Global wildfires and CO2 based on data
1 response | 0 likes
Started by metmike - June 15, 2022, 1:30 p.m.

New Data Absolutely Destroys Media Claims of ‘Climate Change is Causing More Wildfire’

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/14/new-data-absolutely-destroys-media-claims-of-climate-change-is-causing-more-wildfire/


Figure 3: Graphically combined Figure 1 and Figure 2, with numerical values of yearly CO2 concentrations for 1982 and 2018 add at those years. Combination and scale matching by Anthony Watts, source for CO2 data is here: https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Clearly, there is no correlation whatsoever between increasing atmospheric CO2 and global wildfire acreage burned. From 1982 to 1983 while CO2 increased, wildfires were less. Then from 1993 to 2012, wildfires increased as CO2 increased. From 2012 to 2018, while CO2 increased relentlessly, there was a dramatic drop in global wildfire acreage burned, and the endpoint in 2018 is actually lower than when the data begins in 1982. 

The lack of any sustained correlation destroys the U.N. and media claims. If CO2 was in fact the control knob for making wildfires worse, wildfires would have increased from 2012 to 2018 rather than dropping dramatically. 

This data has no agenda, it simply tells the story. But media, politicians, and climate activists don’t like contrary data, because it ruins their narrative.

 

Comments
By metmike - June 15, 2022, 1:30 p.m.
Like Reply

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/14/new-data-absolutely-destroys-media-claims-of-climate-change-is-causing-more-wildfire/

  Mike Maguire

                 June 15, 2022 10:23 am                

They spend incredible amounts of time and effort to exaggerate metrics in climate change realms that have high levels of uncertainty….or to cherry pick the most extreme scenarios.
But completely ignore the metrics in other realms of extremely high certainty based on indisputable physical laws………because some of those are massively beneficial.

The LAW of Photosynthesis for instance. The planet is greatly greening up by all measures BECAUSE OF the increase in  CO2 (with an assist from slight, mostly beneficial warming). 

Somehow, this and the huge increase in global food production doesn’t matter in the discussion.
How loony is that? The human food supply is at the core of our basic existence and defines quality of life in many places, as well as determining affordability. 

However, benefits from CO2 have been completely censored from all the discussions by people that clearly don’t want authentic, scientific data.

All they want is to get rid of fossil fuels. All assumptions must support getting rid of fossil fuels. Those that don’t must be discarded.