated the effects of increased plant biomass on the carbon cycle.
abstract
Fire has always been an important component of ecosystems across a range of spatial and temporal scales. Fire affects vegetation distribution, the carbon cycle and climate. The relationship between climate and fire is complex, in large part because of the critical role of vegetation type. Here we evaluate regional-scale fire-climate relationships during a past global warming event, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), to understand how vegetation affects the link between climate and fire occurrence in the Arctic . To document simultaneous changes in climate, vegetation, and fire occurrence, we evaluated biomarkers from the PETM interval at a marine sedimentary site in the region (IODP 302 site, Lomonosov Ridge), including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), terpenes compounds and alkanes.
Biomarker, fossil, and isotopic evidence from Site 302 indicates that terrestrial vegetation changed during the PETM. Abundance of C29 n-Alkanes, pollen and leaf wax ratio nAlkanes relative to diterpenoids all show an increasing proportion of the contribution of angiosperms relative to gymnosperms. These changes are accompanied by increased moisture transport to the Arctic and warmer temperatures, as documented in previously released proxy records. We found that PAH abundance increased relative to total plant biomarkers throughout the PETM period and showed Fire incidence has increased relative to plant productivity. The fact that fire frequency or occurrence may increase under humid Arctic conditions suggests that changes in fire occurrence are not a simple function of drought, as is commonly thought. instead, We propose that a climate-driven ecological shift toward angiosperm-dominated vegetation is responsible for the increase in fires. Warmth, moisture and high carbon dioxide lead to potential increase in terrestrial plant biomass2 Biomass burning associated with changes in plant community composition may weaken conditions.
Learn more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X17301577
Hangon, didn’t that study say that fires have increased in the PETM area?
Yes, but read it again. Fire increases, but only in direct proportion to changes in vegetation. The change in fire risk is because the PETM's warmth and rising carbon dioxide concentrations change the types of vegetation that grow in the Arctic.
angiosperms = trees and other woody flowering plants. PETM's Arctic replaced today's Arctic tundra, covered in trees.
The point is, even if an extreme temperature excursion like PETM occurs, the risk of fire can be controlled by adopting the state's fire protection policy on the south side of your current home. Even if the carbon dioxide concentration reaches 1000 ppm or higher, there will be no fire disaster caused by carbon dioxide. The only changes in fire risk are driven by changes in the types of plants that are growing and improved growing conditions—all of which can be mitigated by adopting fire management practices where such conditions already exist.
Pilita Clark, you should be a reporter for a responsible financial newspaper. Before publishing wild, sensationalist claims about global warming, you owe it to your readers to do some research.
The Trump/Musk interview can be viewed here
Relevant
